Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast
Results 41 to 60 of 65
  1. #41  
    Originally posted by Yorick
    How long was the unibomber out there?
    Theodore Kaczynski was out there for 17 years, but he was probably "out there" for much longer.
    HEE HEE HEE!! Good one!!
  2. #42  
    Originally posted by agraham999
    First of all ****...I don't like the suggestion that my remarks infer that I am a coward. Don't appreciate that at all.
    Well, personally, I don't appreciate the fact that your remarks infer that you're the only person considering the potential possibilities here. Personally, I've realized for a long time that things were not only possible, but that they were a realistic eventuality. Ultimately, though, one cannot live one's life worrying about what might come next. There is nothing that can be done to stop a highly motivated individual or group of individuals from inflicting some act of violence upon others before it happens.
    Secondly...perhaps my use of the word paranoid was a little strong...but my point is that there is nothing wrong with a little extra caution in this time...and going on with our lives with blind indignance is not necessarily a good thing.
    Are you sure that indignance is the word you're looking for?
    Now for my comment about them possibly shutting down the postal system temporarily if these continue. I bet none of you ever thought that the entire airline industry would be grounded.
    You'd lose that bet. The airlines have been operating in or on the borders of bankruptcy for a long time (ever since the fare wars tried to make airline travel available to the 'common man'). They've been asking for trouble for a while.
    Let me tell you this...if these letters continue to pop up or some other contagion being used via the postal system...they WILL stop mail delivery until law enforcement can evaluate the situation.
    There goes the economy. We've already given the terrorists what they wanted with the airline system. Why not give them what they want with the mail system. Friggin' sheep (not necessarily you personally).
    I mean let's think about this...right now you can send a dangerous biological weapon through the US mail system and infect or kill people all for the price of a $.32 stamp.
    You haven't mailed anything in a while, have you? They put a $.32 stamp on there, it'll get returned to them.
    For $1000 you could mail 3,000 pieces of mail...which could contain smallpox. They've done computer modeling and let me tell you if smallpox hits an area...the chances of stopping it would practically impossible...meaning within days 30% of the population could be infected. You think they would keep the mail working then?
    Why stop it at that point (other than the fact that lots of mail carriers would probably have it too)?
    Last edited by Toby; 10/15/2001 at 09:35 AM.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  3. #43  
    Originally posted by agraham999
    [...] Sure call me anytime...read away. I consider bullying those who choose to disagree with another individual by lowering the discussion to insults and innuendo. Honesty...your attribute? Big difference between honesty and arrogance...and you have that in spades.
    Nobody's bullying you, Alan. Perhaps you need to turn that high powered lens of perception which you advocate upon your exchanges with Josh a bit more closely.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  4.    #44  
    I don't really care anymore. I thought this would be an interesting debate...maybe a good conversation...but I really don't appreciate being called a coward.
  5. #45  
    Originally posted by agraham999
    I don't really care anymore. I thought this would be an interesting debate...maybe a good conversation...but I really don't appreciate being called a coward.
    I didn't even see Josh ever call you a coward. He said _if_ you were acting a certain way, then you were being a coward. If the show doesn't fit, don't rush to put it on then complain that it's too small.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  6. #46  
    Yorrick wrote:



    wait a freaking second here. You noted that if an Afghani were in the wrong place at the wrong time because our country is bombing the hell out of his country, it's his own lookout. The people in the World trade center were in the wrong place at the wrong time. I'm not comparing anyone's actions here. Anyone can be in the wrong place at the wrong time.
    War is supposed to mean killing. The Geneva treaties were written to restrict that to soldiers and prevent civilian deaths. With apparent indiscriminate bombing the U.S. is behaving poorly.
    Well, I think you are alluding to a comparison between the terrorist attack of 9/11 and the current military strikes in Afghanistan. And if you are, the comparison is completely specious.

    The terrorist attack of 9/11 was intended , indeed designed, to kill innocent civilians. Bin Laden and his cronies wanted to kill every one of the 5,000+ folks in the Towers - in fact, they probably wanted to kill a whole lot more.

    There were no targets of military value at the WTC (the Pentagon strike, or the earlier bombing of the U.S.S. Cole was arguably different. I'm not saying I excuse those strikes either, but the arguments are different from an analytical standpoint. Anyway, that's a different debate).

    Our strikes on Afghanistan are intended to strike military, "leardership," command and control, and terrorist infrastructure targets. No one in the U.S. military or government intends to kill innocent civilians. That doesn't mean that civilians won't be killed by accident, but no one intends their death.

    From a moral and legal standpoint - under the Geneva convention, and international law generally - the distinction is crucial.

    As an aside, your allegation of "indiscriminate" bombing by the U.S. is factually inaccurate. If we wanted to, we could reduce Afghanistan to a plain of fused radioactive glass. Less drastically, we could use strategic bombing to do to Kabul what was done to London, Berlin, Tokyo, or Dresden during WWII. Either of those a would be indiscriminate, and indefensible morally or legally.

    Of course, that's not what we are doing. We are primarilly using sophisticated (and expensive) precision-guided munitions to get at the targets that deserve destruction, while minmizing civilian casualties. The terrorists of course did the opposite. If you can't see the difference, I pity you.
  7. #47  
    Originally posted by Yorick
    With apparent indiscriminate bombing the U.S. is behaving poorly.
    [/B]
    The current campaign is not indiscriminate, nor is it "apparently" indiscriminate to anyone with the slightest understanding of how much firepower a carrier task force has.

    An indiscriminate attack, even with solely conventional munitions, would be killing tens of thousands a day, conservatively.
  8. #48  
    Ok, everyone, let's dial it down a notch or two. We don't need to bash each other around in here. Everyone's entitled to their opinion and doesn't need to be ridiculed for it.

    If we can't play nice, the toys will be put away and the sandbox is gonna get closed...
    .
    .....
    MarkEagle
    .....<a href="http://discussion.treocentral.com/tcforum/index.php?s=">TreoCentral</a> | <a href="http://discussion.visorcentral.com/vcforum/index.php?s=">VisorCentral</a> Forum Moderator - Forum Guidelines
    .....Sprint PCS Treo 650
    .....God bless America, my home sweet home...
  9. #49  
    I thought that this was a good editorial (coming out of SF of all places), sorta relevant to the conversation.

    http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/articl...6/MN100051.DTL
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  10. #50  
    thanks, BobbyMike.
    The light at the end of your tunnel has been disconnected due to non-payment. Please remit funds immediately for restoration of hope.
  11. Rob
    Rob is offline
    Rob's Avatar
    Posts
    531 Posts
    Global Posts
    533 Global Posts
    #51  

    Originally posted by homer
    Yes! It seems to me that perhaps the first step in attempting to stop the fundamentalist
    muslim terrorists would be to STOP PISSING THEM OFF!
    Granted, it may be unrealistic to do so, but I've hear very little dialog in regards to that in
    the media.


    Originally posted by foo fighter
    Yes that is unrealistic. The only recourse now is to KILL those responsible, on both a personal and national level, lest we encourage more "copycat" attacks.
    Let's make sure we differentiate between islamic fundamentalist terrorists and the muslim and arab populations from which these terrorists recruit. We shouldn't try to appease the former (foo is right, we do need to capture/kill the active terrorists), but we do need to consider how our foreign policy contributes to the anger of the latter. Just capturing terrorists won't fix the problem if the conditions that created them still exist, and just improving those conditions won't get rid of the existing terrorist networks (who probably have it out for us no matter what our policy becomes -- plus we don't want to appease them or invite more demands/threats). It's analogous to the problem of domestic crime -- just building more prisons and locking more people up won't help if you aren't also addressing the socio-economic factors that result in increased crime. It's not one or the other, you need to act on both fronts.
    Last edited by Rob; 10/17/2001 at 01:16 AM.
  12. #52  
    It seems that the problem that we have with these countries isn't necessarily what we do or don't do, it seems that they're angry because we exist (we seem to **** them off because we are rich and because the majority of us they perceive as Godless and/or hypocritical). Short of nuking Israel, I can't see what we could do to get on their good side. You have to remember that these are countries that don't tolerate other religions very well. Most of these countries persecute anyone evangelizing any other religion, and/or differing sects in the Islamic fold.

    The Islamic problem is not something we can fix. It is a problem endemic with the way they perceive modernism and their relationship to it. You have several countries where the majority of the people are extremely poor and the wealth is controlled by a few families. Their societies are rigidly controlled and there isn't much hope for the common man to raise himself up. Couple that with rising amounts of young men who get free educations and you have a problem. These kids aren't going home after school and the cities can't support them, not enough jobs. In that situation, where the world doesn't offer anything of value they're told if they give their lives to the Cause they'll go to Heaven, what do we expect?

    I'm sure some of you are old enough to remember the idealogical terrorists of the 70's. I can remember going through the Rome airport in 1979 and seeing large amounts of armed soldiers (w/ locked and loaded weapons) on the alert. The Europeans finally dissolved that threat by ruthlessly hunting down and killing anybody in those factions. It stopped being enticing and romantic to be a terrorist.I can't say that the same thing will work this time because now we have religion added to the mix, but it reminds us that terrorists are exetremists and what makes someone a terrorist is usually a mixture of things not easily controlled.

    Of course I don't have a solution, and as a Christian I can't condone violence. I'm just sure that until we as a country come together and we don't elect to react with knee jerk responses we will be right where the terrorists want us. We can't solve the terrorists by becoming less free here.
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  13. #53  
    It seems that the problem that we have with these countries isn't necessarily what we do or don't do, it seems that they're angry because we exist (we seem to **** them off because we are rich and because the majority of us they perceive as Godless and/or hypocritical).
    To a point. They are also pissed at us for very specific reasons as well, ie: we are currently occupying their holy land, we tend to support minority leaders, we're looking out for our oil interests first and foremost, etc...

    The Islamic problem is not something we can fix. It is a problem endemic with the way they perceive modernism and their relationship to it.
    Whoa whoa whoa...this isn't an 'islamic' problem...it's a problem with a small fundamentalist sect of that particular religion.

    but it reminds us that terrorists are exetremists and what makes someone a terrorist is usually a mixture of things not easily controlled.
    Good point.

    I'm just sure that until we as a country come together and we don't elect to react with knee jerk responses we will be right where the terrorists want us. We can't solve the terrorists by becoming less free here.
    Excellent point.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  14. #54  
    Friends,

    Here is an interesting piece by Chris Matthews of MSNBC about the history of the region as it relates to the nations there today. May help enlighten this discussion.

    http://www.msnbc.com/news/595296.asp

    Otherwise, regarding fear:

    "JOHN 14:1 Jesus said, `Do not let anything trouble your heart. You believe in God and you must believe in me also.
    ...
    "JOHN 14:27 'Peace is what I leave for you. I give you my own peace. People of the world also say, "Peace" to you. I do not say it as they say it. Do not let anything trouble your hearts. Do not fear.'
    ....
    "JOHN 16:33 'I have told you these things so that you may have peace. I give you peace. The world will trouble you much. But be glad. I have power over the world.'
    MANY BLESSINGS!
    Peace and Every Good!


    Michael W. Cristiani
    mcristia@fuse.net
  15. #55  
    With all due respect, I don't see what bible verses have to do with this debate.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  16. #56  
    "To a point. They are also pissed at us for very specific reasons as well, ie: we are currently occupying their holy land, we tend to support minority leaders, we're looking out for our oil interests first and foremost, etc... "

    Actually we're not 'occupying' their Holy land, we've been invited by the rulers of their country. We were asked to be there. The Nazi's occupyied Poland. Big difference. Their beef is that 'infidels' are in the Holy land. As to the rest, lots of countries are pissed at us for supporting interests in their respective area and they have found other ways to deal with it.

    "Whoa whoa whoa...this isn't an 'islamic' problem...it's a problem with a small fundamentalist sect of that particular religion."

    No, it's endemic to their entire culture. All the Arab countries have had enormous problems adjusting to change. The vast disparity of incomes and lifestyles in these countries shows this. They have problems reconciling modernity into their lifestyles. Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan, Iraq, Iran, etc. all have been, and will continue for some time to have problems. I'm not saying that they are backward, I'm saying that they have problems assimilating change into their culture.

    "With all due respect, I don't see what bible verses have to do with this debate."

    With all due respect my friend, it has
    everything to do with this discussion. We won't get through this mess without the majority of people wanting peace. Don't dismiss the sentiment because you might have a problem with the source. We all need to lighten up and be more open minded.

    edited right after I posted to remove dyslexic grammar
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  17. #57  
    Actually we're not 'occupying' their Holy land, we've been invited by the rulers of their country. We were asked to be there.
    We were asked to be there by their ruling government...which we support. The ruling government is not necessarily the people's government.

    As to the rest, lots of countries are pissed at us for supporting interests in their respective area and they have found other ways to deal with it.
    I'm not saying what they are doing is right. They certainly SHOULD find other ways to deal with it. WE should explore ways to accomodate their needs as WE explore other ways to deal with it.

    No, it's endemic to their entire culture. All the Arab countries have had enormous problems adjusting to change.
    Yea. So what?

    I'm not saying that they are backward, I'm saying that they have problems assimilating change into their culture.
    Why should they be forced to change?

    With all due respect my friend, it has
    everything to do with this discussion. We won't get through this mess without the majority of people wanting peace. Don't dismiss the sentiment because you might have a problem with the source. We all need to lighten up and be more open minded.
    Ok, it was a nice sentiment from Jesus...fair enough. That does not mean it has everything to do with this discussion, though.
    We're all naked if you turn us inside out.
    -David Byrne
  18. #58  
    "We were asked to be there by their ruling government...which we support. The ruling government is not necessarily the people's government."

    Make up your mind. Either we can, or can, (or should, or should not) influence other countries and how they are run. Your sentiment seems to be that we should help to overthrow those governments that we deem are not fully supported by their people (and who is 'we' anyway?).

    As to whether or not they should change. That's up to them. No one says that they have to accept things like the telephone, internet, or credit cards into their society. It's probably impossible not to change though. One must learn to deal with new technologies and changes in the world outside. To ignore or attempt to deny that the world is in constant flux is stupid and not realistic. They are difficulties keeping up with the world outside because the people in charge (religious and political) don't really want the common citizen to have full access to the outside world. That's a short sighted view in my own opinion, but they want to maintain control.

    And as to accomodating their needs, why should we? We live in America. Not the United Nations. We have to keep our interests first. That's what countries do. If we can do so without harming others great, but everybody will not always be happy. Someone will always be angry because we supported a side of an issue that they didn't. To keep them(Islamics in M.E.) happy should we allow the Arab states to destroy Israel? Should we stop buying oil so we can starve those in charge of the governments out? Should we raise our boycott on Iraq because they're fearless ruler is starving his own people? We as a country can't even prevent one of our own states (Nevada) from denying the IRS access to bank records.

    Gotta go finis later....
    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
  19. #59  
    Originally posted by BobbyMike
    [...] As to whether or not they should change. That's up to them. No one says that they have to accept things like the telephone, internet, or credit cards into their society. It's probably impossible not to change though. One must learn to deal with new technologies and changes in the world outside. To ignore or attempt to deny that the world is in constant flux is stupid and not realistic. [...]
    OTOH, one could always adopt the ways of the Amish.
    ‎"Is that suck and salvage the Kevin Costner method?" - Chris Matthews on Hardball, July 6, 2010. Wonder if he's talking about his oil device or his movie career...
  20. #60  
    "OTOH, one could always adopt the ways of the Amish."

    Uh, I sell cars for a living now... that might decrease my income somewhat. I don't think they allow pda's either. or the occasional beer.

    "I am a debtor both to Greeks and to Barbarians, both to the wise and to the foolish."
Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst 1234 LastLast

Posting Permissions