Pakistan blocks YouTube for 'blasphemous' content: officials

Robespierre, shortly after coming to power, to an American reporter in his office. The new head of the French state sees a sea of a mob, surging down the street, violence in their minds and hands. Robespierre abruptly stops the interview, saying to the reporter:

There goes my people. I must lead them.

 

I think Guerilla presents all of his arguments in an extremely convincing manner, including the Wiki thread. He is probably the most intelligent person on this forum. No, personally I don't think YouTube should take it's content down (unless Guerilla wants them too).

 

All that goes to show is that some people are easily convinced.. don't make out that it's an admirable attribute.

 

Hahahah - OK, Rebecca. Care to share a single specific instance? Or just kind of a gut feeling? Perhaps you can disabuse me of some pretty profound misconceptions, because I've seen scant evidence supporting your contention. I have seen stuff like this, the usual pattern:

http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showpost.php?p=5883694&postcount=123

Followed, after much tap dancing, by stuff like this, my attempts to keep it honest:

With only a quiet admission, after the fact, and after much sophistry:

This is a pattern I have seen, over and over again; finally, tossing in outright lies, and subtler manipulations to achieve some semblance of cogency. Please let me know if you wish to see some facts.

I care because I see a guy railing on the American people for the the choice they have made, who supports an organization that continues to declare Dwight D. Eisenhower, among other honorable people, a traitor and a communist, while screaming for individual choice, free speech, and the defense of liberty; who accuses others of vagaries while refusing to answer a single instance of how his assertions would play out in the world; who fails to own up to the hypocrisy intrinsic to his various positions; on into infinity.

You have a personal admiration for Guerilla; no worries. But you're assertion that he has made his case, in any instance, is flatly wrong, in my opinion. And because he is really, really angry that your candidate hasn't achieved any kind of an audience, he will, in my opinion, resort to insults and slanders on those who have, and on those who support them - with baseless nonsense. That, unlike some pictures on a private website, I find offensive.

But your journey, your results.

 

You read and participated in the thread. If you feel he did not make any strong points, that is your opinion. What is with the large chip on your shoulder, Paul? Do you remember back when you were infuriated about the DP member who refused to admit he meant the religion of peace as in Islam? You were feverish over this for days. Then you had to post that guys private PM's who had trusted you to keep them private. Now you seem to follow Guerilla around from thread to thread with the sole purpose of wanting to argue. I guess now I have made it to your sh*t list as well. Looking in your handy database of posts of people you are angry with, you were able to find the perfect post. Congratulations, you must be so proud.

 

Any one have a link to the youtube video?

 

Rebecca, I speak the truth as I see it, particularly when I am called out. I do deeply resent responding, only to have misstruths, dodges, and sophistries used in lieu of honorable debate. Looking at the wiki thread alone, anything refuting Guerilla's points, I backed up, fully. On the other hand, I have yet to see you - or anyone else - post a single instance of a credible argument Guerilla made. And because you supported him there (and used the opportunity to slam my character in the process), and the issue is the same as the issue before us in this thread, I call on you to explain.

You will recall Menj1980. As I recall, you were quite chummy with him, until I pointed out that he didn't have any issue with women being beaten and shot to death in stadiums over "crimes" such as adultery, talking to males, not their relatives, etc. I wrote I wrote because I care deeply about the right of women, worldwide, to a life of peace and fulfillment. It's important to me. If you have an issue with me speaking the truth as I see it, perhaps you can either present facts, even a single one will do, or refrain from surmising baseless things about me, my intents, and my character.

What I write, I write at face value. I would submit that what you call "hunting" Guerilla has more to do with your apparent personal feelings, and less to do with what is actually taking place on the page.

 

Paul, I don't want to fight with you. Yeah, I remember Menj1980. What even brings Menj to your mind? Actually, it wasn't what you said that changed my mind. I used to read his blog everyday and found a post he made talking about how he supports the taliban. Menj is still here I think, but with different ID.

But anyway, that has nothing to do with this thread really. Let's talk about Pakistan and YouTube again. I think it is a shame that Pakistan may be getting more extreme...

