The W
Views: 101377090
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.12.07 2024
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - FINAL TALLY Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1 2 Next(2025 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (29 total)
Feely
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 11/723
EXP: 1297603
For next: 16595

Since: 6.10.02
From: Long Island, NY

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#1 Posted on 7.10.02 1945.35
Reposted on: 7.10.09 1957.51
Eighteen "nucular"s, one "mass death." Way to go Dubya.
Promote this thread!
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1336/3428
EXP: 13807257
For next: 152433

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 128 days
#2 Posted on 7.10.02 2110.44
Reposted on: 7.10.09 2114.51
"We will not live in fear"

If "we" are not afraid, why are "we" trying to kill people? Just for fun? Or was that part of our lives before the "terrorist attacks" and I have already forgotten about it?

(edited by TheBucsFan on 7.10.02 2211)
Pool-Boy
Lap cheong
Level: 81

Posts: 143/1759
EXP: 4960467
For next: 32403

Since: 1.8.02
From: Huntington Beach, CA

Since last post: 1371 days
Last activity: 137 days
AIM:  
ICQ:  
Y!:
#3 Posted on 7.10.02 2118.46
Reposted on: 7.10.09 2119.26
Weell, since the whole point of terrorism is to make your victims live in fear until they give into you... I think it is a pretty good thing to declare...
Um... you want us to live in fear, and we say go fuck yourself?
Geez, talk about nit picking... when it comes down to nitpicking about the most mundane things, you have it down pat... so are you saying that because Bush is the president, we should NOT fight terrorists, and those who support them? Maybe we should wait until 2004, in case a democrat gets in the office that can really botch it?
Jaguar
Knackwurst
Level: 107

Posts: 972/3273
EXP: 12852396
For next: 238957

Since: 23.1.02
From: Phoenix, AZ

Since last post: 254 days
Last activity: 55 days
#4 Posted on 7.10.02 2146.15
Reposted on: 7.10.09 2146.35
I didn't pay attention. Tonight, was Bush talking about fighting terrorists, or Iraq?

-Jag
Feely
Merguez
Level: 55

Posts: 12/723
EXP: 1297603
For next: 16595

Since: 6.10.02
From: Long Island, NY

Since last post: 312 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#5 Posted on 7.10.02 2155.52
Reposted on: 7.10.09 2156.04
They're ONE IN THE SAME! Don't you GET IT?
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 345/1528
EXP: 4108787
For next: 82361

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2885 days
Last activity: 2728 days
AIM:  
#6 Posted on 7.10.02 2301.25
Reposted on: 7.10.09 2303.08
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    "We will not live in fear"

    If "we" are not afraid, why are "we" trying to kill people? Just for fun? Or was that part of our lives before the "terrorist attacks" and I have already forgotten about it?

    (edited by TheBucsFan on 7.10.02 2211)



I think he was saying something about removing the root cause of fear, which may or may not be the very real threat of your or I dying in a tall building or on a plane next time we are in either of those locations. Or maybe in a shopping mall.

Edit: I like your quotes around "terrorist attacks." Flying planes into buildings really is a morally ambiguous act, isn't it? yay relativism.

(edited by PalpatineW on 8.10.02 0003)
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 517/3036
EXP: 11366000
For next: 105445

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#7 Posted on 8.10.02 0823.31
Reposted on: 8.10.09 0823.57
THE FINAL LESSON:
You shouldn't pay attention to little unimportant grammatical things, and your point is invalid because I don't like where you put your quotation marks.
TheBucsFan
TheChiefsFan
Level: 109

Posts: 1337/3428
EXP: 13807257
For next: 152433

Since: 2.1.02

Since last post: 128 days
Last activity: 128 days
#8 Posted on 8.10.02 1552.39
Reposted on: 8.10.09 1559.02
"Edit: I like your quotes around "terrorist attacks." Flying planes into buildings really is a morally ambiguous act, isn't it? yay relativism."

They're heroes to some people. Not me, but I am also not naive enough to think they weren't justified in hating America. Not to say what they did was justified, but America isn't the state of innocence the government would lead you to believe. You are right, "terrorist" is a very relative and subjective term.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 349/1528
EXP: 4108787
For next: 82361

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2885 days
Last activity: 2728 days
AIM:  
#9 Posted on 8.10.02 1607.57
Reposted on: 8.10.09 1619.47

    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    "Edit: I like your quotes around "terrorist attacks." Flying planes into buildings really is a morally ambiguous act, isn't it? yay relativism."

    They're heroes to some people. Not me, but I am also not naive enough to think they weren't justified in hating America. Not to say what they did was justified, but America isn't the state of innocence the government would lead you to believe. You are right, "terrorist" is a very relative and subjective term.



