Right Wing Nabbed W/ Bombs

[kroby]

[quote]lixy wrote:
You might not like my depiction of the status quo as “savage capitalism”, but most people will probably agree that it’s gotten out of hand.[/quote]

Most people? That’s a rather gross over exaggeration.

As applied to US politics, you can’t refute the fact that Right is used to describe conservatives while Left is used to refer to people who want to push change. The latter are called progressists. I didn’t make up the word progressionist/progressist. Don’t blame me if you find some romantic tone to it.

Change?!? They are the absolute opposite of change. They would rather have a government tell you how to live, what to think and all be indebted to for their “freebies.” You find this progressive?

[quote]I’ve heard some other brilliant orators use hyperbole to get their mobs to killing frenzy.

I don’t like the thought of being associated to Bush. [/quote]

Bush? You think Bush could get a crowd into a frenzy? Are you serious? You’d hear crickets chirping. Bush: “It’s hard.” That’s one of his favorite lines. You think that’s oration? He stumbles in his speeches.

[kroby]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Wouldn’t hunting down terrorists here (the ones who actually have a chance of killing American citizens) do more to protect us?[/quote]

Wait, are you suggesting that we declare martial law in America?

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]kroby wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Wouldn’t hunting down terrorists here (the ones who actually have a chance of killing American citizens) do more to protect us?

Wait, are you suggesting that we declare martial law in America?[/quote]

I’m suggesting that it would make more sense to protect Americans in America than to protect Americans by going to Iraq.

I would (and do) not support either.

[lixy]

[quote]kroby wrote:
Most people? That’s a rather gross over exaggeration. [/quote]

Oh, no. Most people are greatly suffering from the current system. Maybe not in your neighbourhood, but they’re out there.

Change?!? They are the absolute opposite of change. They would rather have a government tell you how to live, what to think and all be indebted to for their “freebies.” You find this progressive?

You’re really not even trying to understand.

Status quo = Conservatives = No change needed
Progressists = Leftists = Oppose the status quo

I have no interest in debating the ups and down of capitalism vs. socialism. I’m trying to answer your question about what a reasonable definition of Left and Right would be from an American perspective.

Bush? You think Bush could get a crowd into a frenzy? Are you serious? You’d hear crickets chirping. Bush: “It’s hard.” That’s one of his favorite lines. You think that’s oration? He stumbles in his speeches.

Well, I guess you folks are not as picky as the Germans then.

He got you into a murderous and expensive war. 650,000 dead iraqis for what? Total chaos and a pile WMDs, errr…scratch the last one. Saddam was a monster but, at the current rate, the suicide bombers are bound to make Saddam look like a good alternative.

Unless you’ve got some stock in oil or weapons, I don’t think you’ll get any benefit from the war on Iraq. Of course, there’s the fact that there are more people who want to harm you than ever before the invasion.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
Most people? That’s a rather gross over exaggeration.

Oh, no. Most people are greatly suffering from the current system. Maybe not in your neighbourhood, but they’re out there.

Change?!? They are the absolute opposite of change. They would rather have a government tell you how to live, what to think and all be indebted to for their “freebies.” You find this progressive?

You’re really not even trying to understand.

Status quo = Conservatives = No change needed
Progressists = Leftists = Oppose the status quo

I have no interest in debating the ups and down of capitalism vs. socialism. I’m trying to answer your question about what a reasonable definition of Left and Right would be from an American perspective.

Bush? You think Bush could get a crowd into a frenzy? Are you serious? You’d hear crickets chirping. Bush: “It’s hard.” That’s one of his favorite lines. You think that’s oration? He stumbles in his speeches.

Well, I guess you folks are not as picky as the Germans then.

He got you into a murderous and expensive war. 650,000 dead iraqis for what? Total chaos and a pile WMDs, errr…scratch the last one. Saddam was a monster but, at the current rate, the suicide bombers are bound to make Saddam look like a good alternative.

Unless you’ve got some stock in oil or weapons, I don’t think you’ll get any benefit from the war on Iraq. Of course, there’s the fact that there are more people who want to harm you than ever before the invasion.[/quote]

650,000 dead Iraqis? From the war? Thats by far the highest number I’ve heard, could you please cite your source?

