Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:34 am

I'd kill them myself if ever given the opportunity

they'd just as soon kill any of you as me

are you living in an irony free zone?

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 11:40 am

How is that? What's wrong with those statements? I would kill them if given the opportunity. I spent 8 years in the military, and never had the chance. It goes way beyond 9/11 too. They've been attacking us for years now, and we haven't done anything serious about it unitl now.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:15 pm

they would kill you, you would kill them, you are no different from them, they are no different from you. I wish we could designate a large portion of some continent for y'all to play on and leave the rest of us out of it.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 12:42 pm

Sounds like this is personal for you. The reason I'd kill them is different than the reason they'd kill me. They seek out innocents to kill in mass numbers to advance their religion. I would kill them to protect my own. See the difference yet?

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:23 pm

I see that you see a difference. I also see that if either side is asked the answers sound pretty similar. It is done in the name of protecting one's own on both sides while in fact it is really done, on both sides, for power. If you would blindly kill 'them' then you are no different.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:42 pm

I'm trying to figure out how anyone could view flying loaded airplanes into various buildings killing thousands as "protecting your own". I'm not blindly killing anyone. It's pretty clear who I'd kill and why. This is war whether you believe that or not, and I guarantee there will be more massive attacks in this country. Why don't we just turn the other cheek huh?

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 1:52 pm

They feel they are protecting their own and that this is a state of war or jihad for them too. They don't plan to stop until the USA lives under Sharia law. That's something to think about.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:09 pm

actually, the current plan calls for them to stop when we have removed our troops from their lands and stop propping up corrupt governments in said lands. There is no call for sharia in the 'land of the infidels'.
I recognize this as war. Until we are ready to loan them a few f-117 squadrons, a pile of armored divisions, nukes, and a fleet, they attack in the only way they can. It's called assymetrical warfare. It's what you would do to 'protect your own' if you were fighting the worlds largest military.

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:15 pm

ecliptic wrote:I'm trying to figure out how anyone could view flying loaded airplanes into various buildings killing thousands as "protecting your own". I'm not blindly killing anyone. It's pretty clear who I'd kill and why. This is war whether you believe that or not, and I guarantee there will be more massive attacks in this country. Why don't we just turn the other cheek huh?

From the Crusades to the theft of their resources, I'd say the scales fall to our side. If you can find this book "Storm of the Arab World" (is was co-authored by a jew too), you hear it from their perspective.

But, I say it is all naught cause because the One God Religion of the World soon comes to an end and we lost with them. Make way for the next evolutionary species, we have failed!

Mean time, I'm just dancing with my BM Buddies in the desert waiting for the apocalypse and some how I see that it is good and accept our faith brought on to my the innorance of others!

"But can we dance into the fire
That fatal kiss is all we need
Dance into the fire
To fatal sounds of broken dreams
Dance into the fire
That fatal kiss is all we need
Dance into the fire
When all we see.. is the view to a kill"

Now for a commercial...

A II Z

Guest · Post by **Guest** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:18 pm

There can be a middle ground between turning the other cheek and "killing them"

One part that's tough for me, in regards to the death penalty in general, is that we grow to depend on someone else to tell us who them are.

I get you mean Al Queda by them, so I get what you're saying.

I think we do in some cases have to rely on the words that our elected leaders give us so that we aren't locked into a state of inaction, unable to move because we don't believe anything.

But the "kill them" thing. To me, that just starts to sound like we're adopting their attitude/worldview/tactic.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:35 pm

Sorry, the spreading of Sharia Law to the USA wasn't from Bin Laden in a long winded video clip, it came from here: http://www.mille.org/people/rlpages/Bin_Laden.html

Sorry for the confusion.

KellY · Post by **KellY** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 2:48 pm

Yo Eclipitc,

In your non-blindly "kill them because they want to kill me" scenario, do the 3,800 (minimum) to 5,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan in the months immediatley following 911 enter the equation? As you may recall, the final tally of deaths from the World Trade Center was 2,998, so in the War On Terror we're ahead in causing deaths of innocents. That's not even counting the dead civilians in Iraq, which in my opinion doesn't even count as part of the war against terrorists.

