Terrorist... or not...?

1st, how do you figure that i am immoral? just cause i say that terrorists should be killed. so you say that all we should do is give these bastards what they want, all to avoid killing someone who kills our people and is happy about it? 2nd, George Washington didn't go around killing innocent people just cause they were British, while the palestinians strap TNT to themselves and walk into a shopping mall and press the button, killing people whose only crime was shopping in that mall and being israeli. 3rd, the difference btwn soldiers and terrorists is that a true soldier trains for war, but wishes that his profession will never be called on, but when it is, he does his job. a terrorist kills just because they don't like someone. soldiers only kill soldiers (yes some civilians do get killed, but every attempt is made to avoid that) terrorists directly target civilians, seldom targeting the military.
and LeHah, you can add a big hell yeah to that
 
Originally posted by LeHah
God bless America: Not because we're right, but because we're right.
Click to expand...


Many US *incursions* in the world weren´t justified or for a good reason, and most of them were tragic or with bad results at long time, i doubt that always or often the US was right or just.
 
Well, we are the best suited to carry out the world's dirty work. After all, America represents the world by having within her every single ethnicity, religion and sociology. We embody the world's population, fer crissakes.
 
We may have all the world's ethnicity represtnted, but it is not proportional to various ethnicity's percentage of the world's population. Niether is the political clout of any ethnic group in the US truly a reflection of their numbers.
 
speakenglish.jpg
 
I agree, let's start by kicking out Dumbya. Cheney may be just as bad, but at least he can read a teleprompter.
 
Originally posted by Ender
We may have all the world's ethnicity represtnted, but it is not proportional to various ethnicity's percentage of the world's population. Niether is the political clout of any ethnic group in the US truly a reflection of their numbers.
Click to expand...

Ok, since when does the Taliban or Saddam have to 'poltical clout' to threaten us with biological weapons and terrorism?

Perportion doesn't make any difference as we are the single most diverse civilization ever. That alone gives us the right and the Darwin obligation to smash with hellish impunity whichever culture, people, religion or socilogical view threatens our lives and way of living. It's called survival. If you don't like it, do us all a favor and drive a nail into your forehead and jump in front of a bus.

I hate to tolerate the fact that there are pesudo-pacifist people whom believe war and violence can be constantly usurped with 'logical' or 'moral' standards. Your rights are found on the business end of a firearm, my friend. Live or die; it's your choice.
 
*Sniff* I'm so proud! My little Le Hah's all growed up and taking on the world!

Last paragraph....awesome!

SIC!:D
 
"I believe, what we have here-is a failure to communicate!"- Cool Hand Luke

I was refering to domestic governence within the United States.
We may have the most diverse populace on the planet, but the government is for the most part a bunch of older, white men.

Given the wording of my post, "any ethnic group the in US" (emphesis added), how could you have deduced that I was refering to anything other than domestic issues?

I do not see why anyone would dispute that finding a way to avoid getting your soldiers killed is preferable to putting young men and women in harms way every time some dictator in a funny hat pops up. That said, I recognize the neccesity of war in some circumstances. I recognize the importance of the armed forces, and I hold no ill-will towards those who have chosen to wear my country's uniform.

If you have a problem with me, that's simply too bad, we'll both have to live with each other on this board. While I disagree with you, I am certainly not going to suggest that you engage in an act which, though painful for you, would benefit the gene-pool at large. It's not the first time I've been told this, and I don't think it will be the last, but hey, if I let someone intimidate me out of my constitutionally guaranteed right to speak my mind, what kind of American would I be?

One last thing, I am not a pacifist, I used to call myself one, but realized that I would rather retain the ability to defend those that I care about.
 
Originally posted by Ender
It's not the first time I've been told this, and I don't think it will be the last, but hey, if I let someone intimidate me out of my constitutionally guaranteed right to speak my mind, what kind of American would I be?
Click to expand...

I really don't care what you guys are talking about here.. but I always think it's funny when people say they have the right to free speech on the internet.. Hell, even in the US you don't have unlimited right to speak.
 
"You're bunch'a goddamned pussies! This stuff will turn you into a sexual ty-ran-o-saur like me!" - Jesse Ventura in "Predator"

I was refering to domestic governence within the United States. We may have the most diverse populace on the planet, but the government is for the most part a bunch of older, white men.
Click to expand...


