[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dialo

Actually, that's clearly not true. The huge majority of terrorist attacks in the US have been committed by conservative pro-life american christians.

Really?!?!

I guess I'm a cell all my own waitin to go off.

Seriously, let's hear you back up your little misinformation statement.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dialo

Actually, that's clearly not true. Just look at the pro-life terrorist attacks in recent decades.

Glad I caught your previous statement. And quoted it above. Why'd you change it?

List these so called "attacks" please.

[dialo]

Because I saw it was already mentioned and I don't have the energy or time to deal with a protracted denial from terrorist sympathizers. I also didn't mean to leave off the fact that I was talking about recent decades. There's no point in a discussion that keeps reaching back to the klan or civil war, etc. The longer you go back in history, the more important it is to source, and that's not possible in a casual internet discussion on an apple site. Those events and time periods also have little to do with the political environment and terrorism today.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

All of them.

So, just to be clear, you believe each of these statements is false:

1. Stealing cars is immoral.
2. Running a sweatshop is immoral.
3. It is wrong to support immoral activity.
4. Paying somebody to do something encourages him to do that thing.

It seems to me that either you didn't read carefully enough, you are lying just to be a dick, or you're a complete nutcase.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Glad I caught your previous statement. And quoted it above. Why'd you change it?

List these so called "attacks" please.

I didn't make the claim, but I felt like looking into it, and a quick Google turned up a 1998 story listing several attacks that year and in the years preceding it.

[dialo]

In the decades before 9/11, pro-life terrorism was the deadliest and most destructive in the US and surpassed even the world trade center bombing in 1993 (by an extremely large margin, actually). In the late 60s/early 70s, leftist terrorism was the worst in the US. Before that it was probably the klan and racist groups. The point being that US groups have engaged in terrorism to support their cause, so it's certainly no foreign concept. Most recently the domestic terrorists have been conservative american christians and the political views at the root of that terrorism and the prevalence of those views have not diminished, so if there is any group that can understand the motivations of terrorists, look no further than those who shout "abortion is genocide," thus providing legitimization for the current top domestic terrorists.

[dialo]

It's also interesting how terrorism is so often justified as a retaliation for the murders of innocent people, whether they are innocent palestinians or innocent fetuses. It makes perfect sense, however, since the only way to do something so tremendously immoral is to justify it as a response to a perceived greater evil (be it a legitimate evil or not) of a similar kind.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dialo

Because I saw it was already mentioned and I don't have the energy or time to deal with a protracted denial from terrorist sympathizers. I also didn't mean to leave off the fact that I was talking about recent decades. There's no point in a discussion that keeps reaching back to the klan or civil war, etc. The longer you go back in history, the more important it is to source, and that's not possible in a casual internet discussion on an apple site. Those events and time periods also have little to do with the political environment and terrorism today.

Calling me a "terrorist sympathizer"? How nice. Logical debate is gone I guess.

This isn't a "internet discussion on an apple site". It's a pol/war forum subection of a general discussion furom called "the lounge" in a "Community" section of the MacNN forums. The perfect place for you to call me a "terrorist sympathizer".

I agree that "Those events and time periods also have little to do with the political environment and terrorism today", so why did you bring them up?

The longer you go back in history you'll see the persecution of Christians and Jews. Why stop at a couple decades eh?

Care to let me know what the greatest terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11 was? I'll give you a hint, April 19th. And it wasn't a "conservative pro-life american christian".

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

I didn't make the claim, but I felt like looking into it, and a quick Google turned up a 1998 story listing several attacks that year and in the years preceding it.

Anytime a journalist uses phrases like "and some of its supporters", "for example" and "very serious", "More common", "One of the most common" and "Some 'pro-choice'" should have been your indication that the person writing the article just might have been a little biased.

I like this little gem: "As a result of the violence, many doctors and hospitals are not prepared anymore to perform abortions". O.K., where is the proof of that statement? It's a bit vague, no?

Now, why aren't you guys focusing on this statement buried in the article: "Although the killings were isolated incidents, and not condoned by the mainstream pro-life movement"?

[dialo]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Calling me a "terrorist sympathizer"?

I didn't call you anything. I didn't even see you make any comments that could be construed as such. Are you a terrorist sympathizer whose pro-terrorist comments I inadvertantly missed or just so self-obsessed that you think everything is a reference to you?

