There is no "war on terror"

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is the exact philosophy followed by the Clinton administration. The idea that terrorism was a ?crime? problem, not a larger broader problem was followed for eight years. We see where trying to fight it as a crime got us on 9-11.

Would that be the same crime that happened on the watch of President Bush - which he and his administration chose to ignore warnings of terrorist strikes against the U.S...... Looks like Bush was too busy pickin' crap off the ranch, instead of protecting the country....

 

[ProfJohn]

"The fight against terrorism on the streets of Britain is not a war. It is the prevention of crime, the enforcement of our laws and the winning of justice for those damaged by their infringement."

BTW: how do you win justice for the 52 people killed in the London bombings, the 191 killed in Madrid, the 222 killed in the two Bali bombings and the 2,992 people killed on 9-11?

 

[ProfJohn]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is the exact philosophy followed by the Clinton administration. The idea that terrorism was a ?crime? problem, not a larger broader problem was followed for eight years. We see where trying to fight it as a crime got us on 9-11.

Would that be the same crime that happened on the watch of President Bush - which he and his administration chose to ignore warnings of terrorist strikes against the U.S...... Looks like Bush was too busy pickin' crap off the ranch, instead of protecting the country....

Feel free to blame Bush if you like, but at least you seem to agree with my assessment that the attempt to view it as a law enforcement issue was a failure.

 

[UberNeuman]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is the exact philosophy followed by the Clinton administration. The idea that terrorism was a ?crime? problem, not a larger broader problem was followed for eight years. We see where trying to fight it as a crime got us on 9-11.

Would that be the same crime that happened on the watch of President Bush - which he and his administration chose to ignore warnings of terrorist strikes against the U.S...... Looks like Bush was too busy pickin' crap off the ranch, instead of protecting the country....

Feel free to blame Bush if you like, but at least you seem to agree with my assessment that the attempt to view it as a law enforcement issue was a failure.

Hardly, I view terrorists as a crime problem.... I don't give them credit or puff them up to be more than the trash they are.....

But I'm sad to see that you give GWB a pass on not picking up and facing the problem these crackpots were in danger of presenting to our nation...

 

[JD50]

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is the exact philosophy followed by the Clinton administration. The idea that terrorism was a ?crime? problem, not a larger broader problem was followed for eight years. We see where trying to fight it as a crime got us on 9-11.

Would that be the same crime that happened on the watch of President Bush - which he and his administration chose to ignore warnings of terrorist strikes against the U.S...... Looks like Bush was too busy pickin' crap off the ranch, instead of protecting the country....

Feel free to blame Bush if you like, but at least you seem to agree with my assessment that the attempt to view it as a law enforcement issue was a failure.

Hardly, I view terrorists as a crime problem.... I don't give them credit or puff them up to be more than the trash they are.....

But I'm sad to see that you give GWB a pass on not picking up and facing the problem these crackpots were in danger of presenting to our nation...

Of course GWB could have done more to combat terrorism in his first 8 months as President, but I really hope that you are not another looney that puts the blame for 9-11 on Bush while giving Clinton a pass. Clinton had 8 years, Bush had 8 months, who do you think should take the majority of the blame?

 

[aidanjm]

.

 

[cwjerome]

I know the Left gets a little frothy at the mouth when it comes to GWOT. I do not think it has as much to do with imprecise language... rather, it's has a lot to do with the deeper assumptions and principles behind it.

I would agree (as most sane people) that the 'war' on terror is not a war but something much more complicated. Terrorism has been a tool and a method since man first discovered fear could be used as a weapon. The term has been documented from the time of the French Revolution. To call this a 'war' on a concept or method gives people the misguided assumption that it will have a logical end point.

It is not a matter of ending terrorism but finding a way to mitigate the possibilities, minimize the threat, dealing with the incidents when they do happen, and living our lives in such a manner that we are alert and aware, yet not crippled by this awareness.

I think the "GWOT is a farce" people don't understand how many agencies and people are involved or what goes on behind the scenes. It is VERY real to those dealing with it on a day-to-day basis. Perhaps they take their queue from politicians who have abused the metaphor, but that does not make it any less real. I think issues like this only prove how badly we have failed to prosecute the "war of ideas" at home and abroad. I guess I have underestimated the depth and spread of Attention Deficit Disorder. We can all just go about our lives...nothing to see here folks...just move along now.

