The W
Views: 145984137
Main | FAQ | Search: Y! / G | Calendar | Color chart | Log in for more!
17.9.19 0026
The W - Current Events & Politics - Is this the "Moral Clarity" Bush was talking about?
This thread has 3 referrals leading to it
Register and log in to post!
Pages: 1(2108 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
User
Post (15 total)
MoeGates
Boudin blanc








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
#1 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Click Here (story.news.yahoo.com)



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Promote this thread!
Grimis
Scrapple








Since: 11.7.02
From: MD

Since last post: 3059 days
Last activity: 1513 days
#2 Posted on | Instant Rating: 7.29
Whoo-boy...




ges7184
Lap cheong








Since: 7.1.02
From: Birmingham, AL

Since last post: 524 days
Last activity: 512 days
#3 Posted on
Why yes, of course you have the "good-guy" terrorists, and you have the "bad-guy" terrorists. Don't you know anything?
Leroy
Boudin blanc








Since: 7.2.02

Since last post: 68 days
Last activity: 63 days
#4 Posted on

    Originally posted by ges7184
    Why yes, of course you have the "good-guy" terrorists, and you have the "bad-guy" terrorists. Don't you know anything?



And the labels are inter-changable when convenient...



"It's hard to be a prophet and still make a profit."
- Da Bush Babees
Downtown Bookie
Morcilla








Since: 7.4.02
From: USA

Since last post: 797 days
Last activity: 487 days
#5 Posted on
After reading the referenced article, I thought the name Mujahedeen Khalq looked familiar. Sure enough, here they were being discussed in this thread (wienerboard.com) from about four weeks ago. So, the question now is, just how large a role did Rep. Ileana Ros-Lehtinen play in this decision?



Patiently waiting to be Stratusfied.
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 5846 days
Last activity: 5845 days
#6 Posted on

    Originally posted by ges7184
    Why yes, of course you have the "good-guy" terrorists, and you have the "bad-guy" terrorists. Don't you know anything?




Terrorists whose "work" is in accordance with American interests are "freedom fighters", while terrorists whose actions impede American intersts are still terrorists.

And yes, their status can and does change whenever Washington deems it to be beneficial to "national interests".

Jakegnosis
Morcilla








Since: 26.7.02
From: Maine

Since last post: 4651 days
Last activity: 4635 days
#7 Posted on | Instant Rating: 3.91
Is anyone actually surprised?

"War on Terror."

Heh.



Rangers Lead the Way!
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: In a Blue State finally

Since last post: 249 days
Last activity: 249 days
#8 Posted on
So how many years before it's revealed that we sold weapons to these anti-Iran groups? And the really important question is: Will it be before or after they turn into Anti-American groups?

-Jag



Roxanne from The Real Cancun on being famous:
"I'd rather be known for [dancing topless with my twin sister] instead of being smart or something. There's a million people who are smart. There's only 16 of us who were in Cancun together."
PalpatineW
Lap cheong








Since: 2.1.02
From: Getting Rowdy

Since last post: 4619 days
Last activity: 4462 days
#9 Posted on | Instant Rating: 5.44
This is a flimsy defense, but I'll offer it anyway. If Bush plans on wiping out terrorism, then I don't think it matters that we let these guys go. Play them off the Iranians for a while. If they want to go back to terrorism once we don't need them anymore, round them up then.



"May God bless our country and all who defend her."

George W. Bush, 3/19/03
Crip
Mettwurst








Since: 1.3.03

Since last post: 5684 days
Last activity: 4458 days
#10 Posted on
You're right, it IS a flimsy defence.....it also happens to be the truth.



StableWars.com - You'll never watch wrestling the same way again.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: In a Blue State finally

Since last post: 249 days
Last activity: 249 days
#11 Posted on
Eh. I realize that our current stance in the Israel/Palestine conflict is "We don't care how many Palestinians die" and so I shouldn't expect much different here, but I want to. Just because Iran's government is currently not Pro-US, does that mean we should just let an anti-Iran terrorist group run amok? Of course that brings us back to the "Terrorists" vs "Freedom Fighters" thing. We were all happy about bin Laden's stand against the Soviets and were happy to let him kill as many Soviets as he could. So if our policy remains the same, because Iran doesn't qualify as an Ally we won't do a thing to help them.

