I was talking about disenfranchised people lashing out at people who are better off. As a mentality. Violence is your spin on it, not mine. However, I'm sure that if I felt like expanding the scope of this to violent crime, I could dig up countless democrats who committed violence (certainly theft) against wealthier people or advocated it. Reverend Wright springs most immediately to mind.
I agree... except you kill ants by getting into the nest and killing the Queen. That does not always work, because (a) you have to find the ants nest (b) you have to find the queen and (c) in this case, the queen ants have wings and can fly almost anywhere. And once one queen ant is exterminated, any of the worker ants can grow wings and become queen. Is that stretching the analogy enough?
Not that different a mentality... ? Alright, would you like to compare violence, the propensity to "strike out" at people, left to right? Now THAT'S a debate I'm willing to have. Let's see, JFK was killed, his brother Bobby, MLK, John Lennon, possibly Paul Wellstone... who do you have? Any examples of liberals killing conservatives?
The main reason they were going to target it was because a lot of people in a small area makes a really tempting target. The war in Iraq was just an excuse. They used other excuses before the war in Iraq. They're pissed off, disenfranchised people who want a better life and choose to strike out at the wealthiest people in the world. Not all that different a mentality from many Democrats I've known, really.
And what about the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut? And the US funding of the Taliban during the Afghanistan/soviet war? And the funding rebels in Nicaragua? And what about the sale of arms to Iran to fund the rebels in Nicaragua? And what about the bombing of Cambodia? And what about Lockerbie? And what about Vietnam? And what about that other September 11, in which the US supported Pinoche's coup in Chile where the democratically elected president Allende was killed? US government action (and inaction) in these cases made things worse. -And lets not forget Iraq. Remember the London bombings? And the Madrid bombings? And the Bali bombings? The chief reason behind them: The invasion of Iraq. And there are more that were planned. There was a recent court case here in Melbourne, where militants were planning on bombing the MCG on Grand Final Day. (Kind of like our version of the Superbowl, a hundred thousand spectators, a pretty big deal here in Melbourne) I work at the MCG. I do not appreciate having my place of work being turned into a terrorist target. And the main reason they were going to target it? THE WAR IN IRAQ.
bill clinton didn't address it when they bombed the USS Cole....he said he would hunt down those responsible....and did not follow through....need i go on?
Of course, summarily shooting people on sight may inflame the situation. Lenin only became a revolutionary when his brother was shot by Tsarist police.
It's strange. We behave as though terrorism did not exist until Bush's GWOT, and that there are no established methods to address it. The guest raises an interesting point: how DO we know who is a terrorist if we aren't willing to use a single definition to describe it? Double-standards in this definition are counter-productive; if we or one of our allies uses violence or the threat of violence to further political ends, we should be honest enough to realize that this fits the definition just as well as when our enemies do it.
first check what is terrorism and who produced them.
Meanwhile, who have been screwing poor people who were tricked into usurious mortgages? If you want to talk class warfare...
I was talking about disenfranchised people lashing out at people who are better off. As a mentality. Violence is your spin on it, not mine. However, I'm sure that if I felt like expanding the scope of this to violent crime, I could dig up countless democrats who committed violence (certainly theft) against wealthier people or advocated it. Reverend Wright springs most immediately to mind.
who says they do not read foreign papers? not i....
I agree... except you kill ants by getting into the nest and killing the Queen. That does not always work, because (a) you have to find the ants nest (b) you have to find the queen and (c) in this case, the queen ants have wings and can fly almost anywhere. And once one queen ant is exterminated, any of the worker ants can grow wings and become queen. Is that stretching the analogy enough?
I doubt she has ever heard of the other September 11. She says she doesn't read foreign papers.
Not that different a mentality... ? Alright, would you like to compare violence, the propensity to "strike out" at people, left to right? Now THAT'S a debate I'm willing to have. Let's see, JFK was killed, his brother Bobby, MLK, John Lennon, possibly Paul Wellstone... who do you have? Any examples of liberals killing conservatives?
More like the same way you would combat ants.
And what would piss them off and disenfranchise them more? One big fat war zone.
The main reason they were going to target it was because a lot of people in a small area makes a really tempting target. The war in Iraq was just an excuse. They used other excuses before the war in Iraq. They're pissed off, disenfranchised people who want a better life and choose to strike out at the wealthiest people in the world. Not all that different a mentality from many Democrats I've known, really.
what does ANY of that have to do with what i said....do you have ADD?
And what about the bombing of the American Embassy in Beirut? And the US funding of the Taliban during the Afghanistan/soviet war? And the funding rebels in Nicaragua? And what about the sale of arms to Iran to fund the rebels in Nicaragua? And what about the bombing of Cambodia? And what about Lockerbie? And what about Vietnam? And what about that other September 11, in which the US supported Pinoche's coup in Chile where the democratically elected president Allende was killed? US government action (and inaction) in these cases made things worse. -And lets not forget Iraq. Remember the London bombings? And the Madrid bombings? And the Bali bombings? The chief reason behind them: The invasion of Iraq. And there are more that were planned. There was a recent court case here in Melbourne, where militants were planning on bombing the MCG on Grand Final Day. (Kind of like our version of the Superbowl, a hundred thousand spectators, a pretty big deal here in Melbourne) I work at the MCG. I do not appreciate having my place of work being turned into a terrorist target. And the main reason they were going to target it? THE WAR IN IRAQ.
bill clinton didn't address it when they bombed the USS Cole....he said he would hunt down those responsible....and did not follow through....need i go on?
Of course, summarily shooting people on sight may inflame the situation. Lenin only became a revolutionary when his brother was shot by Tsarist police.
It's strange. We behave as though terrorism did not exist until Bush's GWOT, and that there are no established methods to address it. The guest raises an interesting point: how DO we know who is a terrorist if we aren't willing to use a single definition to describe it? Double-standards in this definition are counter-productive; if we or one of our allies uses violence or the threat of violence to further political ends, we should be honest enough to realize that this fits the definition just as well as when our enemies do it.
and how do you know who is a terrorist and who isnt?