We have not forgotten

POSTED BY: FutureMrsFIllion
UPDATED: Sunday, September 17, 2006 23:00
VIEWED: 2234
PAGE 3 of 4

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:18 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
How many times are you going to take my words and twist them. Take into account what the topic is, and what I'm talking about. Per the TERRORISTS, it's their goal to destablilize the Gov't for their own benefit.

AURaptor, I think you might benefit from taking just a smidge of the responsibility when people misunderstand your rhetoric. I'm not the only one that finds your method of argument a little...well, unstable.

Destabilize the government, you say? And how they gonna do that, exactly?

There is perhaps an argument to be made that inspiring our goverment to abridge civil liberties and centralize power in the executive branch is, in the long run, destabilizing the nation, but I don't think that's the argument you're trying to make here.

I can tell you that I have a goal to jog all the way to the moon, but it don't mean it can be done. Beyond the power to kill and demoralize, terrorists have no power beyond what we grant them. And Bush et al. have given these terrorists more political clout than any government has given terrorists outside of George Orwell's book on the subject. Terrorists want publicity, they want their cockamamie ideas heard, and Bush is quoting freakin' OBL in his addresses to the nation last week!

Quote:
The threat is real because tyey're not threatening to attack us, they've promised to.

AURaptor, I'm sorry, but this is precious. What power do their promises have exactly? Saddam Hussein promised to kick our asses out of Baghdad, too, didn't he? When you look up "empty rhetoric" in the dictionary...well, you know the rest, 'cause you wrote the entry yourself--c'mon, admit it!

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

OLDENGLANDDRY

Sunday, September 17, 2006 7:32 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We must kill them. That's the only way to win."

WOW.
That has got to be the stupidist thing I have ever heard.
Last man standing wins? You should aply for a job in the Pentagon.

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:34 AM

HK....keep that head firmly implanted in the sand. That's all I have to say

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

AURAPTOR

Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:38 AM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We must kill them. That's the only way to win."

WOW.
That has got to be the stupidist thing I have ever heard.
Last man standing wins? You should aply for a job in the Pentagon.

Well, it's true. Sorry. These folks won't be negotiating - ever. I conductd a poll on another thread, asking this question.

The Islmao-fascist will stop trying to kill us when?

a) when u.s. forces get out of Iraq
b) when the u.s. stops supporting Israel
c) when we end women's sufferage and make them 2nd class citizens.
d) when we force homosexuals back into the closet.
e) when all of the above are met and we submit to the will of Allah.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, September 17, 2006 2:07 PM

Auraptor,

Okay, this is not to gang up, and I do believe you actually believe what you say, I just think you're mistaken.

Quote:
We must kill them. That's the only way to win.

Sounds like John Kerry. No, it's not. Even Bush et al admit that it's not the case.
IMHO, OBL can go on and do his own thing just like Gerry Adams as long as we can reach an agreement of mutual interest. I believe him when he say he had nothing to do with 9-11, which doesn't benefit him to say. (He's worshipped as a god in the ME because they think he did it.) But I also believe him when he says the US must be out of the ME, and Israel must be destroyed and Europe must make Islam-friendly laws - I just think he's wrong about all three. But somewhere there an agreement must be reached, since this war can never end.

Quote:
They attacked us in '93

Clinton attacked us in '93. In Waco. In the WTC? Maybe Clinton did that also. I have no proof of that, but I have no proof of the other either.

Quote:
But to say we weren't attacked by who we were attacked by

Did I say this? No. I said that we don't know, and that who ever attacked us did so with inside help. Any detailed analysis of the situation will reach this conclusion. Was it completely an inside job? Maybe. Did it have anything to do with OBL? No, I doubt it. Did it have anything to do with muslim terrorists? Probably. Someone had to hijack airplanes. But who led this attack? We don't know. I'm sure that this person had at least one high ranking govt. official on their side. I'll guarantee it. If you examine what happened closely, there is no other way this could have gone down. I strongly suspect it took about half a dozen insider 'terrorists' in order to pull this off.

But logically, those who attacked us are those who attacked us, whoever they are.

Quote:
it's their goal to destablilize the Gov't for

No thoughtful debate, discussion, investigation or other excercise of free speech will destabilize a free society. In fact, the cold war showed us that bombardment with endless propoganda will not destabilize a free society, so this PoV is completely unfounded.

But worse than that...

The underlying premise is completely absurd. Al Qaeda in a mental comparison to the USSR is like a schoolyard bully in comparison to the armies of Mordor. If combatting the Soviets didn't mean we had to curtail free speech, then certainly this doesn't. My own fear of OBL is pretty close to zero. If he showed up at the door, we'd probably have an argument like this one. He'd say that it was dangerous for ideas other than the word of God (Islam) to be allowed to exist in society, that dissent needed to be silenced. I'd probably fruitlessly try to show that in a free society Islam could exist side by side with other beliefs which were seemingly incompatible.

Quote:
You should aply for a job in the Pentagon.

I suspect he already has one. That or a defense contractor job.

Quote:
when we force homosexuals back into the closet.

