Posts by Knochen Brittle

Contrition is a religious concept,

and one easily mimed, for which there should be no consideration in a rational and fair legal proceeding.

What you are really referring to is the practice of pandering to the sentencing Judge's pampered sense of sadism by engaging in a (generally lawyer-advised) ritual bout of 'voluntary' self-abasement taking the form of grovelling apologies and abject pleas of misericordia. Those who are innocent or proud refuse to engage in this extra-judicial public auto-flagellation and so are otherwise punished with a more severe sentence within the (corrupt) Judge's 'discretion'. Those who do, get the sentence already decided upon - i.e. gain no benefit from the humiliation.

Another weighty factor here are the desired political effects, of which I can see two:

1. The lower classes must (re)learn that their place is toiling in silence, not embarrassing OverLords with disclosures about their vulnerabilities or crimes - lulz, satire or free speech against the ruling mafia will be severely punished.

2. Hackers must learn to tremble in pre-emptive fear of the Pentagovernment, and quietly render any discovered 0-Days to the CyberOffence Command for Droit-de-Seigneur-style exploitation against the fabricated enemies-du-jour, both foreign and domestic.

Of course, for the morose US legal body, in which the highest value is the perpetual impunity of State warcriminals and torturers, this kind of savage result is achieved during coffee breaks, hardly even counting as in the day's work.

So, au contraire - it's a filthy, rotten Injustice System, which earns no respect but rather an immeasurable contempt.

Free All Political Prisoners, Free Weev!

(¯`i´¯)´·¸.)‹^›

Sweet Jeezis, make him stop this shit,

it's really getting on my tits.

If you won't, I'll have you know,

my prayers will go to Koresh so.

Not accepted!

A poet, when compelled to write,

shouldn't bother, it's often shite.

In other words, you don't dispute any fact in my summary of S.Hussein.

Well done, but I had already 'got' that.

If you claim your link refutes anything I said, just specify what that is ~ I won't waste my time on a goose chase to try and discover a point you fail to make.

Political rehabilitation is reserved for those sufficiently alive to be returned to whatever fold they once departed ~ hardly applicable here.

Now to wrap up, without volumes, let me suggest an explanation to break this down for you using the theory of Cognitive Dissonance Reduction in sensu Festinger:

1. You were bemused by and reflexively objected to being unexpectedly confronted with an accurate and unbiased take [i.e. NON-propaganda] on an 'official demon' about whom you have been saturated in the aforementioned greater warcriminals' agitprop for many years.

2. You could not resolve why this novel disjunctive history should so irk you, or coherently formulate an objection.

3. The reason it irked you is that, if I am right and you believed the agitprop, then you have been politically duped and cynically used to obtain your support for or at least acquiesence to some pretty filthy warcrimes of which Hitler himself would rightly have been jealous.

4. Nobody likes to think he has been scammed, particularly on a monumental, life-altering scale.

5. A 'strong sender' [Western 'Establishment' + NATO lackeys] has broadcast the official propaganda 24/7 for decades, with every intention to continue indefinitely. Their 'message' was/is streamlined and palatably presented as if self-evident and already accepted by the large majority of 'reasonable people'. Swallowing it bears no immediately perceptible penalty, in fact, it flatters those who do that they join in a righteous cause, to encourage peer-pressure reiteration and propagation. Lucre beyond the dreams of avarice [not for you!] rides on the successful penetration and a corresponding investment is made. Furthermore, as we both know, they realistically threaten every effort to punish those who seriously oppose their criminal politics.

6. I am a comparatively weak and intermittent sender, neither counting on benefit nor caring a toss how you take it. I invest little more than my spare time and omit the sugar glaze. You may find sparse peers who agree, but I will not persecute you if you do not.

7. As they are diametrically opposed, however, you must either accept the position of the strong or weak sender.

8. Leaving all other factors aside, e.g. morality, facts, etc., continuing to go with the flow and at least superficially act in conformity with the message of the strong sender seems to you [whether consciously or not] the path of least resistance/cost, thus the one for which you have unsurprisingly opted.

9. However, to reduce the lingering cognitive dissonance raised between [in]action and actual belief, and it being easier to try to change your mind than pick the path less trodden, you seek to find a rationalisation to lessen the 'acceptability' of the unpreferred version. In this case, lacking logic, argument or facts in support, you reverted to ad hominem attempts to impugn my character.

10. Hence, without seeing the irony, you try to accuse me of supporting a sub-ex-warcriminal, which I have and do not, to excuse yourself for supporting the supra-current ones, which it does not and you effectively do.

11. This is not a personal criticism, merely taking this example to discuss the way the human brain is wired to work. Understanding how the psychotrick can be exploited by misrulers is useful for political analysis.

12. Despite being the bearer of distasteful news, I think it better to face facts than live wrapped in convenient [not for you!] and politically counterproductive [not for them!] delusions induced by those with ulterior motives.

Over.

Does that mean you disagree with something I said?

If so, try to spell it out in cleartext if that's not too taxing for you. As it stands, your rhetorical squib has all the properties of a fag-end retrieved from the toilet ~ soggy, stinking and difficult to light.

Butt enjoy blowing your smoke.

More pertinently, it indicates that the Iraqi People ...

... whose country the British sub-Government illegally invaded, occupied and destroyed in an historic joint warcriminal enterprise with the Bankrupt Banana Empire of Yankistan, has swallowed a whole lot less of the ludicrous 'liberation' propaganda than the 'news controllers' of the aggressor nations had hoped, and that the consequent retribution to be exacted for the unlimited murder and mayhem inflicted upon them is far from over.

BTW, to summarise Saddam Hussein: he started as a typical enough US-franchised sub-Dictator oiled into the saddle by standard CIA machinations, whose every warcrime while he followed the diktat of Washington [e.g. playing their proxy in attacking Iran] was approved, sponsored and justified with further weapons deliveries. Only when he stopped taking orders was he provoked and set up for destruction, via Cheney's KBR slant-drilling operation into the Rumaila oilfield from Kuwait. Towards the end he largely redeemed himself by breaking the US-petrodollar monopoly, supporting the legitimate national Resistance and preferring to die honourably, having spat upon rather than touch the proffered declaration of surrender in exchange for his signing of which the Neo-Mongol Invaders promised to spare his life. The subsequent filthy murder after a kangaroo charade was hurried to silence exposure of the much greater warcriminals whom he had turned away from serving. His last words were "Down with the traitors, the Americans, the spies and the Persians."