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 3:50 pm

So to ask the simplistic questions, when does the killing stop? And can it be stopped? I'm starting to think Alice's tagline applies here: Bitch all you want, it doesn't change anything.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 4:18 pm

Given that those driven by religious fervor seldom self-regulate (and patriotism can be regarded as just another brand of religion), since their internal cosmos is shaped by the directives of their religion, it's unlikely it will ever stop.

Which is why I've said before that the long-range strategy to win this struggle is ultimately a propaganda one. You'll have to strip away your immediate negative emotional reaction to that previous sentence to see what I mean- ultimately we'll need to show that this agression is not a productive way of achieving one's aims.

How that can be accomplished, since pointing a gun at someone or killing them obviously works really well, at least in the short term, is a problem that has been struggled with for ages.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 5:10 pm

KellY wrote:Yo Eclipitc,

In your non-blindly "kill them because they want to kill me" scenario, do the 3,800 (minimum) to 5,000 civilian deaths in Afghanistan in the months immediatley following 911 enter the equation? As you may recall, the final tally of deaths from the World Trade Center was 2,998, so in the War On Terror we're ahead in causing deaths of innocents. That's not even counting the dead civilians in Iraq, which in my opinion doesn't even count as part of the war against terrorists.

They enter the equation, sure. There will always be innocents killed in war, there's no way around that. The difference is that we're not intentionally targeting them, like our enemies do.

Badger · Post by **Badger** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:30 pm

Oh, and BTW:

"Dec. 29, 2003 | WASHINGTON (AP) -- The FBI is warning police nationwide to be alert for people carrying almanacs, cautioning that the popular reference books covering everything from abbreviations to weather trends could be used for terrorist planning. "

Tancorix · Post by **Tancorix** » Mon Dec 29, 2003 9:36 pm

Another Homeland Security concern:
According to this article off the AP Wire: http://tinyurl.com/2dzal
The FAA is closing off the airspace above Las Vegas on NYE to all but commercial traffic. I wonder why?

joel the ornery · Post by **joel the ornery** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:56 am

Bob wrote:[Joel -- Not Perez. Sheesh.]

Point taken, Bob.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 11:18 am

re: innocents. Once again, you are applying your narrow frame of reference.
First, lets scratch the pentagon out of the argument. We can agree this was a military target, even if only a symbolic one.
Now the WTC. Imperialism was the perceived legitimate target as western imperialism is seen as the real problem. There is also the issue of a complicit population. If we are a democracy and we freely elect the leaders who perpetrate these offenses, then are we not complicit? Are we not complicit when our ellected leaders nurture and finance the demons who eventually turn on us after we have equipped them for a guerilla war to oust one set of occupying infidels from their land? How are we innocent?
Look, I am not saying that I buy this stuff but you need to understand these arguments in order to transcend this rediculous 'the civilized vs. the barbarians' horseshit. Yours is not the only frame of reference and the resultant overly simplified soundbite labels are not useful in trying understand the situation.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 12:33 pm

occupying infidels from their land?

This argument doesn't fly either. We're not the only targets. In fact only a small minority of their attacks have been on us, or on our soil. In fact the majority of their attacks have been on their own governments and people. You can defend the terrorists all you want, but when it's your family effected by an attack, I hope you know whose side your on.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:25 pm

of course we are not the only targets. The Saudi government is recognized both internally and externally as brutally corrupt, hypocritical, and propped up by the west. Thus, it is attacked. The Shah, a western puppet, was deposed.

Of course I do not want my family attacked. I also used to work at the WTC. My complaint with you is that your actions and attitudes will lead to more violence because that is what you espouse in your 'i'm gonna kill them all' attitude. I want people from both hostile monorities to fully understand the situation. I believe this would lead to less violence. But, if we all casually persist in this cycle don't be surpised when another building and or plane goes down. I'm not holding my breath waiting for peace. There is too much money to be made.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 2:38 pm

But, if we all casually persist in this cycle don't be surpised when another building and or plane goes down. I'm not holding my breath waiting for peace. There is too much money to be made.

Everything's a conspiracy isn't it? Weather we persist in our current course or not, there will be more planes and buildings coming down. When we were attacked through the 90s, lobbing a few cruise missiles into asprin factories didn't seem to help. It's more than Saudi Arabia being attacked, that's why it's a global war on terror. European countries are under constant threat, Africa and the Philippines have seen their share. And attacks persist in nearly every middle eastern country. Until we convert to Islam, you can bet the attacks will not stop. So I guess we should just have a big old teleconference with all these terrorist heads, and talk things out. I won't hold my breath for that.

stuart · Post by **stuart** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:08 pm

last time heathrow was being bombarded it was by other christians. Why? Because a populace had a beef with an occupying imperial power. Please examine the pattern. There is nothing conspiritorial about it. It is rather uncontroversial. It has nothing to do with you converting to islam. U.S. soldiers are not being killed in Iraq because of their religion. They are being killed because they are occupiers in a foreign nation. Do you have any idea how many countries have U.S. military bases in them? How would you feel if there was a brazillian marine base in your neighborhood and occasionally one of your neighborhood GIRLS was raped by a random drunk brazillian soldier? You might take up arms.

blyslv · Post by **blyslv** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:14 pm

If I hide behnd a stone fence and pick off redcoats all day am I a terrorist, a homeland defender or a freedom fighter?

This is a not a trick question. George III also had valid opinions.

Chai Guy · Post by **Chai Guy** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 4:36 pm

[img]http://daredevil_30.tripod.com/peace/graphics/morans.jpg[/img]

Apollonaris Zeus · Post by **Apollonaris Zeus** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:06 pm

Johnny Boy Asscrotch has assigned an indepentant to investigate the CIA agent leak! I think this going to look very bad for Mr. Bushes re-appointment!

Now maybe he can mastermind of the mess kitchen in a federal prison!

Bush will have a very small percentage from his original staff and without the support of them during his re-election campaign his chances will only come from his extremely large campaign donations.

Only finding Osama will he get positively get re-elected and he's not hiding in a rat-hole!

Down with lying and deceptive rats!

Carl should very pretty in strips and his fat soft ass would be the delight of some big guy called Bubba!

A II Z

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:14 pm

stuart wrote:... It has nothing to do with you converting to islam. U.S. soldiers are not being killed in Iraq because of their religion. ...

You may legitimately assert that in your opinion the Q'uran stating that all those who do not convert to islam are to be killed, enslaved, or made to pay tribute to Islam is a minor and secondary reason for terrorism, (and I would tend to agree with you) but it is certainly one of the reasons for terrorism.

And to the person who believes in fundamentalist/radical (depends on where you're standing as to which is the more accurate description) Islam, it has everything to do with why they strap bombs to themselves to kill their enemies.

You might as well say that patriotism has nothing to do with why our troops went over to Iraq. The government has told them they must do it to make the world a better place, and that is why they think they went over there.

The fact that Islamic or middle-eastern governments' leaders use it as one motivator to inspire religious fanatics to commit terrorist acts can't be disputed. Even if their own private beliefs are of a more secular nature. Just like our leader's beliefs that Halliburton should reap megadollars in postwar contracts.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 5:44 pm

in your opinion

And that's the final say all for all of this. And Stuart's attempt to sway my opinion is about as likely as me swaying his opinion. We can both provide facts to support our beliefs, but in the end that's all it is. It's all in the eyes of the observer. I just believe that America is not the root of all evil in the world as some people here tend to believe.

aforceforgood · Post by **aforceforgood** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 6:52 pm

I don't believe it has to be the root of all evil for us to be aware of some very bad things the U.S. government has done, to other countries as well as to it's own people. As Americans, it is our privilege and our duty since we have freedom of speech to point them out. Acting as though the USA can do no wrong only hurts your credibility and causes others to dismiss you.

ecliptic · Post by **ecliptic** » Tue Dec 30, 2003 7:13 pm

Acting as though the USA can do no wrong only hurts your credibility and causes others to dismiss you.

I have never once stated that I believe this. The US has been wrong on more than one occasion, and I wouldn't lead anyone to belive that the US is 100% right. Where I take exception is when people believe that the only answer to perceived injustice, is to attack the populace of the nation they have their beef with. When they attack my country, they attack me. And I'm sure you're thinking that my conclusion is to destroy our enemies. That is my opinion as far as terrorist are concerned, but I wouldn't advocate attacking any country that dissagrees with us. Otherwise France would have been a mud hole a long time ago.

Does Saddam Capture = Bush Re-election?

Historically, we fucked them over more then they fuck us!

He, He, He, Carl Rove is going to jail!!!!!