Yeah... who can assign any sort of moral judgment to the wholesale slaughter of innocents? Far be it from me to presume such authority.
OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 519/3036
EXP: 11366000
For next: 105445

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#10 Posted on 8.10.02 1731.23
Reposted on: 8.10.09 1747.59
    Originally posted by TheBucsFan
    "Edit: I like your quotes around "terrorist attacks." Flying planes into buildings really is a morally ambiguous act, isn't it? yay relativism."

    They're heroes to some people. Not me, but I am also not naive enough to think they weren't justified in hating America. Not to say what they did was justified, but America isn't the state of innocence the government would lead you to believe. You are right, "terrorist" is a very relative and subjective term.



Dude, just a bit of fair warning before this starts - You don't want to make this arguement. I've seen it. It gets ugly.

EDIT: Which isn't to say I entirely disagree...

(edited by OlFuzzyBastard on 8.10.02 1831)
El Nastio
Andouille
Level: 91

Posts: 573/2243
EXP: 7298599
For next: 170342

Since: 14.1.02
From: Ottawa Ontario, by way of Walkerton

Since last post: 2 days
Last activity: 11 hours
ICQ:  
#11 Posted on 8.10.02 1736.00
Reposted on: 8.10.09 1759.03


As far as I know, collateral damage is considered when doing a military strike. If it's done, they try to limit it (they being everyone).

The dudes who flew the planes into the WTC were trying maximize civilian casualities, and the strike wasn't military in nature, rather it was a slap in the face. if they followed that up with something else miltia wise instead of running into caves, then maybe I'd consider it an act of war and I could not think of it as terrorism. But they didn't. They ran away. The strike was designed as an insult with no intentions of following up with a war.

For those reasons and a few more, I call it terrorism.
StaggerLee
Scrapple
Level: 141

Posts: 40/6370
EXP: 33945981
For next: 174117

Since: 3.10.02
From: Right side of the tracks

Since last post: 6 days
Last activity: 1 hour
#12 Posted on 8.10.02 1743.00
Reposted on: 8.10.09 1759.07
Whether you call it terrorism or an act of war in not really the important thing here.

There is a leader of a nation who trains and funds people to attack the United States, our allies, and our interests.

We need to remove that guy, either by diplomacy or force, for the safety of the United STates, our allies and our interests.

OlFuzzyBastard
Knackwurst
Level: 103

Posts: 520/3036
EXP: 11366000
For next: 105445

Since: 28.4.02
From: Pittsburgh, PA

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 1 day
AIM:  
#13 Posted on 8.10.02 1938.06
Reposted on: 8.10.09 1944.57

    Originally posted by StaggerLee
    Whether you call it terrorism or an act of war in not really the important thing here.

    There is a leader of a nation who trains and funds people to attack the United States, our allies, and our interests.

    We need to remove that guy, either by diplomacy or force, for the safety of the United STates, our allies and our interests.




Who is that, precisely? The Crown Prince of Saudi Arabia? Reagan?
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 665/2111
EXP: 6669183
For next: 246745

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 43 min.
Last activity: 43 min.
#14 Posted on 8.10.02 2004.53
Reposted on: 8.10.09 2008.04
but I am also not naive enough to think they weren't justified in hating America.

No they aren't. Chileans are justified in hating America. Vietnamese are justified in hating America. Salvadorans are justified in hating America. Saudis should thank Allah that there is an America that invented the internal combustion engine every day of their lives. We make them rich with our idiot dependence on oil, fight a war on their behalf, all while looking the other way and smiling while they are running the most corrupt, autocratic, repressive dictatorship in the world. Oh yeah, we also armed the current America-haters (including Saddam) in their Jihad before this one.

Lefties get really simplistic about how their is "America" and "everyone else." Or maybe how there is the "Western Wold" and the "Third World." Somehow because the U.S. did some fucked-up things to certain countries, that means that is why other countries hate us.

The terrorists don't hate us because we assasinated Salvadore Allende, or funded the Contras, or supported Mobutu. Why the hell is Al Quada (not third world countries, or the poor, or whoever else) justified in hating us? Can you really come up with a reasonable answer?

(edited by MoeGates on 8.10.02 2106)
Fletch
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 22/89
EXP: 56552
For next: 1799

Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4422 days
Last activity: 4419 days
#15 Posted on 8.10.02 2129.22
Reposted on: 8.10.09 2135.20

    Originally posted by MoeGates
    Why the hell is Al Quada (not third world countries, or the poor, or whoever else) justified in hating us? Can you really come up with a reasonable answer?


My answer is, in a way, a sort of 'half-answer'. It's not justification for me, but it is justification to them...

Consistent, deep-pocketed, 'unrepentant' support of the nation of Israel for numbers of years.

While it's true that our money goes to many other Arab nations as well, you cannot ignore our effect on Israel's ability to survive.
PalpatineW
Lap cheong
Level: 77

Posts: 351/1528
EXP: 4108787
For next: 82361

Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 2885 days
Last activity: 2728 days
AIM:  
#16 Posted on 8.10.02 2140.36
Reposted on: 8.10.09 2159.03

    Originally posted by Fletch

      Originally posted by MoeGates
      Why the hell is Al Quada (not third world countries, or the poor, or whoever else) justified in hating us? Can you really come up with a reasonable answer?


    My answer is, in a way, a sort of 'half-answer'. It's not justification for me, but it is justification to them...

    Consistent, deep-pocketed, 'unrepentant' support of the nation of Israel for numbers of years.

    While it's true that our money goes to many other Arab nations as well, you cannot ignore our effect on Israel's ability to survive.



Yeah, but Moe said "reasonable." Hating the Jews isn't reasonable.
MoeGates
Andouille
Level: 89

Posts: 668/2111
EXP: 6669183
For next: 246745

Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 43 min.
Last activity: 43 min.
#17 Posted on 8.10.02 2149.13
Reposted on: 8.10.09 2159.05
While it's true that our money goes to many other Arab nations as well, you cannot ignore our effect on Israel's ability to survive.

Israel kicked the Arab's asses twice before the United States stopped backing the Arabs and became more neutral (and I should note, the commies didn't back Israel during this time either, and the Brits and the Frogs only the second time). Then they did it again before Nixon and Kissenger decided to have the U.S. give them any significant military or economic support. And then they did it again and developed the bomb to boot before they got the $3 billion a year that started after Camp David. Israel might not be as much of a powerhouse without our current support, but they'd still be surviving, and a lot more. The whole "Israel wouldn't exist without the U.S." is just an ego soother to the Arabs, who still can't fathom that a bunch of Jews whooped up on all of them by virtue of being desperate and better organized.



(edited by MoeGates on 8.10.02 2258)
Fletch
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 23/89
EXP: 56552
For next: 1799

Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4422 days
Last activity: 4419 days
#18 Posted on 8.10.02 2159.28
Reposted on: 8.10.09 2201.51

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    Yeah, but Moe said "reasonable." Hating the Jews isn't reasonable.


I'm sorry, I don't recal typing "Because they hate the Jews."

Try not to be so one dimensional on purpose.
Socks
Landjager
Level: 61

Posts: 247/888
EXP: 1786527
For next: 90080

Since: 25.6.02
From: Ottawa

Since last post: 877 days
Last activity: 490 days
#19 Posted on 8.10.02 2208.56
Reposted on: 8.10.09 2211.43

    Originally posted by Feely
    They're ONE IN THE SAME! Don't you GET IT?


The post of the thread! Great Job!
Fletch
Cotechino
Level: 22

Posts: 24/89
EXP: 56552
For next: 1799

Since: 17.7.02
From: Columbus, Ohio

Since last post: 4422 days
Last activity: 4419 days
#20 Posted on 8.10.02 2213.40
Reposted on: 8.10.09 2214.28
    Originally posted by MoeGates
    While it's true that our money goes to many other Arab nations as well, you cannot ignore our effect on Israel's ability to survive.

    Israel kicked the Arab's asses twice before the United States stopped backing the Arabs and became more neutral (and I should note, the commies didn't back Israel during this time either, and the Brits and the Frogs only the second time). Then they did it again before Nixon and Kissenger decided to have the U.S. give them any significant military or economic support. And then they did it again and developed the bomb to boot before they got the $3 billion a year that started after Camp David. Israel might not be as much of a powerhouse without our current support, but they'd still be surviving, and a lot more. The whole "Israel wouldn't exist without the U.S." is just an ego soother to the Arabs, who still can't fathom that a bunch of Jews whooped up on all of them by virtue of being desperate and better organized.



    (edited by MoeGates on 8.10.02 2258)



Moe that's half correct.

For starters, the US was the first nation to recognize Israel as a nation.

The first jot of monetary support came from Truman in 1949 with an Export-Import Bank Loan of $100 million. From 1951 to 1958 US support was primarily economic but tallies into around $1 billion.

Our first military loan came in 1958 with a small $400,000. But increased to just over $10 million a year in 1962 and balloned to $90 million in 1966. Nixon and Kissinger supplied the first grant, but to say that US support of Israel before then was insignificant is false.

You can find these particular facts at http://www.us-israel.org/jsource/US-Israel/U.S._Assistance_to_Israel1.html.

I also highly suggest http://www.palestinefacts.org/pf_1991to_now_israel_us_support.php

It's an annotated site, with it's source links coming in at the bottom of each page.

(edited by Fletch on 8.10.02 2317)

(edited by Fletch on 8.10.02 2319)
Pages: 1 2 NextThread ahead: West Coast Port Shutdown
Next thread: We got cartoons all up in your grill!
Previous thread: Democrat scare tactics
(2025 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
The 7 - Current Events & Politics - FINAL TALLYRegister and log in to post!

The W™ message board - 7 year recycle

ZimBoard
©2001-2014 Brothers Zim
This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.233 seconds.