Originally posted by Thequ1ckYou know theslow,
Something to pick up on now SVW which you ay find a bit more exciting
is your enthusiasm for the use of 'we and they'.
This kind of bandwagon echolalia does nothing but encourage the growth
of the 'anti-terrorist' ideological culture.
Bush has put you in a no-win situation. On the one hand he makes
proclamations such as
'Either you are for us in ...[text shortened]... ur
opinions to be amongst some of the most harmful and dangerous things in
the world.
This ain't that tough. There are INNOCENT people who have done nothing wrong who are being killed by terrorists. Some of us don't like that and want to kill these killers OF THE INNOCENT.
Then there are your type who hate the US so bad that you take the side of the terrorists. Try to concentrate all you mind to this notion.
"Killing innocent people is wrong. Killing terrorists is good."
And then realize that you can recognize a terrorist by their gut trail as they blow themselves up amidst crowds of INNOCENT people.
As to your not liking my use of "we and they" that is tough titty. "We" are those opposed to terrorists. "they" are your kind who support terror by not opposing it. The complexity of this issue is in not being simplistic in REFUSING TO RECOGNIZE THAT THERE IS A DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE INNOCENT AND THE GUILTY.
And you seem to be as simple as it can get.
Mike
Originally posted by Positional PlayerYes he did. He used it to describe the innocents he wanted to kill. I too used it. I used it to describe those who -- like HITLER -- kill innocent people for the sake of religion or politics.
I believe Hitler used a similar term.
INNOCENT - NOT INNOCENT
Get it? Crap. What a silly question. You still think the coalition troops are as guilty of killing the innocent as the terrorists. Your position can't be argued. You are a true believer and so I shall not try to argue the point. I think most people are smart enough to see the difference though.
I don't expect you to understand this simple difference. What's your position on terrorists killing innocent people?
Originally posted by mjgdayWell,
StarValleyWy said:
> There are universal traits of decency. One is to oppose those who prey on the innocent. Another is to not take umbrage when attacked by simple minded fools. So I respect your views.
I oppose those who prey on the innocent. Hence I oppose the American Imperialists who are currently stealing Iraqi oil, and other assets.
I'd like to ...[text shortened]... q they threatened to accept money for oil in Euro.
Iran has just threatened the same...
M
One believes in "freedom and democracy" or one doesn't.
I do. I think that removing a dictator and letting a democracy form is a good thing. You don't.
That's life. History will tell which view is "the best". I honor all those who have fought against tyranny and have given their lives for "freedom". You make fun of them and laugh at them. That too is life. Decency is a trait that must be learned and earned. That you have none is a reflection on you, not me.
Originally posted by Rajk999Actually, no. Most of his statements in that post were not factual, but this thread is somewhere deep in SVW land so that's to be expected. When you're in an SVW thread, everything's distorted to reflect the author's paranoia and narcissism. I suppose it's like popping into the Looking Glass and landing in SVW's wetdream.
Is this 100% factual? Why do people like Ragnorak continue to post their mindless propoganda .. see the Denmark thread.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyterrorism -
You know theslow,
This ain't that tough. There are INNOCENT people who have done nothing wrong who are being killed by terrorists. Some of us don't like that and want to kill these killers OF THE INNOCENT.
Then there are your type who hate the US so bad that you take the side of the terrorists. Try to concentrate all you mind to this notion.
"K EN THE INNOCENT AND THE GUILTY.
And you seem to be as simple as it can get.
Mike
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
innocent -
Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
If we consider the 100,000 civilians who have died in Iraq so far as
innocent of having commited a crime and the US invasion as terrorism given the above definition. How do you feel about your statement now?
"Killing innocent people is wrong. Killing terrorists is good."
Originally posted by telerionHow you doin' Tailiron?
Actually, no. Most of his statements in that post were not factual, but this thread is somewhere deep in SVW land so that's to be expected. When you're in an SVW thread, everything's distorted to reflect the author's paranoia and narcissism. I suppose it's like popping into the Looking Glass and landing in SVW's wetdream.
Interesting almost observations that you almost have. Almost. Do you have any actual thoughts? Or just the same old personal attacks and ridicule? You will never change because you are not capable of actually generating a thought outside the scope of your conditioning. Please note that you can refute this by stating an opinion as to this threads subject.
