Hard right to the left.

[localbrew]

Via email but I did substitute mouth for nose.

With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.
These activists may be alone or in a gathering.....most of us don't know how to react to them.

When you come upon one of these people, or one of their rallies, here are the proper rules of etiquette:

1. Listen politely while this person explains their views. Strike up a conversation if necessary and look very interested in their ideas. They will tell you how revenge is immoral, and that by attacking the people who did this to us, we will only bring on more violence. They will probably use many arguments, ranging from political to religious to humanitarian.

2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the mouth.

3. When the person gets up off of the ground, they will be very angry and they may try to hit you, so be careful.

4. Very quickly and calmly remind the person that violence only brings about more violence and remind them of their stand on this matter. Tell them if they are really committed to a nonviolent approach to undeserved attacks, they will turn the other cheek and negotiate a solution. Tell them they must lead by example if they really believe what they are saying.

5. Most of them will think for a moment and then agree that you are correct.

6. As soon as they do that, hit them again. Only this time hit them much harder. Square in the mouth.

7. Repeat steps 2-5 until the desired results are obtained and the idiot realizes how stupid of an argument he/she is making.

8. There is no difference in an individual attacking an unsuspecting victim or a group of terrorists attacking a nation of people. It is unacceptable and must be dealt with. Perhaps at a high cost.

We owe our military a huge debt for what they are doing for us and our children. We must support them and our leaders at times like these. We have no choice. We either strike back, VERY HARD, or we will keep getting hit in the growing.

Lesson over, class dismissed!

[Communication]

Well done!!!

[Donna]

Okay, my husband wanted to know why I was laughing so hard.

Oooow, it hurts to laugh this much!

[mimil]

It's the second time this one comes out, as a joke, I find it nice.
As a reality, it's just a reflection of primal instinct.

In order to live together we have defined rules, the whole process of living in a society as created more complex concepts, such as social structures, religion, culture and so on.

As soon as a primate with no sense of respect attempts to go to step two, you jail him :). In Singapore, (I agree, it is far from being a perfect state, but this a good side of it) physical aggression is against the law. You punch someone you go to jail and such a rule is not just written on paper, it is applied. There is no ground on an issue such as the disagreement on a topic for physical aggression. I would have thought that mighty America with his great sense of morale would have known better. Looking at actuality and your comments, I start to wonder.

The valid argument of the joke so, is that action must be taken. But is a bloodier nose the best answer ... ?

Added in post after reply (Technical issue)

I am happy I entertained you :)

I figured the misunderstanding comes from the fact the nose was used last time. You must by now know my position;I thought you would have understood.


But is a bloody nose the best answer ... ? (To a punch in the mouth)

I hoped you would have also figured, that in this case both go to jail, especially if you cut both legs in return.

[minusthejihad]

Originally posted by mimil
It's the second time this one comes out, as a joke, I find it nice.
As a reality, it's just a reflection of primal instinct.

In order to live together we have defined rules, the whole process of living in a society as created more complex concepts, such as social structures, religion, culture and so on.

As soon as a primate with no sense of respect attempts to go to step two, you jail him :). In Singapore, (I agree, it is far from being a perfect state, but this a good side of it) physical aggression is against the law. You punch someone you go to jail and such a rule is not just written on paper, it is applied. There is no ground on an issue such as the disagreement on a topic for physical aggression. I would have thought that mighty America with his great sense of morale would have known better. Looking at actuality and your comments, I start to wonder.

The valid argument of the joke so, is that action must be taken. But is a bloody nose the best answer ... ?

What's funnier than the joke is how you missed the point.

[humus_sapiens]

It is common practice to deal with hostage situations by not giving up to the terrorists, otherwise it would invite more terror. Why is it so hard for some people to think logically?

I agree, some people need to snap out of their daydreaming. If it takes a punch (not literally, I still hope), so be it.

[eyl]

Which is precisely the point. In this case, you simply delegated the violence (or the potential violence, maybe you went of peacefully) to the police and society as a whole.

