Why the Left Hates America by Daniel J. Flynn

[etech]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
So hypothetically, what do you do when the demands are fair but the means being used to acquire them are not?

Reporter says al Qaeda issued new threat

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) -- A statement attributed to al-Qaeda threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam, an Arab TV reporter who received the unsigned document said Saturday.


Hypothetically, they can go **** themselves.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

Blah blah blah, nice response. Can you answer the question or what?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Corn
Only that the possibility of both being "insane" is somewhat remote, more on the motive next....

No it's not "remote".

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.....

Al-Qaida and the like don't kill just because they like to kill americans. They have their reasons, altrough their reason might (and propably are) be perverted

Evidently the concept of sarcasm has evaded your grasp.

I'm aware you were being sarcastic. But your sarcasm was useless since it was pointless. That is why I questioned your intelligence.

So, the mere presence of "toops" in SA is reason enough to attack civilians?

No, but it's one contributing factor.

Are our toops there against the will of the government of SA?

No. Have I claimed that they are?

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.

In a way he is doing just that. He sees the troops in SA as a tool of american imperialism (FYI: I do not think like that, I'm just trying to understand his motives), and he want's to bring that imperialism down by bringing USA down. How did he go about doing that? He attacked you where it hurts: in the heart of your economy.

Or better yet, gullible fools like yourself would do better than to take stock in the words of a mass murderer.

you are ignorant. Like I said, removing the cause of terrorism removes terrorism. Fighting the symptoms of terrorism does not.

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".

Islamic fundamentalism (well, all fundamentalism is IMO) is obviously underdeveloped sociologically. Once the society develops, such activity diminishes. Of course western societies still have their share of nut-jobs (Heavens Gate etc.) but they are nowhere near the severity that we see in Islamic fundamentalism.

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.

Once the society develops, such activity will diminish. What is the cause of terrorism? It can be several things: poverty, lack of direction on life, lack of meaning in life, narrow-mindedness, xenophobia... If someone possesses those qualities, it's easy for someone to say "Hey, it really is the fault of those wicked americans! You need to fight them and fly a plane in to WTC!"

I mentioned something about you getting a clue earlier, evidently advice not taken.

Obviously anyone who disagrees with you is clueless eh

?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Ornery
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?

Read my above post for some causes behind terrorism. Tackling them would reduce terrorism. But I guess working on social-issues isn't as cool or macho as going in with guns blazing

...

FYI: I support the war in Afganistan! Military action CAN get you short-term results, and those results were obviouly needed in this case.

Palestinians demands? I guess they want their own country. IRA's demands? Independence for Northern Ireland. And your point is?

 

[etech]

Originally posted by: EngineNr9
Blah blah blah, nice response. Can you answer the question or what?

"So hypothetically, what do you do when the demands are fair but the means being used to acquire them are not?"

By means being "used to acquire them" I assume you mean terrorism and the killing of innocent people. In that case you must refuse to meet their demands and find and punish the people responsible for the terrorism. Once countries give in and legitimize terrorism it will become just another political tool to be used for less and less important demands. That must not be allowed to happen.

 

[Ornery]

"Palestinians demands? I guess they want their own country. IRA's demands? Independence for Northern Ireland. And your point is?"

For Israel to "remove the cause of terrorism", they'd have to what? Give up Israel to the Palestinians? And yet this would not be "agreeing to their demands"?

For Protestants to "remove the cause of terrorism", they'd have to what? Give up Northern Ireland to the Catholics? And yet this would not be "agreeing to their demands"?

There are civilized, diplomatic means of achieving your goals/demands. There are economic pressures that can be applied without killing innocent people. The "cause of their terrorism" is their demands not being met. If they want to be treated in a civilized fashion, they'll have to behave that way. I'd sure like to hear Helen Thomas' plan for dealing with these murderers. So far, all she or Tom Daschel do is complain about our course, with no alternative suggestions. Even Nancy Pelosi changed her position authorizing force in Iraq. All she and her people have done up till now is drag their feet and slow down the process, thank you :disgust:

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: Ornery
"Palestinians demands? I guess they want their own country. IRA's demands? Independence for Northern Ireland. And your point is?"

For Israel to "remove the cause of terrorism", they'd have to what? Give up Israel to the Palestinians? And yet this would not be "agreeing to their demands"?

For Protestants to "remove the cause of terrorism", they'd have to what? Give up Northern Ireland to the Catholics? And yet this would not be "agreeing to their demands"?

Christ! I already talked about that in my previous posts! If you are unable to read, it's not really my problem!

 

[Ornery]

So, what it boils down to, is that ...removing the cause of terrorism IS, I repeat: IS the same as agreeing to their demands! IS, I repeat: IS the same as agreeing to their demands!

You can deny it a thousand times, but that doesn't change the FACT!

 

[PistachioByAzul]

But if you can't make right what needs to be right, whether or not people are blowing up buildings to get that point across, has any progress been made?

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: Ornery
So, what it boils down to, is that ...removing the cause of terrorism IS, I repeat: IS the same as agreeing to their demands! IS, I repeat: IS the same as agreeing to their demands!

