Crossbow
Seeking Honesty and Sanity
Kodiak said:
I guess you are right and that you are just too smart for me.
Thanks anyway!
Written 9-12-01
- Thread starter King of the Americas
- Start date
-
- Tags
- written
I guess you are right and that you are just too smart for me.
Thanks anyway!
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Re: To Kodiak:
Yes, and they didn't see Saddam as an oppressive dictator either. So I don't exactly think that viewpoint has much validity. In fact, the Iraqis themselves are rather resentful of Syria and other neighbors, and rightly so, for supporting Saddam for so long. It doesn't matter if those outside Iraq "see" American occupation of Iraq as regional control, they're wrong to interfere with what the Iraqis themselves want in their OWN country, which is peace.
But you don't care about peace either, because you're a selfish little worm.
King of the Americas said:
Yes, and they didn't see Saddam as an oppressive dictator either. So I don't exactly think that viewpoint has much validity. In fact, the Iraqis themselves are rather resentful of Syria and other neighbors, and rightly so, for supporting Saddam for so long. It doesn't matter if those outside Iraq "see" American occupation of Iraq as regional control, they're wrong to interfere with what the Iraqis themselves want in their OWN country, which is peace.
But you don't care about peace either, because you're a selfish little worm.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
To Ziggie:
Look, you aren't going to want to hear this, but your fears and worries are irrational.
They are NEVER going to kill "millions of Americans", period. Even if they managed to fully weaponize sand, they aren't going to represent an imminent threat to "millions of Americans".
The ONLY way they will ever do so, is if MILLIONS of Americans show up in the middle east.
I am sorry if I seem cold, harsh or uncarring, but I just don't see the stastical danger in terrorist attacks. You are MUCH more like to encounter a drunk driver, than a terrorist.
I think your fears are misplaced.
Look, you aren't going to want to hear this, but your fears and worries are irrational.
They are NEVER going to kill "millions of Americans", period. Even if they managed to fully weaponize sand, they aren't going to represent an imminent threat to "millions of Americans".
The ONLY way they will ever do so, is if MILLIONS of Americans show up in the middle east.
I am sorry if I seem cold, harsh or uncarring, but I just don't see the stastical danger in terrorist attacks. You are MUCH more like to encounter a drunk driver, than a terrorist.
I think your fears are misplaced.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Re: to Kodiak:
Who says they're going to get a system built in our image? They'll get some sort of democracy, which means they WILL get what they want, for the FIRST bloody time. Do you think they wanted Saddam? Hell no. Do you think their neighbors have any justifiable say in what they get, when they SUPPORTED Saddam against his own people? Hell no.
Got it worm?
King of the Americas said:
Who says they're going to get a system built in our image? They'll get some sort of democracy, which means they WILL get what they want, for the FIRST bloody time. Do you think they wanted Saddam? Hell no. Do you think their neighbors have any justifiable say in what they get, when they SUPPORTED Saddam against his own people? Hell no.
Got it worm?
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
Re: To Kodiak:
We've invaded Syria!?
I thought Saudi Arabia was still considered an ally!? When did we invade??
Why aren't Iraq's "neighbors" sending troops into Iraq to stop "our senseless aggression"??
Funny...it seems the only "middle easterners" not fighting the occupation of Iraq is the Iraqi citizenry themselves!!!
The simple answer you refuse to acknowledge is that the foreign jihadists are pouring into Iraq because it is there they will find a large number of easily accessible Western targets for their fundamentalist hatred.
King of the Americas said:
We've invaded Syria!?
I thought Saudi Arabia was still considered an ally!? When did we invade??
Why aren't Iraq's "neighbors" sending troops into Iraq to stop "our senseless aggression"??
Funny...it seems the only "middle easterners" not fighting the occupation of Iraq is the Iraqi citizenry themselves!!!
