10/17/06: A Dark Day in American History

[ironlung]

Have you guys seen thoes little computer chips for ID of dogs that they implant under the skin. I wish they had a GPS enabled version that was also linked to my ATM card that I could stick in my neck.


Think how great life would be. Go to Jewel, get what you need and just walk out, sensors would scan me and the stuff I want to buy on my way out and I would be charged accordingly to my checking account. Same idea works any where...parking garage, movie theater whatever.

I would not need a drivers licence or speed pass . Go thru a toll and my neck chip handles it all. Travel a little to quickly between checkpoints or blow a red light and a fine gets applyed automatically. Get pulled over and the police would have no doubt who I am. Scan my neck chip provides ID and even pays the fine.

My family could look on a display and find my exact location any where on the planet at any moment.

Any car could know my seat position and climate control pref just by my neck chips proximity.


Wow, how safe and convenient would life be if we all had our ID/GPS/ATM neck chips?

Remember everyone, the differance between a terrorist and general are whose side YOUR on. If you lived in Great Britan when the USA was just 13 colonies you would have refered to that guy on the back of the Mass state quarter as a terrorist not a revolutionary.

 

[Johnd]

Remember everyone, the differance between a terrorist and general are whose side YOUR on.

Utter genius. Thank God you were not the one giving condolence to the families of the victims of the: train wreck in Spain, the bus bombings in the East, the gas attacks in Japan, the bombings in Britain, the World Trade Center, and so on. Yeah...you're right. It must all be perspective. Utter genius.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Remember everyone, the differance between a terrorist and general are whose side YOUR on.

Thank God you were not the one giving condolence to the families of the victims of the: train wreck in Spain, the bus bombings in the East, the gas attacks in Japan, the bombings in Britain, the...

...bombing of Hiroshima?

It is all a matter of perspective Johnd. The terrorist's perspective is identical to that of the soldier; they both believe themselves to be fighting for a just cause.

Yeah...you're right. It must all be perspective. Utter genius.

What's genius is that your sarcasm proves my point. It is Ironlung's perspective that it's all a matter of perspective. It's yours that it's not. At least, that's how I see things.

 

[Johnd]

...bombing of Hiroshima?

It is all a matter of perspective Johnd. The terrorist's perspective is identical to that of the soldier; they both believe themselves to be fighting for a just cause.



What's genius is that your sarcasm proves my point. It is Ironlung's perspective that it's all a matter of perspective. It's yours that it's not. At least, that's how I see things.

The bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, whilst rendering many civilian caualties, was an act of war to end war (the Justified War Theory). It is irrefutable that Japan would have fought to the "end", and most historians agree that end would have been met with 500,000+ casualties (both American and Japanese).

These are not "warriors" of which you speak. They hide in homes and caves and bomb innocent civilians on buses, trains and in buildings. They have no nation. Their only common goal is to end (American) Democracy, all in the "sacred" name of Allah.

If you mean to say their wish "is to end American Imperialism", say it...there are pragmatic and less violent ways to achieve a lessened international American presence. I am not confused...terrorists are just that. And you are dead wrong...everything is not a matter of perspective. The examples I depicted were of innocent civilians...the targets had no military significance. The Hiroshima example is similar to a point. We were at war with Japan, they first attacked us, and one could rationally argue that the ends justified the means.

 

[rmongiovi]

These are not "warriors" of which you speak. They hide in homes and caves and bomb innocent civilians on buses, trains and in buildings. They have no nation. Their only common goal is to end (American) Democracy, all in the "sacred" name of Allah.

Yes, and our goal is to spread democracy to the world in the "sacred" name of capitalism, which will destroy their way of life. We believe they are wrong, and they believe we are wrong. All that could make us right and them wrong is our methods, and since we're descending to their level to fight this battle I'm not sure there's any difference.

You can deplore the terrorist methods, and I do myself, but what other sort of battle could they wage? We have all the advantages. Our military might is unparalleled. They either have to fight any way they can, or just give up and let us convert them to our way of life.

If they tried to do that to us, we'd be doing exactly as they are - fighting any way we could.

 

[Buckle-meister]

If you mean to say their wish "is to end American Imperialism", say it...

Don't worry Johnd, there's no subterfuge going on here. You maybe sure I'll always say what I mean.

...everything is not a matter of perspective. The examples I depicted were of innocent civilians...the targets had no military significance. The Hiroshima example is similar to a point. We were at war with Japan, they first attacked us, and one could rationally argue that the ends justified the means.

I'm not saying everything is a matter of perspective, and I doubt that anyone who felt the physical effects of that particular episode would agree, therefore your point, rationally argued or not, is simply an opinion. A matter of perspective if you will.

You can deplore the terrorist methods, and I do myself, but what other sort of battle could they wage? We have all the advantages. Our military might is unparalleled. They either have to fight any way they can, or just give up and let us convert them to our way of life.

If they tried to do that to us, we'd be doing exactly as they are - fighting any way we could.

Superb post. Every word a truth.

 

[Johnd]

You're not saying everything is a matter of perspective? But you did Robbie:

It is all a matter of perspective Johnd.

 

[Johnd]

Yes, and our goal is to spread democracy to the world in the "sacred" name of capitalism, which will destroy their way of life. We believe they are wrong, and they believe we are wrong. All that could make us right and them wrong is our methods, and since we're descending to their level to fight this battle I'm not sure there's any difference.

You can deplore the terrorist methods, and I do myself, but what other sort of battle could they wage? We have all the advantages. Our military might is unparalleled. They either have to fight any way they can, or just give up and let us convert them to our way of life.

If they tried to do that to us, we'd be doing exactly as they are - fighting any way we could.

Your sarcasm does not further your point. Don't confuse economics with religion. They are literally comitting acts of terrorism in the "sacred" name of Allah. Sacrilege and a desperate attempt to gain sympathy and support from the weak-minded, the destitute and the desperate.

And yes, I unequivocally deplore their terrorist methods. As far as I'm concerned, they can do pretty much anything they like, so long as it does not impinge on the rights of others. So let's not minimize and gloss over their terrorist methods (that you say you deoplore yourself), that is the whole point. Their terrorist methods (killing and maiming innocents) make them terrorists, and they accordingly must be stopped (because of their very acts, not their beliefs).

 

[Johnd]

and since we're descending to their level to fight this battle I'm not sure there's any difference.

Ahhh, some rational thought.

So you admit their tactics are abhorrent. True. (One would be hard-pressed to rationally argue otherwise).

You infer that "we" (the US, presumably) are descending to their level of fight. Untrue. Matt34 could better speak on this (since he's actually in the fight). We are not "descending to their level to fight this battle." Our taking on of urban guerilla tactics is one of an "intelligent fight" (if there is such a thing).

I further believe it to be an ethical tactic. We are not bombing buses and trains seeking out "civilian" deaths. I quote "civilian" because the line can get seemingly blurred, as their tactics include posing as civilians (clearly against the rules of war). We seek any enemy that will take up arms against us. The people in the Trade Center, the train in Spain, the bus in England were not enemies taking up arms against the Taliban or El-Qaudi. The fact that we now find ourselves in the predicament of developing novel tactics and fighting new fights does not descend "us to their level of fight." How dare you accuse our troops of descending to a terrorist level. Except for a few exceptions, the US military is doing a thankless job that noone else is willing to do. Again, thank God you are not the one rallying our troops over their.

Finally, let's not confuse the isssues. It is obvious that the three of you are against the war...so am I and the majority of Americans (and the World). We nevertheless must combat terrorism, and our old conventional methods do not work. As soon as we strengthen the Iraqi government to the point of self-sufficiency, we need to formulate an exit strategy, and act on it. Even then, the war on terror will not be finished.

 

[Johnd]

.You can deplore the terrorist methods, and I do myself, but what other sort of battle could they wage? We have all the advantages. Our military might is unparalleled. They either have to fight any way they can, or just give up and let us convert them to our way of life.

If they tried to do that to us, we'd be doing exactly as they are - fighting any way we could.

Finally: You deplore their methods, classify them as terrorists, and then excuse them since our "might is unparalleled"? Then you go so far to say we would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. Wrong.

It is a safe bet you have never seen a day in action, nor even served in the reserves. The cheap seats can be comfortable.

The killing of innocent civilians is wrong. What makes the terrorists Terrorists are their acts...not their belief system. These are murdering renegades without any sanctity for human rights. They offer their fundamentalism as as an excuse for their actions and parity in their acts of terorism as a way to heaven. And you excuse them.

Their will never be a shortage of people who flock to the mirage in the desert to drink the sand.

 

[Buckle-meister]

You're not saying everything is a matter of perspective? But you did Robbie:

Negative. The word 'It' in the post in question referred to the differences between terrorists and generals, not everything in the entire universe.

 

[Johnd]

Negative. The word 'It' in the post in question referred to the differences between terrorists and generals, not everything in the entire universe.

My misread. Thanks for the clarification.

 

[Buckle-meister]

...let's not confuse the isssues. It is obvious that the three of you are against the war...

I am, but you're mistaken if you believe that that has anything to do with any of my previous posts.

 

[Johnd]

I am, but you're mistaken if you believe that that has anything to do with any of my previous posts.

Perhaps. But I am not mistaken on perspective. Terrorism can (and is) be defined and empircally evidenced. I do not care to deliberate the terrorists beliefs (which is what a couple of posters delved into).

I am commenting on their acts, which, are irrefutably terroristic.

 

[Buckle-meister]

Perhaps.

No perhaps about it. You are mistaken. What, you don't believe me?

 

[Johnd]

No perhaps about it. You are mistaken. What, you don't believe me?

Mistakes have to do with empirical facts.
Beliefs have to do with faith.

Now who's confused?

 

[Buckle-meister]

Now who's confused?

Hahaha! Touché!

 

[rmongiovi]

Your sarcasm does not further your point. Don't confuse economics with religion. They are literally comitting acts of terrorism in the "sacred" name of Allah. Sacrilege and a desperate attempt to gain sympathy and support from the weak-minded, the destitute and the desperate.

And yes, I unequivocally deplore their terrorist methods. As far as I'm concerned, they can do pretty much anything they like, so long as it does not impinge on the rights of others. So let's not minimize and gloss over their terrorist methods (that you say you deoplore yourself), that is the whole point. Their terrorist methods (killing and maiming innocents) make them terrorists, and they accordingly must be stopped (because of their very acts, not their beliefs).

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was attempting to point out that our activities are not based on some higher principle, but simply to make a buck. Unless you've not been paying attention, we're killing lots of people in a place called Iraq. Everyone who has actually payed attention to any of the real intelligence gathering knows he didn't have anything to do with terrorists or the 9/11 attacks. There was a recent Senate report that even published that conclusion. And, of course, there really weren't any weapons of mass destruction, that was all just talk and bluster. So we're left with the only remaining point - Saddam was a baaaad man. Ok, that I'll grant you. But how is what he did worse than what's going on in Africa? Or North Korea?

Now personally, I think Bush junior had the hots to go into Iraq because daddy didn't finish the job there and, after all, they did try to assassinate Bush senior. But I think the truth lies in the idea that we're in Iraq because there's oil there. And that, I believe, is the true bottom line.

 

[rmongiovi]

Finally: You deplore their methods, classify them as terrorists, and then excuse them since our "might is unparalleled"? Then you go so far to say we would do the same thing if the roles were reversed. Wrong.

It is a safe bet you have never seen a day in action, nor even served in the reserves. The cheap seats can be comfortable.

The killing of innocent civilians is wrong. What makes the terrorists Terrorists are their acts...not their belief system. These are murdering renegades without any sanctity for human rights. They offer their fundamentalism as as an excuse for their actions and parity in their acts of terorism as a way to heaven. And you excuse them.

Their will never be a shortage of people who flock to the mirage in the desert to drink the sand.

When they stand up and fight us, the way you suggest they do, we wipe them out from a distance and not one of our people dies. That's quite ineffective, from their point of view. And yes, killing civilians is indeed a deplorable thing to do, but since we don't allow them to kill our soldiers, again I must ask what are they supposed to do? You don't attack an enemy where they're strong, you attack them where they're weak.

I'm not excusing them. I'm asking you to see things from their perspective. Pretend you don't have the strength of the mightiest army in the world backing you up. Pretend that a foreign government has come into your territory and told you that your way of life is wrong, and that you must change. To what actions would you resort to attempt to preserve your beliefs?

There's a joke that's been around for a few years that ends with the punchline "that's because we haven't played Cowboys and Muslims yet." You might want to consider how the American Indian might feel about opposing the will of the United States. You might also want to reconsider our moral superiority in light of the "humor" contained in that joke.

The Soviet Union tried to put missiles in Cuba, and we damned near started world war three. We put entire puppet governments in their part of the world, and they're supposed to just take it?

I don't want to argue right and wrong here. We believe we're right and they believe they're right. If there is a higher authority, he/she is notoriously ambiguous about which side actually guards the true dogma. So at the end it's just our way of life against theirs. All I'm saying is, if you want to claim the moral ascendancy, at least have the courage to understand why they act the way they do.

 

[Johnd]

Actually, I wasn't being sarcastic. I was attempting to point out that our activities are not based on some higher principle, but simply to make a buck. Unless you've not been paying attention, we're killing lots of people in a place called Iraq. Everyone who has actually payed attention to any of the real intelligence gathering knows he didn't have anything to do with terrorists or the 9/11 attacks. There was a recent Senate report that even published that conclusion. And, of course, there really weren't any weapons of mass destruction, that was all just talk and bluster. So we're left with the only remaining point - Saddam was a baaaad man. Ok, that I'll grant you. But how is what he did worse than what's going on in Africa? Or North Korea?

Now personally, I think Bush junior had the hots to go into Iraq because daddy didn't finish the job there and, after all, they did try to assassinate Bush senior. But I think the truth lies in the idea that we're in Iraq because there's oil there. And that, I believe, is the true bottom line.

Nothing you say is new. I agree with most of what you say above, except:

1. There is mounting evidence of wmd.
2. After 5 years, how much oil have we sold, and what is our profit? The assertion that we are there because of oil is weak, and patently untrue. We have not profitted one cent from oil sales in Iraq.

If I can spiffball for a second, I would cling to the fact that Saddam was a terrorist, that he brutally terrorized scores of his own people (with the help of his sons and entourage), and that is reason enough for our presence there (Saddam's crimes against humanity).