|
|
Posted by Jerry Stuckle on 09/15/07 02:29
Rik Wasmus wrote:
> 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.
>
Yes, actions against innocent civilians are terrorist acts. Actions of
a military against the U.S. military are not.
Actions by non-military personnel against military personnel seems to be
a gray area - some people call them acts of terrorism, some don't.
But I'm more referring to the suicide bombers blowing themselves up in
marketplaces full of civilians, flying planes into buildings and the
like - not attacks against our military.
>> 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.
>
No, I consider it more on the order of committing violent acts with the
intention of causing the death, injury, etc. of innocent civilians.
With that in mind, neither the yanks nor the rebs were terrorists.
Germany and Japan were not terrorists. Timothy McVay was a terrorist.
>>>>> 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.
>
Yep, I do understand that point! Fortunately we're able to keep ours
pretty well paid off. :-)
Got a little on one right now only because I had an unexpected $2K car
repair bill last month :-(.
>>>>>> 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.
>
No, he's calling Bush a terrorist, saying we shouldn't be in Iraq...
Hmmm... exactly the same things bin Laden is saying. When you're
agreeing with someone so much, that's supporting them - indirectly, if
not directly.
>> 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.
Yep, the previous administration didn't have the balls to stick around.
As soon as there was the slightest scent of an action becoming
unpopular, he would pull us out - to hell with the locals.
And that's what emboldened the terrorists - they didn't think we'd take
any real action against them, because they had done so many other things
in the past - and we never did anything.
They found out we now have a President who was interested in more than
his interns. And this one has real balls.
--
==================
Remove the "x" from my email address
Jerry Stuckle
JDS Computer Training Corp.
jstucklex@attglobal.net
==================
Navigation:
[Reply to this message]
|