I belive his biggest beef with the west is the "western interference in to Muslim affairs", not the fact that we are christian.
I belive his biggest beef with the west is the "western interference in to Muslim affairs", not the fact that we are christian.
Originally posted by: Ornery
He also said, "Do not anticipate trouble, or worry about what may never happen. Keep in the sunlight."
Guess that means we shouldn't bother about terrorists at all, eh? Until you, our obstructionist's on the left, or Ben Franklin crawls out of the grave with an alternative plan, we'll freakin' stay the course. You do know who the first ones will be to start whining if we fail to avert another attack? Christ, search the forum topics from a year ago and you'll see that Bush is blamed for NOT averting the 9-11 attack!
Just what we need, another ass, from Findland no less, telling us how not to handle this crisis. Thank you SO MUCH, really appreciated!
1) your "any action is better than no action" viewpoint is getting old. I hope you can see the obvious fallacy in it. There are negative actions and there are positive actions. positive > nothing > negative. I'm not going to discuss whether everything we're doing in the War on Terrorism is negative or positive, but at least some of it I hope you'll grant is negative, and there are many positive things that we're not doing (including relatively SIMPLE things that we can do RIGHT HERE in the good ol' USA, for example securing the borders and inspecting imports more closely, as I posted earlier (completely sincerely)).
2) The Ben Franklin quote you returned with is taken out of context and meaningless in this situation. He's talking about a general course of living... don't worry about the little stuff that's not likely to happen. Terrorism is something that has ALREADY happened and is likely to happen again. This quote is not applicable.
3) I haven't seen terrorists strike Finland lately.
4) I return to my previous point of style over substance in our government's policies, with yet another Ben Franklin quote:
"Well done is better than well said." I think this war has been very well said by many people in our government but very poorly done. And I again submit that a poorly-done job is worse than no job at all.
5) On the topic of "we deserved 9/11" / "eliminating the root cause of terrorism" etc (being bandied about in this thread)..... I think I got into a very long argument with either you or etech about this at one point. (my username was wbwither at the time) I would not like to re-tread that old argument, but I would ask you to read this opinion piece for an example that hopefully isn't as clear-cut to you. Also note Bush's well-documented change of heart on the Chechnya situation after 9/11. Hypocrisy? Well, maybe I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly selling out his beliefs in return for political expediency (i.e. Russia's position on the UN Security Council and their much-needed support (or lack of opposition) for a US-led war on Iraq). He went from supporting economic sanctions against Russia for its role in Chechnya, to giving Puting free reign to do whatever the hell he wants to do in Chechnya, in the name of "fighting terrorism".
Originally posted by: charrison
(this weeks tape is likely not real).
[...]
3. It was not video tape. Surely a well connected organization can afford a $300 video camera and tape
[...]
I will stand by item #3.
So upon the basis of the tape's not being video tape (which, might I add, is also susceptible to editing) you discount it completely? And this is something that the CIA has gone over with a fine-toothed comb for several days. And yet you believe whatever the government tells you, without any sort of documentation whatsoever, about other stuff (e.g. Saddam's link to terrorism). Amazing how you can switch from being unreasonably skeptical to being unreasonably willing to believe, seemingly at will.
Also, it's not like you can just walk into the nearest Best Buy on the Afghanistan/Pakistan border and pick up a video camera and a few tapes. So that part of your argument doesn't make sense either. Al Qaeda's in hiding ... they're on the run from the US military. Presumably they're not able to just truck around all of their equipment. I'll bet they probably picked up a mortar or rocket launcher, or an extra case of machine-gun ammo over a video camera when they deserted their bases. Or maybe they just ran out of tapes. Or their batteries ran down. Look, obviously I don't know why they didn't make a video tape, but I can come up with plenty of viable reasons why they didn't, given their present situation in the world.
You dont get it. You cannot like this country and want to turn it into a socialist state at the same time. This country is based onf freedoms... something Liberals hate. Don't believe me? Look at what they stand for. I am not going to go through it all here, but socialized medicine, retirement plans, and media are just a few.Originally posted by: BDawg
Originally posted by: Ornery
It's one thing to have Babs and company squawking peace-nik, bleeding heart gibberish, but it's another realm when it's someone of the caliber of Helen Thomas or the former senate majority leader. If I said the Democrats generally thought this way, I'd be stoned! We all know they're "new Democrats" since Clinton came and went.
Sure there are bad Democrats, but there are bad Republicans too. You very well know that there are plenty of Republicans who would like nothing more than hanging blacks, gays, and muslims all while listening to a rousing speech by Benny Hinn.
The book is called, "Why the Left Hates America," which we all know isn't true. It doesn't say, some Democrats are evil, it says, all of the left hates america.
You'd be pretty upset if someone published a book saying "Why the Right Hates Jews," wouldn't you?