The simple answer you refuse to acknowledge is that the foreign jihadists are pouring into Iraq because it is there they will find a large number of easily accessible Western targets for their fundamentalist hatred.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Re: To Ziggie:
I don't think they're misplaced at all, and as I said, unlike you I'm concerned about much more than just myself. The three thousand americans killed on 9/11 weren't in the middle east. Neither were the embassy workers in Africa who were bombed, or the vacationers in Bali killed in the nightclub bombing. The threat is global. Is the million number a realistic threat? Long term, hell yes. You see, there's a little something called a nuclear weapon. Detonate that in New York (which they've already shown themselves willing to attack), and you've got yourself millions of dead Americans. That threat is long-term, as in we will likely be facing this for many decades. But we cannot afford to let the problem fester, because otherwise it WILL come to that eventually if we do not start doing something about it now.
King of the Americas said:
I don't think they're misplaced at all, and as I said, unlike you I'm concerned about much more than just myself. The three thousand americans killed on 9/11 weren't in the middle east. Neither were the embassy workers in Africa who were bombed, or the vacationers in Bali killed in the nightclub bombing. The threat is global. Is the million number a realistic threat? Long term, hell yes. You see, there's a little something called a nuclear weapon. Detonate that in New York (which they've already shown themselves willing to attack), and you've got yourself millions of dead Americans. That threat is long-term, as in we will likely be facing this for many decades. But we cannot afford to let the problem fester, because otherwise it WILL come to that eventually if we do not start doing something about it now.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
Sticks and stones...
To Ziggie:
Look, you have been programmed to think that we are ONLY there to insure liberty and freedom for Iraqis.
This just isn't the case. We are there to sit up a government that will sell us cheap oil. If that is a democracy, great! If not, no big deal, unless the system we put in place doesn't want to play ball , then we'll just remove them and replace them with one that is more friendly to our economic needs.
I was just wondering how Democratic is Kuwait, now after we Liberated them from Saddam's rule?
Look, NO ONE is arguing that Saddam was a good guy, or that everyone loved him. But to say that they (Iraqis or other middle easterners) want the U.S. in their country or region building a local America, complete with military bases. You are sadly mistaken.
It would seem that you are very mistaken in your understanding of our motives and agenda in our occupatorial endeavor in Iraq.
To Ziggie:
Look, you have been programmed to think that we are ONLY there to insure liberty and freedom for Iraqis.
This just isn't the case. We are there to sit up a government that will sell us cheap oil. If that is a democracy, great! If not, no big deal, unless the system we put in place doesn't want to play ball , then we'll just remove them and replace them with one that is more friendly to our economic needs.
I was just wondering how Democratic is Kuwait, now after we Liberated them from Saddam's rule?
Look, NO ONE is arguing that Saddam was a good guy, or that everyone loved him. But to say that they (Iraqis or other middle easterners) want the U.S. in their country or region building a local America, complete with military bases. You are sadly mistaken.
It would seem that you are very mistaken in your understanding of our motives and agenda in our occupatorial endeavor in Iraq.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
To Kodiak:
We've invaded Syria!?
*NO, Syrians preceive us as invading the middle east, further.
I thought Saudi Arabia was still considered an ally!? When did we invade??
The Saudi Royal family is considered an ally, but the common people there see our presence as occupation and invasion.
Why aren't Iraq's "neighbors" sending troops into Iraq to stop "our senseless aggression"??
*They ARE.
Funny...it seems the only "middle easterners" not fighting the occupation of Iraq is the Iraqi citizenry themselves!!!
*Actually 'some' Iraqis ARE actively fighting against our invasion and occupation. AND the more innocent Iraqis we hold, torture, or kill the more of them who will resist our 'assistance'.
The simple answer you refuse to acknowledge is that the foreign jihadists are pouring into Iraq because it is there they will find a large number of easily accessible Western targets for their fundamentalist hatred.
*That AND they get to fight for the protection of their homeland (the middle east), against the invasionstic forces of capitalistic military occupation.
We've invaded Syria!?
*NO, Syrians preceive us as invading the middle east, further.
I thought Saudi Arabia was still considered an ally!? When did we invade??
