• Guest, The rules for the P & N subforum have been updated to prohibit "ad hominem" or personal attacks against other posters. See the full details in the post "Politics and News Rules & Guidelines."

40 Dead , 100 Injured In Casablanca Terrorist Bombings

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Sorry I had not finished before I somehow sent the message... something is afoot with my computer I think it might be terrorists...;)
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Originally posted by: etechI thought there wasn't any link between Iraq and Al Queada. Now you seem to be saying that there is. Interesting.
I said nothing of the sort. Simply, I said that the Bush Regime's aggression in the Middle East would cause terroristic repercussions. I never linked Iraq to Al-Quaida. I think you should take care to not stick words in my mouth.
No worries...that is quite the norm for etech... He seems to love taking someone's post's he disagrees with and trying to put words in people's mouths. Nothing new here...
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,314
4,012
126
Your tit-for-tat opinion suggests that al-qaeda speaks for all arabs, which is asinine.
---------------------------------
It doesn't suggest that at all. I posit an increase in terrorist activity, that is all.
-------------------------------

But it is now a beacon a hope that will soon realize its potential.
-------------------
The beacon I anticipate is the request from these revitalized hopefuls is the request that we get the hell out of their country.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Originally posted by: Insane3D
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Originally posted by: etechI thought there wasn't any link between Iraq and Al Queada. Now you seem to be saying that there is. Interesting.
I said nothing of the sort. Simply, I said that the Bush Regime's aggression in the Middle East would cause terroristic repercussions. I never linked Iraq to Al-Quaida. I think you should take care to not stick words in my mouth.
No worries...that is quite the norm for etech... He seems to love taking someone's post's he disagrees with and trying to put words in people's mouths. Nothing new here...
In this game of chess you must learn to parry, oblique the pawn, protect and disguise the King and be prepared to offer a bishop even when it seems the knight is not worth the day... thrust and parry... not always attack... deflect.
The Palestinian says he is home... Palestine is his home... check!

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
Your tit-for-tat opinion suggests that al-qaeda speaks for all arabs, which is asinine.
---------------------------------
It doesn't suggest that at all. I posit an increase in terrorist activity, that is all.
-------------------------------

But it is now a beacon a hope that will soon realize its potential.
-------------------
The beacon I anticipate is the request from these revitalized hopefuls is the request that we get the hell out of their country.
your "increase in terrorist activity" reeks of implicit legitimization (in their attacks). It's as if you're saying that their response is legitimate because of what we do. Do you think the terrorists' activities are legitimate? If not, then why don't you ever criticize them, as opposed to blaming a legitimate gov't for their occurance? Or do you think they're illegitimate but somewhat warranted because of our actions in the region?
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
To all the angry bad guys I would simply say;

I?ve seen what I remember
And then a bit more at times;
A paroxysm of edifying sounds and delightful sight-
Shamrock at still in quavering lines
Marigold and Fester sleep arms furled at night
A grumpy Aloe claiming its dismay,
?It?s morning I prefer apposed to night.?
Warmth and the honey bee aligned
to gather the gift of flight.

 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,314
4,012
126
your "increase in terrorist activity" reeks of implicit legitimization (in their attacks). (It doesn't wreak of anything but what you impute from your own mind. I am stating an opinion, how I see things developing. I placed no value judgment on it at all.) It's as if you're saying that their response is legitimate because of what we do. (Same story, not so. You are reading that in) Do you think the terrorists' activities are legitimate? (I don't think terrorist activities are legitimate, but I think they can be predicted and expected like getting stung from slapping a hive.) If not, then why don't you ever criticize them, as opposed to blaming a legitimate gov't for their occurance? (You pack a lot of assumptions in this sentence. In the first place, if you are talking about the US as a legitimate government, it is as far as I can tell. The theft of the election by Bush in Florida raises some problems naturally. But I think you are confusing legitimate government with legitimate actions taken by that government. The one does not imply the other. It was not legitimate to attack Iraq. We lied about our reasons. Our reasons were also a lie. Furthermore, I am an American. My duty is to my country, to criticize it. I can't do anything about other countries or how people think or feel there. I see no reason to fret about them in this regard.) Or do you think they're illegitimate but somewhat warranted because of our actions in the region? (This is probably an issue best left to the world court. Naturally it will never come to trial there. We have no respect for any sovereignty above our own. We make right by our might. I do think that illegitimate actions deserve response just as we responded to foreign terrorism. If we do something evil in the world others have a right to try to redress that evil. Do you disagree?
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Originally posted by: etechI thought there wasn't any link between Iraq and Al Queada. Now you seem to be saying that there is. Interesting.
I said nothing of the sort. Simply, I said that the Bush Regime's aggression in the Middle East would cause terroristic repercussions. I never linked Iraq to Al-Quaida. I think you should take care to not stick words in my mouth.
What you said was
the terror bombings we now have are spawned because of the bush regime's iraqi aggression
So if you are saying there is no link than Al Queada is just using any excuse they can for their aggression. If that is the case than how can you say there is a definitive link? There is a connection between Iraq and the terrorist bombings or there is none. It seems that you are trying to have it both ways.

 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
Originally posted by: Moonbeam
your "increase in terrorist activity" reeks of implicit legitimization (in their attacks). (It doesn't wreak of anything but what you impute from your own mind. I am stating an opinion, how I see things developing. I placed no value judgment on it at all.) It's as if you're saying that their response is legitimate because of what we do. (Same story, not so. You are reading that in) Do you think the terrorists' activities are legitimate? (I don't think terrorist activities are legitimate, but I think they can be predicted and expected like getting stung from slapping a hive.) If not, then why don't you ever criticize them, as opposed to blaming a legitimate gov't for their occurance? (You pack a lot of assumptions in this sentence. In the first place, if you are talking about the US as a legitimate government, it is as far as I can tell. The theft of the election by Bush in Florida raises some problems naturally. But I think you are confusing legitimate government with legitimate actions taken by that government. The one does not imply the other. It was not legitimate to attack Iraq. We lied about our reasons. Our reasons were also a lie. Furthermore, I am an American. My duty is to my country, to criticize it. I can't do anything about other countries or how people think or feel there. I see no reason to fret about them in this regard.) Or do you think they're illegitimate but somewhat warranted because of our actions in the region? (This is probably an issue best left to the world court. Naturally it will never come to trial there. We have no respect for any sovereignty above our own. We make right by our might. I do think that illegitimate actions deserve response just as we responded to foreign terrorism. If we do something evil in the world others have a right to try to redress that evil. Do you disagree?
you can hide behind our fundamental freedoms by criticizing this gov't, but it is quite obvious that you have a selective memory:
You criticize this gov't, but not the previous one. You blame bush for increasing al qaeda's anger but fail to mention that their terrorist activity has been on going for over 8 years.

you question bush's presidency, but failed to recruit your fellow liberals to vote for gore instead of ralph nader, who promised them that marijuana would be legalized under his presidency. it was nader that screwed up the presidential election for democrats, not bush.

you criticize the war in iraq, but will defend clinton in a heartbeat. you also seem to live in some pot-induced virtual reality where all nations are equal and countries shouldn't look out for their own interests. Well, WAKE UP. This is reality. We are in Iraq for AMERICAN interests. If you don't like it, you're most definitely welcome to abstain from using anything that is a by-product of middle eastern oil; from plastic to gasoline for your Toyota Prius (or moped).

I believe the Una Bomber's cabin is for sale. And there is prime real estate in the forests of Oregan with your name on it. Who knows, perhaps you can start your own commune.
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,314
4,012
126
My my, I seem to have smoked out a whole host of obsessions. :D You're a regular hydra.
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Jason and the argonauts... Homer, that kind of stuff..She didn't care too much for ole Hercules.
Hydra had lots of heads, nine I think and when you cut one off two more appear.. and you had to look in the mirror.

