4 more explosions in London

No, he just took a page from Carl Rove's playbook.

 

No you cannot. I have blocked all PMs from you since the one that you sent me in which you threatened both Prius04 and myself.

FYI, I have saved it on my computer in case of future law enforcement need.

 

Please don't misquote me. I said that Republicans pass laws that hurt regular people, not that Republicans hurt people. One is an attack on what they do, the other is an attack on who they are.

(If I said the Republicans pass laws that help the rich and hurt the poor, would that be an insult? This is said all the time. My statement essentialy said the same thing.)

One is a criticism well within proper debate, the other is not.

So please get it right.

If you want to take this as a personal insult, then be my guest, but that is not what was meant nor what was said.

 

My goodness!!! Repulsive Republicans!!! Rotten Rove!!! Electronic threats!!! Parsing words!!! Personal insults!!! I didn't mean what I said!!! There's absolutely no point in taking any of this seriously. Bye.

 

Yea bye for now..got better things to do then argue with two opinionated individuals, especially since I am opionated too!!

 

In review of this thread I'll attempt to post a "Bottom line" of sorts, if I may...

Bottom line is that regardless of any political 'who's to blame' finger-pointing and name-calling (I personally feel that the Iraqi people want and today's Iraq needs security support until they are confident to ask the foreigners to leave), the world's collective law enforcement agencies need to be most diligent and decisive to pre-empt future terror attacks on civilian/economic targets and nail those perps connected to those already acted.

Period.

Indefinitely.

But for those wishing to ponder the politics, may I enter into consideration the horrific counter-proposition that the Tutsis of Rwanda should have known better and done an about face policy-shift if they didn't want what the antagonized Hutus finally resorted to in '94??

See?

Bottom line: Pre-empt terrorist attacks and enforce the attackers.

Peace all and enjoy your respective rides~

 

Good post Hyack., nothing is simple, the second part of your post I am still pondering, but that post that you made is a good way to discuss and view things.

We all can agree though that we have been blessed with the ownership of a new car that has brought us all here.

No matter what our reasons and views, we can still come together and throw out points and counterpoints, opinions and counter opinions, feelings and counter feelings yet still remain closely aligned with regards to the good fortune and technological wonder of this wonderful car, the Prius.

 

"He used to do that kind of thing, but he seems to have learned how to debate more honorably"

No did not learn to do it, already knew how, just did that on the posts due to the overwhelming vicious personal attacks veiled with "fancy" words, masking the intended purpose.

So I deliberately threw back that "kind of thing" to show you it was not "nice". Words my man no matter in what order or context still accomplish many purposes. I do like the fact people think I am less then intelligent..I always access an individual after long contacts with that individual. I don't do the snap judgements, to get debating points. This is not a debating society, and I would like to think we discuss real life.

 

Left out the individual's name on purpose>>>

 

You said "these are attacks against Western nations" right after mentioning Egypt and Indonesia. You contradicted yourself.

I completely agree. The attacks are not just against Western nations, but against prominent targets where there is support for imperialism against Muslim nations.

You're incorrect. Egypt's participation is relatively anonymous, but is widely known. Egypt is in a difficult position, being a mostly Muslim nation strongly allied with the US and having made peace with Israel. I understand why their support cannot be open--and why it's particularly dangerous for them.

In other words, they have to keep these alleged mindless impulses to kill in check--in order to maximize their effectiveness. I'm not sure what you're disagreeing with.

Not really. By qualifying what I wrote, you've just shown partial agreement, I think. I have never claimed that terrorism is justified.

I think that terrorism undercuts progress on their legitimate gripes. They might thereby succeed in influencing governments to leave the Middle East alone, but I agree that their methods are wrong.

Yes. We can agree, then, that the most likely targets are not Western nations in general, but those known to have acted against the interests of the extremists, or against Muslim nations in general.

 

Orismo..that seems like an old post...but anyway I am surprised you feel that strongly about all this in the way you do. Terrorism in general needs to be discouraged as a way of accomplishing national goals, period.

 

Yes--or any goals. I suspect that everyone on this board reached a similar conclusion long ago.

I believe a strategy of shock and awe, though, directed against a people who are overwhelmingly not terrorists, to be worse than the occasional train-station bombing (and just another sort of terrorism). Counter-productive, too, as it invites retribution. A "war on terror," if it's fought only with things that go bang, will by definition never be won.

Reactive methods will fail, and here I include "preemptive" military strikes. True proactivity will also mean modifying our policies so that fewer people hate us so thoroughly. I don't rule out military or police action completely, but I believe that every time it's used, it creates more terrorists.

And, yeah, I care a lot. I pay a lot in taxes, and therefore bear some responsibility for this (extremely graphic images of casualties).

 

Gee, thanks for adding words to quotations of what I supposedly said. :x [Seriously Orisno, you owe me an apology.]