The Saudi Royal family is considered an ally, but the common people there see our presence as occupation and invasion.
Why aren't Iraq's "neighbors" sending troops into Iraq to stop "our senseless aggression"??
*They ARE.
Funny...it seems the only "middle easterners" not fighting the occupation of Iraq is the Iraqi citizenry themselves!!!
*Actually 'some' Iraqis ARE actively fighting against our invasion and occupation. AND the more innocent Iraqis we hold, torture, or kill the more of them who will resist our 'assistance'.
The simple answer you refuse to acknowledge is that the foreign jihadists are pouring into Iraq because it is there they will find a large number of easily accessible Western targets for their fundamentalist hatred.
*That AND they get to fight for the protection of their homeland (the middle east), against the invasionstic forces of capitalistic military occupation.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Re: Sticks and stones...
I don't think so. You see, I'm actually paying some attention to what's happening, not what Noam Chomsky or Ted Rall are saying is happening. Yes, the Iraqis want us to leave soon. And guess what? We WANT to leave soon too, but we're not going to leave when doing so would make the country slide into chaos. You also seem to be under some kind of misapprehansion about how the oil market works. The Iraqis are not going to sell oil to "us". They're going to sell oil, to anyone who wants to buy. Oil is a global commodity market. The only time people were getting oil at special, below-market values from Iraq was when Saddam was bribing people (mostly Russians and French) through abuses of the oil for food program.
Oh, and one more subtlety: I can legitimately support the war for motives that are not identical to the Bush administration. See if you can grasp that without your head exploding.
King of the Americas said:
I don't think so. You see, I'm actually paying some attention to what's happening, not what Noam Chomsky or Ted Rall are saying is happening. Yes, the Iraqis want us to leave soon. And guess what? We WANT to leave soon too, but we're not going to leave when doing so would make the country slide into chaos. You also seem to be under some kind of misapprehansion about how the oil market works. The Iraqis are not going to sell oil to "us". They're going to sell oil, to anyone who wants to buy. Oil is a global commodity market. The only time people were getting oil at special, below-market values from Iraq was when Saddam was bribing people (mostly Russians and French) through abuses of the oil for food program.
Oh, and one more subtlety: I can legitimately support the war for motives that are not identical to the Bush administration. See if you can grasp that without your head exploding.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
To Ziggie:
I don't think they're misplaced at all, and as I said, unlike you I'm concerned about much more than just myself. The three thousand americans killed on 9/11 weren't in the middle east.
*3,000. Note that number. 18,000 people die EVERY year from drunk drivers. WHERE is the greater more consistant danger?
Neither were the embassy workers in Africa who were bombed, or the vacationers in Bali killed in the nightclub bombing. The threat is global.
*The threat of cancer is too, but we aren't actively fighting THOSE causes? If you want to stop terroristic attack, stop the root causes of it, and stop trying to kill people who don't like what you are doing!
Is the million number a realistic threat? Long term, hell yes. You see, there's a little something called a nuclear weapon. Detonate that in New York (which they've already shown themselves willing to attack), and you've got yourself millions of dead Americans.
*IF this were a realize this threat, then I blaim those who would use our military forces for foreign occupation, and NOT for the protection of our borders. If you can't control your boarders, you are vulnerable to attack. However, even with our military spread out, I think the possibility of a million deaths on American soil from a terrorist attack is very unlike, although not impossible. Given that there are 245 million people in America, even if 2 major cities where to get hit with nuclear bombs, not a destoryed America would that make.
That threat is long-term, as in we will likely be facing this for many decades.
*The ONLY sincere threat we face is from those who would sacrafice Liberty for Security.
But we cannot afford to let the problem fester, because otherwise it WILL come to that eventually if we do not start doing something about it now.
*What we need to do is protect our homeland from invasion from outside forces, and NOT force our culture and military onto people and places where it is unwelcome. We can not make the world think like us, but we can hold those who would attack us, responsible. We HAVE to withdraw our forces from places where they are NOT welcome. So long as we are seen as the invaders and occupiers, we are going to have enemies will to risk their lives to attack us. You, or shall I say 'We' can't just go around bombing countries that don't run their country like we do. Nor can we just replace regeims that don't favor our policies. continuing to do so, while ignoring the real motives for the attacks against us WILL put more American's lives in danger, period.
I don't think they're misplaced at all, and as I said, unlike you I'm concerned about much more than just myself. The three thousand americans killed on 9/11 weren't in the middle east.
*3,000. Note that number. 18,000 people die EVERY year from drunk drivers. WHERE is the greater more consistant danger?
Neither were the embassy workers in Africa who were bombed, or the vacationers in Bali killed in the nightclub bombing. The threat is global.
*The threat of cancer is too, but we aren't actively fighting THOSE causes? If you want to stop terroristic attack, stop the root causes of it, and stop trying to kill people who don't like what you are doing!
Is the million number a realistic threat? Long term, hell yes. You see, there's a little something called a nuclear weapon. Detonate that in New York (which they've already shown themselves willing to attack), and you've got yourself millions of dead Americans.
*IF this were a realize this threat, then I blaim those who would use our military forces for foreign occupation, and NOT for the protection of our borders. If you can't control your boarders, you are vulnerable to attack. However, even with our military spread out, I think the possibility of a million deaths on American soil from a terrorist attack is very unlike, although not impossible. Given that there are 245 million people in America, even if 2 major cities where to get hit with nuclear bombs, not a destoryed America would that make.
That threat is long-term, as in we will likely be facing this for many decades.
*The ONLY sincere threat we face is from those who would sacrafice Liberty for Security.
But we cannot afford to let the problem fester, because otherwise it WILL come to that eventually if we do not start doing something about it now.
*What we need to do is protect our homeland from invasion from outside forces, and NOT force our culture and military onto people and places where it is unwelcome. We can not make the world think like us, but we can hold those who would attack us, responsible. We HAVE to withdraw our forces from places where they are NOT welcome. So long as we are seen as the invaders and occupiers, we are going to have enemies will to risk their lives to attack us. You, or shall I say 'We' can't just go around bombing countries that don't run their country like we do. Nor can we just replace regeims that don't favor our policies. continuing to do so, while ignoring the real motives for the attacks against us WILL put more American's lives in danger, period.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Re: To Kodiak:
Got any evidence that we're torturing Iraqis? Or do you just like to talk out your backside?
And keep it safe for brutal fascist dictators. How touching. As long as they're home-grown, who cares? Is that your take?
These terrorists do not represent the populace of either Iraq or their neighbors. They are actively working against the interests AND will of the Iraqi people. How the hell does them thinking they're justified actually change that, worm?
King of the Americas said:
Got any evidence that we're torturing Iraqis? Or do you just like to talk out your backside?
And keep it safe for brutal fascist dictators. How touching. As long as they're home-grown, who cares? Is that your take?
These terrorists do not represent the populace of either Iraq or their neighbors. They are actively working against the interests AND will of the Iraqi people. How the hell does them thinking they're justified actually change that, worm?
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
Re: To Kodiak:
En Masse?? Evidence, please.
See above.
Evidence, please, that military troops from Iraq's neighbors are entering Iraq to fight US and UK forces.
Yeah. Deposed Baath party members and Saddam loyalists which represent only a small minority of the muslim fundamentalists still resisting in Iraq.
You sound like a jihadist yourself when you don't use quotation marks around those Islamic fundie propaganda buzz-words.
King of the Americas said:
En Masse?? Evidence, please.
King of the Americas said:
See above.
King of the Americas said:
Evidence, please, that military troops from Iraq's neighbors are entering Iraq to fight US and UK forces.
King of the Americas said:
Yeah.