Yes and these older white men were voted into office. They represent the most diverse populace on the planet as they are voted into office by the most diverse populace on the planet

Given the wording of my post, "any ethnic group the in US" (emphesis added), how could you have deduced that I was refering to anything other than domestic issues?
Click to expand...


Because you are talking in the terms of foreign policy when you mention terrorism through out the rest of your post.

I do not see why anyone would dispute that finding a way to avoid getting your soldiers killed is preferable to putting young men and women in harms way every time some dictator in a funny hat pops up. That said, I recognize the neccesity of war in some circumstances. I recognize the importance of the armed forces, and I hold no ill-will towards those who have chosen to wear my country's uniform.
Click to expand...

As long as that uniform isn't American, huh?

Am I saying that I don't want a peaceful sollution? No. It would be nice, but we can't trust Saddam because he's about as slick as a happy seal and Bin Laddin is about as shady as a cul-de-sac in
the lower Bronx. We need to stick grenades in these guy's mouths for piece of mind for our entire country and it's future.

If you have a problem with me, that's simply too bad, we'll both have to live with each other on this board. While I disagree with you, I am certainly not going to suggest that you engage in an act which, though painful for you, would benefit the gene-pool at large.
Click to expand...

I agree that I should be more outspoken, at the sake of my own personal pain. It is not easy, but it does benefit everyone else when one does not mince words or spew glorious tripe for the cause of a fake peace.

It's not the first time I've been told this, and I don't think it will be the last, but hey, if I let someone intimidate me out of my constitutionally guaranteed right to speak my mind, what kind of American would I be?
Click to expand...

You do not have any right to speak. It is a honor that you live in a country at this time and are allowed the ability to speak your addeled mind whenever you wish. The only inalienable right you have is the pursuit of happiness. All else is fleeting.
 
Originally posted by LeHah
Perportion doesn't make any difference as we are the single most diverse civilization ever. That alone gives us the right and the Darwin obligation to smash with hellish impunity whichever culture, people, religion or socilogical view threatens our lives and way of living. It's called survival. If you don't like it, do us all a favor and drive a nail into your forehead and jump in front of a bus.
Click to expand...

Then is sure to assume that Saddam and Laden also want to *survive* and if for them the mean to survive is bombing with ¨hellish impunity whichever culture, people, religion or socilogical view threatens their lives and way of living¨ the US or another country, i don´t think that you have the right to complain,cry. If you want to play with those rules you must accept the other play with the same rules too.
 
Originally posted by LeHah
"

As long as that uniform isn't American, huh?

Am I saying that I don't want a peaceful solution? No. It would be nice, but we can't trust Saddam because he's about as slick as a happy seal and Bin Laddin is about as shady as a cul-de-sac in
the lower Bronx. We need to stick grenades in these guy's mouths for piece of mind for our entire country and it's future.



I agree that I should be more outspoken, at the sake of my own personal pain. It is not easy, but it does benefit everyone else when one does not mince words or spew glorious tripe for the cause of a fake peace.
Click to expand...



DANG! I think a few strategically placed nukes is the way to go, but your solution is easier on the hardware, if you know what I mean.:D
 
I don't really know what you are refering to with your slant on my uniform statement. I am an American citizen (something which I have stated before) and I know several people who are either on active duty, are reservists or in ROTC. Since they're my frinds I tend to think very highly of them. Both as people, and as an embodyment of what the armed forces are-which is to say-people devoted to their country who are sworn to defend it's laws and it's citizens. I have no quarrel with them. I do have a quarrel with those who would send them to kill or be killed for self-serving means.

You bring up a good point by saying that those "old white men" were elected, well in the last election we had 39% voter turnout. There is no mandate of the people here.

Have I ever claimed to have all the answers? Have i ever said that Saddam and Bin-Ladin are not undeniably evil? No, I have not. I have however, in this thread, and another, stated that if the issue is what bad guys they are then we should ditch the practice of proping up murderous regimes simply because they are friendly to US business interests. I have stated that perhaps there are ways to solve this without a war, I have agreed with the prospect of special forces/surgical strikes to remove the offending individuals without an all out war.