-Jag



Roxanne from The Real Cancun on being famous:
"I'd rather be known for [dancing topless with my twin sister] instead of being smart or something. There's a million people who are smart. There's only 16 of us who were in Cancun together."
MoeGates
Boudin blanc








Since: 6.1.02
From: Brooklyn, NY

Since last post: 5 days
Last activity: 5 days
#12 Posted on | Instant Rating: 6.28
Sure, there's plenty of strategic geo-political reasons for this policy. I'm not even saying it's a bad thing. But since Bush likes to pretend he doesn't care about that kind of stuff, prefering instead to smite all evildoers, I though I'd take the opportunity to point out that this is so much bullshit.

"Moral Clarity" means more than "I won't get a blowjob."

As for the Palestinians, when one of them dies it's front page news. When 1000 Tajiks, or Liberians, or Columbians, or Kurds (and these are our allies of the day to boot) die, it's lucky to get a mention on page 27. In fact, the reason you use Israel/Palestine as an example of the U.S. not caring about other people's fatalities instead of Bhutan is probably because we care and have publicized it so much they've made your radar screen.



"I'm sorry, I didn't think I was going to talk about 'man on dog' with a United States Senator. It's sort of freaking me out."


Associated Press interview with Senator Rick Santorum (R-PA), 04-07-2003.
Jaguar
Knackwurst








Since: 23.1.02
From: In a Blue State finally

Since last post: 249 days
Last activity: 249 days
#13 Posted on
Mostly I mentioned it because it was the same situation of terrorists fighting against a government in the middle east. Just this time the US happens to be on a different side in this instance. I'm not trying to pick a fight over our support of Israel (I'd do that in another thread), it's more of a statement of "Aren't we being a little hypocritcal here?"

If there were any Palestinian terrorist groups hiding out in Iraq I'd bet for sure that we'd run them down. So our lack of doing anything about these anti-Iranian terrorists is just wrong, in my book.

And I will say that the Palestinian/Israeli conflict was the first thing that leapt to mind while thinking about middle eastern terrorists. So if the Tajiks, Liberians, Colombians, or Kurds could've been used to demonstrate the same point, I apologize for not being fully informed.

-Jag

Of course, leaving these terrorists to harrass any Iranians entering Iraq makes practical sense. However, it turns our "Tough on Terrorism" stance into empty rhetoric, and make it even harder to determine whether our government is actually making a promise or simply blowing more hot air. Not that I'm surprised at more hot air from the Bush Administration....



Roxanne from The Real Cancun on being famous:
"I'd rather be known for [dancing topless with my twin sister] instead of being smart or something. There's a million people who are smart. There's only 16 of us who were in Cancun together."
-proletarian-
Chipolata








Since: 29.4.03

Since last post: 5846 days
Last activity: 5845 days
#14 Posted on

    Originally posted by PalpatineW
    This is a flimsy defense, but I'll offer it anyway. If Bush plans on wiping out terrorism, then I don't think it matters that we let these guys go. Play them off the Iranians for a while. If they want to go back to terrorism once we don't need them anymore, round them up then.



"If they want to go back to terrorism once we don't need them anymore"....

So that means that allowing them to bomb Iranian civilians in the meantime wouldn't count in your eyes as terrorism?

I hope you really didn't mean it to come out like that, because if you did then that's a disgusting viewpoint and you should be ashamed. An Iranian has just as much right to live free from terror as an American does.
FurryHippie
Frankfurter








Since: 29.10.02
From: New York

Since last post: 4769 days
Last activity: 3457 days
#15 Posted on
Listen guys, the points are argued every day in every way, but the real matter of fact is this: The US will support anybody, REGARDLESS of moral standings. If it's in AMERICA's best interest, we will support terrorists. We don't do what we do based on "righteous means". It's always been that the US will support ANYBODY if it benefits us and we will DESTROY anybody if it benefits us. Bottom line.

People have to open their eyes. It's not the first time we've back what would be deemed as "the bad guys".

(edited by FurryHippie on 4.5.03 1235)


Want my opinion of the war?

"The problem with the rat race is that even if you win, you're still a rat" - figure it out.
Pages: 1Thread ahead: Aces High?
Next thread: So, how 'bout that NWO?
Previous thread: This is what happens when Al Jazeera is your new source
(2108 newer) Next thread | Previous thread
Done for now, http://www.thirdage.com/news/levi-johnston-bristol-palin-break-up-a-2nd-time_7-31-2010 Anyone want to bet when they get back together?
- CajunMan, Someone just lost a bet! (2010)
The W - Current Events & Politics - Is this the "Moral Clarity" Bush was talking about?Register and log in to post!

The W™ message board

ZimBoard
©2001-2019 Brothers Zim

This old hunk of junk rendered your page in 0.082 seconds.