[lixy]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
650,000 dead Iraqis? From the war? Thats by far the highest number I’ve heard, could you please cite your source?
[/quote]

That’s the famous Lancet report. And that figure dates back to October 2006. Must have grown by now.

Anyhow, here’s the original report if you’re into statistics. I couldn’t find anything dubious in their methods.

http://www.thelancet.com/webfiles/images/journals/lancet/s0140673606694919.pdf

Even the Blair’s government said that the study was “robust” and the methods “tried and tested”.

BBC NEWS | UK | UK Politics | Iraqi deaths survey 'was robust'

Hope this helps.

[kroby]

[quote]lixy wrote:
kroby wrote:
Oh, no. Most people are greatly suffering from the current system. Maybe not in your neighbourhood, but they’re out there.[/quote] Africa, for instance? Or the average neighborhood in America?

[quote]You’re really not even trying to understand.

Status quo = Conservatives = No change needed
Progressists = Leftists = Oppose the status quo[/quote] No. There’s only one legitimate party. The Money Party. What you’re talking about is really a sham perpetrated on the public to think they have a voice.

[quote]Saddam was a monster but, at the current rate, the suicide bombers are bound to make Saddam look like a good alternative. [/quote] A bold statement.

[Brad61]

[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
Taken from the article you posted. Douchebag. [/quote]

Thanks for proving my point: The article tries to imply that this kid “just had napalm” and that’s somehow not as bad as a real bomb (it’s “slow burning” I bet that’s a real consolation if you are on fire).

Notice also that the article starts off by describing him as a “student” (why, he’s just a kid!). I wonder if any of the New Jersey Muslims were “students” too?

The media slants this as a minor episode because he’s Christian and white. If the guy was a Muslim it would be front page news and would be the lead story on the nightly news.

[Sloth]

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Taken from the article you posted. Douchebag.

Thanks for proving my point: The article tries to imply that this kid “just had napalm” and that’s somehow not as bad as a real bomb (it’s “slow burning” I bet that’s a real consolation if you are on fire).

Notice also that the article starts off by describing him as a “student” (why, he’s just a kid!). I wonder if any of the New Jersey Muslims were “students” too?

The media slants this as a minor episode because he’s Christian and white. If the guy was a Muslim it would be front page news and would be the lead story on the nightly news.

[/quote]

How in the hell are you getting that the media has slanted this as a “minor episode?” Is there anyone else in this thread that feels like the article is downplaying what these guys intended to do? It’s simply not as big as a story because it isn’t.

This is a group of schmucks pretty much acting on their own. They’re not part of some global Christian white guy Jihadist campaign. They’re a couple of deranged individuals that possibly wanted to silence those specific people.
They got busted. It got reported. End of story.

[pat]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
pat36 wrote:

If China, Russia, Korea, Brazil, Africa, and Iran joined forces and invaded America, would you kill soldiers of the invading forces?

Please, just a simple yes or no.[/quote]

If it would do any good, YES.

Despite the fact that invading Iraq was a bad idea, we didn’t go there with the intention to do harm. We didn’t go there take over. We went there to kick ass and leave. We killed off a dictator who oppressed a country and mudered it’s citizens unrelentedly. The soldiers on the ground are there with the idea to fight for their coutrry in order to return it to them. The U.S. has no interest in owning it. It was a dumb move to go there and a mistake. It was a bad idea, but we don’t want Iraq. Your example implies bad intenet from foreign invaders. Out intent was good. But we should not have gone there; I aggree with that. But, do I blame the insurgents for what they are doing; ABSOLUTELY. If they knock it off, we’d leave, period. You can call bullshit, but the proof is in the pudding. If Iraq becomes stable and we don’t leave, I am on your side.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
pat36 wrote:

If China, Russia, Korea, Brazil, Africa, and Iran joined forces and invaded America, would you kill soldiers of the invading forces?

Please, just a simple yes or no.

If it would do any good, YES.