Deposed Baath party members and Saddam loyalists which represent only a small minority of the muslim fundamentalists still resisting in Iraq. King of the Americas said:
You sound like a jihadist yourself when you don't use quotation marks around those Islamic fundie propaganda buzz-words.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Re: To Ziggie:
We are fighting the root causes of terrorism, which are a delusional world view that festers in oppressive societies. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that terrorists are merely responding to external aggression. They are not. They are striving for fascist islamic rule of the entire world. This is their clear and stated goal. It is you, worm, who does not seem to understand them. It is you, worm, who does not address the real root causes of terrorism, but merely resorts to the nearest theory from Chomsky and the like to blame us for their crimes. You don't have to think too much if you just assume everything is our fault.
King of the Americas said:
We are fighting the root causes of terrorism, which are a delusional world view that festers in oppressive societies. You seem to be under the mistaken impression that terrorists are merely responding to external aggression. They are not. They are striving for fascist islamic rule of the entire world. This is their clear and stated goal. It is you, worm, who does not seem to understand them. It is you, worm, who does not address the real root causes of terrorism, but merely resorts to the nearest theory from Chomsky and the like to blame us for their crimes. You don't have to think too much if you just assume everything is our fault.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
To Ziggie:
They are striving for fascist islamic rule of the entire world.
*THIS is an unrealistic goal, and one I have absolutely NO FEAR of ever happening.
Look, you are under the mistaken understanding that just because someone doesn't want to live by Our Rule, in THEIR country, that this equates to an imminent threat to Our Way of Life, here.
Just so long as YOU, yourself keep arms, no one is going to invade your lands and force you to think the way they do. I repeat, YOU ARE NOT IN DANGER from occupation by an islamic fascist rule!!!
Look, I am just of the opinion that Freedom OF America, also means freedom FROM America. If you WANT to live by our rules, then come HERE and do so. We souldn't be in the business of trying to make other countries like us, or in our own image. It is NOT our job to liberate the world from evil dictators that do NOT represent a proven imminent threat to our security.
It is not shocking that someone as brain-washed as you would willing defend the President's decision to go into Iraq.
They are striving for fascist islamic rule of the entire world.
*THIS is an unrealistic goal, and one I have absolutely NO FEAR of ever happening.
Look, you are under the mistaken understanding that just because someone doesn't want to live by Our Rule, in THEIR country, that this equates to an imminent threat to Our Way of Life, here.
Just so long as YOU, yourself keep arms, no one is going to invade your lands and force you to think the way they do. I repeat, YOU ARE NOT IN DANGER from occupation by an islamic fascist rule!!!
Look, I am just of the opinion that Freedom OF America, also means freedom FROM America. If you WANT to live by our rules, then come HERE and do so. We souldn't be in the business of trying to make other countries like us, or in our own image. It is NOT our job to liberate the world from evil dictators that do NOT represent a proven imminent threat to our security.
It is not shocking that someone as brain-washed as you would willing defend the President's decision to go into Iraq.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
To Ziggie (previous post):
I don't think so. You see, I'm actually paying some attention to what's happening, not what Noam Chomsky or Ted Rall are saying is happening. Yes, the Iraqis want us to leave soon. And guess what? We WANT to leave soon too, but we're not going to leave when doing so would make the country slide into chaos.
*WE don't WANT to leave, at least not without setting up a government frieldy to our economic needs.
You also seem to be under some kind of misapprehansion about how the oil market works. The Iraqis are not going to sell oil to "us".
*And we aren't RIGHT NOW securing contracts with Iraqi/Halliburton companies to start shipping cheap oil from Iraq? WE have right NOW, several written agreements with Saudi Arabia to seel us oil, outside of OPEC.
They're going to sell oil, to anyone who wants to buy. Oil is a global commodity market. The only time people were getting oil at special, below-market values from Iraq was when Saddam was bribing people (mostly Russians and French) through abuses of the oil for food program.
*And why do you think it was so importnat for us to secure all of the oil wells and pipelines, upon our initial invasion?
The truth is that we NEED this Iraqi oil supply, so that we can point the sh!tty end of the stick at Saudi Arabia. However, we can't do this until we actually get Iraq under control and we start pumping out of their supplies and into out economy. Right NOW, we still depend on Saudi Arabia, so we can't yet accuse them of wrongdoing of any kind, or even admit that they were behind the 9-11 attacks. Nor can we even admit the real reason we are in Iraq today.
I don't think so. You see, I'm actually paying some attention to what's happening, not what Noam Chomsky or Ted Rall are saying is happening. Yes, the Iraqis want us to leave soon. And guess what? We WANT to leave soon too, but we're not going to leave when doing so would make the country slide into chaos.
*WE don't WANT to leave, at least not without setting up a government frieldy to our economic needs.
You also seem to be under some kind of misapprehansion about how the oil market works. The Iraqis are not going to sell oil to "us".
*And we aren't RIGHT NOW securing contracts with Iraqi/Halliburton companies to start shipping cheap oil from Iraq? WE have right NOW, several written agreements with Saudi Arabia to seel us oil, outside of OPEC.
They're going to sell oil, to anyone who wants to buy. Oil is a global commodity market. The only time people were getting oil at special, below-market values from Iraq was when Saddam was bribing people (mostly Russians and French) through abuses of the oil for food program.
*And why do you think it was so importnat for us to secure all of the oil wells and pipelines, upon our initial invasion?
The truth is that we NEED this Iraqi oil supply, so that we can point the sh!tty end of the stick at Saudi Arabia. However, we can't do this until we actually get Iraq under control and we start pumping out of their supplies and into out economy. Right NOW, we still depend on Saudi Arabia, so we can't yet accuse them of wrongdoing of any kind, or even admit that they were behind the 9-11 attacks. Nor can we even admit the real reason we are in Iraq today.
Ziggurat
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Jun 19, 2003
- Messages
- 61,673
Re: To Ziggie:
They cannot be appeased or disuaded from their goal by us becoming isolationists, as you seem to suggest we should do. I do not fear them achieving their goal, I fear the damage they will do in their quest for it. Because again, unlike you, I'm not a selfish worm who doesn't care if others suffer and die at the hands of these radicals.
I'm not mistaken about anything. And you have it quite backwards. It is the fact that we are living in a secular state that is an offense to them. Again, they do NOT simpy want to live their lives their own way in their own home, they want to force their beliefs on the entire world by violent means.
And I repeat, you are a selfish worm. Other people are in danger. My personal risk is low, but that's not the only issue. The fact that it's probably other people, not me personally, who are likely to suffer and die does not make it OK.
Edited for a missing word.
King of the Americas said:
They cannot be appeased or disuaded from their goal by us becoming isolationists, as you seem to suggest we should do. I do not fear them achieving their goal, I fear the damage they will do in their quest for it. Because again, unlike you, I'm not a selfish worm who doesn't care if others suffer and die at the hands of these radicals.
I'm not mistaken about anything. And you have it quite backwards. It is the fact that we are living in a secular state that is an offense to them. Again, they do NOT simpy want to live their lives their own way in their own home, they want to force their beliefs on the entire world by violent means.
And I repeat, you are a selfish worm. Other people are in danger. My personal risk is low, but that's not the only issue. The fact that it's probably other people, not me personally, who are likely to suffer and die does not make it OK.
Edited for a missing word.
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
To Kodiak:
I'll tell you the same thing I told Ziggie above:
Your fears are irrational. You are MUCH more likely to die from an inopportune meeting with a drink driver than you EVER are to with an international terrorist.
Maybe YOU'D be more affraid of drunk drivers if you had loved ones killed or injured by one. Your fear of a terrorist attack is myopic, and you are being hampered by both your perception of the 9-11 events and the manner in which they have been characterized to you.
America is NOT in danger of destruction by ANYONE but our own citizenery and lawmakers who would sacrafice our civil liberty for temporary security.
I'll tell you the same thing I told Ziggie above:
Your fears are irrational. You are MUCH more likely to die from an inopportune meeting with a drink driver than you EVER are to with an international terrorist.
Maybe YOU'D be more affraid of drunk drivers if you had loved ones killed or injured by one. Your fear of a terrorist attack is myopic, and you are being hampered by both your perception of the 9-11 events and the manner in which they have been characterized to you.
America is NOT in danger of destruction by ANYONE but our own citizenery and lawmakers who would sacrafice our civil liberty for temporary security.
Kodiak
Illuminator
- Joined
- Aug 6, 2001
- Messages
- 3,279
Re: To Kodiak:
Strawman and Projection.
When were we discussing my fears??
It is your absolute lack of fear which is irrational...
...and when did I mention comparitive mortality risks??
Your two-step of jihadist propaganda and obvious obfuscation is growing tiresome, KOA...
Are you having a bad day?
King of the Americas said:
Strawman and Projection.
When were we discussing my fears??
It is your absolute lack of fear which is irrational...
...and when did I mention comparitive mortality risks??
Your two-step of jihadist propaganda and obvious obfuscation is growing tiresome, KOA...
Are you having a bad day?
King of the Americas
Banned
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2001
- Messages
- 6,513
To Ziggie:
They be appeased or disuaded from their goal by us becoming isolationists, as you seem to suggest we should do. I do not fear them achieving their goal, I fear the damage they will do in their quest for it. Because again, unlike you, I'm not a selfish worm who doesn't care if others suffer and die at the hands of these radicals.
*There are LOTS of different kinds of radicals in this world, I just don't understand your over-reaction to the possible danger these specific terrorists represent. I am not a selfish worm, as you suggest. I am just a realist who can see and decipher sincere danger.
I'm not mistaken about anything. And you have it quite backwards. It is the fact that we are living in a secular state that is an offense to them. Again, they do NOT simpy want to live their lives their own way in their own home, they want to force their beliefs on the entire world by violent means.
*AND, what IF they DID, only want to live their lives in THEIR country, how THEIR population decided they wanted to. I mean freedom isn't something that can be 'given' to you. It is something YOU have to be will to fight and dies for, to perserve it. I hold that UNLESS you and your country are will to send troops HERE not only to attack but occupy America. THEN I am ready and willing to say, "Hold on here, Mr. Towelhead!"
And I repeat, you are a selfish worm. Other people are in danger. My personal risk is low, but that's not the only issue. The fact that it's probably other people, not me personally, who are likely to suffer and die does not make it OK.
*Then WHY aren't you MUCH more inraged about the possible danger represented by tobacco, alcohol, or falling debris in Walmart? ALL of these are statistically more dangerous than an attack from international terrorists.
They be appeased or disuaded from their goal by us becoming isolationists, as you seem to suggest we should do. I do not fear them achieving their goal, I fear the damage they will do in their quest for it. Because again, unlike you, I'm not a selfish worm who doesn't care if others suffer and die at the hands of these radicals.
*There are LOTS of different kinds of radicals in this world, I just don't understand your over-reaction to the possible danger these specific terrorists represent. I am not a selfish worm, as you suggest. I am just a realist who can see and decipher sincere danger.
I'm not mistaken about anything. And you have it quite backwards. It is the fact that we are living in a secular state that is an offense to them. Again, they do NOT simpy want to live their lives their own way in their own home, they want to force their beliefs on the entire world by violent means.
*AND, what IF they DID, only want to live their lives in THEIR country, how THEIR population decided they wanted to. I mean freedom isn't something that can be 'given' to you. It is something YOU have to be will to fight and dies for, to perserve it. I hold that UNLESS you and your country are will to send troops HERE not only to attack but occupy America. THEN I am ready and willing to say, "Hold on here, Mr. Towelhead!"
And I repeat, you are a selfish worm. Other people are in danger. My personal risk is low, but that's not the only issue. The fact that it's probably other people, not me personally, who are likely to suffer and die does not make it OK.
*Then WHY aren't you MUCH more inraged about the possible danger represented by tobacco, alcohol, or falling debris in Walmart? ALL of these are statistically more dangerous than an attack from international terrorists.