1
   

Send 40 million Bush inauguration money to tsunami victims

 
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 11:33 am
BBB
When you stop talking past each other you will realize that BPB is talking about the well known training of our military to cut enemy throats to not only kill them, but to prevent them from screaming and revealing their location (the silent death) in combat. Tico is talking about filmed or not filmed executions of helpless prisoners (mostly non-combatants) having their heads completely cut off for political and PR reasons.

There is a difference.

BBB
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 11:38 am
Sorry for shouting ... just trying to get through to you.


Thought perhaps you went ahead and spiked your coffee as you were thinking about doing about about 6 hours ago.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 11:42 am
give us a kiss Tico...but no tongue....
0 Replies
 
Ticomaya
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 11:48 am
Please quit touching my ass.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 12:52 pm
McGentrix wrote:
Bear is just being obtuse Tico. Obviously you were referring the terrorist scum killing hostages by decapitation in front of a video camera. I am sure Bear understood that, but chose to demonstrate his usual methodology instead.


The American military prefers to take Humiliating pictures of prisoners in a horrific Iraqi landmark, raping their women, and torturing Arabs who are merely suspected of being terrorists and holding them without arrest, without council, and without rights.
Americans are far superior than the terrorists in so many ways.
0 Replies
 
McGentrix
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 12:57 pm
candidone1 wrote:
Americans are far superior than the terrorists in so many ways.


I think so to.
0 Replies
 
blueveinedthrobber
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 12:58 pm
Re: BBB
BumbleBeeBoogie wrote:
When you stop talking past each other you will realize that BPB is talking about the well known training of our military to cut enemy throats to not only kill them, but to prevent them from screaming and revealing their location (the silent death) in combat. Tico is talking about filmed or not filmed executions of helpless prisoners (mostly non-combatants) having their heads completely cut off for political and PR reasons.

There is a difference.

BBB


I'm sorry BBB.... I was bad...you can send me to bed without supper if you like...I could afford the extra sleep and probably wouldn't hurt me to miss a meal either after the holidays.... :wink:
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 01:06 pm
candidone1 wrote:
Brandon9000 wrote:

Being nice and trying to develop rapport with people often works, but sometimes it doesn't. You appear to be attempting to deny the existence of evil.


Evil.
That's so Austin Powers and Star Wars.
...and Bush.

I see. You actually are denying the existence of evil in the world. What would your solution have been to the Axis powers in WW2? You are very naive.

candidone1 wrote:
There are many kinds of people in the world, and from my experience as both a teacher and as a crisis worker with at risk youth (aka evil teens), said attribute 9 times out of 10 is a response to the inputs the individual has acquired over the term of their life.

I'm taking a step way back in some of my inquiries to the incidents that make an individual evil.

Yes, a person who is evil is evil because of some combination of nature and nurture, but when you get a national ruler who invades his neighbors and executes their previous governments just because he wants the territory, or someone who leads prisoners to gas chambers labelled showers, the fact of what he is is more important than how he got to be that way. We are dealing, and will in the future deal with, attempts to acquire WMD by such evil people, and a real chance of the deliberate use of WMD in population centers. Now that weapons that can kill a million people in a single try are becoming widely accessible in the world, the world must act extremely aggressively try to control their proliferation, especially to the world's worst dictators and terrorists. Your attempt to appeal to their better natures is going to get a lot of people killed.

candidone1 wrote:
Does it not make sense to you that 21st century anti-Americanism is a response to years of American abuses, American cultural infiltration etc etc.?
What rot. It is attributable to all sorts of things. In his manifesto, published shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden states that one of their primary grievances against us is that we refuse to convert to Islam. I suppose Pearl Harbor was due to our cruelty to Japan. I think you are irretrievable and only hope that not many people pay attention to your views.
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 01:26 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:

Yes, a person who is evil is evil because of some combination of nature and nurture, but when you get a national ruler who invades his neighbors and executes their previous governments just because he wants the.....

I guess if you want me to capitulate that there is in fact "evil", I will do so. I just find that word difficult to incorporate into my secularist vocabulary. To me, it has religious connotations that I normally don't distinguish, and I prefer to talk of good vs bad, rather than good vs evil.
nevertheless.

Bolded type sounds an awful lot like someone I know....
0 Replies
 
candidone1
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 01:40 pm
Brandon9000 wrote:

candidone1 wrote:
Does it not make sense to you that 21st century anti-Americanism is a response to years of American abuses, American cultural infiltration etc etc.?

Brandon9000 wrote:

What rot. It is attributable to all sorts of things. In his manifesto, published shortly after 9/11, Osama bin Laden states that one of their primary grievances against us is that we refuse to convert to Islam. I suppose Pearl Harbor was due to our cruelty to Japan. I think you are irretrievable and only hope that not many people pay attention to your views.


Rot? Great way to describe a differing opinion.

I agree that al Qaeda has many grievances against the US...but I was not isolating my anti-American reference solely to his terrorist network's mainfesto.
Anti-Americanism is a direct result of either economic or imperialist foreign policies enacted strictly by American self-interest...and it's not restricted to the non-Israeli Arab world.
link
link
link

I can assure you that it's not my views that will influence people as much as the past, present and future behaviors of the US will vis a vis anti-Americanism.
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 12 Jan, 2005 05:13 pm
candidone1 wrote

Quote:
I agree that al Qaeda has many grievances against the US...


Ridiculous. Al Quaeda's grievance against the US was originally based upon our support of the Saudi Regime and that we unclean infidels had troops stationed on the holy sand of Saudi Arabia. All the rest of the excuses such as support for Israel and invasion of Iraq was an after thought by Bin Laden. Much the same as Bush's claim that we invaded Iraq for humanitarian reasons when it became evident that there were no WMD's . I don't know if anyone noted that the search for WMD's in Iraq has officially ended. Not even word one of that of that event has come from Bush, Cheney or the rest of the cabal.
0 Replies
 
saera
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 01:38 pm
the only reason bush needs so much security is because he is one huge dumbass and people want to shoot him dead.
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 01:48 pm
saera wrote:
the only reason bush needs so much security is because he is one huge dumbass and people want to shoot him dead.


The level of security we are seeing would be there for any president, regardless of their mental acumen.

And welcome to A2K Saera. Hopefully further posts from you will show a bit more tact than this one. Hmm, tact may not have been the word I am looking for, but I don't want to get in trouble with the moderators.
0 Replies
 
Cycloptichorn
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 01:50 pm
Though one might say that it's Bush's own policies which have led to the need for extra security?

Cycloptichorn
0 Replies
 
CoastalRat
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 01:51 pm
Cycloptichorn wrote:
Though one might say that it's Bush's own policies which have led to the need for extra security?

Cycloptichorn


Ah well, I could almost agree with you there Cy. Much better put. Laughing
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 01:52 pm
saera wrote:
the only reason bush needs so much security is because he is one huge dumbass and people want to shoot him dead.

Well, that probably felt good to say, but it's false. Al Qaeda didn't plan and implement 9/11 either to shoot Bush of because of Bush. The fact is that the world is a very dangerous place and, unfortunately, there are many serious dangers to protect against, such as airplane hijackings.
0 Replies
 
BumbleBeeBoogie
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 04:18 pm
Brandon
Brandon, I would add to your comment that there are many serious dangers to protect against, such as airplane hijackings, that the world does need to be protected from powerful dumb asses where ever they lurk.

BBB
0 Replies
 
au1929
 
  1  
Reply Wed 19 Jan, 2005 06:01 pm
BBB wrote

Quote:
Brandon, I would add to your comment that there are many serious dangers to protect against, such as airplane hijackings, that the world does need to be protected from powerful dumb asses where ever they lurk.




Including the Oval Office.
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

Obama '08? - Discussion by sozobe
Let's get rid of the Electoral College - Discussion by Robert Gentel
McCain's VP: - Discussion by Cycloptichorn
Food Stamp Turkeys - Discussion by H2O MAN
The 2008 Democrat Convention - Discussion by Lash
McCain is blowing his election chances. - Discussion by McGentrix
Snowdon is a dummy - Discussion by cicerone imposter
TEA PARTY TO AMERICA: NOW WHAT?! - Discussion by farmerman
 
Copyright © 2024 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 05/05/2024 at 06:09:52