Anyway. Keep your tail to the wind and your iron in the sewer.
svw
Originally posted by Thequ1ckPerhaps we should discuss the idea of "legal government" action vs. "religious fascist" action and/or "totalitarian dictator" action.
terrorism -
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.
innocent -
Not guilty of a specific crime or offense; legally blameless: was innocent of all charges.
If ...[text shortened]... l about your statement now?
"Killing innocent people is wrong. Killing terrorists is good."
I view the UK, Australia, the US... indeed all the UN Coalition that is fighting in Iraq as legal entities fully able to make war by the power of the democracies (masses) they represent. Maybe this is wrong. Perhaps no nation can legally "make war". But it isn't yet stated in any international documents. On the otherhand, when Saddam failed to abide by the surrender document of the First gulf war, he lost all rights under UN law.
I contend that these LAWFUL nations can't be considered as TERRORISTS. You disagree and think that they are exactly that. This can be debated. It is your responsibility to destroy the following proposition:
"When a nation is attacked, it has the right to self-defense against enemies that have publicly announced their intent to make war on them."
Saddam did so declare that he would "Destroy the americans and all zionists from the face of the earth." And he did try to have Bush one assasinated, which is an act of overt war. And he did order -- over a ten year period that his anti-aircraft batteries engage coalition jets over the UN imposed no fly zones. This too is an overt act of war.
Al Queda has also made a declaration of war against us. So I contend that war against them IN ANY AND ALL LOCATIONS AND NATIONS is justified. This holds certain risks. It prolly isn't a good idea to bomb downtown Berlin... though I think it would be legal if the Germans refuse to kill known terrorists.
The crime that the "civilians" of Iraq committed was to take the losing side in a war. Some were killed accidently. This is the nature of war and there is nothing that can be done for these poor souls except to try to kill the killers who hid amongst them.
I feel that my statement is just fine. Nothing you have said is logical nor can you support the notion that legally elected democratic governments are terrorists.
Interesting discussion though. Thanks for your input.
Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou have an interesting way of writing SVW, it's as if you begin with
Perhaps we should discuss the idea of "legal government" action vs. "religious fascist" action and/or "totalitarian dictator" action.
I view the UK, Australia, the US... indeed all the UN Coalition that is fighting in Iraq as legal entities fully able to make war by the power of the democracies (masses) they represent. Maybe this is wrong. Perhaps no ...[text shortened]... re terrorists.
Interesting discussion though. Thanks for your input.
Mike
a reasoned approach and then just wander off into diatribe.
Tell me, when you are writing on paper, does your crayon often leave
the page and end up scrawled on desks and walls?
'Yes', the UN is a legal entity embodying international law and 'No' the
US did not follow their guidelines.
This is an illegal, pre-emptive war brought about by mass deception
through media and political SPIN.
Interesting that you wrote
--The crime that the "civilians" of Iraq committed was to take the
losing side in a war.
I believe this answers a lot of questions about who YOU consider to
be the 'right' side. It's seems very apparant to me now why you are
always raving about fighting the bullies...
--though I think it would be legal (to bomb Berlin) if the Germans
refuse to kill known terrorists.
I will leave this on the restroom wall where people can contemplate its
substance in proper context.
Originally posted by Thequ1ckWe disagree about one basic issue and that is what constitutes a lawful action by a nation.
You have an interesting way of writing SVW, it's as if you begin with
a reasoned approach and then just wander off into diatribe.
Tell me, when you are writing on paper, does your crayon often leave
the page and end up scrawled on desks and walls?
'Yes', the UN is a legal entity embodying international law and 'No' the
US did not follow their guideli ...[text shortened]... is on the restroom wall where people can contemplate its
substance in proper context.
We will have to agree to disagree. That is where debate usually ends. I'm not going to ever concede that "nationhood" is not a valid form or that the UN coalition is illegal. They did pass the resolution of "serious consequences".
It is your opinion that I don't write well and you have the right to your evaluation of my skills. I think you don't THINK or REASON at all, and I have the right to my evaluation.
Neither of us is going to solve the problem of war. By definition wars result because of people like you and me NOT agreeing. So I'm not going to get too excited when we do disagree. Small "debate" wars are prolly better than shooting wars, though they don't fill the primal need for blood that is sweeping the Arab world today.
Have a good one.