There is a difference between critical, and crawling in and out every orifice trying to find something.
Oh wow... now I have heard it all. Nemesis is suggesting we kill ourselves to avoid being murdered by terrorists. Wow...Originally posted by: Nemesis77
Sure you have to worry about terrorists. But you don't need Secret Police for that! You already have the means to deal with them. Remove the cause of terrorism and you remove terrorism.
You do know who the first ones will be to start whining if we fail to avert another attack? Christ, search the forum topics from a year ago and you'll see that Bush is blamed for NOT averting the 9-11 attack!
Just what we need, another ass, from Findland no less, telling us how not to handle this crisis. Thank you SO MUCH, really appreciated!
It's "Finland", not "Findland". And besides, you people comment on other countries all the time, it's time to return the favour. I just think it's pretty funny and sad that some americans look forward of having a Secret Police watching over them, while they claim to be the "Land of the Free". And what I find even funnier is that the people who are demanding for Big Brother, also claim to be the true patriots. It seems to me that those "patriots" are nothing but blind sheep.
You want to completely remove the threat of terrorism? That would mean turning your country in to a police-state. But hey, that's OK! Freedom is a small price to pay for "security". Just don't be surprised if foreigners laugh at your face next time you claim that USA is the "land of the free".
Originally posted by: Nemesis77
thanks, I love you too
If I remember correctly, there has been 3 terrorist-attacks on US soil. Bomb in WTC, bombing in Oklahoma and sept. 11th. And because of those incidents, you want to sacrifice your freedom? And who said anything about capitulating? You could just look at the reasons why some people attack USA (and don't be so naive and say "They hate our freedom!" (btw. if you give up your freedom, then aren't you "capitulating to your oppressors"?)) and work on towards removing the cause.
We're supposed to attend to our foreign affairs based on the whims of a fringe religious group, eh?
Comparing the Patriot Act to "Big Brother"
A better means of screening people who come to USA would probably yield the same harping about giving up freedom, secret police and Stasi...
Again, we're supposed to attend to our foreign affairs based on the whims of a fringe religious group? It's been said over and over that these maggots don't represent all Arabs, they're "extremists" and we're not supposed to lump them all together. Yet, we're supposed to have some kind of dialog to prevent getting raped?
Comparing the Patriot Act to "Secret Police"
[/quote]
Who is the one who brought up Stasi in the first place?
Again, you didn't answer the question. What did they do to deserve that terrorism?
What should Lindbergh have done to avoid having his child kidnapped? How should David Berkowitz been "cooperated" with? What should the people of the Washington area have done to avoid getting sniped recently?
1) your "any action is better than no action" viewpoint is getting old. I hope you can see the obvious fallacy in it. There are negative actions and there are positive actions. positive > nothing > negative. I'm not going to discuss whether everything we're doing in the War on Terrorism is negative or positive, but at least some of it I hope you'll grant is negative, and there are many positive things that we're not doing (including relatively SIMPLE things that we can do RIGHT HERE in the good ol' USA, for example securing the borders and inspecting imports more closely, as I posted earlier (completely sincerely)).
You could argue there's a negative side to every single Act that's every been passed! I have no qualms with closing the borders. Let's do it, although, where do you think the first complaints come from?
2) The Ben Franklin quote you returned with is taken out of context and meaningless in this situation. He's talking about a general course of living... don't worry about the little stuff that's not likely to happen. Terrorism is something that has ALREADY happened and is likely to happen again. This quote is not applicable.
The original quote by Nemisis is conviniently short one word. The quote should be, "Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary freedom deserve neither freedom nor liberty."
Nemisis seems to think we're taking this issue entirely too seriously. The Patriot Act is just over the top apparently.
3) I haven't seen terrorists strike Finland lately.
"Well done is better than well said." I think this war has been very well said by many people in our government but very poorly done. And I again submit that a poorly-done job is worse than no job at all.
This topic is about the reasons why people who hate America are on the left. I find that it's leaders on the left trying to hold up any progress on this issue, with no alternative recomendations. They're free to submit whatever bills they like in order to meet the same end.
IMO, Bush is doing instead of saying. That fits Franklin's quote perfectly. If anybody else on the left thinks it's being done poorly, let's hear something other than "We haven't made real progress in finding key elements of al-Qaeda...
5) On the topic of "we deserved 9/11" / "eliminating the root cause of terrorism" etc (being bandied about in this thread)..... I think I got into a very long argument with either you or etech about this at one point. (my username was wbwither at the time) I would not like to re-tread that old argument, but I would ask you to read this opinion piece for an example that hopefully isn't as clear-cut to you. Also note Bush's well-documented change of heart on the Chechnya situation after 9/11. Hypocrisy? Well, maybe I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly selling out his beliefs in return for political expediency (i.e. Russia's position on the UN Security Council and their much-needed support (or lack of opposition) for a US-led war on Iraq). He went from supporting economic sanctions against Russia for its role in Chechnya, to giving Puting free reign to do whatever the hell he wants to do in Chechnya, in the name of "fighting terrorism".