This is like the End of History all over again. Francis Fukuyama may have had a point. However, I doubt that AQ and Iran read his work and that they are done with us yet.

Michael Ignatieff's "The Lesser Evil - Political Ethics in an Age of Terror" is a great book for any who are interested in political, ethical and historical applications of the tactics of terrorism and counter-terrorism.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is the exact philosophy followed by the Clinton administration. The idea that terrorism was a ?crime? problem, not a larger broader problem was followed for eight years. We see where trying to fight it as a crime got us on 9-11.

Would that be the same crime that happened on the watch of President Bush - which he and his administration chose to ignore warnings of terrorist strikes against the U.S...... Looks like Bush was too busy pickin' crap off the ranch, instead of protecting the country....

Feel free to blame Bush if you like, but at least you seem to agree with my assessment that the attempt to view it as a law enforcement issue was a failure.

There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however. Gaining the world's hatred, continuing to meddle in ME affairs, continuing to support oil instead of severely pushing for alternate energy resources, and creating a war that then leads ot the deaths of 50,000 more muslims are not those methods.

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however. Gaining the world's hatred, continuing to meddle in ME affairs, continuing to support oil instead of severely pushing for alternate energy resources, and creating a war that then leads ot the deaths of 50,000 more muslims are not those methods.

Something worked between the Brits and the IRA, eh?

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: ProfJohn

Originally posted by: UberNeuman

Originally posted by: ProfJohn
That is the exact philosophy followed by the Clinton administration. The idea that terrorism was a ?crime? problem, not a larger broader problem was followed for eight years. We see where trying to fight it as a crime got us on 9-11.

Would that be the same crime that happened on the watch of President Bush - which he and his administration chose to ignore warnings of terrorist strikes against the U.S...... Looks like Bush was too busy pickin' crap off the ranch, instead of protecting the country....

Feel free to blame Bush if you like, but at least you seem to agree with my assessment that the attempt to view it as a law enforcement issue was a failure.

There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however. Gaining the world's hatred, continuing to meddle in ME affairs, continuing to support oil instead of severely pushing for alternate energy resources, and creating a war that then leads ot the deaths of 50,000 more muslims are not those methods.

Appeasement after a swift surrender. Sounds like a good deal, until we look back on history ? or take the radicals on their sworn vow to kill us. Giving them a position of superiority amidst passiveness on our part only works to further their goals. When their goals are our deaths, such inaction is suicide.

Take nuclear proliferation for example. You might tell us terrorism cannot truly harm us today, but today is not why we fight. Soon they will have every means to kill hundreds of millions of people. Technology is catching up in the world and fighting by proxy group has greatly emboldened our opponents.

This is no way to uphold MAD if they feel we do not respond to acts of war by their unofficial troops.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however.

So what should/could be used descriptively for this current conflict that is continuing to unfold daily in lieu of the present description 'war on terrorism'? Should we even use the term 'struggle'? Consider that their word 'jihad' can refer not only to 'holy war,' but also is represented as a struggle. So what terms should/could be used to describe this real and serious life threatening antagonism? Perhaps it could be described this way - Conflict of Grave Concern or Conflict of Opposing Goals (but would the term 'conflict' as with 'war' or 'struggle' reinforce the radical OPFORs like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. concerning their continued insistence that they are engaged in a 'holy war'?). Maybe it could be referred to as A Clash of (or Collision of) Opposing Idealogies and Goals (theirs - An Islamic transnational Caliphate).

We can go on and on... the point is, some people are so wrapped up in the proper PC verbage they have no hope for dealing with the issues that really matter.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however.

So what should/could be used descriptively for this current conflict that is continuing to unfold daily in lieu of the present description 'war on terrorism'? Should we even use the term 'struggle'? Consider that their word 'jihad' can refer not only to 'holy war,' but also is represented as a struggle. So what terms should/could be used to describe this real and serious life threatening antagonism? Perhaps it could be described this way - Conflict of Grave Concern or Conflict of Opposing Goals (but would the term 'conflict' as with 'war' or 'struggle' reinforce the radical OPFORs like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. concerning their continued insistence that they are engaged in a 'holy war'?). Maybe it could be referred to as A Clash of (or Collision of) Opposing Idealogies and Goals (theirs - An Islamic transnational Caliphate).