 

The US is not interested in Pakistan v. Al Queda. They are using and have used Pakistan as a foil for India, which is a little too chummy (militarily) with China for their liking.

There have been lots of opportunities to crush Al Queda. Those opportunities have not been capitalized on. This isn't coincidence. We have to look at things honestly, not emotionally.

 

If Al Queda was enemy #1, then we would not have let Bin Laden escape at Tora Bora, we would not have invaded Iraq and downforced in Afghanistan, we would have invaded Saudi Arabia instead.

Instead of passing legislation to take away the civil liberties of American citizens, we would have passed Ron Paul's Bill authorizing the President to issue Letters of Marque which would have mobilized the world's for-profit mercenaries against Al Queda, and not only would have been more effective, it probably would have been cheaper, and cost far less in human life.

Once the invasion of Iraq was underway, Bush himself said something to the effect of, (re: Bin Laden), "I'm not worried about that right now."

Al Queda is a boogey man, a necessary enemy of undetermined origin, size, strength etc. You need an enemy like that, one without a uniform or country, so that everyone can be a suspect, everyone a potential terrorist, and every action against said terrorism is justified.

I try to follow as much of the foreign press as possible, because frankly, the domestic news services suck, and barely give the readers/watchers any sort of perspective or depth. The fighting in Iraq has little to do with Al Queda. The invasion had nothing to do with Al Queda.

Otherwise, this war would have already been over.

 

you're saying the US couldn't catch a bunch of cavemen because some other cavemen protected them? Are you serious? Do you actually believe alqaeda is USA's no.1 enemy?

 

I agree, Al Qaeda is our number 1 enemy. Pakistani police just arrested four more Al Qaeda members. Pakistan has had alot of turmoil lately, much of it created by Al Qaeda.

 

Rebecca, fine. I guess I'm just surprised you just don't seem to see it - the inconsistencies, the smears, the outright misstruths, the dodges, the too-ready leap to conspiracy fear. (Here, for instance - only the latest). Surprised because to be honest I believed you thought more deeply than that, and now regretfully conclude you don't. I also express my disappointment you were rather free with your pen, yet you are either unwilling or cannot seem to find a single substantive fact to support your claim; but I'll move on.

Al-Qaeda is exemplar for our number 1 enemy, but to go after Al-Qaeda, without addressing the root cause of why an Al-Qaeda finds an audience in the first place, is like the boy putting his finger in the dike. Every hole filled merely expresses a hole somewhere else. I find it ridiculous to believe Al-Qaeda is a singular criminal, we are the police, and once rid of Bin Laden, we return to a land of milk and honey. Once killed, if he isn't already dead, Bin Laden passes into history as a martyr, and new legions step up to assume the mantle. I remember at Berkeley, being told by Yahya Sadowski that at the instance of the Iranian hostage crisis, there wasn't a single person in the entire State Department staff who spoke farsi, so there was a great deal of confusion as messages flurried from department to department, just trying to figure out what was taking place. I don't think we have learned much since, and honestly don't think we can hope to end this cycle until we make the difficult choice to come to the table with the Arab and Islamic world. One of the reasons, by the way, I support Obama's policy of engagement.

To Iraq, the Bush doctrine, like so many before it that believe a mere wholesale transplanting of some western ideal of democracy to a troubled area will rid a country, or a region, of its ills, is a very misguided one. In Wilson's time, it was the Grand Strategy, and it was woefully shortsighted. The same obtains here. The latent schisms in Iraq are not just religious in nature, but are strengthened by many other cross-cleavages - geographic, ethnic, center-periphery, economic. Going in without a plan in place was the most asinine thing I've yet seen; we merely made patent what was previously latent, and have been paying the price since. Kind of like lancing a purulent wound, with no plan to cure the suppuration.

To this thread, whether it's here, or Wiki, I have never, and to my dying day, will never, support the efforts of some to tell others what to express; so long as you are not advocating specific violence on another ("go kill ____ - they are going to be at ___ at ____ o'clock."), or preventing another from not hearing what you have to say (the Westboro Church at the funerals of fallen soldiers is a good example), say what you will. If I don't like it, I'll click to another channel, webpage, or page. I believe in individual liberty, and believe such a philosophy is core to liberty's essential premise.