Political expediency sounds dead on. When Russia, China or Korea attack us, or factions in those countries attack us, I'm certain they'll be delt with. I don't agree with the policies of those countries. How they handle terrorism is up to them, but I'd still like to know how or why we should have been obliged to "Remove the cause of terrorism and you remove terrorism..." We're supposed to reason with these radicals regarding Israel?
Feel free to answer those questions I posed to Nemisis:
You could argue there's a negative side to every single Act that's every been passed! I have no qualms with closing the borders. Let's do it, although, where do you think the first complaints come from?
2) The Ben Franklin quote you returned with is taken out of context and meaningless in this situation. He's talking about a general course of living... don't worry about the little stuff that's not likely to happen. Terrorism is something that has ALREADY happened and is likely to happen again. This quote is not applicable.
The original quote by Nemisis is conviniently short one word. The quote should be, "Those that would give up essential liberty for temporary freedom deserve neither freedom nor liberty."
Nemisis seems to think we're taking this issue entirely too seriously. The Patriot Act is just over the top apparently.
3) I haven't seen terrorists strike Finland lately.
"Well done is better than well said." I think this war has been very well said by many people in our government but very poorly done. And I again submit that a poorly-done job is worse than no job at all.
This topic is about the reasons why people who hate America are on the left. I find that it's leaders on the left trying to hold up any progress on this issue, with no alternative recomendations. They're free to submit whatever bills they like in order to meet the same end.
IMO, Bush is doing instead of saying. That fits Franklin's quote perfectly. If anybody else on the left thinks it's being done poorly, let's hear something other than "We haven't made real progress in finding key elements of al-Qaeda...
5) On the topic of "we deserved 9/11" / "eliminating the root cause of terrorism" etc (being bandied about in this thread)..... I think I got into a very long argument with either you or etech about this at one point. (my username was wbwither at the time) I would not like to re-tread that old argument, but I would ask you to read this opinion piece for an example that hopefully isn't as clear-cut to you. Also note Bush's well-documented change of heart on the Chechnya situation after 9/11. Hypocrisy? Well, maybe I wouldn't go that far, but it's certainly selling out his beliefs in return for political expediency (i.e. Russia's position on the UN Security Council and their much-needed support (or lack of opposition) for a US-led war on Iraq). He went from supporting economic sanctions against Russia for its role in Chechnya, to giving Puting free reign to do whatever the hell he wants to do in Chechnya, in the name of "fighting terrorism".
Political expediency sounds dead on. When Russia, China or Korea attack us, or factions in those countries attack us, I'm certain they'll be delt with. I don't agree with the policies of those countries. How they handle terrorism is up to them, but I'd still like to know how or why we should have been obliged to "Remove the cause of terrorism and you remove terrorism..." We're supposed to reason with these radicals regarding Israel?
Feel free to answer those questions I posed to Nemisis:
- What did the Jews do to deserve that terrorism?
What should Lindbergh have done to avoid having his child kidnapped?
How should David Berkowitz been "cooperated" with?
What should the people of the Washington area have done to avoid getting sniped recently?
What did the Jews do to deserve that terrorism?
What should Lindbergh have done to avoid having his child kidnapped?
How should David Berkowitz been "cooperated" with?
What should the people of the Washington area have done to avoid getting sniped recently?
--------------------------------
You cannot change the past.
What should Lindbergh have done to avoid having his child kidnapped?
How should David Berkowitz been "cooperated" with?
What should the people of the Washington area have done to avoid getting sniped recently?
--------------------------------
You cannot change the past.
"You cannot change the past."
According to Nemesis77, these things could have been avoided. Simply remove the cause of terrorism and you remove terrorism... wbwither, may hold the same belief, I'm not sure I remember correctly.
According to Nemesis77, these things could have been avoided. Simply remove the cause of terrorism and you remove terrorism... wbwither, may hold the same belief, I'm not sure I remember correctly.
It's an interesting theory. You would need first off to know the causes of terrorism though. Since that would, in my opinion, involve knowing something about how we got to be how we are, I won't hold my breath. One would need first to get past one's own reluctance to feel how bad we feel. I don't think, therefore, there's much chance of that knowledge being very widespread any time soon.
What I think would happen, instead, is that people would come up with all kinds of theoretical (not derived from personal and real knowledge) ideas about what causes terrorism, things like imperialism, cultural interference, poverty, lack of opportunity, and these might make some sense since, what causes terrorism is thinking that the reason you feel bad is the fault of somebody else who is only doing what he does because he feels bad too. Reducing the number of grievances in the world couldn't hurt at all, but to end terrorism, will require eash of us 'to sit under the Bo tree and feel it all'.