We can go on and on... the point is, some people are so wrapped up in the proper PC verbage they have no hope for dealing with the issues that really matter.

If we weren't in Iraq, there would be no conflict.... We are having no problem with muslims here in America... and if we were not in Iraq, there would not be a breeding ground for terrorists. Do a few things like secure our ports better than checking 1% of the cargo and abandon oil for alternative energy and have nothing to do with the ME... then they would have no reason to have anything to do with us. 9/11 was completely avoidable if the pilots weren't stupid enough to abandon their stations. There are still shootings in school after Colombine...we don't have a "war on school shootings". We try our best to implement policies to reduce this occurence and prepare our teachers... educate people and try to have parents involved in their kids lives... bad things happen.. thats life.

Our policies now are INCREASING hate against the U.S...

 

[Jaskalas]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however.

So what should/could be used descriptively for this current conflict that is continuing to unfold daily in lieu of the present description 'war on terrorism'? Should we even use the term 'struggle'? Consider that their word 'jihad' can refer not only to 'holy war,' but also is represented as a struggle. So what terms should/could be used to describe this real and serious life threatening antagonism? Perhaps it could be described this way - Conflict of Grave Concern or Conflict of Opposing Goals (but would the term 'conflict' as with 'war' or 'struggle' reinforce the radical OPFORs like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. concerning their continued insistence that they are engaged in a 'holy war'?). Maybe it could be referred to as A Clash of (or Collision of) Opposing Idealogies and Goals (theirs - An Islamic transnational Caliphate).

We can go on and on... the point is, some people are so wrapped up in the proper PC verbage they have no hope for dealing with the issues that really matter.

If we weren't in Iraq, there would be no conflict.... We are having no problem with muslims here in America... and if we were not in Iraq, there would not be a breeding ground for terrorists.

There are problems with that assertion.

Yes, there are terrorists in Iraq, but the more serious ones were foreigners entering Iraq from across the region to kill Americans and destabilize it. Iraq did not create them, it gave them a forum by which to fight us.

Now, if we had kept out of Iraq, and they had stayed in their own countries, then why is it not considered that those countries and their common ideology is the ?breeding ground for terrorists??

Iran and North Korea had entered into an alliance to develop nuclear weapons and missiles prior to September 11th, and prior to Iraq. To assert that Iraq is the source of our opponents in this war would be to blindly ignore all that had come before Iraq. To assert that they are not at war with us, would be to ignore their own words.

Do a few things like secure our ports better than checking 1% of the cargo

And seal the borders, or are they to simply not ship it directly to us? Opens borders render port security a moot point entirely.

and abandon oil for alternative energy and have nothing to do with the ME... then they would have no reason to have anything to do with us.

We are infidels. They are trained from birth to have everything to do with killing us.

Regardless of that, of course I support changing our energy. That does not happen over night, and does not change the trained beliefs of entire societies.

9/11 was completely avoidable if the pilots weren't stupid enough to abandon their stations.

Another 9-11 is not what we will face.

There are still shootings in school after Colombine...we don't have a "war on school shootings". We try our best to implement policies to reduce this occurence and prepare our teachers... educate people and try to have parents involved in their kids lives... bad things happen.. thats life.

Foreign countries waging war through terrorist acts do not equal a few loons and criminal action. The high school kids in Columbine weren?t in alliance with North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Do you dare to assert a comparison between the two?

Our policies now are INCREASING hate against the U.S...

I?m sure you?d tell us that regarding Japanese and Germans during WW2. Do you forget whose side you?re on? Our policies were created in response to war brought to us by an act of terrorism, which is the symptom of a violent ideology in control of many countries across the Middle East.

We can (and will) wait idly by for the next attack. Afterwards, what say you in regards to ?there is no war?? Would it take millions dead in our streets before you acknowledge it, or are you too busy blaming and demonizing us?

 

[conjur]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas
Foreign countries waging war through terrorist acts do not equal a few loons and criminal action. The high school kids in Columbine weren?t in alliance with North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Do you dare to assert a comparison between the two?

Name one foreign country that has waged war on the US via terrorist acts.

Go ahead. Just one.

