If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 01:24:20 GMT, Arif Khokar > > wrote: >>>How is Al Qaida blowing up the WTC any different than the guy who >>>parked his Jeep across the Metrolink tracks and got out to watch the >>>derailment? >>The former took a lot more planning and the motives were made public >>years before the actual event. > So killing innocent people is OK as long as you plan it well and > announce it publicly in advance? I was pointing out the difference between the two categories of actions that lead to the same result (abeit on differing scales). Your interpretation is incorrect. > Is the Oklahoma City bombing our fault, too, because our government > burned down a Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas? The government could have handled it much better than it did. Perhaps they should have considered the consequences rather than saying "oh well, **** happens." > Killers are > very good at rationalizing what they do - something which appears to > have escaped our notice. Unfortunately, we're not talking about individual killers. We're talking about substantial organizations that are formed based on certain ongoing events, policies, etc. These organizations do make an effort to explain their rationale. Understanding their rationale along with adjusting our tactics to take that into account will be far more effective than just ignoring it or trying to address the symptom (not the cause) and hoping they'll go away. > You're really naive if you think that removing a military base from > Saudi Arabia is going to stop these scum from hating us. People don't just hate other people for no reason. > They'll just trump up some other excuse and attack us again. They don't have to trump up another excuse. They can use the same one over and over since we really haven't changed anything. |
Ads |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
In article >,
Arif Khokar > wrote: >Matthew Russotto wrote: >[Bin Laden] >> And we're supposed to believe him? > >Let's just say I trust him as much as I trust our government. Take that >as you wish. I'll take that to mean you _don't_ think there's good reason to take his statements at face value. Personally, I think bin Laden just had a hard-on about the World Trade Center. >> And, even supposing we do, we're supposed to bow to his desires? > >If we're pefectly willing to risk innocent lives, then we shouldn't. So bowing to his desires is a risk-free scenario? >The point of the matter is that deeply unpopular actions usually lead to >deadly results. It's impossible to avoid all the actions which are deeply unpopular with some group or another, particularly in the Middle East. -- There's no such thing as a free lunch, but certain accounting practices can result in a fully-depreciated one. |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Matthew Russotto wrote:
> In article >, > Arif Khokar > wrote: > >>Matthew Russotto wrote: >>[Bin Laden] >> >>>And we're supposed to believe him? >> >>Let's just say I trust him as much as I trust our government. Take that >>as you wish. > > > I'll take that to mean you _don't_ think there's good reason to take > his statements at face value. Personally, I think bin Laden just had > a hard-on about the World Trade Center. You think he thought they ruined the Manhattan skyline? |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Bernard farquart wrote:
> > OK, think about this, if those countries did *not* practice these self > destructive and suffering inducing practices, perhaps people would not > be learing how to fly jets into our buildings, they would be planning the > new kitchen in thier condo. I doubt it. The 911 guys were Saudis from middle class families who had endured no hardships. Let them linger in the Middle Ages, I say. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
223rem > writes:
> Ignasi Palou-Rivera wrote: > >> I'm so respectful that I even respect pieces oif **** like you. > > So you respect someone you think is a POS? You are an idiot. > >> So where does your definition of "furriner" star? Is it at any >> passport requesting border? Your state? The edge of your county, town, >> neighborhood? >> > > Foreigners, to me, are people from countries not friendly to the West. > Europeans, Canadians, Aussies, New Zeelanders are our natural friends. Those countries are not "friendly" to the West. They are the West, together with NA. > Only an imbecile liberal (and you qualify) would lose any sleep over the > suffering of peoples that hate our guts. I guess with that sweeping generalization you are condemning as imbeciles everybody that follows some of the West's most cherished values. Whether you believe it's a Christian or a purely humanist thing, the West value of human life and dignity is a great tradition. > I'd argue that we should *encourage*, not fight, the self-destructive > customs and customs that Muslim countries practice. Whatever. -- Ignasi. (using SPAM trap e-mail address) |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Ignasi Palou-Rivera wrote:
> I guess with that sweeping generalization you are condemning as > imbeciles everybody that follows some of the West's most cherished > values. Whether you believe it's a Christian or a purely humanist > thing, the West value of human life and dignity is a great tradition. > Great but foolish. Our planet is grossly overpopulated. The last think we need is to contribute to population increases in fanatic-inhabited ********s like Somalia, etc. |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:28:21 GMT, Arif Khokar >
wrote: >>>The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a >>>military base in Saudi Arabia. > >> No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to >> destroy something. > >Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit >mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of >parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason >behind the attacks. You have got be kidding. Use your mind? Why don't you? The fact is that your friends decided to attack us and used an excuse that we were violating their land. Problem with that theory is that it wasn't their land. See, bin laden had his citizenship revoked by Saudi Arabia. He was living in Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan - where ever he could find mindless ****s like you to support him. |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
DTJ wrote:
