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) Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?" Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"
"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!" -Norman Smiley
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?
Craig Reade "Pool Boy"Detroit Lions! 1-3! On the road to oh and sixt... Wha?
I didn't pay attention. Tonight, was Bush talking about fighting terrorists, or Iraq?
-Jag
With poison running through your veins, and death marching solemnly towards you, heroic acts become more of a necessity as you see your time dwindling.
Vanquishing your enemies, making amends to those you have wronged, and leaving words of love and kindness for those around you become second nature as your own mortality looms
However, true strength lies not in these last desperate acts, but in the actions of one who has to get out of bed the next day and face the consequences of doing that which you believe is right.
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) Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
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.
"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree." ---George Carlin
"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!" ---Homer Simpson
"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.
Mean Gene: "You know, I don't think it's a question - Goldberg, I don't think it's a question of who's next, I think it's a question of who's left?" Goldberg: "No, see, that's where you're wrong. It ain't who's left, it's - WHO'S NEXT?"
"Just how hardcore am I? Well this morning, I drank milk that was two days past the expiration!" -Norman Smiley
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.
Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
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)
"The only difference between lilies and turds are those humankind have agreed upon, and I don't always agree." ---George Carlin
"Facts?! Aw, people can use facts to explain anything that's even remotely true!" ---Homer Simpson
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.
Habs: 6-1-0-0. Lost to the Mapleleafs (ARG!). Renegades: Last place. All you need to know. Man of the Week: Jose Theodore hasn't lost a step. Goat of the Week: CBC for not signing Ron MacLean right away. Next VG Review: Chorno Cross. Next OSVG Review: Mike Tyson's Punchout
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) Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Originally posted by MoeGatesWhy 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.
Originally posted by MoeGatesWhy 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.
Using a key to gouge expletives on another's vehicle is a sign of trust and friendship.
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) Expressing myself EVERY day - but especially on July 22, 2002!
Originally posted by MoeGatesWhile 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) Nolo tubare circulos meos! - Archimedes