I?m sure you?d tell us that regarding Japanese and Germans during WW2. Do you forget whose side you?re on? Our policies were created in response to war brought to us by an act of terrorism, which is the symptom of a violent ideology in control of many countries across the Middle East.

We can (and will) wait idly by for the next attack. Afterwards, what say you in regards to ?there is no war?? Would it take millions dead in our streets before you acknowledge it, or are you too busy blaming and demonizing us?

Ah, the ol' "resort to stupid WWII analogies". When you've gone that route, you've lost the argument. Time for you to GUGH, eh?

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however.

So what should/could be used descriptively for this current conflict that is continuing to unfold daily in lieu of the present description 'war on terrorism'? Should we even use the term 'struggle'? Consider that their word 'jihad' can refer not only to 'holy war,' but also is represented as a struggle. So what terms should/could be used to describe this real and serious life threatening antagonism? Perhaps it could be described this way - Conflict of Grave Concern or Conflict of Opposing Goals (but would the term 'conflict' as with 'war' or 'struggle' reinforce the radical OPFORs like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. concerning their continued insistence that they are engaged in a 'holy war'?). Maybe it could be referred to as A Clash of (or Collision of) Opposing Idealogies and Goals (theirs - An Islamic transnational Caliphate).

We can go on and on... the point is, some people are so wrapped up in the proper PC verbage they have no hope for dealing with the issues that really matter.

If we weren't in Iraq, there would be no conflict.... We are having no problem with muslims here in America... and if we were not in Iraq, there would not be a breeding ground for terrorists. Do a few things like secure our ports better than checking 1% of the cargo and abandon oil for alternative energy and have nothing to do with the ME... then they would have no reason to have anything to do with us. 9/11 was completely avoidable if the pilots weren't stupid enough to abandon their stations. There are still shootings in school after Colombine...we don't have a "war on school shootings". We try our best to implement policies to reduce this occurence and prepare our teachers... educate people and try to have parents involved in their kids lives... bad things happen.. thats life.

Our policies now are INCREASING hate against the U.S...

You're reply doesn't answer the question. I take it from your response that there should be no "name" because the threat isn't real and there should be no effort.

And you're a piece of work for the bolded parts. Really. Blaming the freakin pilots... wow. Comparing international terrorism to the Columbine shooting is a stretch even for you, right? You act like if we have nothing to do with the Middle East we won't have a problem. What color is the sky in your world? 1) we don't operate in appeasement and capitulation according to the demands of lunatics, and 2) we WILL face the problem eventually if we ignore the ME... only a few years later X10.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: Jaskalas

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however.

So what should/could be used descriptively for this current conflict that is continuing to unfold daily in lieu of the present description 'war on terrorism'? Should we even use the term 'struggle'? Consider that their word 'jihad' can refer not only to 'holy war,' but also is represented as a struggle. So what terms should/could be used to describe this real and serious life threatening antagonism? Perhaps it could be described this way - Conflict of Grave Concern or Conflict of Opposing Goals (but would the term 'conflict' as with 'war' or 'struggle' reinforce the radical OPFORs like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. concerning their continued insistence that they are engaged in a 'holy war'?). Maybe it could be referred to as A Clash of (or Collision of) Opposing Idealogies and Goals (theirs - An Islamic transnational Caliphate).

We can go on and on... the point is, some people are so wrapped up in the proper PC verbage they have no hope for dealing with the issues that really matter.

If we weren't in Iraq, there would be no conflict.... We are having no problem with muslims here in America... and if we were not in Iraq, there would not be a breeding ground for terrorists.

There are problems with that assertion.

Yes, there are terrorists in Iraq, but the more serious ones were foreigners entering Iraq from across the region to kill Americans and destabilize it. Iraq did not create them, it gave them a forum by which to fight us.

Now, if we had kept out of Iraq, and they had stayed in their own countries, then why is it not considered that those countries and their common ideology is the ?breeding ground for terrorists??

Iran and North Korea had entered into an alliance to develop nuclear weapons and missiles prior to September 11th, and prior to Iraq. To assert that Iraq is the source of our opponents in this war would be to blindly ignore all that had come before Iraq. To assert that they are not at war with us, would be to ignore their own words.

Do a few things like secure our ports better than checking 1% of the cargo

And seal the borders, or are they to simply not ship it directly to us? Opens borders render port security a moot point entirely.

and abandon oil for alternative energy and have nothing to do with the ME... then they would have no reason to have anything to do with us.

