Reply With Quote
boutons response would most likely consist of "civil rights? YOU LIE! repugs are propping up the russian govt for pitbull 's run at the presidency of this morally bankrupt country, i laugh at you and spit on your graves."
Slomo is right: "terrorism" can be extremely effective at increasing costs.
To the point when the gross part of the GDP that goes into maintaining a largely useless security apparatus is simply unbearable.
boutons response would most likely consist of "civil rights? YOU LIE! repugs are propping up the russian govt for pitbull 's run at the presidency of this morally bankrupt country, i laugh at you and spit on your graves."
Looked it up and am interested. 12 angry men was a pretty influential film for me when I was a teenager so I'd like to see what this directors take on it is.
There are plenty of us, thank you very much.
They all do it. You really went there.
Given the regrettably flawed character of all countries, the relative infrequency of terrorist acts should be considered a clue as to the true scale of the problem. It's been tragically overblown.
It's ridiculous to suggest terroristic violence targets unpopular or controversial policies? Really?
Thank God it is not so. All that Manny suggested, I believe, is that policy can have unintended consequences.
Seems like you're trying to the make the perfect the enemy of the good. If a government of men predictably falls short of perfection, that is no good reason to be lax about accountability, whether moral, legal or political.
While it is probably true that terrorism inhabits a moral vacuum, it does take place in a political universe, in some determinate political context.
Historical context and specificity do not justify terrorism, but they do condition the act and its interpretation. Context and history have explanatory mojo.
So I really gotta spell it out?
dubya, head, and their neo-con mob lied the US into Iraq to grab the oil. Several 100K people are dead as a direct result, and are still dying. Murdering (civilian) people for economic gain is as terrorizing as is murdering people for political/religious reasons.
Tone deaf. CH was being facetious.
BTW, when do we grab the Iraqi oil? The pesky Iraqis keep giving the big development contracts to other countries.
"when do we grab the Iraqi oil"
incompetence and impotence were two of the many Enduring Signatures of the Repugs' Reign of Error.
So they should have grabbed the oil?
Impotence? IIRC they had no problem ing this country.
bullies are less
no, heifers are less.
If bomber turns out to be Muslim, it is pure coincidence.
Darrin's been waiting on the edge of his seat for the name "al-Muhammed" to appear as the attacker's name, and he couldn't wait any longer.
Nice give-up. Bigot.
.
Last edited by Spurminator; 01-25-2011 at 05:52 PM.
You expect his name to be John Smith? Quit lying to yourself.
Darrin's been waiting on the edge of his seat for the name "al-Muhammed" to appear as the attacker's name, and he couldn't wait any longer.
Nice give-up. Bigot.
^^^ your fantasy, funboy. Hope it was fun!
(For me it was totally obtuse, in an almost humorous way)
How does John Smith enter into it? I didn't get that. I still don't get that.
I think he meant that you shouldn't expect the terrorist to have a "white", "Christian" name.
Cause we all know that the only person on this board that supports terrorism is boutons.
let me get this straight- russian civilians are killed by chechnyan terrorists and its russia's fault for "mishandling" chechnya (which is at least part of their own country), but American civilians are killed by saudi terrorists and its iraq and radical islam's fault for having WMD and hate for freedom loving westerners. gotcha. (I know not everyone thinks like this, but this thread has posts that smell of it)
and no, not EVERY. SINGLE. COUNTRY. is guilty of state violence. AFAIK New Zealand or Singapore havent bombed other countries/their own people, then have to deal with terrorist retribution. maybe every world/regional power, but not every country / government needs to kill people domestic or foreign in order to grow.
I don't expect that. If the attack was related to the Chechen conflict, there's a high probability the attacker was Muslim. That doesn't mean I'm going to take alternate routes to work to avoid passing by a mosque.
OIC. Thanks, johnsmith.
Speculated, not established. Preliminary info does not implicate Chechens.
Is there something wrong with having things both ways? It's commonly done in this forum.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