You can deny it a thousand times, but that doesn't change the FACT!

well, all this really boils down to is Might Making Right. They want something; they kill us in order to try to get it. We kill them in return, rather than give them what they want. It's what's happened in war after war after war throughout history. Whoever ends up alive in the end is the winner. We're the bigger guy in this situation, so we see them as terrorists, and we see ourselves as having the moral high ground. They're the smaller guy in this situation, so they see us as imperialists, and they see themselves as having the moral high ground.

So we'll all continue to escalate things until one side isn't left standing. I know I've been pretty opposed to you up till now, but when I look at things in this light I guess it's just inevitable. There's not enough reason in the universe to convince everybody to get along or compromise. So, there will be a severe blood-letting, and maybe that will end up being beneficial for the world somehow. I feel bad for all of the suffering that will occur, but suffering is something that has been around for a long, long time and won't disappear for a long, long time. My ancestors lived and died with it, I live and will die with it, and my children will live and die with it. I guess I can let the rest of the world can do the same without causing me any undue worry. Live and let die.

 

[etech]

If the demands are right and just they will be achieved without terrorism. If a group decides to use terrorism as a political goal they only hurt their cause and the whatever they are 'fighting' for is even less likely to be given to them.

It's really quite simple. You do not give in to terrorists demands.

 

[bauerbrazil]

Originally posted by: charrison

Originally posted by: bizmark

Originally posted by: Ornery

Daschle Doubts Terror War's Progress

• "They continue to be as great a threat today as they were one and a half years ago. So by what measure can we claim to be successful so far?"

do you disagree with that statement? I mean, we've got strongly-worded warnings from the FBI indicating that attacks are on their way.... if our own government believes that attacks are likely, do you really think that the "War on Terrorism" has been at all successful? With OBL still alive and God only knows where, despite all our efforts? We sent thousands of Americans thousands of miles across the world to achieve a goal that has not been achieved. Seems like a waste to me.

Bin laden likely dead(this weeks tape is likely not real).
Al queda on the run.
Hellfire missle lodged in a senior al queda member.
Senior Al queda member captured today.
A tightening noose on Saddam.
Cutting oil supplies off to north Korea since they violated a treaty.
No attacks on US soil since 9/11.

We are not done, but we are not losing.

If Tommy wants to complain that is his right, but he looks foolish to only complain and not offer a different solution. Complaining just keeps him in the opposition party that currently stands for nothing, other than we are not republicans.

You wish.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: Carbonyl

Originally posted by: Tominator
Another absolute dumbass surfaces.....

Be specific or STFU!

Typical Liberal.....nothing but name calling...:|

Oh the irony especially before your edit.

 

[bizmark]

Originally posted by: etech
If the demands are right and just they will be achieved without terrorism. If a group decides to use terrorism as a political goal they only hurt their cause and the whatever they are 'fighting' for is even less likely to be given to them.

are you sure? How many Scots were killed trying to gain their freedom from the English? How many Americans died doing the same? How many riots were there in France before the aristocrats finally granted the peasants equal rights? King John signed the Magna Carta only after losing several bloody battles to the nobles who were rebelling against him. I know that these are all broad summaries, but I hope you get the point.

The capacity for greed, shortsightedness, and arrogance among governments and/or ruling classes is nearly unlimited. The phenomenon of peaceful protest to achieve political goals is a product of the last half century, and I'm not sure that it's applicable to every situation. In any case, there is a long history of people achieving "just and right" ends through violence (which often consisted of guerrilla or terrorist type tactics), and it's not certain whether those same ends would have been obtained through any other method.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

If the demands are right and just they will be achieved without terrorism.

So since when has might not made right? It took terrorism for the United States to gain independance. We've been subversively involved in international terrorism for the sake of securing business interests in otherwise unfriendly regions like Central America and the Middle East. "Terrorism" is just a word, if you treat it too seriously it will end up biting you in the ass.

 

[etech]

It took terrorism for the United States to gain independance.

Bull Sh@t. The war that the colonists fought was not by committing terrorist acts, tea dumping notwithstanding. I'm getting very tired of people trying to make that analogy. It does not fit the people that hijacked planes and flew them into buildings of people that were not fighting them.


EngineNr9
Are you in all of this trying to say that the end justifies the means. Are you saying that bin Laden has the right to try to convert all Americans to his brand of Islam so that any action he takes is justified? That is the question here. His method is to support and finance actions such as the bombing of the embassies, the events of 9/11 and it appears the Bali bombing.

bizmark
No, I do not "get your point". I separate the methods used and the aims of the groups involved and do not see the groups you stated as terrorists.

 

[Mean MrMustard]

Originally posted by: Ornery

Originally posted by: Nemesis77

Originally posted by: Ornery
Another tard with a baseless opinion and no better plan to resolve the terrorist issue...

And your solution is to re-create Stasi? Didn't East-Germany teach you that it doesn't work?