We are infidels. They are trained from birth to have everything to do with killing us.

Regardless of that, of course I support changing our energy. That does not happen over night, and does not change the trained beliefs of entire societies.

9/11 was completely avoidable if the pilots weren't stupid enough to abandon their stations.

Another 9-11 is not what we will face.

There are still shootings in school after Colombine...we don't have a "war on school shootings". We try our best to implement policies to reduce this occurence and prepare our teachers... educate people and try to have parents involved in their kids lives... bad things happen.. thats life.

Foreign countries waging war through terrorist acts do not equal a few loons and criminal action. The high school kids in Columbine weren?t in alliance with North Korea to obtain nuclear weapons and ICBMs. Do you dare to assert a comparison between the two?

Our policies now are INCREASING hate against the U.S...

I?m sure you?d tell us that regarding Japanese and Germans during WW2. Do you forget whose side you?re on? Our policies were created in response to war brought to us by an act of terrorism, which is the symptom of a violent ideology in control of many countries across the Middle East.

We can (and will) wait idly by for the next attack. Afterwards, what say you in regards to ?there is no war?? Would it take millions dead in our streets before you acknowledge it, or are you too busy blaming and demonizing us?

I am sorry.. but that is all fear mongering.
None of it is logical. That kind of thinking is parrallel with Joseph McCarthy's fearmongering. It works to scare some people, but not everyone. WW2 was a real conflict that involved one country invading other countries, building up an army, threatening a continent. 9/11 was nothing of the sort. A wholly preventable terrorist attack that occured because pilots left their cockpits. We prevented an attack in 1993 and we should have in 2001. These things happen.

In order to stop the anger that muslim countries have for the U.S. we need to stop meddling and controlling their affairs.. they don't go after Mexico or Canada, do they?

"
Yes, there are terrorists in Iraq, but the more serious ones were foreigners entering Iraq from across the region to kill Americans and destabilize it. Iraq did not create them, it gave them a forum by which to fight us. "

Pure speculation and wishful thinking. Plus, I didn't know there were "more serious" terrorists." Terrorism happens in Iraq every single day.. to believe that only the "serious ones" are conduicting the DAILY attacks are from foreign countries is ludicrous.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: shadow9d9

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
There is no method to stop terrorism.

There are methods that help prevent it however.

So what should/could be used descriptively for this current conflict that is continuing to unfold daily in lieu of the present description 'war on terrorism'? Should we even use the term 'struggle'? Consider that their word 'jihad' can refer not only to 'holy war,' but also is represented as a struggle. So what terms should/could be used to describe this real and serious life threatening antagonism? Perhaps it could be described this way - Conflict of Grave Concern or Conflict of Opposing Goals (but would the term 'conflict' as with 'war' or 'struggle' reinforce the radical OPFORs like Al Qaeda, Hamas, Hezbollah, etc. concerning their continued insistence that they are engaged in a 'holy war'?). Maybe it could be referred to as A Clash of (or Collision of) Opposing Idealogies and Goals (theirs - An Islamic transnational Caliphate).

We can go on and on... the point is, some people are so wrapped up in the proper PC verbage they have no hope for dealing with the issues that really matter.

If we weren't in Iraq, there would be no conflict.... We are having no problem with muslims here in America... and if we were not in Iraq, there would not be a breeding ground for terrorists. Do a few things like secure our ports better than checking 1% of the cargo and abandon oil for alternative energy and have nothing to do with the ME... then they would have no reason to have anything to do with us. 9/11 was completely avoidable if the pilots weren't stupid enough to abandon their stations. There are still shootings in school after Colombine...we don't have a "war on school shootings". We try our best to implement policies to reduce this occurence and prepare our teachers... educate people and try to have parents involved in their kids lives... bad things happen.. thats life.

Our policies now are INCREASING hate against the U.S...

You're reply doesn't answer the question. I take it from your response that there should be no "name" because the threat isn't real and there should be no effort.

And you're a piece of work for the bolded parts. Really. Blaming the freakin pilots... wow. Comparing international terrorism to the Columbine shooting is a stretch even for you, right? You act like if we have nothing to do with the Middle East we won't have a problem. What color is the sky in your world? 1) we don't operate in appeasement and capitulation according to the demands of lunatics, and 2) we WILL face the problem eventually if we ignore the ME... only a few years later X10.