Mike
Originally posted by Thequ1ckOh, SVW is just bitter that his feeble body no longer permits him to re-enlist and legally murder people.
You have an interesting way of writing SVW, it's as if you begin with
a reasoned approach and then just wander off into diatribe.
Tell me, when you are writing on paper, does your crayon often leave
the page and end up scrawled on desks and walls?
'Yes', the UN is a legal entity embodying international law and 'No' the
US did not follow their guideli ...[text shortened]... is on the restroom wall where people can contemplate its
substance in proper context.
Alas, all he is left to sit forward in his armchair raptly fixated on images of the carnage and pretend. When the bloodlust overwhelms him, he posts vitriolic nonsense in 103093 RHP threads.
All you can do is smile and be grateful you are you and not him.
1 edit
Originally posted by telerionI love you too!
Oh, SVW is just bitter that his feeble body no longer permits him to re-enlist and legally murder people.
Alas, all he is left to sit forward in his armchair raptly fixated on images of the carnage and pretend. When the bloodlust overwhelms him, he posts vitriolic nonsense in 103093 RHP threads.
All you can do is smile and be grateful you are you and not him.
Actually though, all the dreams emanating from this old husk are along the line of protecting the innocent from the evil. Which is quite subjective, so let's not bicker dear. You know best.
How is life treating you these days? With herpes,aids and other wort-ish things I hope.
Mike
ps... just a bit anal of you to count all my posts, don't you think?
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI'm doing very well, lead poisoning aside.
I love you too!
Actually though, all the dreams emanating from this old husk are along the line of protecting the innocent from the evil. Which is quite subjective, so let's not bicker dear. You know best.
How is life treating you these days? With herpes,aids and other wort-ish things I hope.
Mike
ps... just a bit anal of you to count all my posts, don't you think?
You've softened up some in the past months. Was it a change of heart or a change of medication?
Good to have you back.
Originally posted by telerionWould have to say "medications" as I have no heart.
I'm doing very well, lead poisoning aside.
You've softened up some in the past months. Was it a change of heart or a change of medication?
Good to have you back.
I decided to sober up for the next few years. Then I'll probably revert to my effervescent old self. Thanks for the notice and it's good to be here. Hell, it's good just to BE. Or not. err..... nevermind -- wrong thread.
Just kiddin' about the bad diseases. Hope you are well and happy.
Mike
Originally posted by StarValleyWyOK SVW, I like your newfound prozactitude and will try and work with
We disagree about one basic issue and that is what constitutes a lawful action by a nation.
We will have to agree to disagree. That is where debate usually ends. I'm not going to ever concede that "nationhood" is not a valid form or that the UN coalition is illegal. They did pass the resolution of "serious consequences".
It is your opinion that I ...[text shortened]... rimal need for blood that is sweeping the Arab world today.
Have a good one.
Mike
you a bit. Firstly I don't think we can summarise our disagreements
to 'what constitutes a lawful action by a nation'. The essence of our
argument is that you believe violence and war to be a solution and I
don't. You can't just go from behaving like a testosterone filled
psychopomp to a political nursemaid just like that, I aint buying it.
Secondly, 'agree to disagree' is usually where debates fail, a good
debate should leave both sides feeling slightly p****d off, that's
compromise.
I'm not insulting your grammar or prose, I don't think anyone could
accuse you of not being able to get your point accross. I'm just saying
that you can't seem to follow an argument through without summarising
it in your words, agreeing with yourself and saying 'enough now'.
That said, here's where we do agree. I agree that there are violent
religious groups in the middle-east that need to be halted in their
tracks. I agree that there needs to be control and order in the middle
east and NOT by fundamentalist religious factions.
I agree that there is a global responsibility to charge and order these
groups to halt atrocities being carried out under the guise of a
religious 'truth'.
My preferred tool is discourse though. I believe that religion cannot
hold up to mordern day analysis for very long at all. I see topics
that have been taboo for decades suddenly becoming available to every
body and open to critisism. I hope that we are about to see the end
of 'old day' religion and the birth of a newer, brighter, more grounded
religious order.
I believe that further violence and forced order will do nothing but
delay this process and halt discourse.
I believe that America is still as guilty of these blinkered views as
Iran is by conforming to the practices of death and war through
capital punishment and extravagent military expenditure.
I see no role for the US as a 'world police' force until they have
their own affairs in order.