"You do not have any right to speak. It is a honor that you live in a country at this time and are allowed the ability to speak your addeled mind whenever you wish. The only inalienable right you have is the pursuit of happiness. All else is fleeting."

Hmmm, interesting assertion. I seem to remember something called the "Bill of Rights," which allows me to speak, assemble freely, have a fair trial, own a gun and some other nifty things.
So, unless five of you who hold this opinion are on the US Surpreme court, I will defer to that constitutionally empowered body to deal with this matter.
The "pursuit of happiness" is in the Declaration of Independence. which is not legally binding except in the context of establishing the US as it's own independent nation.

I can however think of one thing that may keep history from repeating in fifty years:
A foriegn policy that is designed to last longer than the next election cycle. Stop passing the buck from one politicial to another. Deal with the problem, it may not win re-election, but it might keep at least one group of people from hating our guts.

I agree that with Saddam and Osama, we are beyond the point of negotiation. However burning the places they live to the ground and sowing their nations with salt will not ensure the long term security of the US. It will only piss off the next generation of terrorists.
 
Originally posted by Ender
Hmmm, interesting assertion. I seem to remember something called the "Bill of Rights," which allows me to speak, assemble freely, have a fair trial, own a gun and some other nifty things.
Click to expand...

I think Lehah's point was that these are civil rights, not human rights. Even in the US, those rights have and are suspended in many situations. However, on the whole, you're permitted substantially greater freedoms in the US than the other places in question.

Originally posted by Ender
I can however think of one thing that may keep history from repeating in fifty years:
A foriegn policy that is designed to last longer than the next election cycle. Stop passing the buck from one politicial to another. Deal with the problem, it may not win re-election, but it might keep at least one group of people from hating our guts.

I agree that with Saddam and Osama, we are beyond the point of negotiation. However burning the places they live to the ground and sowing their nations with salt will not ensure the long term security of the US. It will only piss off the next generation of terrorists. [/B]
Click to expand...

After quite a bit of economic/international relations studies, I'm of the belief that the long term terrorist prevention methods are not political. Again this is based on my particular focus of study, but no matter what politics our nation undertakes, it is the economic condition that will determine whether a nation breeds terrorists or not. It is in the poorer nations where restless youths seek focus points for their anger. Where the greater economic disparities exist, the most likely breeding ground for terrorism lies. And on the reverse side, the richer a nation is, the less likely its youth will turn to terrorism. Obviously many of the nations that currently harbor terrorists are poor.. and the reverse is true as well. Look at Afghanistan and Japan. In the 1980's we freakin helped Afghanistan fight off the Soviets and by 2000 (after economy-shattering civil war) the Taliban was the symbol for anti-US sentiments. And in Japan, we freakin atomic bombed them and within two decades of that (after unprecendeted economic growth) they're among our closest allies.
So to bring this to a point, we could bomb the hell out of Iraq today, and it really wouldn't impact our relations 20 or 40 years down the line. The economic stimulus we provide (or do not provide) in the aftermath is what would be the determinant.
 
Originally posted by Ender
Deal with the problem, it may not win re-election, but it might keep at least one group of people from hating our guts.

... It will only piss off the next generation of terrorists.
Click to expand...

Right. Like they're going to like us if we DON'T kick the shit out of them. I'll stick with the well- placed nukes, turn them into glowing green glass, and drill for oil through the glass in radiation suits.
 
I agree with LeHah on everything but hating God. These fools encourage, and in some cases endorse going into public places (malls, churches, schools, etc) and killing as many *civilians* as possible. Turn about is fair play. While I feel we should target the "terrorists" only, I feel wasting time, resources, and manpower to imprison these jokers is insane, idiotic, and potentialy suicidal. Anyone who claims to be one should be executed, in public, and aired on international T.V. like a sport. They should make Stickdeath.com's Al-Queda-Cam a reality. Sure, they'll lie about their terrorist orientations, but a man afriad to be a terrorist is better than one who professes in public IMO.

P.S. A grenade to Osama's mouth is too easy a let off. It has to be painful and dragged out. Years of medical research in the "perfectly painful death" must be done first.
 
I love how our solution to terrorism is to beat these twisted bastards at their own game.

They kill 3,000 of our civilians, lets kill ten thousand of theirs.

Moral high ground? You can't get there from here.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top