Despite the fact that invading Iraq was a bad idea, we didn’t go there with the intention to do harm. We didn’t go there take over. We went there to kick ass and leave. We killed off a dictator who oppressed a country and mudered it’s citizens unrelentedly. The soldiers on the ground are there with the idea to fight for their coutrry in order to return it to them. The U.S. has no interest in owning it. It was a dumb move to go there and a mistake. It was a bad idea, but we don’t want Iraq. Your example implies bad intenet from foreign invaders. Out intent was good. But we should not have gone there; I aggree with that. But, do I blame the insurgents for what they are doing; ABSOLUTELY. If they knock it off, we’d leave, period. You can call bullshit, but the proof is in the pudding. If Iraq becomes stable and we don’t leave, I am on your side.
[/quote]

I didn’t say the invaders would have bad intent. Just that they would be invading America.

Now, be honest… imagine that you had no internet access, no way to communicate about WHY the invading forces were attacking. Would you be inclined to resist them or wait and see if they were here to make improvements?

My best is that most Americans would be quick to pick up their guns and join a militia.

Which is perfectly understandable. If you invade a country, you should expect citizens of that country to resist the invasion, with force. This does not mean those people had any intent to attack citizens of the invading countries.

What it comes down to is this: Counting the number of Iraqis who attack invading forces is not the same thing as counting the “number of terrorists in Iraq”.

But the right wing keeps screaming this blatant falsehood to be true. They keep saying its proof that they’re “Fighting the terrorists overseas so we dont have to fight them here”.

Its bullshit. Its like me claiming you have plans to attack me… then breaking into your house, you kicking my ass, then me screaming “SEE? SEE I KNEW HE WAS GOING TO ATTACK ME! HE ATTACKED ME THATS PROOF!!”

Do you understand my position?

[Sloth]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
pat36 wrote:
CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
pat36 wrote:

If China, Russia, Korea, Brazil, Africa, and Iran joined forces and invaded America, would you kill soldiers of the invading forces?

Please, just a simple yes or no.

If it would do any good, YES.

Despite the fact that invading Iraq was a bad idea, we didn’t go there with the intention to do harm. We didn’t go there take over. We went there to kick ass and leave. We killed off a dictator who oppressed a country and mudered it’s citizens unrelentedly. The soldiers on the ground are there with the idea to fight for their coutrry in order to return it to them. The U.S. has no interest in owning it. It was a dumb move to go there and a mistake. It was a bad idea, but we don’t want Iraq. Your example implies bad intenet from foreign invaders. Out intent was good. But we should not have gone there; I aggree with that. But, do I blame the insurgents for what they are doing; ABSOLUTELY. If they knock it off, we’d leave, period. You can call bullshit, but the proof is in the pudding. If Iraq becomes stable and we don’t leave, I am on your side.

I didn’t say the invaders would have bad intent. Just that they would be invading America.

Now, be honest… imagine that you had no internet access, no way to communicate about WHY the invading forces were attacking. Would you be inclined to resist them or wait and see if they were here to make improvements?

My best is that most Americans would be quick to pick up their guns and join a militia.

Which is perfectly understandable. If you invade a country, you should expect citizens of that country to resist the invasion, with force. This does not mean those people had any intent to attack citizens of the invading countries.

What it comes down to is this: Counting the number of Iraqis who attack invading forces is not the same thing as counting the “number of terrorists in Iraq”.

But the right wing keeps screaming this blatant falsehood to be true. They keep saying its proof that they’re “Fighting the terrorists overseas so we dont have to fight them here”.

Its bullshit. Its like me claiming you have plans to attack me… then breaking into your house, you kicking my ass, then me screaming “SEE? SEE I KNEW HE WAS GOING TO ATTACK ME! HE ATTACKED ME THATS PROOF!!”

Do you understand my position?

[/quote]

Again, if the US was like Saddam’s Iraq, I’d fight my fellow Americans on behalf of the invaders, if the invaders brought along a democratic process. Your analogy doesn’t work for me as my Nation isn’t the MOST important thing to me. It’s not at all equivalent, either.

For example, the elected government of Iraq continues to request our presence. There is a political process set forth to change that. The terrorists are trying to thwart the elected government of Iraq’s ability to secure the nation. If these folks want the US out, there is already a completely nonviolent and bloodless way to go about doing that. The political process.

[CappedAndPlanIt]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
Again, if the US was like Saddam’s Iraq, I’d fight my fellow Americans on behalf of the invaders, if the invaders brought along a democratic process. Your analogy doesn’t work for me as my Nation isn’t the MOST important thing to me. It’s not at all equivalent, either.

For example, the elected government of Iraq continues to request our presence. There is a political process set forth to change that. The terrorists are trying to thwart the elected government of Iraq’s ability to secure the nation. If these folks want the US out, there is already a completely nonviolent and bloodless way to go about doing that. The political process. [/quote]

So lets say you supported the current government and didn’t wany any other country invading yours.

Would you resist?

[Sloth]

[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Sloth wrote:
Again, if the US was like Saddam’s Iraq, I’d fight my fellow Americans on behalf of the invaders, if the invaders brought along a democratic process. Your analogy doesn’t work for me as my Nation isn’t the MOST important thing to me. It’s not at all equivalent, either.

For example, the elected government of Iraq continues to request our presence. There is a political process set forth to change that. The terrorists are trying to thwart the elected government of Iraq’s ability to secure the nation. If these folks want the US out, there is already a completely nonviolent and bloodless way to go about doing that. The political process.

So lets say you supported the current government and didn’t wany any other country invading yours.

Would you resist?[/quote]

Let me see if I understand you. You’re asking me if I would resist, say theocratic-totalitarian Iran, from invading the democratic and free US? Yes. But, now you’re far removed from the situation of myself living under a Saddam-like dictatorship, faced with an invasion that would give me the power to elect my own representation. So, the analogy falls apart.

Maybe your utmost loyalty is to the nation. Mine isn’t. If my government ever became like that of Saddam’s, I’d welcome a US like nation setting up a democratic process. My last post touched upon that process. The same process that can be used to say “Thank you USA, but we believe our security forces are ready to take over now. Here’s your departure date, don’t miss it.”

Your argument speaks for the Iraqi people. Yet, it omits those who do not want a haphazard and immediate withdraw. I’m speaking of Iraqis that believe Iraq’s own forces must first be up to the task. Maybe not perfect at first, but reasonably able. So far, Iraq’s government does not feel that has been achieved. Yet. At some point, the US and/or Iraq, will make that call.

Hopefully, no matter what your views are on toppling Saddam, you’ll support giving them a reasonable chance at holding their own against sectarian extremists, and Al Qaeda and it’s affiliates. If you can’t, than we’re hopelessly on opposite sides of the situation.

[JustTheFacts]

[quote]Sloth wrote:
How in the hell are you getting that the media has slanted this as a “minor episode?” Is there anyone else in this thread that feels like the article is downplaying what these guys intended to do? It’s simply not as big as a story because it isn’t.

This is a group of schmucks pretty much acting on their own. They’re not part of some global Christian white guy Jihadist campaign. They’re a couple of deranged individuals that possibly wanted to silence those specific people.
They got busted. It got reported. End of story.
[/quote]

Featured Content on Myspace

‘Army Of God’ Anthrax Threats
http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2001/11/09/national/main317573.shtml

The Army of God
http://www.sourcewatch.org/index.php?title=Army_of_God

Christian Terrorist Cells in the USA
http://www.commonplacebook.com/current_events/politics/christian_terro.shtm

The thing is, this guy had PHYSICAL BOMBS. So far all the so-called Muslim terror plots were nothing more than government manufactured wishful thinking.

Remember the guys who where going to blow-up the Sears Tower:

FBI Role in Terror Probe Questioned
Court records released since then suggest that what Gonzales described as a “deadly plot” was virtually the pipe dream of a few men with almost no ability to pull it off on their own. The suspects have raised questions in court about the FBI informants’ role in keeping the plan alive.

FBI Role in Terror Probe Questioned

People don’t realize how close they came to destroying the Sears Towers – all they needed were plans, bombs, money and a ride to Chicago.

All of which were to be supplied by the FBI.