I'll take this one. If Al Qaeda with agree to peace in exchange for supression of homosexuality, I'll take it :) okay, admittedly, that's not fair. But it's hardly an absurd position. It's one a large portion of the american public support.

I think that OBL started Al Qaeda to end western aggression against his territory, and they would be perfectly willing to draw the line at having that accomplished.

I believe I had this same argument with Finn a while back, and his position was less extreme that your "they will never negotiate", he said "we need something to negotiate with." I can see that point. If we fail to convince AQ that we can take their land, or put them out of business, they may not negotiate. Why negotiate if you expect to win? But assuming we have a reasonably stong hand, they will accept a truce on the grounds of a certain level of non-interference. Which, BTW, is completely within their rights. Any people have the right to an unhindered development. We don't live in a society that bel

KANEMAN

Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:01 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
dream...truly sorry to hear of any losses to your, friends, family, etc...but to say Bush attacked us is flat out bullshit. Furthermore, by accusing your own President, you ignore the very danger which actually committed this crime. Islamic fascists. Stick your head in the sand all you want, but it doesn't change the facts.

Conspiracy nuts are as dangerous as the Islmaic terrorist, imo.

People love a happy ending. So every episode, I will explain once again that I don't like people. And then Mal will shoot someone. Someone we like. And their puppy. - Joss

" They don't like it when you shoot at 'em. I worked that out myself. "

Yep, Read the 9/11 commission's report. They do not claim terrorists are a threat, they claim Islamic extremists are the enemy. And they single out "Islamic". No mention or care about other terrorist groups... just Islamic groups. This conspiracy stuff is a ridiculous 20 second porno clip for a liberal circle jerk. Anyone who even brings it up is a suspected moron in my book and should be hanged by his pecker for "Conspiracy to commit treason with his head in his ass"....Well, it's true

KANEMAN

Sunday, September 17, 2006 3:13 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by oldenglanddry:
Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
We must kill them. That's the only way to win."

WOW.
That has got to be the stupidist thing I have ever heard.
Last man standing wins? You should aply for a job in the Pentagon.

What would you have us do, have open dialogues with them? You know that is NEVER going to happen. Go read the Islamic rhetoric, read what their goals are, read their threats, and look at what happens when we back off. If you think that comment was the stupidest thing you have ever read, you are a victim of extremism. Whether it is religious or political, extremism makes irrational asses of everyone...You obviously suffer from this horrid disease. Go get a backbone, take head out of ass, and get plenty of rest...you will feel better in a day or two....Well, it's true

PS. It's us or Islamic extremists. There is no middle ground...pick your poison.

DREAMTROVE

Sunday, September 17, 2006 4:28 PM

Kaneman,

By "us" you clearly mean the neocon commie agenda. Commies or terrorists. Hmmm. That's like saying, Death by tortuer, or death by dismemberment, you gotta choose no middle ground.

KANEMAN

Sunday, September 17, 2006 5:30 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by dreamtrove:
Kaneman,

By "us" you clearly mean the neocon commie agenda. Commies or terrorists. Hmmm. That's like saying, Death by tortuer, or death by dismemberment, you gotta choose no middle ground.

Actually, I mean all civilized nations with some sort of tolerance for differences in religion or politics. I am certain that we went into Iraq because the UN deemed Saddam a threat

. That being said, the middle east must be de-radicalized. If the governments already in place do not rein in terrorists and their cohorts, they need to be replaced. It is world war three. Islomo-extremist barbarism vs. Western Civilization. And the western countries (as France recently found out) that think they can stay neutral will find themselves cut by the sword of Allah....Well, it's true

HKCAVALIER

Sunday, September 17, 2006 10:09 PM

Quote:
Originally posted by AURaptor:
The Islmao-fascist will stop trying to kill us when?

a) when u.s. forces get out of Iraq
b) when the u.s. stops supporting Israel
c) when we end women's sufferage and make them 2nd class citizens.
d) when we force homosexuals back into the closet.
e) when all of the above are met and we submit to the will of Allah.

There are a lot of folks in the world who want to kill other folks, but the answer is seldom if ever found in waging wars. Wars are faught over resources, not ideologies. Wars are won by factions, not cultures. ideologies are merely used to control the hearts and minds of the people. Your heart and mind seem to have been won over long ago.

War is not the panacea you ignorantly proclaim it to be.

War is not a solution to the problem of terrorism.

Not waging war against other countries, is not the equivalent of "doing nothing" about terrorism.

You like to frame this debate as a choice between "negotiating" and "killing them all," but not only are there plenty of other choices, these two that you constantly mention are both equally flawed; neither will work against a terrorist threat.

AURaptor, it is impossible to end terrorism, just as it's impossible to end crime. We can however reduce crime and we can reduce terrorism. But just as capital punishment is a highly questionable deterent, so starting World War III to curb terrorism is a less than optimal strategy. There are arguments to be made that both methods actually exasorbate the problems they purport to address.

HKCavalier

Hey, hey, hey, don't be mean. We don't have to be mean, because, remember, no matter where you go, there you are.

FIRST PAGE PREV PAGE 1 2 3 4 NEXT PAGE LAST PAGE