Why do you want to form the "Department of Homeland Security"? To protect your freedom and security? And while doing so you give up that freedom and security you are trying to preserve? Nice logic there

I already answered that, if you'd bother to read, numbnuts:

• Originally posted by: ELP
  

  Originally posted by: Ornery
  "...a few hacks writing books..."
  
  Well, we have Babs and company out in Hollywood, but they're all FAR left and not to be counted among the "moderate Democrats", right?
  
  We have Daschle & Gephardt, and Ole' Helen Thomas spewing garbage, same as Babs, but they sure aren't far left, are they?
  
  
  "So let me get this straight. We have to give up our freedom, to defend our freedom?"
  
  I have YET to hear another plan from ANY of these obstructionists. NOTHING! :frown:

  
  So you saying 'YES' to this question?

  
  "So you saying 'YES' to this question?"
  
  Basically, we have to give up some freedom for more security, yes. It ain't rocket science, it's reality. Again, you got a better plan? Does anybody on your side of the isle?

Now it's your turn. What's your big idea? None? Then STFU! :|

Hmmm.... I have no better plan, so that means give up freedom because there's no better alternative at the time...Thats logical.

Losing our freedoms is how we lose the war on terrorism. Do you honestly think OBL thinks Al Qaeda can conquer our military? I believe he is smarter than that. He and other terrorists who are or aren't affiliated with him go after civilians scaring them into thinking such ideas (Homeland Security and Patriot Act) will keep them safe. Don't get me wrong, throughout our history, we've had to TEMPORARILY give up certain freedoms during war and after the wars were over they were re-instated. But this war on terrorism really doesn't have an end does it? We are against a faceless enemy, we will never know when they are completely eradicated, therefore the gov't will have no intention re-instating them.

Now that we might have records of our purchases put into a huge gov't database, don't you see any gov't intrusion here? Big Brother will be watching like never before. Our children will grow up thinking nothing of this, so one day when someone comes along and suggests we do away with it, the very idea will be struck down and laughed at.

MyCarthyism if there ever was...

But nevermind, this is all gibberish because who am I to question the Bush Administration or the Right, right? Oh wait! Its because I hate America.

By the way, how do you know what side of the isle I'm on?

 

[PistachioByAzul]

The revolutionaries used the means at their disposal like the terrorists today. You can't draw the line where it suits you, that's why war happens to begin with.

What the media says Bin Laden's motives are, what he says his motives are, and the pathetic Western government behavior that helped to spawn this terror, are all different things.

Are you in all of this trying to say that the end justifies the means.

That's what all the war mongers are saying.

 

[etech]

The revolutionaries used the means at their disposal like the terrorists today.

Really? The revolutionaries used political and diplomatic means at first. Has al-queada tried that? The revolutionaries when the political and diplomatic means failed organized and publicly declared their goals. They fought on the battlefield against an army for their freedom. Al-queda strikes the innocent from shadows were they hide. There is no comparsion between the two.

What the media says Bin Laden's motives are, what he says his motives are, and the pathetic Western government behavior that helped to spawn this terror, are all different things.

Sure, prove it, prove that their are differences. Do you deny that an al-queda goal is to convert the west to Islam?

That's what all the war mongers are saying.

war mongers?, I haven't met any of them. I have seen people that have concluded that if Saddam keeps defyng the UN resolutions that he agreed to at the end of the Gulf War that he must be forced into compliance. I really don't know anyone that wants war.

 

[vi edit]

Sure, prove it, prove that their are differences. Do you deny that an al-queda goal is to convert the west to Islam?

Convert no. Kill/terroize those who aren't, yes.

 

[etech]

usatoday

Statement attributed to al-Qaeda warns of more attacks

DUBAI, United Arab Emirates (AP) ? A statement attributed to al-Qaeda threatened more attacks in New York and Washington unless America stops supporting Israel and converts to Islam, an Arab TV reporter who received the unsigned document said Saturday.

 

[PistachioByAzul]

They are doing what they are doing just as the American revolutionaries did what they did. The context is different, but the point is the same, that there's something wrong with the way power is being brokered and who is brokering it.

Angry, hurt, sick people will find all kinds of rational to support themselves. Doesn't change the oppression though.

Shouldn't Israel then, and the United States be forced into compliance with the UN resolutions they keep defying? No, because....might makes right.

 

[etech]

They are doing what they are doing just as the American revolutionaries did what they did. The context is different, but the point is the same, that there's something wrong with the way power is being brokered and who is brokering it

Uh no, they are attacking innocent people in another country. An act which will only hurt their cause. The revolutionaries fought on the battlefield against soldiers.

Pray to whatever god you believe in that al-queada never get any power.

Do we have to explain the workings of the UN again and which resolutions are binding and which are not?

 

[0roo0roo]

Shouldn't Israel then, and the United States be forced into compliance with the UN resolutions they keep defying? No, because....might makes right.

thats assuming that might makes right in terms of the UN always being right

 

[Moonbeam]

Etech, you mean the Americans hid behind trees and shot the British soldiers on the battlefield.