It is the job of the pilots to ensure the plane gets flown.. to leave their station, exposing themselves to danger, deserves blame. Without them, no one could fly the plane. 9-11 was wholly preventable if the pilots did their jobs and used an iota of intelligence.

You are a piece of work for wanting to attack poor muslim countries with dictators that WE SUPPLY with endless money for oil that we could easily stop using if we put our minds and money into alternative fuels.

Additionally, Mexico, South America, etc never are bothered by the ME for a reason... POOR PEOPLE do not go around the world randomly attacking others! We choose to fund their lunatic dictators with endless cash. We also manipulate their countries behind the scenes to line our own wallets. This is why they hate us. They don't hate Brazil, that;s for sure.

Let go of your anger and aggression and use logic.

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Let go of your anger and aggression and use logic.

Right, Yoda

Besides the fact that you'd rather blame the pilots than the terrorists for 9/11, and you'd rather blame the US than the Jihadist groups and those that support them for international terrorism... you make some really good points :roll:

I mean, maybe you're right... we should be a lot more like Brazil. Waves of human poverty aint so bad. Because if we were just like Brazil, those that strive towards the Second Caliphate would become pacifists.

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
Let go of your anger and aggression and use logic.

Right, Yoda

Besides the fact that you'd rather blame the pilots than the terrorists for 9/11, and you'd rather blame the US than the Jihadist groups and those that support them for international terrorism... you make some really good points :roll:

I mean, maybe you're right... we should be a lot more like Brazil. Waves of human poverty aint so bad. Because if we were just like Brazil, those that strive towards the Second Caliphate would become pacifists.

I'm sorry, but the terrorists are obviously to blame as well... that should go without saying.. I'm not dealing with the braindead here, am I?

The pilots certainly had partial blame as well. Had they done their jobs and acted with common sense, it would have saved over 3000 lives.

With your logic, we might as well keep feeding the dictators, feeding muslim hatred, etc.. because they are to blame and we can't take any responsibility for our actions. The pilots have no responsibility for what happened and neither do we for making ruthless dictators rich and interfering with foreign affairs.

You have too much anger and hatred of muslims who you blame for all of these problems while not acknowledging our parts in all of this.



I guess in your eyes it made perfect sense for the pilots to abandon their cockpits with no one else to fly the planes... that is completely safe and logical...

 

[cwjerome]

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You have too much anger and hatred of muslims who you blame for all of these problems while not acknowledging our parts in all of this.

Exposed!

Now that's brilliant... nowhere for you to go, so pull out the bigot card. End of conversation- you lose. When you pull your head outta your ass and spit the sh!t from your lying mouth (which isn't likely) we can continue a reasonable discussion.

Is that the best you people can do?

 

[shadow9d9]

Originally posted by: cwjerome

Originally posted by: shadow9d9
You have too much anger and hatred of muslims who you blame for all of these problems while not acknowledging our parts in all of this.

Exposed!

Now that's brilliant... nowhere for you to go, so pull out the bigot card. End of conversation- you lose. When you pull your head outta your ass and spit the sh!t from your lying mouth (which isn't likely) we can continue a reasonable discussion.

Is that the best you people can do?

Did you just ignore everything?

I really don't get some people here. They don't want to take responsibility for any actions their country takes. They don't want to blame anyone but the "bad guys", while ignoring the "good guys" that make mistakes.

It really is scary. To attack me because I believe that the pilots should have done their job and actually believe that they had a huge revelation about it... or when I point out that they just have way too much anger and want to respond to everything with violence they say I am calling them a bigot... whew...

Scary stuff here. People just prefer to keep blinders on.

If 5 people are in a car and people in the back start arguing and the driver decides to turn around and argue while driving and then they crash... in this guy's opinion, only the people arguing are at fault, and not the driver for being reckless. Then he would spearhead a violent campaign about getting rid of people who argue while attacking anyone who points out that it was reckless for the driver to turn around... Then when people point out that they have too much anger and want too much violence against the arguers, they;d choose to ignore everything because they didn't like that they pointed that out. They will call you "yoda" as a "legitimate" response to you.