Everybody feels that is not only their right, but their duty to visit suffering on those whom they imagine intends them suffering. By this means do we make our nightmare a reality.
What I think would happen, instead, is that people would come up with all kinds of theoretical (not derived from personal and real knowledge) ideas about what causes terrorism, things like imperialism, cultural interference, poverty, lack of opportunity, and these might make some sense since, what causes terrorism is thinking that the reason you feel bad is the fault of somebody else who is only doing what he does because he feels bad too. Reducing the number of grievances in the world couldn't hurt at all, but to end terrorism, will require eash of us 'to sit under the Bo tree and feel it all'.
Everybody feels that is not only their right, but their duty to visit suffering on those whom they imagine intends them suffering. By this means do we make our nightmare a reality.
Damn, you really are dense aren't you? Or do you REALLY think that removing the cause of terrorism is not the most effective solution to the problem? You believe that fightning the symptom is more effective?
You remove the cause of terrorism: terrorism stops
You remove the symptom of terrorism: terrorism endures, just waiting for the change to strike.
What I'm not saying is that you deserved sept 11th. You did not. What I am saying is that removing the cause of the terrorism removes the terrosism. What causes terrorism? Islamic extremeism. How to remove that? By supporting moderate muslims, by opening a dialogue with the muslim-world. After Iraq has been dealed with, you withdraw your forces from SA and Kuwait (they aren't needed there anymore then). Things like that. And if you do that, it would net be a sign of weakness of capitulation, it would be a sign of strength.
Originally posted by: Ornery
We're supposed to attend to our foreign affairs based on the whims of a fringe religious group, eh?
Again, where did I say that? Read my previous post for examples of what you could do.
Comparing the Patriot Act to "Big Brother"
It can very easily turn in to one. Your liberties and freedoms are already dimisnhed after the sept. 11th.
Again, we're supposed to attend to our foreign affairs based on the whims of a fringe religious group? It's been said over and over that these maggots don't represent all Arabs, they're "extremists" and we're not supposed to lump them all together. Yet, we're supposed to have some kind of dialog to prevent getting raped?
Again, I did not say that. You are putting words in my mouth. And withdrawing your troops from SA and Kuwait is not a sign of weakness nor would you do it because of some terrorist. After Iraq is taken care of, there's no need for those troops to be there. And if you withdraw them, you also eliminate one motive if the terrorists. But you seem to think that "Terrorists want us to do xxxxxx, and we could do so. But since the terrorists want us to do so, we must not do so!". You are saying that you should keep your troops in SA and Kuwait, even if they are not needed? Just to annoy the terrorists?
Who is the one who brought up Stasi in the first place?
I did, and it (Patriot Act or whatever it's called) can easily be perverted in to one.
Nothing. And what exactly does jews in nazi-germany have to do with modern-day americans? You are comparing apples to oranges. In one hand we have a nation that turned on it's own citizens and send them to the ovens. On the other hand, we have a nation attacked by an outside force. Not a valid comparison.
I am worried for your liberties and freedom. Those two are some of the guiding principles of USA.
I'm tired of being angry. Do you think you can do the same Ornery?
From people who I disagree with. (to come back to a point: not everybody who disagrees with you thinks the same thing! and the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend!) And I'm not talking about there "being a negative side", I'm talking about whether the act on the whole is negative. Of course virtually everything will have some downside, but if the good outweighs the bad, then hey why not do it.
You would argue that expanding the government's ability to legally tap our phones, and generally have fewer restrictions on exactly how and when it can legally spy on its citizens (among other stuff I haven't looked up), is nonessential?
you were grousing about how Nemesis77 is a Finn, and he's giving advice to you, an American, as if that somehow affected his ability to analyze the situation.
Interesting how you first bring me back to the "topic at hand", which isn't really the topic at hand, and in fact hasn't been since your own first post. You brought up Daschle and Thomas, as if somehow by simply placing quotes from the two below a book about "Why the Left Hates America" you can imply that they hate America as well. Obviously some of us disagree with this 'guilt-by-association' tactic of yours.... hence the content of this thread.
Of course you immediately return to the *real* topic at hand in the next sentence, and you again sound the tired trumpet of "opposition without suggesting anything better". Well, given the political realities I've stated above, and other things such as the "bully pulpit" aspect of the Presidency, I really don't see how you can expect much better.
The point I was trying to make was that Bush essentially agreed with the Chechens back before he was President. He implied that they had valid grievances, grievances which are strong enough to effect a change in U.S. policy towards Russia. Now that the Chechens are officially "terrorists", though, the ball is swinging the other way. Essentially what I'm trying to do is say "Look! George Bush actually agreed at one point that it's better to fight the root cause of terrorism!" (the Chechnya situation has long been afflicted by elements of 'terror' albeit not so large as the recent theatre takeover in Moscow, so I think I make a valid point). Of course, this Russia/Chechnya thing is (to us) a much more morally ambiguous situation. We're not involved personally. Thus (before political considerations weighed in) we were inclined to deal with the situation somewhat more rationally. We see this mirrored in the questioning looks that we've gotten from other nations around the globe regarding our War on Terrorism. U.S. conservatives like to blame it on the liberality of Europe or what have you, but really I think it's more their removal from the situation that causes the difference in viewpoint.