Originally posted by mimil
It's the second time this one comes out, as a joke, I find it nice.
As a reality, it's just a reflection of primal instinct.

In order to live together we have defined rules, the whole process of living in a society as created more complex concepts, such as social structures, religion, culture and so on.

As soon as a primate with no sense of respect attempts to go to step two, you jail him :). In Singapore, (I agree, it is far from being a perfect state, but this a good side of it) physical aggression is against the law. You punch someone you go to jail and such a rule is not just written on paper, it is applied. There is no ground on an issue such as the disagreement on a topic for physical aggression. I would have thought that mighty America with his great sense of morale would have known better. Looking at actuality and your comments, I start to wonder.

The valid argument of the joke so, is that action must be taken. But is a bloodier nose the best answer ... ?

Added in post after reply (Technical issue)

I am happy I entertained you :)

I figured the misunderstanding comes from the fact the nose was used last time. You must by now know my position;I thought you would have understood.


But is a bloody nose the best answer ... ? (To a punch in the mouth)

I hoped you would have also figured, that in this case both go to jail, especially if you cut both legs in return.

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by minusthejihad
What's funnier than the joke is how you missed the point.

She didn't get it the first time she read it, when I posted it on another topic. What makes you think she'd get it now. This chick's thick as a brick.

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by localbrew
With all of this talk of war, many of us will encounter "Peace Activists" who will try and convince us that we must refrain from retaliating against the ones who terrorized us all on September 11, 2001, and those who support terror.
OK, lets imagine a world without them. A world populated solely by retaliators like yourself. Im sure you all get along nicely. :p

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by humus_sapiens
It is common practice to deal with hostage situations by not giving up to the terrorists, otherwise it would invite more terror. Why is it so hard for some people to think logically?
Well, if the Brittish colonial officials of pre-ww2 Palestina had followed that advice just as boneheadedly as yourself, then the early Israel terroristgroups (like Irgun amongst others) would have been forced to conduct bombingattacks to this very day. :p

[Ralph63]

Originally posted by localbrew
2. In the middle of their remarks, without any warning, punch them in the mouth.
How about this one: The guy somehow manage to block your punch, then intinctively punch you back so hard that you infact not only get yourself hospitalized, but also permanently disabled, with constant pains and lost selfesteem for the rest of your life. Imagine also that he manage to get away so that the law never catches him.

And now for the punch- (sorry!) line:

Are you gonna spend the rest of your remaining life thinking about how logical/just violence against idealistic peace-believing people often can be? Or are you more likely to occupy your mind with thoughts of why the society/the world have become such a sad, mindlessly selfish and meaninglessly violent place - and what you can do with your own mentality, in order to contibute with something that could - at least to a small degree - change it?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Ralph63
How about this one: The guy somehow manage to block your punch, then intinctively punch you back so hard that you infact not only get yourself hospitalized, but also permanently disabled, with constant pains and lost selfesteem for the rest of your life. Imagine also that he manage to get away so that the law never catches him.

And now for the punch- (sorry!) line:


Okay! Okay! Okay! Alright then! ..... I know I'm going to be raining on some peoples' parade by telling you this, but it is getting to the point of absurdity, so allow me explain something to you and to Mimil.

A lot of people here are not familiar enough with the nuances of American culture to understand that this is nothing more than a joke. It's not meant to be taken literally. No one is really going to do what it says in the "instructions". No one is going to intentionally go and confront a peace-protester and punch them in the nose.

In American English, this type of writing is a common vehicle of explanation; using counter example.
It's just to explain why we (the US) are at war with terrorists. It's not meant to be, nor is it taken by Americans as literal instructions on how to "deal" with peace-protesters.

The overreaction is becoming more humorous than the original posting.

[mimil]

Originally posted by eyl
Which is precisely the point. In this case, you simply delegated the violence (or the potential violence, maybe you went of peacefully) to the police and society as a whole.

Yes. But you also regulate it. The police have to follow certain procedures; they are not above the law in any case. Same for politicians (Even so it is not so true in practice).

Without it, the law of the strongest is the only rule. They will do what they want, without having to fear reprisal, they will write the history and mention black on white that they were right.

In terms of law, this war is illegal. It does not seem to bother anyone, but the fact is that the country with rights as for today is Iraq. Don’t misunderstand please; I do support the country at all. The day you want to judge a criminal, you have to follow procedures, or risk to become one yourself, or let him get away as free as bird.

Johnny, now I am chick, I am also blond :). Any other guess?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil

Johnny, now I am chick, I am also blond :). Any other guess?

Falun Gong?

[eyl]

True. But the point of the original message was against the "violence never solves anything" crowd. In this case, one way or another, the problem was solved by force or the threat of it, even if it is regulated (and even in war, you don't usually use all the force you can).

Originally posted by mimil
Yes. But you also regulate it. The police have to follow certain procedures; they are not above the law in any case. Same for politicians (Even so it is not so true in practice).

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
In order to live together we have defined rules, the whole process of living in a society as created more complex concepts, such as social structures, religion, culture and so on.


You are the by-product of "5 Shared Values" indoctrination, after all! What methods did they employ in your school to inculcate them? Does the media bombard you the concepts or is it subtle? Do you have a 5 Shared Values plaque at your workplace? Your home? Are the plaques prominently displayed around Singapore?
I'm truly interested in the concept. It sounds utopian.

[localbrew]

Originally posted by mimil
As a reality, it's just a reflection of primal instinct.

As soon as a primate with no sense of respect attempts to go to step two, you jail him :). In Singapore, (I agree, it is far from being a perfect state, but this a good side of it) physical aggression is against the law. You punch someone you go to jail and such a rule is not just written on paper, it is applied.


Mimil my dear peace lover. The very same law of aggression also applies in Saudi Arabia as I does in Singapore. Yet it was not citizens of Singapore who took down our twin towers or slammed a passenger jet into our pentagon or bombed the Khobar towers, etc.

The USA has taken its gloves off and most of the people here agree with this strategy. Do you own a sheep farm? It seems to me like you have a wool blanket pulled over your eyes constantly.

If common sense will not prevail then maybe a good punch in the mouth will. We can debate the value of tree hugger or Alaska drilling demonstrators anytime you wish. But for the anti-war demonstrators I have a big right for them.

Most of these anti-war demonstrators are just plain anti-establishment. They have never traveled outside the country for the most part, are under educated and unemployed. They are despot socialists on the prowl for a free lunch and a little excitement for the day. Go ahead, ask one of these people I have just described above what they are demonstrating for and they will say the war of course. Ask them what the alternative is and you will get a look of ignorance.

I would not ask the question, I would just ‘punch them right in the mouth’ then ask the question.

[Mediocrates]

Don't the police in Singapore use what the rest of us would call.....torture?

Are the penalties for all sorts of crimes in Singapore, physical abuse?

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by Mediocrates
Don't the police in Singapore use what the rest of us would call.....torture?

Are the penalties for all sorts of crimes in Singapore, physical abuse?

You get strung up and beaten with a cane for many things. Chewing gum is completely illegal in Singapore and can result in incarceration. You really can't walk and chew gum at the same time, in Singapore.... :D

[localbrew]

Are you weakly trying to make a distinction here between police abuse and majority reaction? I would remind you of the “peaceful protestors in San Francisco” last week.

No, I will not allow you to twist this discussion around to interrogation techniques by different governments. This discussion is about a good punch in the mouth by a common citizen aimed squarely at a peace demonstrator.

Leftie linguini sucking liberals like you are hell bent on changing the subject instead of discussion points. Let me state my points again and (of course I don’t expect you to respond) you will try to change the subject again.

What other alternatives, after 12 years of trying would you suggest?

Why do the protestors blame the USA more than they blame Iraq for crimes? (Pick a crime)

Do any of the peace protesters really give a hoot about the Iraqi people?

When was the last time anyone attended a rally sponsored by A.N.S.W.E.R condemning Iraq or Al Qaeda?