You understand that was just ONE example of a terror plot manufactured out of whole-cloth by our own government to terrorize US citizens right?

Liberty City Seven

Hell, you STILL can’t take more than 3oz of liquid on a plane because of a terror plot that never even really existed and involved a bomb that would have still been impossible to make on a plane anyway.
http://www.tsa.gov/travelers/airtravel/prohibited/permitted-prohibited-items.shtm

UK ‘plot’ terror charge dropped

BBC NEWS | South Asia | UK 'plot' terror charge dropped

I guarantee you if a Muslim would ever get caught in the US with “slow burning bombs”, we’d be inundated with stories of “mini nukes” and plans of a much larger operation involving high profile targets “in the works” – which is why you can no longer take a seat cushion or wear a shirt with pockets to a ball game…

[JustTheFacts]

The ultimate irony…

The regrets of the man who brought down Saddam
March 19, 2007
Yet he now says he would prefer to be living under Saddam than under US occupation. He said: "The devil you know [is] better than the devil you don’t.

Saddam, he says, “was like Stalin. But the occupation is proving to be worse”.

The regrets of the man who brought down Saddam

[lixy]

[quote]pat36 wrote:
Your example implies bad intenet from foreign invaders. Out intent was good. [/quote]

Says who? You might not be interested in old-fashioned colonialism which is pretty much impossible to pull off in modern times; you’ll have too much domestic opposition.

Meanwhile, I can see reconstruction contracts going to US corporations. The Iraqi parliament pressured to open the field for US oil companies. Also, the US is having the largest embassy on Earth in Iraq. The average soldier with good intent might not see the big picture, but there’s absolutely nothing good about PNAC’s intentions in the region. They want control.

Sadly, at the end of the day, it’s the naive soldier that loses his/her legs while the bastards in power break the champagne.

[Zap_Branigan]

[quote]Brad61 wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Taken from the article you posted. Douchebag.

Thanks for proving my point: The article tries to imply that this kid “just had napalm” and that’s somehow not as bad as a real bomb (it’s “slow burning” I bet that’s a real consolation if you are on fire).

Notice also that the article starts off by describing him as a “student” (why, he’s just a kid!). I wonder if any of the New Jersey Muslims were “students” too?

The media slants this as a minor episode because he’s Christian and white. If the guy was a Muslim it would be front page news and would be the lead story on the nightly news.

[/quote]

The media also called the VT killer a “student”.

[kroby]

[quote]JustTheFacts wrote:
…
‘Army Of God’ Anthrax Threats
The Army of God
Christian Terrorist Cells in the USA
…[/quote]

Okay, JustTheFacts, I’d support your drive to declare all christians and muslims a threat to national security. If I may request, throw in all other religions that may also be a threat. Getting rid of the christians and muslims, would that make USA a safer place?

Oh, you meant that they don’t get equal “spin.” What do you want from a media that fears losing money due to alienating a vast majority of their consumers?

The media will say what it must, whatever spin, to make the most money. Period.

When faced with the truth, why does it anger you? It’s not fair? LOL “The Media” is a self serving industry. Every story is colored for maximum (or minimum) effect.

[JustTheFacts]

[quote]kroby wrote:
JustTheFacts wrote:
…
‘Army Of God’ Anthrax Threats
The Army of God
Christian Terrorist Cells in the USA
…

Okay, JustTheFacts, I’d support your drive to declare all christians and muslims a threat to national security. If I may request, throw in all other religions that may also be a threat. Getting rid of the christians and muslims, would that make USA a safer place?

Oh, you meant that they don’t get equal “spin.” What do you want from a media that fears losing money due to alienating a vast majority of their consumers?

The media will say what it must, whatever spin, to make the most money. Period.

When faced with the truth, why does it anger you? It’s not fair? LOL “The Media” is a self serving industry. Every story is colored for maximum (or minimum) effect.[/quote]

Actually I was making a point of WHY is there a distinction between terrorists at all?

At the same time, I was pointing out that since there obviously IS a distinction or “preference” for certain terrorists – then the whole “war on terror” is not really about terrorism AT ALL, but something obviously much worse.