I made this argument a long time ago, so I'll try to keep it short here. People do not randomly decide one day to fly across the globe and plan an attack that will kill themselves and thousands of others. There must be a reason for such an act. People are inherently lazy... blah blah blah, I could go on for a while about this. Anyway, there must have been some very powerful motivation for these people to do this. There are two valid (non-exclusive) views as to what this motivation may be in this situation: 1) religious fanaticism and 2) political grievances. I think that Nemesis77 has done a good job arguing the things that we can do to try and help on both of these aspects... these 'root causes' of terrorism. It would take a well-crafted strategy to try and win on both counts, but I think it could be done.
I agree with Nemesis77 that these are silly, irrelevant questions brought up by you just to try to make us look like freaks who support Nazis, kidnappers, and serial killers. You've taken too many hints from the politicians you both love and hate (and love to hate). Whenever you don't have an answer to a question, you deflect it by bringing up something emotionally charged, and you make it sound like your opponent is in support of the negative aspect of that situation you've suddenly introduced into the conversation. This puts your opponent on the defensive, flustering him and causing him to lose track of his thoughts. It's often effective in real debates with stupid participants, but that's not going to work here. You can spout off about the Nazis all you want, but you should realize that tactic's not going to get you anywhere.
Moonbeam I understand what you're saying, and I can see how it applies, but I really don't see how it can be applied, if you catch my drift. What would you suggest, that we give the whole world a joint? Any solution that can be pulled from your analysis, would have to be implemented by no less than a god. The simultaneous enlightment of the entire population of the earth.... yes, that'd be a good thing, but it's obviously impossible.
P.S. At this point I'd like to ask anybody reading this to please reply with his/her opinion. It's kind of hard arguing in a vacuum..... it just becomes two people repeating the same thing over and over to each other, never having any effect at all. It becomes an echo chamber, and sooner or later one side just collapses from exhaustion and/or boredom. I'd really like to hear others' comments and maybe add some new fuel to the debate. PM me if you don't want to post in the thread. Yes, you, right now. I want to get an idea of how many people read these über-long politically motivated slugfests.
From people who I disagree with. (to come back to a point: not everybody who disagrees with you thinks the same thing! and the enemy of my enemy is not necessarily my friend!) And I'm not talking about there "being a negative side", I'm talking about whether the act on the whole is negative. Of course virtually everything will have some downside, but if the good outweighs the bad, then hey why not do it.
You would argue that expanding the government's ability to legally tap our phones, and generally have fewer restrictions on exactly how and when it can legally spy on its citizens (among other stuff I haven't looked up), is nonessential?
3) I haven't seen terrorists strike Finland lately.
you were grousing about how Nemesis77 is a Finn, and he's giving advice to you, an American, as if that somehow affected his ability to analyze the situation.
Interesting how you first bring me back to the "topic at hand", which isn't really the topic at hand, and in fact hasn't been since your own first post. You brought up Daschle and Thomas, as if somehow by simply placing quotes from the two below a book about "Why the Left Hates America" you can imply that they hate America as well. Obviously some of us disagree with this 'guilt-by-association' tactic of yours.... hence the content of this thread.
Of course you immediately return to the *real* topic at hand in the next sentence, and you again sound the tired trumpet of "opposition without suggesting anything better". Well, given the political realities I've stated above, and other things such as the "bully pulpit" aspect of the Presidency, I really don't see how you can expect much better.
Political expediency sounds dead on. When Russia, China or Korea attack us, or factions in those countries attack us, I'm certain they'll be delt with. I don't agree with the policies of those countries. How they handle terrorism is up to them, but I'd still like to know how or why we should have been obliged to "Remove the cause of terrorism and you remove terrorism..." We're supposed to reason with these radicals regarding Israel?
The point I was trying to make was that Bush essentially agreed with the Chechens back before he was President. He implied that they had valid grievances, grievances which are strong enough to effect a change in U.S. policy towards Russia. Now that the Chechens are officially "terrorists", though, the ball is swinging the other way. Essentially what I'm trying to do is say "Look! George Bush actually agreed at one point that it's better to fight the root cause of terrorism!" (the Chechnya situation has long been afflicted by elements of 'terror' albeit not so large as the recent theatre takeover in Moscow, so I think I make a valid point). Of course, this Russia/Chechnya thing is (to us) a much more morally ambiguous situation. We're not involved personally. Thus (before political considerations weighed in) we were inclined to deal with the situation somewhat more rationally. We see this mirrored in the questioning looks that we've gotten from other nations around the globe regarding our War on Terrorism. U.S. conservatives like to blame it on the liberality of Europe or what have you, but really I think it's more their removal from the situation that causes the difference in viewpoint.
I made this argument a long time ago, so I'll try to keep it short here. People do not randomly decide one day to fly across the globe and plan an attack that will kill themselves and thousands of others. There must be a reason for such an act. People are inherently lazy... blah blah blah, I could go on for a while about this. Anyway, there must have been some very powerful motivation for these people to do this. There are two valid (non-exclusive) views as to what this motivation may be in this situation: 1) religious fanaticism and 2) political grievances. I think that Nemesis77 has done a good job arguing the things that we can do to try and help on both of these aspects... these 'root causes' of terrorism. It would take a well-crafted strategy to try and win on both counts, but I think it could be done.
I agree with Nemesis77 that these are silly, irrelevant questions brought up by you just to try to make us look like freaks who support Nazis, kidnappers, and serial killers. You've taken too many hints from the politicians you both love and hate (and love to hate). Whenever you don't have an answer to a question, you deflect it by bringing up something emotionally charged, and you make it sound like your opponent is in support of the negative aspect of that situation you've suddenly introduced into the conversation. This puts your opponent on the defensive, flustering him and causing him to lose track of his thoughts. It's often effective in real debates with stupid participants, but that's not going to work here. You can spout off about the Nazis all you want, but you should realize that tactic's not going to get you anywhere.
Moonbeam I understand what you're saying, and I can see how it applies, but I really don't see how it can be applied, if you catch my drift. What would you suggest, that we give the whole world a joint? Any solution that can be pulled from your analysis, would have to be implemented by no less than a god. The simultaneous enlightment of the entire population of the earth.... yes, that'd be a good thing, but it's obviously impossible.
P.S. At this point I'd like to ask anybody reading this to please reply with his/her opinion. It's kind of hard arguing in a vacuum..... it just becomes two people repeating the same thing over and over to each other, never having any effect at all. It becomes an echo chamber, and sooner or later one side just collapses from exhaustion and/or boredom. I'd really like to hear others' comments and maybe add some new fuel to the debate. PM me if you don't want to post in the thread. Yes, you, right now. I want to get an idea of how many people read these über-long politically motivated slugfests.
I've got a billion and one things to do today, so I'll start from the end and work back... when I have time later. In the mean time, I'll leave you again with an unanswered question that is NOT a ploy.
"People do not randomly decide one day to fly across the globe and plan an attack that will kill themselves and thousands of others. There must be a reason for such an act. People are inherently lazy... blah blah blah, I could go on for a while about this. Anyway, there must have been some very powerful motivation for these people to do this."
How much "planning" went into the sniper's reign of terror? It involved planned attacks from one end of the country to the other, north and south. By your logic, there must have been a damn good reason for this, that could have been addressed. Am I missing something? I'd say your logic is flippin' flawed!
"People do not randomly decide one day to fly across the globe and plan an attack that will kill themselves and thousands of others. There must be a reason for such an act. People are inherently lazy... blah blah blah, I could go on for a while about this. Anyway, there must have been some very powerful motivation for these people to do this."
How much "planning" went into the sniper's reign of terror? It involved planned attacks from one end of the country to the other, north and south. By your logic, there must have been a damn good reason for this, that could have been addressed. Am I missing something? I'd say your logic is flippin' flawed!
Again, you are comparing apples to oranges. But I'll bite: did the snipers have a motive? Yes they did. Their motive might have been flawed, but they had some reason that they used to justify their actions to themselves. If they did not have motive, then they were insane. If they were insane, it could have been cured by treatment before something bad happened. If treatment wouldn't work, you would have to lock 'em up in an insane-asylum.
Let's continue for a while: Suppose their motive was "Hatred of fellow americans". How do we remove that motive? Removal of the fellow americans is out of the question of course. And let's face it, hatred of other humans is pretty insane. So that motive could have been removed with counselling and treatment. Left untreated, they would have been a stick of dynamite just waiting to blow up (like they did).
I know what you are about to say, and my answer is "no". I'm not suggesting that now that they have been caught they should just go see a shrink and be sent on their way (assuming that hatred of other humans was their motive). They broke the law, and they will pay the price for it.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
So Nemesis, your "solution" to the "sniper" problem, assumig the sniper was insane, would have been what exactly?
Counseling?
Why what a great solution you've stumbled upon there!!!!!!!!!!
....except for one quite significant flaw. Assuming the snipers (yes, there were two of them) were insane, how would you have detected that insanity prior to them acting on it? Do you, in your infinite wisdom decide that everyone should submit to a psychological profile to insure they would not be susceptable to commiting homicide? How often should all of our citizens be tested?
Perhaps the terrorists who flew planes into buildings were also insane. Maybe you've stumbled onto something there!!! Let's test the whole world!
Wait a minute! Didn't you just say that our supporting moderate muslim governments in the arab region would help to fight terrorism? Isn't the USA, in supporting any government, by definition "interfering" with "Muslim affairs"?
First you say it's our interference that causes hatred, they you say we must interfere? Does OBL want a "moderate" muslim government? His buddies, the taleban, didn't fit that profile, did they?
Here's a thought Nemesis, get yourself a clue then get back to me.
Counseling?
Why what a great solution you've stumbled upon there!!!!!!!!!!
....except for one quite significant flaw. Assuming the snipers (yes, there were two of them) were insane, how would you have detected that insanity prior to them acting on it? Do you, in your infinite wisdom decide that everyone should submit to a psychological profile to insure they would not be susceptable to commiting homicide? How often should all of our citizens be tested?
Perhaps the terrorists who flew planes into buildings were also insane. Maybe you've stumbled onto something there!!! Let's test the whole world!
Wait a minute! Didn't you just say that our supporting moderate muslim governments in the arab region would help to fight terrorism? Isn't the USA, in supporting any government, by definition "interfering" with "Muslim affairs"?
First you say it's our interference that causes hatred, they you say we must interfere? Does OBL want a "moderate" muslim government? His buddies, the taleban, didn't fit that profile, did they?
Here's a thought Nemesis, get yourself a clue then get back to me.
I know there were two. And that has exactly what to do with this? Number of the snipers is irrelevant. Hell, the snipers have NOTHING to do with the issue of terrorism and it's reasons! Only reason I talked about the snipers is because some morons try to bring them and other things ("eliminate the cause of terrorism eh? What about the jews and holocaust?! What about the snipers?!" Oh brother...) that have nothing to with this, in to the discussion.
And that is exactly why talking about the snipers and terrorists is about talking about apples and oranges. You know that there exists terrorists that want to hurt you. You have general idea how they would do it and you know their motives. Obviously comparing international terrorists and common criminals is comparing apples and oranges.
Are you naturally that stupid or are you just trying really hard?
I believe Al-Qaidas definiton of meddling is the fact that there are US troops in SA. That I believe is their biggest problem with USA. Luckily, once Iraq has been dealed with, those troops are no longer needed there, so you get two birds with one stone (troops back home where they belong, remove one of the biggest reasons why OBL fights USA)
OBL and his henchmen rise from perverted form of Islam. When society develops, that kind of extremism diminishes. And I never said that removing the root cause of terrorism is easy, just that it's the most effective way of getting rid of terrorism. Anyone with half a brain would see that.
You honestly believe that removing the CAUSE of terrorism is not the most effective way of removing terrorism? No cause for terrorism = no terrorism. You belive in fighting the symptoms? Let the root-cause of terrorism, let's just fight the symptoms. The Al-Qaida, the OBL's. Sure, that might get you some short-term victories, but realy victory is not a bit closer. There will always be new Osama Bin Ladens as long as the causes of terrorism persist, and they will always be plotting against you, and sooner or later, they will succeed. Why don't you start talking about things that actually have something to do with the issue, and not waste my or anyone elses time of snipers and such, since they have nothing to do with this.
EDIT: fixed quoting
Bizmark, if you know the story of the man throwing starfish back in the sea you will understand that one does not have to change the world to make a difference. I'm only interested in you. Can YOU see? Can YOU break the cycle? What does having a solution matter, knowing what to do, having a timeline, a plan, the answer. We know that a chain reaction in a reactor is accelerated and slowed by pushing in or pulling out carbon rods. Every hate that is absorbed and not re-radiated, every person who gives him or herself to crucifixion is a plus in a dying world. The one answer to all questions is to die to the self. But I can only tell you. My job is to die to myself. If I could do that, I WOULD change the world TOTALLY, because we are the world. We are what we have defined ourselves to be.
"Interesting how you first bring me back to the "topic at hand", which isn't really the topic at hand, and in fact hasn't been since your own first post. You brought up Daschle and Thomas, as if somehow by simply placing quotes from the two below a book about "Why the Left Hates America" you can imply that they hate America as well. Obviously some of us disagree with this 'guilt-by-association' tactic of yours.... hence the content of this thread."
Got a couple minutes for lunch, so I'll quickly see if I can address two points:
Basically, Flynn is bitching about people like many of Berkeley's freaks. Hey, we all dismiss them as the far left fringe, so no sweat, right? Nope. We have supposedly more centrist type individuals like Helen Thomas spewing the EXACT same crap as these freaks! Even worse, we have the likes of Daschle catering to their agenda too! Now they've put Nancy Pelosi in a leadership position. Guilt by association? Well, if the shoe fits...