Clear enough to me.. but, then I am the author of my own work.. no?
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,314
4,012
126
Well it's Medusa you need the mirror for HJ. Early people didn't take long to discover that what they saw in that reflective miracle was truly horrible, our feelings about our selves. But you're right-on about the hydra and its heads. I no sooner debunked a couple of Dari's and bam here come a whole host more. You could get a bad case of finger cramp trying to cut down all of them. I recalled, unfortunately perhaps not quite in time, the story of the fox and the blood sucking flies. A gracious heron once offered to shoo away the flies that had covered a poor fox who had wondered mistakenly into the swamp. Oh no, please no cried the fox. These are all full and if you shoo them away they will all be replaced by fresh hungry ones. :D
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
this has nothing to do with linking al-quaida to iraq/saddam

this is about an arab group being attacked by the united states, and other arab groups (who are offended that outside forces attacked one of it's own type of people) striking back in response the the aggression they were dealt with

simple forumula: the us attacks the arabs. arabs strike out against us/other targets

it has been predicted all along, and that's what has happened
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
bush knew this would happen

he knew he put many of the world's people at risk with the effects of his aggression

many more than just the iraqi people and american soldiers

he made his bed and now he must lie in it

good riddance to him
 

Dari

Lifer
Oct 25, 2002
17,134
37
91
Another low point for the apologists is that they will demean an administration that is fighting a war against terrorism. While it's one thing for us to have a friendly argument on domestic affairs, it's sad that the apologists can't leave their opposition to the domestic stage when we're dealing with international terrorists that don't a damn whether or not you're a bleeding-heart liberal or conservative. A dead American is a dead American to them. Making illogical statement about the "reasoning" behind terrorist activities only leads the terrorists to believe that there is a rational conversation going on about their diabolical activities. You guys are giving them the legitimacy they so desperately seek, even if you don't realize it. Believe it or not, they do listen to our opinions.
 

etech

Lifer
Oct 9, 1999
10,597
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
this has nothing to do with linking al-quaida to iraq/saddam

this is about an arab group being attacked by the united states, and other arab groups (who are offended that outside forces attacked one of it's own type of people) striking back in response the the aggression they were dealt with

simple forumula: the us attacks the arabs. arabs strike out against us/other targets

it has been predicted all along, and that's what has happened
So what you are saying is that is was all right for the Arabs(Saddam) to massacre thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other Arabs. It is only because infidels stopped that killing that the Arabs are upset?

Are you saying that all Arabs are upset? How many of the Arabs are going to attack US targets or is it just the terrorist organzation Al-Queada which attacked the US before the US removed Saddam and would have continued their attacks in any case?



 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,314
4,012
126
Etech: So what you are saying is that is was all right for the Arabs(Saddam) to massacre thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other Arabs. It is only because infidels stopped that killing that the Arabs are upset?

Are you saying that all Arabs are upset? How many of the Arabs are going to attack US targets or is it just the terrorist organization Al-Queada which attacked the US before the US removed Saddam and would have continued their attacks in any case?
---------------------
I don't think this was addressed to me but I'd like to give my answer.

Question 1. I doubt it was ever all right with many, hopefully the great majority of Arabs, but it was all right with the people in power in Iraq and that power looked really good to a lot of other Arabs because they have this thingi about getting respect through might. It's a form of mental illness stereotypically characteristic of them, but not by any means particular to them. We are the same as witnessed by the war hooters we have here. But when Infidels kill Arabs, these power issues are somebody else?s ox and lots more Arabs will get wound up about that kind of killing. It's always easier to see the mote in the other guys eye than the beam in your own.

Question 2. Hopefully All Arabs are not upset. I'm sure many many, hopefully a majority are happy Saddam is gone, Many Iraqi Arabs at least since they were the ones who had to pay the price for his famous ruthless power reputation. I think most committed to terror will remain committed and many who hate the loss of status brought about by an American defeat of an Arab power may join up. Those who see that path as wrong will try to establish a better form of government and better way of thinking. The real question always was whether it was the best policy to remove Saddam by force and whether the reasons given were honest. The last issue is certainly no.


Dari: Another low point for the apologists is that they will demean an administration that is fighting a war against terrorism. While it's one thing for us to have a friendly argument on domestic affairs, it's sad that the apologists can't leave their opposition to the domestic stage when we're dealing with international terrorists that don't a damn whether or not you're a bleeding-heart liberal or conservative. A dead American is a dead American to them. Making illogical statement about the "reasoning" behind terrorist activities only leads the terrorists to believe that there is a rational conversation going on about their diabolical activities. You guys are giving them the legitimacy they so desperately seek, even if you don't realize it. Believe it or not, they do listen to our opinions.
-----------------------
This paragraph is full of inconsistent ideas and is difficult to approach since one doesn't know which illogic is foremost in the author's mind, which is the fundamental fly in the ointment. Your first point is just a rhetorical appeal to unity in war. Sorry, I don't support unjust wars because they fracture home front resolve. Fracturing home front resolve in an unjust war is the definition of patriotic duty. One cannot stand idly by and allow ones country to do evil. Next you claim the terrorists don't differentiate between those opposed to war against them and those who are. In the first place nobody I know is opposed to war on terrorism. War on Iraq was another matter. Secondly, why would I care if somebody would kill me if I did right or wrong. I do what is right because it is right. Screw what the terrorist thinks. But remember we are not talking terrorism when we are talking Iraq. Terrorism was a smoke screen for a New American Century. As for making "illogical" statements about reasoning I can only hope the parenthesis was supposed to imply false reasoning or unreasonableness rather than real reasoning, but you just stated that the terrorists don't give a fig about us, why would they somehow care what we think? And if you didn't mean unreasonableness then there could be no reasonable supposition that a rational conversation was going on to bolster their confidence, and no implied legitimacy. If they listened to our opinions, they wouldn't believe in terrorism, no? Terrorism is a mental illness, a profound psychosis that allows one to do that which is against all human religion and morality, to kill people who have never harmed you. It requires a profound detachment from reality. To look at reality is to know that everything is perfect just as God created it. The question, then, is what do you do with how you feel in a perfect world. Think about it.
 

phillyTIM

Golden Member
Jan 12, 2001
1,940
10
81
Originally posted by: etech
So what you are saying is that is was all right for the Arabs(Saddam) to massacre thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other Arabs. It is only because infidels stopped that killing that the Arabs are upset?

Are you saying that all Arabs are upset? How many of the Arabs are going to attack US targets or is it just the terrorist organzation Al-Queada which attacked the US before the US removed Saddam and would have continued their attacks in any case?

Dude: i'm not sayin' S##T to you because you always turn around what i say into something i didn't. what i said is what i said: nothing more nothing less. from now on just consider that i'm not addressing you.
 

Insane3D

Elite Member
May 24, 2000
19,446
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
Originally posted by: etech
So what you are saying is that is was all right for the Arabs(Saddam) to massacre thousands if not hundreds of thousands of other Arabs. It is only because infidels stopped that killing that the Arabs are upset?

Are you saying that all Arabs are upset? How many of the Arabs are going to attack US targets or is it just the terrorist organzation Al-Queada which attacked the US before the US removed Saddam and would have continued their attacks in any case?

Dude: i'm not sayin' S##T to you because you always turn around what i say into something i didn't. what i said is what i said: nothing more nothing less. from now on just consider that i'm not addressing you.
I warned you above....it's classic etech.


/etech mode

So, what are you saying? That you won't reply because you love Saddam? Are you saying you will say sh*t because you love gays?

/end etech mode

:p
 

LunarRay

Diamond Member
Mar 2, 2003
9,993
1
76
Moonster,
Yes.. Medusa... and the mirror.. she had a bunch of heads too as I remember... probably related to Hydra... cousins perhaps.;) I wondered about the use of the mirror. Why would not the reflection be as the direct view... are we instructed to reflect upon that which is threat? Must be some deep analogy involved... to impress the reader... I guess.
 

UltraQuiet

Banned
Sep 22, 2001
5,755
0
0
Originally posted by: phillyTIM
bush knew this would happen

he knew he put many of the world's people at risk with the effects of his aggression

many more than just the iraqi people and american soldiers

he made his bed and now he must lie in it

good riddance to him

Got any proof that the latest terror attacks were the result of "Bush aggression" (your words, not mine). Any proof that Bush knew this would happen.

Or maybe this is just some more brilliant analysis like " 9/11 was caused by the axis of evil speech".

?????????????????????????
 

Moonbeam

Elite Member
Nov 24, 1999
67,314
4,012
126
Well, as you know, HJ, my aim is, of course, only to impress the 13 year old reader.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY