| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 A Nation Remebers? - a video |
||
|
jd |
||
|
jeff |
||
|
On a point of order... Could you help me understand jeffhelman ?? |
||
|
mark |
||
|
ah....... just as a newie here it was hard to catch that nuance;-) |
||
|
mark jd and i disagree on a lot of things, but we both have a VERY strong belief that true patriotism involves actively trying to make the goverment better as opposed to being a slavish, unctuous, synchophantic government boot-lick. |
||
|
everyone said there was connection, including himself. i was listening to Rush Limbaugh (sp?) yesterday (don't ask I'm currently in nebraska, and i love talk radio, so it was him or denis praeger who is a bigger idiot than rush) anyway . . . he was actually saying, on air, that, "Bush never said there was a conection blah, blah, blah, (more idiotic Rush crap). And I'm thinking, "WHAT?!" It's crazy! How can these people say this kind of stuff that is a blatant contradiction? Are they insane . . . or involved? Personally, the stuff Rush says is so contradictory that I figure there is NO WAY he actually believes any f it. I think he's bought and sold - his little perscription drug prosecution went quietly away didn't it? At least being bought and sold make more sense to me, then the "true believer" who is actually frightening. |
||
|
bush blundered? now, see...that was sarcasm, not facetiousness. : )) |
||
|
ahah I'm guessing that the dalai llama would argue that these neocons give us a good opportunity to practice our compasssion and forgiveness |
||
|
mark nice quote from your page...i see that you are 'one of us!' a shameless believer in participatory democracy. ...wanna run for mod : ) |
||
|
'fraid so... it? Seriously, I have no history or background here so would claim no entitlement and have no particular wish. I if at some point it's deemed helpful though, I'm happy to play a role of some sort. |
||
|
bobbynox 09-Sep-06, 19:03 |
|
||
|
bobbynox 09-Sep-06, 19:05 |
|
||
|
that sounds like grist.. It'd be handy to know given that the US seems to be engaged in an open ended war against it. For instance, would dropping cluster or phospherous bombs on civilians be deemed an act of terror? How abouts the indiscriminate destruction of an oppressed populations houses? Can a war on terror be pursued WITH terror or is that just a crazy oxymoron? |
||
|
bobbynox 09-Sep-06, 19:31 |
It is semantics Terrorism is a idea, or theoretical basis of conflict. You cannot fight terroism, per se. In fact you cannot fight any 'ism'. Communism, socialism, capitalism, radicalism, sarcasm (well, that is an 'asm', but the idea is the same.) You cannot fight ideas. Timothy mcvay (sp?) was a terrorist. His partner, Nichols, is a terrorist, who is in jail. If a person causes death and destruction on a wide-scale, let say, more than 10 people are hurt/killed, then they could be considered terrorists. |
||
|
bobby |
||
|
bobbynox 09-Sep-06, 19:42 |
Jeff |
||
|
bobbynox... it to be described as terrorism or is there such a thing as "state terrorism"? It surely cant just be about terror imbedded in attack can it? What about the bombing of dresden (ww2) or hiroshima? werent they acts intended to effect change through generating terrror and large scale death of civilians? What attacks DON'T cause terror? Is it as simple as "winners are grinners and losers are terrorists"? The only definition of terrrorism that I've come across so far that seems to make any sense is "terrorism is violence that you don't approve of" With regard to the "tribunal" comment. Would that excempt the US from the label because it chooses not to subscribe to international rules of law and has the power to avoid consequences of such? Thanks for offering the time to help me understand. |
||
|
bobbynox 09-Sep-06, 20:01 |
Mark, ol' buddy... A terror in the form of the London air-raid, is part of the war-effort of the attacker (Germany). Both terror-produces scenarios are part of war. Terror committed by a 'group' is equally part of war, however the enemy is not necessarily in a fixed location. The enemy may have safe-countries where he is supported. The enemy must be rooted out of hiding (as opposed to the Luftwaf (sp?), overhead). Are you trying to equate the 'terror' inflicted upon the afgan-rebels with the terror inflicted upon the New Yorkers (9/11) or the Londoners (trainstation), or the Iberians (train), or the Indians (train)? Your use of the wording, "State terror", is incomplete. It should read, "State-sponsored Terror." That is what Iran is doing in Lebanon. |
||
|
thanks bobby... "state sponsored terror" in lebanon, why cant that same definition be applied to the US administration or isreali administration for what THEY have been doing (or supplying arms for) in lebanon/gaza? i hope i'm not appearing too dumb but isn't it just that each side has grievances with the other and is using aggression/terror as a tool and using the tools available to them? In answer to: "are you trying to equate the 'terror' inflicted upon the afgan-rebels with the terror inflicted upon the New Yorkers (9/11) or the Londoners (trainstation), or the Iberians (train), or the Indians (train)?" No I'm not though I'd argue that your language carries some unexamined assumptions. I'd argue that you're being somewhat selective in your framing of the discussion. Inocents died in 9/11 and the other episodes that you mention JUST as inocents in larger numbers have died with blood on US powerbroker hands in Iraq, afghanistan, Lebonon and gaza. Can cluster bombs and white phospherous REALLY be considered descriminating weapons that will seek out the bad guys in civilian populations? |
||
|
alexwilson 09-Sep-06, 20:39 |
|
||
|
soulcrates 10-Sep-06, 00:28 |
There sure is a definite quagmire in Iraq. For instance, if a death toll of the war is put into perspective, you'd see almost 1 US soldier's death there are 100 Iraqis suffering the same fate. This is called, "Collateral Damage" by the US government, and is quickly disregarded as such. To the contrary, this is what they are aiming for, and not "collateral". The Qur'an tells the only way to stop a more powerful occupying force is to only stop their ability to gain followers, and instructs muslims to kill any fellow muslims who help occupiers. This is why the 100-1 death tolls. The policemen, and military of Iraq are the main targets for insurgents, because without police and a military, the united states cannot declare a win, and thus is stuck in Iraq spending money until it finally sets in that it cannot succeed. The Qur'an is their guide, not democracy. You must win the people to win the war, and when that happens they seem to be executed in mass numbers in soccer stadiums. |
||
|
Terror I do not see a difference between the kinds of violences that are being commited. They all inspire terror and I wish they didn't have to kill each other. People can be so stupid. Anyhow, I found the video to be manipulative. I had a hard time reading the quotes with that stupid fake george bush voice talking all the time and being so devilishly treacherous. I think Bush is going to get the fake book thrown at him when this is all over. But he will still be rich. |
Log in 