Punch, right in the mouth...........

[Johnny Yuma]

Originally posted by mimil
As soon as a primate with no sense of respect attempts to go to step two, you jail him :). In Singapore, (I agree, it is far from being a perfect state, but this a good side of it) physical aggression is against the law. You punch someone you go to jail and such a rule is not just written on paper, it is applied.


... and if the primate chews gum and spits in on the sidewalk, you shred the skin on his back with a cane. Is that the good side of a perfect state of physical aggression, or the good side of a far from perfect state. :rolleyes:

[mimil]

Johnny: I am not Singaporean, I simply work here. For your information, I also spend quite some time in the US. If you want a complete list of the places where I stayed for more than a year you could add Scotland to it. I also traveled to the following: England, Ireland, Germany, Denmark, Holland, Switzerland, Italy, Spain, France, Tunisia, Egypt, Indonesia, Malaysia, Vietnam, Honk Kong, Brazil, Argentina, Peru. If you wish to pick on all the above, please go ahead.

The day Singapore becomes a threat to the world as severe as the USA is today, maybe I'll consider having a closer look at it and start posting about it. Most of your ideas of this country are false, but you probably don't even have the common sense to come here and check it for yourself, it is so much easier to stay in from of a PC reading web sites while drinking a cocktail. Looking at map on a wall which points with accuracy the different evil states, thinking about where can we hit next. You are not worth more than the terrorists you seems to hate so much. I have read what I feel was good comments on this forum, saying the day Arab love there children more than they hate Jewish, peace will be possible. The day Americans respect the rest of the human race more than they love their pride, the world will be a safer place. The extremists Muslims have manage to do something they could never have dreamed of, have some moderate westerners become as extreme as they are. Somehow they have already won.


The more I read here, the more I get worried as I find some people are really scary. Compromise and moderation is obviously something that as long been forgotten, sadly replace by nationalism and extremist ideas. The perfect recipe for total disaster. And those people are supposed to be the world leader, the ultimate civilization, and the example for the other to follow. I can only feel very uneasy about it.

Enough of that, as for the discussion of this post and to answer eyl (Who at least is trying to have a discussion) I agree that some peace protestors do not know what they are talking about and are protesting just for the sick of it. I never mentioned that I support such actions. Especially when you burn flag, or become violent, which totally defeat the purpose. On the other side, some (note that I don't say all) of pro-war are true extremist, in Europe typically they are the extreme right wing. Racist, against the state and order, ready to send any country in a spin of drastic reforms that will include, nationalism, protection of interest, denial of the very roots of what is claimed to be democracy and individual liberties. Ask those people what is the alternative to war, you'll see the same expression you described in your post.

Having to choose between a dumb peace protestor and a right wing pro-war, I without any doubt go for the dumb peace protestor, simply because he is a lot less of a threat.

[eyl]

Well, I can agree with you in essence. However, in my experience, most of the pro-war people (barring the religous nuts) at least have justifications for their views, while on the left there seem to be a lot of people who object in a knee-jerk fashion, who offer extremely specious reasons if at all. Just like war should not be an automatic response (usually, anyway) it should not be prohibited under any circumstances (which is what some of the more extreme left-wingers seem to believe).

Originally posted by mimil

Enough of that, as for the discussion of this post and to answer eyl (Who at least is trying to have a discussion) I agree that some peace protestors do not know what they are talking about and are protesting just for the sick of it. I never mentioned that I support such actions. Especially when you burn flag, or become violent, which totally defeat the purpose. On the other side, some (note that I don't say all) of pro-war are true extremist, in Europe typically they are the extreme right wing. Racist, against the state and order, ready to send any country in a spin of drastic reforms that will include, nationalism, protection of interest, denial of the very roots of what is claimed to be democracy and individual liberties. Ask those people what is the alternative to war, you'll see the same expression you described in your post.

Having to choose between a dumb peace protestor and a right wing pro-war, I without any doubt go for the dumb peace protestor, simply because he is a lot less of a threat.