|
|
Posted by Rik Wasmus on 09/15/07 02:15
On Sat, 15 Sep 2007 02:52:49 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
<jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
> Rik Wasmus wrote:
>> On Fri, 14 Sep 2007 19:07:43 +0200, Jerry Stuckle
>> <jstucklex@attglobal.net> wrote:
>>>>> Yep, you are an idiot if you think they didn't attack us. Some
>>>>> reminders:
>>>>> [...]
>>>> How many people in the world were killed by US soldiers? Or by US
>>>> weapons thrown into a fight to make some money and to "protect" the US
>>>> economical interests? How many people suffer from starvation and
>>>> poverty
>>>> because the US is exploiting their land or restricting their trading?
>>>>
>>>
>>> How many innocent civilians? Far fewer than those killed every day by
>>> the terrorists.
>> Which entirely depends on who you call 'terrorists'. It's become a
>> buzz word to justify a lot of actions that would otherwise not
>> condoned. The confederates would have called the yanks terrorists and
>> vice-versa. Wether you agree or disagree with a governments actions,
>> always be very sceptical about their propaganda.
>>
>
> Terrorists are generally defined as those who take action against
> non-combatants, especially civilians.
And the use of more and more 'smart weapons' (which are everything but)
has meant almost every military action of the united states could be
classified as terrorist acts. It's sementantics, I grant you. But the word
'terrorism' and everything related has been abused to many times to hold
any kind of justification. Every fighter with no or a not acknowledged
government has been called a terrorist, allthough some independance
struggles (like the Kurds for instance) seem to me entirely justified.
> Those taken against the military, like the confederates, and yanks,
> would not be terrorists.
There might be a language issue here. The definition here would be "those
who commit violant acts for political gain". (Which would mean almost
every government in the world is a terrorist government incidentally :P)
With todays weaponry, civil casualties always turn out very high.
>>>> What good have the US done to the world in the last decades?
>>>
>>> We've made it safer. Just like we did in WW II.
>> And you consume like hell. We're happy to offload our products unto
>> you untill the bubble bursts :).
> Yea, and we love every minute of it!
Don't get me wrong, I love the consuming, we're just more debt-aware for
some reason. The mere existance of credit cards and their huge interest
rates still baffles me.
>>>>> Every one of them by Muslim extremists. And these same extremists
>>>>> have vowed to destroy our civilization.
>>>> There are reasons for that. They don't do that just for fun. No, I
>>>> don't
>>>> support them, but I don't support the US and their behaviour either.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Who cares whether you support us or not. I sure don't. But I guess
>>> that means you support terrorism.
>> That old argument is flawed in so many ways it doesn't even justify an
>> answer.
>> But this is getting way to offtopic for me....
>
> No, I say that because he is supporting those who are helping the
> terrorists - politically, if no other way.
I see no support whatsoever here. It's the old argument 'if you are not
with us you are against us', which is and has always been a flawed
argument. A disagreement with no interference is perfectly possible.
Actually, it's the way most people and governments disagree: some moaning
without action.
> Those who argue that we need to get out if Iraq before the job is done
> are doing just what that terrorists want them to do. They're either too
> stupid to realize that, or consciously supporting terrorists. Which is
> it?
Well, you're committed to Iraq now. I was against it from the start, but
the moment the US decided to invade it they made a commitment to leave it
socially at least as good as it was, preferably better. In Africa the US
has a history of fast military actions, and pulling out before anything
real was accomplished. I certainly hope that allthough the process is
going to be quite long an painfull, they'll ride this one out to the end.
--
Rik Wasmus
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|