"Removal of the fellow americans is out of the question of course. And let's face it, hatred of other humans is pretty insane."
These radical Muslims are as screwed up as the snipers. The point is, we can't prevent any of this terrorism without bending over backward to do it. Anybody that resorts to killing innocent people to get their way is the evil one, not the victim. Not in any way, shape or form. There's no excusing the actions of the snipers, Al kaida, Hitler, Sinn Fein/IRA, David Berkowitz or the Palestinians. To expect potential victims to bend to the will of terrorists is a piss poor option.
Apparently Helen Thomas and friends think we should just take it up the ass and keep a stiff upper lip. Damn! I'm glad she's on YOUR side! :disgust:
Got a couple minutes for lunch, so I'll quickly see if I can address two points:
Basically, Flynn is bitching about people like many of Berkeley's freaks. Hey, we all dismiss them as the far left fringe, so no sweat, right? Nope. We have supposedly more centrist type individuals like Helen Thomas spewing the EXACT same crap as these freaks! Even worse, we have the likes of Daschle catering to their agenda too! Now they've put Nancy Pelosi in a leadership position. Guilt by association? Well, if the shoe fits...
"Removal of the fellow americans is out of the question of course. And let's face it, hatred of other humans is pretty insane."
These radical Muslims are as screwed up as the snipers. The point is, we can't prevent any of this terrorism without bending over backward to do it. Anybody that resorts to killing innocent people to get their way is the evil one, not the victim. Not in any way, shape or form. There's no excusing the actions of the snipers, Al kaida, Hitler, Sinn Fein/IRA, David Berkowitz or the Palestinians. To expect potential victims to bend to the will of terrorists is a piss poor option.
Apparently Helen Thomas and friends think we should just take it up the ass and keep a stiff upper lip. Damn! I'm glad she's on YOUR side! :disgust:
Take a pencil. Take a piece of paper. Write this down 1000 times: "Comparing terrorists to snipers is comparing apples to oranges"
So you have to make a choice: Do you bend over backwards fighting the SYMPTOMS of terrorism, or do you bend over backwards fighting the CAUSE of terrorism?
I agree with you 100%. Have I ever claimed otherwise?
And where have I suggested that you bend over to the demands of the terrorists? removing the cause of terrorism is NOT, I repeat: is NOT same as agreeing to their demands! I know you have brains. Try using them once in a while.
Corn
Diamond Member
- Nov 12, 1999
- 6,390
- 29
- 91
Only that the possibility of both being "insane" is somewhat remote, more on the motive next....
Bullsh1t! Why is it comparing apples to oranges? Both were (in the case of the "snipers" and 9/11) were murdering thugs--the only difference was the scale of their crimes. The motivation for both attacks were murder and mayhem. Both accomplished that feat quite well I might add.....
Evidently the concept of sarcasm has evaded your grasp.
So, the mere presence of "toops" in SA is reason enough to attack civilians? Are our toops there against the will of the government of SA? Perhaps OBL should take your advice and not "attack the symptoms" and should instead focus his energy against the current government of SA for inviting our troops there.
Or better yet, gullible fools like yourself would do better than to take stock in the words of a mass murderer.
Perhaps he just fears our troops in his homeland and is himself afraid to force his brand of "moderate Muslim governance" (as if...) unto the Saudi people until such time that we become absent from that sand heap.
Simply put, he's no different that any common murdering thug, only he's got money and charisma to recruit and brainwash people to do his killing for him.
LOL, you go right ahead and prove that little theory of yours!!!!! LOL, yeah the Branch Davidians, the followers of Jim Jones, or that little comet cult Heaven's Gate simply disappeared because the USA became "civilized".
No, not at all, what I honestly believe is that you do not have a single clue about the CAUSE of terrorism and are preaching from a position of ignorance and contradiction. People commit violence against people daily, and no single "civilized" country on this earth is immune to these crimes. Absent insanity, there is always some form of "justification" by the criminal concerning intent--regardless if that justification is real or imagined.
I mentioned something about you getting a clue earlier, evidently advice not taken.
"...removing the cause of terrorism is NOT, I repeat: is NOT same as agreeing to their demands! is NOT, I repeat: is NOT same as agreeing to their demands!"
I am soooooo freakin' tired and sore right now, I can hardly think, let alone sit up and type. I'll take a loooong time and think about what we could do to "remove the cause of terrorism" without agreeing to their demands, if you tell me exactly what their demands are?
BTW, what are the Palestinian's demands? What is the IRA's demands?
I am soooooo freakin' tired and sore right now, I can hardly think, let alone sit up and type. I'll take a loooong time and think about what we could do to "remove the cause of terrorism" without agreeing to their demands, if you tell me exactly what their demands are?
BTW, what are the Palestinian's demands? What is the IRA's demands?
So hypothetically, what do you do when the demands are fair but the means being used to acquire them are not?
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 24K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter