McDonald's supports terrorism.

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: N8Magic

I don't support Bush and his run and gun style. Does that automatically make me a terrorist?

Which style do you prefer over Bush's "Run and gun" style? The style that says "Let's not do anything to offend the poor little underprivleged, malnourished, oppressed terrorists"? "Let's hunker down with our head covered and maybe they wont do anything bad to us again"? Is that the style you prefer?

This, my friend, is the million dollar question. We have dug ourselves as a cohesive global society into a proverbial pit. I don't know what can be done to help change anything, but logic tells me that bombing isn't going to help though

But it's a hell of alot better than sitting on out collective asses and doing nothing about it.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: N8Magic

I don't support Bush and his run and gun style. Does that automatically make me a terrorist?

Which style do you prefer over Bush's "Run and gun" style? The style that says "Let's not do anything to offend the poor little underprivleged, malnourished, oppressed terrorists"? "Let's hunker down with our head covered and maybe they wont do anything bad to us again"? Is that the style you prefer?

This, my friend, is the million dollar question. We have dug ourselves as a cohesive global society into a proverbial pit. I don't know what can be done to help change anything, but logic tells me that bombing isn't going to help though

But it's a hell of alot better than sitting on out collective asses and doing nothing about it.

It is? Check my edit.
If things continue the way they are currently going we will all be living on nice pieces of glass after someone decides to nuke us and we nuke back. Violence perpetuates violence

 

[jjessico]

Perhaps your naivete allows you not to believe in a wright or a wrong.

You might also suffer from (http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=elitism)

Your comments may not be insulting, but that is only if you dont' consider your blatant condescending tone insulting.

 

[ThePresence]

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: tweakmm

Originally posted by: ThePresence

Originally posted by: N8Magic

I don't support Bush and his run and gun style. Does that automatically make me a terrorist?

Which style do you prefer over Bush's "Run and gun" style? The style that says "Let's not do anything to offend the poor little underprivleged, malnourished, oppressed terrorists"? "Let's hunker down with our head covered and maybe they wont do anything bad to us again"? Is that the style you prefer?

This, my friend, is the million dollar question. We have dug ourselves as a cohesive global society into a proverbial pit. I don't know what can be done to help change anything, but logic tells me that bombing isn't going to help though

But it's a hell of alot better than sitting on out collective asses and doing nothing about it.

It is? Check my edit.
If things continue the way they are currently going we will all be living on nice pieces of glass after someone decides to nuke us and we nuke back. Violence perpetuates violence

Bombings probably stop(ped) numerous attacks. Sure, it wont end terrorism, because terrorism is a state of mind. You can't change someones beliefs by bombing them. But if it stops ANY attacks, I'm all for it.

 

[jjessico]

I don't support Bush and his run and gun style. Does that automatically make me a terrorist?

[/quote]

No. What's your point.

 

[DigDug]

Remember, just because America is better than the rest does NOT means America is the best it can be. It is into this trap that many of us Americans fall. Don't get complacent. Don't accept and believe everything your leaders tell you, and most importantly, NEVER let these supposed "patriots" (alot of them seem to linger on ATOT) that try to stifle your critical evaluation of America, stop you from doing so. It is our duty to question those who lead us, because we are America!

 

[jjessico]

I find it a strech, to say the least, to extrapolate the current situation into a nuclear MAD situation. I guess if you're all for the "its the worst case, far out, scenario or nothing" then it will work for you.

 

[wnied]

When McDonalds starts giving money directly to the families of suicide bombers because they blew themselves up then you will have an argument. Until then this is just another one of your half-baked idiotic trolls.

Amen.
~wnied~

 

[jjessico]

With that it would also be someone's duty to question 9 different people who instantly agree with each other. Being led around by an activist faction is the same as being dragged around by the government. One true master is the same as the next, a master.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: jjessico
Perhaps your naivete allows you not to believe in a wright or a wrong.

Define right and wrong for me. How do you think that a terrorist defines right and wrong? If one was compare your defintion and the terrorists definition they would obviously be different. What makes your definition the correct one? The problem with right and wrong is that they are absolute terms. You can't be absolute in a relative universe
as far as the elitism, I don't consider myself to be supperior to anybody and I'm currious how you could pick up my tone from what I've typed.

 

[N8Magic]

Originally posted by: jjessico
I don't support Bush and his run and gun style. Does that automatically make me a terrorist?

No. What's your point.

My point was that you seemed to indicate that there were only two types of people: ones that support Bush, and terrorists.

 

[DigDug]

tweaknm,

I understand the relativism, but I fail to see how we can get anywhere from such a conclusion. Relativism merely dissolves everything in to a normless mess, from which no direction can come. Where do you think (and I am not saying this adversariously but only because you happened to bring up the relativst argument) we should draw the line, for one does have to be drawn doesn't it?

 

[jjessico]

No I never refered to Bush.

 

[jjessico]

There is no need to define right and wrong for it to exist. Certainly it is not universal, but it does exist under conditions. I can tell you with authority that taking a left on a one-way headed right is wrong. I can tell you that answering C on a test question in which the answer is A, is wrong. I can assert, without sweating bullets, that 2+7=9, and I know I am right.

The world revolves around decision making and people successfuly make many decisions a day that are based on simple rights and wrongs. The world needs yes vs no to survive.

If no right or wrong exists you can reason out any situation. This may sound great until you are reasoning out murders and rape and etc. There are wrongs, there are rights.

When you call someone naive you are imply you are more knowledgeable and therefore superior.

 

[Danman]

Originally posted by: wnied
When McDonalds starts giving money directly to the families of suicide bombers because they blew themselves up then you will have an argument. Until then this is just another one of your half-baked idiotic trolls.

Amen.
~wnied~

WERD TO THAT!

 

[Dragnov]

Originally posted by: kevin000
Washington warned of two evils before he left office. Do not form political parties and do not sign treaties. The day he left office, 2 political parties formed. A treaty with either France or Britain was signed within the year...

Washington was no altruistic wise man himself. He simply did what was in his own interest.

Actually, that's not at all what he meant.

I believe he meant that there are more than two ways to see this situation. Just because someone doesn't support Bush and the methodology he is using to handle the terrorist threat does not mean that he/she is a terrorist and that the US is the "great satan".

I don't support Bush and his run and gun style. Does that automatically make me a terrorist?

No, I don't think anyone will call you a terrorist. But people will call you something much worse.. .anti-American. *gasp* You don't support the President and protecting America, you have no nationalism in you!

Originally posted by: wnied
When McDonalds starts giving money directly to the families of suicide bombers because they blew themselves up then you will have an argument. Until then this is just another one of your half-baked idiotic trolls.

Amen.
~wnied~

Yeah, I'm sure the child is going..."Daddy, go blow yourself up so that we can have money!"

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: jjessico
There is no need to define right and wrong for it to exist. Certainly it is not universal, but it does exist under conditions. I can tell you with authority that taking a left on a one-way headed right is wrong. I can tell you that answering C on a test question in which the answer is A, is wrong. I can assert, without sweating bullets, that 2+7=9, and I know I am right.

I guess I should have been more specific when I was talking about right and wrong. What I said only applies to morals. Facts are.

The world revolves around decision making and people successfuly make many decisions a day that are based on simple rights and wrongs. The world needs yes vs no to survive.

I'm not sure how to respond to this, I do think that most people would freak out having their safetly blanket of black and white taken away. I guess you have to decide if you want to take the idealists way or the pragmatists way

When you call someone naive you are imply you are more knowledgeable and therefore superior.

take what you will from my words(like I was stopping you) as I have tried to explain my view as best I could

 

[Piano Man]

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: SHoddyCOmp

Originally posted by: N8Magic

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: cnwk64

Originally posted by: tweakmm
the United States is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism except it's not called that

second that

third

Fifth.

sixth.

7th

I'll be number 8 on that list. The only difference is when we commit acts of terrorism, we get to use cool words like counter-insurgency and low-intensity conflict. Isn't that just nifty!!!

 

[charrison]

Originally posted by: MartyTheManiak
According to some people, Saddam supports terrorism because he gives money to every palestinian family that has suffered in the conflict.

Now, using this perverse logic, I can conclude that McDonald's is also guilty of supporting terrorism. According to this article:

Saudi Arabia 2002

Problem: Arab anger at Israel's response to Palestinian uprising triggers boycott of American products.

McSpin: A Ramadan promotion by the Saudi franchise sends 30 cents from every Big Mac sold to the Red Crescent Society and Nasser Hospital in Gaza for treatment of Palestinian casualties.

Since its inevitable that some terrorists will get treatment at this hospital or get help from the Red Crescent, McDonald's is no better than Saddam.


I do hope that those people will now stop using this sad excuse for an argument.

I would like to blow myself up for 30 cents please.

 

[tweakmm]

Originally posted by: BlipBlop
I understand the relativism, but I fail to see how we can get anywhere from such a conclusion. Relativism merely dissolves everything in to a normless mess, from which no direction can come. Where do you think (and I am not saying this adversariously but only because you happened to bring up the relativst argument) we should draw the line, for one does have to be drawn doesn't it?

I didn't mean to put the relative spin on the situation with terrorists. I think even if you believe in right and wrong both sides are wrong. Both sides have done horrible things to the other while pointing fingers saying "you started it" This seems to be a trend that isn't showing any sign of stopping. It's only a matter of time before a WMD is used by one side and it will only escalate more from there

 

[SherEPunjab]

Originally posted by: Piano Man

Originally posted by: PHiuR

Originally posted by: SHoddyCOmp

Originally posted by: N8Magic

Originally posted by: Colt45

Originally posted by: cnwk64

Originally posted by: tweakmm
the United States is one of the biggest sponsors of terrorism except it's not called that

second that

third

Fifth.

sixth.

7th

I'll be number 8 on that list. The only difference is when we commit acts of terrorism, we get to use cool words like counter-insurgency and low-intensity conflict. Isn't that just nifty!!!

And collateral damage...