> On Sun, 24 Apr 2005 03:28:21 GMT, Arif Khokar > > wrote: > > >>>>The reason that occured was the fact that *we* were maintaining a >>>>military base in Saudi Arabia. >> >>>No. The reason that occurred was that some loons got together and decided to >>>destroy something. >> >>Yes, because in your mind, people will go to great lengths to commit >>mass murder for no reason whatsoever. Use your mind for once instead of >>parroting propaganda that the government spoon fed you about the reason >>behind the attacks. > > > You have got be kidding. Use your mind? Why don't you? The fact is > that your friends decided to attack us and used an excuse that we were > violating their land. Problem with that theory is that it wasn't > their land. See, bin laden had his citizenship revoked by Saudi > Arabia. He was living in Sudan, Afghanistan and Pakistan - where ever > he could find mindless ****s like you to support him. Where did you get the idea that Arif supports Bin Laden? Just because he has an unusual name? |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Scott en Aztlán wrote:
> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:54:59 GMT, Arif Khokar > > wrote: > You're missing the point. > > Mentally ill people will use anything they like to "justify" their > actions; that doesn't make their assignment of blame rational. Our government keeps sticking its "nose" into their business. It's been going on for at least 50 years. For instance, take Iran. The CIA planned a coup to overthrow the the elected government and installed the Shah back in the '50s. A little over 20 years later, mainly due to oppression under the Shah, a revolution took place and everyone's directing their hatred towards our country. For some reason, your point of view appears to ignore the cause and wonder why those people hate us for reasons you can't understand. Similar interference lead to similar consequences and similar attitudes throughout the Middle East and Latin America and some parts of Africa. >>>Is the Oklahoma City bombing our fault, too, because our government >>>burned down a Branch Davidian compound in Waco, Texas? >>The government could have handled it much better than it did. Perhaps >>they should have considered the consequences rather than saying "oh >>well, **** happens." > I'm sorry, I didn't see a "yes" or a "no" in there anywhere. > Care to try again? No. >>>Killers are >>>very good at rationalizing what they do - something which appears to >>>have escaped our notice. >>Unfortunately, we're not talking about individual killers. We're >>talking about substantial organizations that are formed based on certain >>ongoing events, policies, etc. These organizations do make an effort to >>explain their rationale. Understanding their rationale along with >>adjusting our tactics to take that into account will be far more >>effective than just ignoring it or trying to address the symptom (not >>the cause) and hoping they'll go away. > Let me ask you a question: if some group of mentall ill people asked > you to abandon your house because they believe it is the sacred > landing ground for visitors from the planet Morongo, would you move > out? It depends on how many people. Besides, it's already happened in the Middle East back in '48 and '67 and continues today. > Why or why not? What if they blew up your car, killing your wife > and son, because of their "religious" beliefs? I suppose that if I were to go on a killing rampage as a result, taking out civilians from that group whereever I go, then people from that group who hold view that corresponds to what your views are with regards to actual events would brand me a terrorist and say that I'm mentally ill. They'll conclude this because they, for some reason, do not understand why I "hate" them. > Just because they have a reason doesn't make it a valid or rational > reason. Doesn't matter. The reason exists and we're not doing anything to address it. Therefore the status quo remains and people get killed. If that's the outcome you want, then so be it. >>>They'll just trump up some other excuse and attack us again. >>They don't have to trump up another excuse. They can use the same one >>over and over since we really haven't changed anything. > Tell me, if our presence offends so many peoples' "religious" > sensibilities, why does the Saudi Government allow us to maintain a > military base in their country? Because, like may governments in the Middle East, they're more interested in money than what the people want. The motives behind the Saudi Government's decision to allow us to maintain military basis is no different than Saddam's motive to embezzle from the oil-for-food program. > Why don't they just ask us to leave? Probably cause we were giving the government some substantial reward (trade agreements, arms deals, aid money, etc.). > Could it be that *rational* people are not offended by our presence? I suppose we have no right to be offended by what the corporate officials at Enron did since their rationale was to get a lot of money out of the deal. Unlike corporations, there is no accountability for a foreign government. |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
"Arif Khokar" > wrote in message ... > Scott en Aztlán wrote: >> On Mon, 25 Apr 2005 15:54:59 GMT, Arif Khokar > >> wrote: > >> You're missing the point. >> >> Mentally ill people will use anything they like to "justify" their >> actions; that doesn't make their assignment of blame rational. > > Our government keeps sticking its "nose" into their business. It's been > going on for at least 50 years. For instance, take Iran. The CIA planned > a coup to overthrow the the elected government and installed the Shah back > in the '50s. A little over 20 years later, mainly due to oppression under > the Shah, a revolution took place and everyone's directing their hatred > towards our country. > No, something is not the same, because how many Iranians have actually commited terrorist acts upon US soil of its interests *outside* of Iran? > For some reason, your point of view appears to ignore the cause and wonder > why those people hate us for reasons you can't understand. > No, I think the thing is that people can understand if some group has a legitimate complaint against the actions of our government, but if we station some troops on the ground (and hide the females and don't allow and unnessesary outsid trips) and some group decides to take down two major buildings and kill over 3000 non combatants that is NOT A REASONABLE RESPONSE and does not really merit serious consideration of their views. They have moved any discussion of the merits of thier cause from the "lets consider that" to the "f*ck 'em that's why we have an army" realm. > Similar interference lead to similar consequences and similar attitudes > throughout the Middle East and Latin America and some parts of Africa. > WHAT SIMILAR CONSEQUENCES??? What were they? Did I forget? I am getting kind of old. Bernard |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Drive Train Damaged $$$$$ ?? | popeyeball | Jeep | 4 | March 29th 05 05:00 PM |
problem with 94 Grand Caravan ES all wheel drive | Mike Hannon | Chrysler | 0 | January 16th 05 11:30 PM |
Honda Passport - "Power" and "Winter" drive switches | ajpdla | Honda | 5 | November 5th 04 04:32 AM |
93 Civic stalling at stop in drive | Apurba Mukherjee | Honda | 3 | October 21st 04 02:44 PM |
92 Accord stalling at stop (in drive) after warm | eric | Honda | 2 | October 17th 04 11:17 PM |