Next time try cutting and pasting, because the black and white of what I wrote is NOT the same as how you quoted me!

. . IS NOT . . .</span>

Is that how you go about understanding reality? Misconstrue until it fits your ideals of that reality?

Egypt as a “member of the coalition of the willing.â€:
From your NYT link:
\"Other countries have not been named publicly but are likely members of the coalition. They include Israel, as well as several Arab states that are providing bases or other assistance to the war: Saudi Arabia, Bahrain, Qatar, Jordan, Oman, the United Arab Emirates (UAE), and Egypt.\"

Sure looks like some of that infamous NYT conjecture to me.

Just because Egypt has given the US military overflight, refueling, and Suez transit rights - for the past several decades(!) - does not make Egypt a “member of the coalition†. . . publically, privately, or double secret probation wise!

If that were the case, WHY then doesn’t the NYT also list Canada and Greece as non-publically named coalition members? Canada gives the US military armed overflight, landing, and refueling rights. Greece does the same. <a href=\'http://www.souda.navy.mil/\' target=\'_blank\'>http://www.souda.navy.mil/</a>

What? Not sensationalized enough for the NYT reader? Kind of takes the wind out of the story’s sail? No longer hard, biting NYT news? Won’t sell papers???

Really Orisno, consider your source before labeling it FACT . . . especially when the quoted source uses weasel words like “likely.†IN FACT, your use of “widely known†as the name of your link to the NYT is a weasel phrase in and of itself . . .
“widely known†by whom?
If Egypt and the other listed countries have “not been named publicly†- how can it be “widely known� Would that make it "widely likely" or "likely widely"???

 

Sufferin' Prius Envy, you've nailed it (and the NYT as well)!!

 

I\'m sorry I remembered the wrong phrase in between screens, but I don\'t see a big difference. I disagree with either phrasing, and don\'t see that either applies to the bombings in Egypt or Indonesia. These weren\'t "attacks at Westerners in general."

You contradicted yourself there.

 

Actually, using force as the predominate method of dealing with terrorism is clearly doomed to failure. I have no problem with killing terrorists, but if the result of killing one terrorist is the making of two more, which the Bush war is CLEARLY doing, then the war can never end & democracy can never take hold. And we can never get the oil.

I believe that this is clearly what Orsino meant.

As the days wear on, it seems more and more clear that GW created another Iran. And 10 years after that happens, Iraq will finally have the WMD that GW said was there.

So I'll say it again, thank you GW for making us safer.

 

Orismo is a Canadian citizen, supposedly his government is not supporting this effort, therefore one must think he realize his government is the one among others enabling some of this and also nuclear ambitions of some of the countries, as was pointed out in earlier posts.

All I can say is I am glad he is Canadian.

 

Orsino, please give an example of a "legitimate gripe" by terrorists. Then, when you have searched and found what YOU believe to be a "legitimate gripe" that the terrorists may have, can you explain how that "legitimate gripe" extends to the rest of the world? Frankly, Orsino, you are a target of the terrorist because you're breathing. That's what I believe. I believe that Islamic Fundamentalism, with its birth in Egypt in the 1920's among the Muslim Brotherhood, has made YOU the enemy because you are who you are, and for no other reason. Peace can exist only on their terms, not on your terms. No negotiations; no compromise. It's their way, or no way; and they will kill you to achieve that end. One problem that I have is not with the Muslim religion, but with the Muslim religious leaders. Their silence regarding terrorist acts has been absolutely deafening. Another problem that I have is with the Muslim culture that seems to suppress the family structure in favor of tribalism, and a culture in which children are raised by traumatized mothers in an atmosphere of blind hate and intolerance with the support of their "religious leaders". I believe that, wherever that atmosphere exists, that is where the irrational hatred is bred; and no "legitimate gripes" are needed to justify killing.

 

And both Orismo and the other person trying to justify terrorist, by looking at their "gripes" or trying to negotiate with them as a result of the terrorist act.. cannot should not and MUST NOT be justified in anyway in this world. This is no differrent then kidnappers, and the likes, you do not negotiate, no results can be expected by resorting to this path. And to say that by killing one you create two, so you should not kill one, well 3000 were killed on 9-11., and more before and after that. There is no way this can be tolerated by any civilized country, and the solution is what has been slowly developing. The current Israeli prime minister, a former soldier clearly understood this and you may see a solution some day, but no thanks to the "Arafat" idealogy. This way of life must be stopped and defeated. I might add that the PLO and Arafat ROBBED the palestinians people, had they dealt honestly with his people there would not be a problem in Palestine.

 

You clearly have no idea what I said. Please pay closer attention. Neither Orsino nor I have ever justified the actions of terrorists.

But we both believe that GW has badly mishandled the war against them. And so does most of the American people.