Originally posted by rwingettWould you use the same reasoning to defend Osama Bin Laden? He had concerns that he felt were being ignored and he did something about it. I'd hope you criticism of Bin Laden is more scathing than "he could have expressed himself better"
He has some good points. some not so good. Of course he could have expressed himself better, but the fact that more people aren't as angry as Mr. Lee causes me more concern than he does.
Originally posted by rwingettIt's kind of pointless to be "angry" at population growth. Reducing population growth is probably advisable in the long run, but to blame the Discovery Channel or any form of western media or western society in general is absurd. In western countries, especially Europe, but to a lesser extent the US as well, population growth is already either very low or negative. If you really want to do something about stopping population growth, you need to be taking hostages and threatening to blow stuff up in Africa and western Asia.
He has some good points. some not so good. Of course he could have expressed himself better, but the fact that more people aren't as angry as Mr. Lee causes me more concern than he does.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
Originally posted by sh76He was a (bleep)ing psychopath and he endangered the lives of many other innocent people. He had no right, no point, and now, fortunately, no more ability to harm others again.
or both?
http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/09/01/maryland.discovery.suspect/?hpt=Sbin
[i] The man who held at least three hostages in a nearly four-hour standoff Wednesday at the Discovery Channel headquarters in Silver Spring, Maryland, is an environmental protester who has posted online rants against the network in the past, a senior law enforcement source ...[text shortened]... e have a good point, if perhaps a poor manner of expressing himself?
Originally posted by sh76He had some good points mixed into his tirade, just like I said. Population growth is a legitimate concern. He may not necessarily have directed his anger at the right targets, or expressed his concerns well, but it is a potentially catastrophic problem. Taking hostages, though, isn't going to slow anybody's birth rate anywhere.
It's kind of pointless to be "angry" at population growth. Reducing population growth is probably advisable in the long run, but to blame the Discovery Channel or any form of western media or western society in general is absurd. In western countries, especially Europe, but to a lesser extent the US as well, population growth is already either very low or negat ...[text shortened]... and western Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
Originally posted by quackquackOsama bin Laden has some legitimate gripes as well. Killing people, however, is an unacceptable method for furthering ones agenda. Unless, of course, you happen to be the commander-in-chief of a nation's armed forces, in which case ordering the death of thousands scarcely causes one to bat an eyelash.
Would you use the same reasoning to defend Osama Bin Laden? He had concerns that he felt were being ignored and he did something about it. I'd hope you criticism of Bin Laden is more scathing than "he could have expressed himself better"
Originally posted by sh76so maybe that should have been his message -- those countries where the people generally don't have access to the Discovery Channel are the ones producing all the overpopulation -- simple solution: UN ensures that there is universal global access to the Discovery Channel.
It's kind of pointless to be "angry" at population growth. Reducing population growth is probably advisable in the long run, but to blame the Discovery Channel or any form of western media or western society in general is absurd. In western countries, especially Europe, but to a lesser extent the US as well, population growth is already either very low or negat ...[text shortened]... and western Asia.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_population_growth_rate
Originally posted by rwingettThere is something seriously wrong with your "means justify the ends" glossing over of kidnap or killing. There are many legitimate processes to advocate causes. Regardless of how important one may think there issue is, it is difficult to think that there is any justification in killing or kidnapping third parties who merely want to go to work. Your glorification of terrorists act is shocking.
Osama bin Laden has some legitimate gripes as well. Killing people, however, is an unacceptable method for furthering ones agenda. Unless, of course, you happen to be the commander-in-chief of a nation's armed forces, in which case ordering the death of thousands scarcely causes one to bat an eyelash.
Originally posted by quackquackYou obviously don't have the slightest idea what I'm talking about. Do you even bother to read my posts? Nowhere did I legitimize the killing or kidnapping of anyone. What I said was that Lee had some legitimate points in his argument. I stand by that statement.
There is something seriously wrong with your "means justify the ends" glossing over of kidnap or killing. There are many legitimate processes to advocate causes. Regardless of how important one may think there issue is, it is difficult to think that there is any justification in killing or kidnapping third parties who merely want to go to work. Your glorification of terrorists act is shocking.