This isn't a "internet discussion on an apple site". It's a pol/war forum subection of a general discussion furom called "the lounge" in a "Community" section of the MacNN forums.

Like the political forum section on a camera-buff forum? Or a honda-lovers' forum? Or a gardening forum?

Virtually all internet forums have political sections. They don't change the nature of the forums they reside in, they are just holding pens for partisans.

"Those events and time periods also have little to do with the political environment and terrorism today", so why did you bring them up?

Uh, apparently you need to try reading the post again.

Care to let me know what the greatest terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11 was? I'll give you a hint, April 19th. And it wasn't a "conservative pro-life american christian".

But there were still more terrorist attacks in the past couple of decades pro-life terrorists. Does the fact that the london bombings were more destructive than 10 palestinian suicide bombings diminish the significance of the suicide bombings? No. Terrorism is terrorism.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dialo

It's also interesting how terrorism is so often justified as a retaliation for the murders of innocent people, whether they are innocent palestinians or innocent fetuses. It makes perfect sense, however, since the only way to do something so tremendously immoral is to justify it as a response to a perceived greater evil (be it a legitimate evil or not) of a similar kind.

Terrorism is never justified. You are associating something with a group that just isn't there.

I'm appalled you can understand it, because I can't. Maybe you can understand it because you sympathize with the Iraq insurgency?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Care to let me know what the greatest terrorist attack on US soil before 9/11 was? I'll give you a hint, April 19th. And it wasn't a "conservative pro-life american christian".

...Waco was a terrorist attack? Is there another April 19 attack I'm blanking on?

[dialo]

Originally Posted by Railroader

a little biased.

This isn't a discussion about bias. If you have thoughtful statements to make about terrorism and its relationship to american political thought then make them, but trying to change the topic to your opinions, particularly of the motivations of some unknown journalist writing years ago, does nothing to further the understanding of the issue at hand and, since it is a matter of opinion, precludes any possibility of an informed, factual discussion.

[dialo]

Originally Posted by Railroader

Maybe you can understand it because you sympathize with the Iraq insurgency?

I'm american, not Iraqi. I've never been to Iraq. How could I sympathize with something I've had no contact with and no understanding of? Not even US intelligence really understands their motivations. The US military says they are almost entirely pro-saddam baathists. How could someone be pro-saddam?

Clearly you just looking to argue for the sake of arguing.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dialo

I didn't call you anything. I didn't even see you make any comments that could be construed as such. Are you a terrorist sympathizer whose pro-terrorist comments I inadvertantly missed or just so self-obsessed that you think everything is a reference to you?

Huh. again eh? You said this:

Because I saw it was already mentioned and I don't have the energy or time to deal with a protracted denial from terrorist sympathizers

Do you see it now? It might be hard with all of the editing of your posts you are doing.

Originally Posted by dialo

Like the political forum section on a camera-buff forum? Or a honda-lovers' forum? Or a gardening forum?

A political forum is exactly as it is called. It isn't a forum where we are limited to the discussion of how Apple affects the political climate silly child.

Originally Posted by dialo

Virtually all internet forums have political sections. They don't change the nature of the forums they reside in, they are just holding pens for partisans.

What are you rambling about now?
[QUOTE=dialo]Uh, apparently you need to try reading the post again./quote]
Maybe you need to write it in a way that I won't misunderstand you.

Originally Posted by dialo

But there were still more terrorist attacks in the past couple of decades pro-life terrorists.

Go proof? Links? Something more than your talking points?

Originally Posted by dialo

Does the fact that the london bombings were more destructive than 10 palestinian suicide bombings diminish the significance of the suicide bombings?

]
Why are you bringing this into it? Trying to sidetrack the discussion? I won't answer this question simply because it's a derail.

Originally Posted by dialo

No. Terrorism is terrorism.

Uhhh.. you're the one quantifying all of this. And if 10 suicide bombing take place and don't kill a single person does that make them equal to a bombing that kills dozens? No.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

...Waco was a terrorist attack? Is there another April 19 attack I'm blanking on?

yup.

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dialo

This isn't a discussion about bias. If you have thoughtful statements to make about terrorism and its relationship to american political thought then make them, but trying to change the topic to your opinions, particularly of the motivations of some unknown journalist writing years ago, does nothing to further the understanding of the issue at hand and, since it is a matter of opinion, precludes any possibility of an informed, factual discussion.

I'm not the one who brought the article into the discussion. I was simply just point out it's flaws. Follow the logical conclusion now?

[Railroader]

Originally Posted by dialo

I'm american, not Iraqi. I've never been to Iraq. How could I sympathize with something I've had no contact with and no understanding of? Not even US intelligence really understands their motivations. The US military says they are almost entirely pro-saddam baathists.

You seem to sympathize enough with it to compare it to pro-life American Christians.

Originally Posted by dialo

How could someone be pro-saddam?

Really?!?! You don't? Huh? Not saying I do at all, they appear to be quite demented in their mentality, but I can understand their motivation. I just don't agree with it. I guess I'm not as closed minded as you appear to be.

Originally Posted by dialo

Clearly you just looking to argue for the sake of arguing.

As opposed to the guy who trolls with statements like:

Originally Posted by dialo

The huge majority of terrorist attacks in the US have been committed by conservative pro-life american christians.

Huh?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Railroader

yup.

Oh! Oklahoma. D'oh. I'm going to go sit in my special seat now.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

So, just to be clear, you believe each of these statements is false:

1. Stealing cars is immoral.
2. Running a sweatshop is immoral.
3. It is wrong to support immoral activity.
4. Paying somebody to do something encourages him to do that thing.

It seems to me that either you didn't read carefully enough, you are lying just to be a dick, or you're a complete nutcase.

Or it was 3 am, I didn't have any cake and your circular arguments were boring me.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by dialo

and conservatives want to legislate personal lives. give it a rest.

were not the ones who started an anti-liberal thread. YOU guys on the left (namely SimpleLife) went and started this thread. So why dont YOU "give it a rest."

Originally Posted by dialo

An la times poll 2 days after 9/11 showed that the percentages of liberals and conservatives who supported military retaliation vs bringing bin laden to trial were virtually identical. The stereotypes you believe in are dead false.

yeah. 2 days after 9/11. Why? Because the shock of attack had finally beaten some sense into those liberals. Now they all seem to have forgotten. And besides who's sterotyping? "Terrorists and Right-Thinging people; what do they share?" Hmmm?? It would do you good to read the entirety of my previous post.

And the mentioned "theres always another way" mentality has been expressed in this thread. Thats why I brought it up.

[SimpleLife]

Sweatshops:
Lets look at this from an economic perspective, and I'll try to make this clear as possible because even if your life is simple, your messages are confusing and at this point making no sense at all. There seems to be a rift of communication...[/quote]

Maybe you need to expand on that instead.

Anyway look: company needs part X. Sweatshop can provide company with part X at a price lower than any local group can. So company provides business to sweatshop X. That may sound immoral, but lets look at it in more detail, before we have a silly self-righteous anti capitalist rant. Why is the sweatshop price so low? A couple of factors. For one, the dollar is probably much stronger than given country's currency. Also, the sweatshop wants to be able to compete, so they can with low prices, seeing as how they can't with quality or reputation or advertisment, etc. Strong dollar in comparison, that would be the fault of the country's government--poor economic planning, system, and implementation. Inability to compete with any other means than price, that would also be the fault of the given country's government. If they had a better economic system, then their companies would be in better shape and able to compete with other means than a ridiculously low price.

I understand that. But does that mean it is OK to entertain a system where you gather all the benefits and they starve?

Lets also look at some other facts: Because the country of the sweatshop is doing poor economically, all providers of the materials and capital necessary for sweatshop to produce will be doing equally bad as the sweatshop and have an equally low price. Thus, the cost of production for them is significantly less than the cost of production would be for a group in the US producing the same part. They probably make a decent margin on sales.

You mean a monstrous margin on sales... It has to pay, otherwise, why bother with all the difficulties of doing business abroad?

Another thing to consider is the owners of the sweatshops. Be damned sure they're all cutting profits and living it up. Why? Because their country doesnt have laws enforcing the just treatment and pay of workers. They hire kids and abuse them for very little pay because their government lets them do it.

So why support something immoral?

If given countries revamp their economy and laws, the sweatshops will disappear. Slowly, granted. But things would improve. I mean look at China. They just got back Honk Kong, which thrived under British rule. China is now (economically) growing rapidly, taking after the good example the British set.

Finally, did you read what you replied to? If US and other big countries' companies did not buy from the sweatshops, they would make no money whatsoever. The owners would just fire their already-poorly-treated workers, who in turn would starve and die.

How different is that from this slavery they are already submitted to? I understand the reasoning: "at least, they have a little money". But its never enough isn't it?

I'm not saying sweatshops are good. They are morally wrong. That is why we have none in the US. But we cannot really control other countries, and if we lock down free international trade... well, that always has a negative effect on the economy. And not just ours.[/quote]

True. No control abroad makes it difficult at home because we tied our businesses to increased benefits here. In the meantime, we support governments who do not see the need to improve the situation locally, because someone in power gets richer on the back of the working population. Because there are people like me and you who buy their products, through intermediates who will make a very good cut for each piece sold here, and because they do not own the economy of their country since after all, they get their cut of the deal anyway, why should anyone do anything about it?

Why bother puting a thing that "works"?

So yes, its wrong and immoral, but I dont see you doing anything about it. I havent heard any great ideas from you.

I do not have the pretention of knowing everything, but as I explained before, I am looking for certainties regarding the involvement of our governments in preventing terrorism abroad as well as at home.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Liberals:
Um, who the hell is bashing who here? I mean, you start a thread pretty much equating the mind of a right winger to the mind of a terrorist. Of course I'm going to defend what I believe. Clearly you intend to bash conservatives, or you just have very poor judgement as what to name your threads.

It sounds like youre trying to be more balanced. You should have named your thread "Terrorists and Americans;..."

I think terrorists take the worst attributes of the typical conservative mind, and the worst attributes of the typical liberal mind, and mix it into something thats 50% right, 50% left, 100% evil, 0% Republican, and 0% Democrat. That is 0% American.

I think I made it clear that it is about the right-thinking way of the West. And believe it or not, the more I look into it, the less I see differences between the liberal way of thinking and the right way of thinking. That you want to protect your identity as an American is fine by me; personally I include Canada as well as all industrialized countries. In my mind, they are the same iin this matter.

[SimpleLife]

Let us put a different spin on this argument:

"9/11:
Lets look at this from an economic perspective." I mean if we can afford to look at sweatshops solely from an economic perspective, we can do the same with 9/11.

I mean what is common to sweatshops and the terrorist attack on the Twin Towers by Bin Laden?

Both are wrong and immoral.

Both kill (and more so the sweatshops than the attack by OBL).

Both generate a lot of income for a lot of people (at least 100 Billion dollars were spent just for the invasion of Iraq on pretext of the existence of WMDs and we are not looking at the money involved in the attack on the Twin Towers alone). The market for oil was extremely active and profitable the day after 9/11...

Both generate anger because they are unfair to the people victimized by this situation.

Both are looking at short-term profit.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by loki74

were not the ones who started an anti-liberal thread. YOU guys on the left (namely SimpleLife) went and started this thread. So why dont YOU "give it a rest."

My starting post:

What do terrorists and the Western world share in terms of values, beliefs?
Specifically, we saw a trend where Right-wing/Conservative appear to be more prone to radical action whilst the "left" is accused of appeasing-lovers.

In another thread, there was quite an exchange between Spliffdaddy and christ.

It gave me this idea of starting this thread on that very topic.

So, what do you think? What do we share with terrorists? What do we have in common?

Please note the emphasis on "we".

yeah. 2 days after 9/11. Why? Because the shock of attack had finally beaten some sense into those liberals.

I beg to differ. All normal human beings entertain thoughts of vengeance. In this case, this reaction was totally natural and apolitical; when we lose control, we want it back. When we are put in an extreme situation, we react extremely. That is normal.

Now they all seem to have forgotten.

No. After a while, people think and take time to ponder situations and react according to their values, their personality, etc. It was unavoidable that many people would regret their access to anger. Some will experience shame because they do not recognize how they reacted as part of who they are.

It does not mean, however, that the need to punish is less important; it might be different though.

And besides who's sterotyping? "Terrorists and Right-Thinging people; what do they share?" Hmmm?? It would do you good to read the entirety of my previous post.

Actually, I could have done a better job at making the title of this thread. I apologize for I was not so much targetting Right Wing people, but the Right way of thinking. It is subtly different and is not dependant of a politica party, although they may certainly coincide at times. Being affiliated to a political organization is one thing, but the attitude we entertain about the world and our relationship with people may not reflect our political allegiances always.

And the mentioned "theres always another way" mentality has been expressed in this thread. Thats why I brought it up.

I believe that too: there is always another way. Can we try something else before more people die?

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by Sherwin

Or it was 3 am, I didn't have any cake and your circular arguments were boring me.

I don't think you know what that term means, since I actually explicitly laid out the form of the argument and none of the premises were the same as the conclusion. It is deductively valid, not circular.

Not that I necessarily expect you to care. I just wanted to point it out.

[Sherwin]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

Not that I necessarily expect you to care.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I understand that. But does that mean it is OK to entertain a system where you gather all the benefits and they starve?

That, or we could not entertain it, and they'd starve even more, and die. We've got bad and we've got worse. But there are solutions, I think... namely (once the WoT is for the most part over) negotiate those governemts to give their people a fighting chance, economically.

Another thing that might work is if all US companies were to boycott sweatshop people simultaneously, which would cause either a rebellion of the workers or more fair treatment from the employers... However, as previously mentioned, many more sweatshop workers would die if that were to happen. Not to mention the effect it would have on our economoy. And the massive amount of organization it would take. And the massive amount of resistance it would recieve.

Also heres the trap: if one company does it, they all have to. Otherwise they will be unable to compete becasue their costs of production will be exponentially higher, giving them 2 options: raise the price, or cut down on new capital. Hell, chances are if they set their price to what other companies who do use sweatshops have (and they dont use sweatshops) they wont even have enough of a margin to meet deprication. And since nobody can say "well YOU were the first company to do it..." and they dont trust each other enough to all not do it... its a bit of a thight fix.

I'm not saying any of this is right, and I think we should try to find a solution. But I also think that any hasty moves may result in even more death and hurt.

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I believe that too: there is always another way. Can we try something else before more people die?

There is another way, perhaps... but I doubt theres one where less people die.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9/11 economically: the object of the attack was not to make money. It was to end lives. The point of using sweatshops is not to end lives. Owners of corporations who employ their services do not do it for because they want some foreign worker to be abused by their boss and die.

See, unlike terrorists, most Americans (westerners, etc whatever) dont want everyone who disagrees with them to die. Someone who attacks their soil? Maybe. But not just people who agree. If that were the case, if Americans and terrorists thought alike, a big chunk of Europe would be level by now...

Seriously, though... I think that the only ties to terrorists any other human beings have is... well, human nature. Previously stated desire for revenge, etc. The terrorists have all those temptations etc to a much greater amplitude. For instance... I will get very very pissed off with someone who spits on Christianity (I am a Christian). But a terrorist will brutally murder anyone who spits on their religion. Similar concept, drastically different action.

[DanMacMan]

Ideologically speaking, there is virtually nothing similar. Republicans and Democrats, in America at least, aren't willing to kill innocents in order to advance a perspective. They aren't afraid of losing influence to the point of attack. On a human level, it comes down to a basic level of civility and being able to deal with things that don't go your way. Its like the bully in grade school, he is mad that another kid has something that he doesn't so instead of working to get it, he beats up the kid. And then to try and maintain his edge, he continues to pound the kid to try and influence future actions. Eventually the kid and other normal kids like him, fight back and put the bully in his place. Civility is restored, and life goes on.

[christ]

Originally Posted by DanMacMan

...Republicans and Democrats, in America at least, aren't willing to kill innocents in order to advance a perspective.....

(Assuming that "advance a perspective" means "achieve their aims")

So the Americans weren't willing to kill innocent Iraqis in order to achieve their aims?

This tosh means that either:

a) you consider all Iraqis were guilty (of what?), or

b) The invasion wasn't to achieve their aims

Neither of these is true.

I think that your President even said that you had to accept casualties in order to achieve the right conclusion - ergo he, at least, is willing to kill innocents "for the greater good".

RAA.

[loki74]

no. Not aims. Beliefs. Values. Culture. etc etc.

The invasion into Iraq was not because Bush believed the Iraqi people are "infedels." It was because he had multiple, some international, sources telling him that Saddam had WMDs. (Lets pleeeeaaaaaase not have an argument about the validity of the information or whos fault it was... save that for another thread) To disarm him casualties could be expected.

Now if Bush's reason for invading was that they were not Christian... and he wanted not to convert them, but to kill them... that would be the equal of the terrorists.

[Chuckit]

Originally Posted by loki74

no. Not aims. Beliefs. Values. Culture. etc etc.

The invasion into Iraq was not because Bush believed the Iraqi people are "infedels." It was because he had multiple, some international, sources telling him that Saddam had WMDs. (Lets pleeeeaaaaaase not have an argument about the validity of the information or whos fault it was... save that for another thread) To disarm him casualties could be expected.

It is clear that Bush does not invade countries simply because they have WMDs, since he left a country that we knew to have WMDs (North Korea) completely alone and encouraged others to do the same. So you can't just say, "He had WMDs, so we invaded. There was no additional ideology involved."

[Moderator]

absolutism. "MY God is THE God and you're just flucking wrong..ps you're going to hell and I'm not."

[mitchell_pgh]

Originally Posted by Chuckit

It is clear that Bush does not invade countries simply because they have WMDs, since he left a country that we knew to have WMDs (North Korea) completely alone and encouraged others to do the same. So you can't just say, "He had WMDs, so we invaded. There was no additional ideology involved."

The Bush administration on a few ocasions has said "North Korea and Iraq are very different situations" and I must agree. We have chosen a unilateral approach to Iraq and a multilateral approach to NK. I feel both have the best chance of success.

[Chuckit]

I'm not disagreeing that they're different situations. I'm saying the invasion wasn't just because of the imagined WMDs — it was also (primarily?) because of the other factors that make it a "different situation."

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by loki74

That, or we could not entertain it, and they'd starve even more, and die. We've got bad and we've got worse. But there are solutions, I think... namely

Most are already starving, feeding themselves from trash. Also, in some countries, they have to pay 25% of their daily income for water... You really see an end to this?

(once the WoT is for the most part over) negotiate those governemts to give their people a fighting chance, economically.

Remember what China said to the US regarding their Human Rights records? "Nuts!". Yet, this is one of the biggest economic partners of the US today. You believe this will change anytime soon?

And you hope the WOT will allow changes? I disagree; the WOT is part of this economical change that is required. On paper, the request to have African countries resolve local corruption is a good start. In practice, a lot remains to be seen, not only from the African parts, but also from those who will provide the "aid". Time will tell I suppose. In the meantime, North Africa is turning into a nest of terrorists... especially in the area where people are very poor, and the Quoran is the only hope they feel they have...

Another thing that might work is if all US companies were to boycott sweatshop people simultaneously, which would cause either a rebellion of the workers or more fair treatment from the employers...

Why do you give the responsibility to US companies? Why don't you make that move yourself?

However, as previously mentioned, many more sweatshop workers would die if that were to happen.

At least, they'd regain their pride, and a fair chance of fighting local corruption.

Not to mention the effect it would have on our economoy.

What is the cost of freedom?

And the massive amount of organization it would take. And the massive amount of resistance it would recieve.

All it takes is one to start. Will you be the one? Care to join us?

Also heres the trap: if one company does it, they all have to. Otherwise they will be unable to compete becasue their costs of production will be exponentially higher, giving them 2 options: raise the price, or cut down on new capital. Hell, chances are if they set their price to what other companies who do use sweatshops have (and they dont use sweatshops) they wont even have enough of a margin to meet deprication. And since nobody can say "well YOU were the first company to do it..." and they dont trust each other enough to all not do it... its a bit of a thight fix.

Again, stop giving the responsibility to others when it is yours to make. The consumer is King, or the fish being lurred to purchase whatever crap he/she does not need anyway.

I'm not saying any of this is right, and I think we should try to find a solution. But I also think that any hasty moves may result in even more death and hurt.

How long are we still going to wait? It's been like this for 300 years already!

There is another way, perhaps... but I doubt theres one where less people die.

Better have people die when they fight than die for nothing through the fights of others.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

9/11 economically: the object of the attack was not to make money.

Yet, in America, people got much righer following the attack, and they are not even terrorists; they are good citizens!

It was to end lives.

Yep: terrorists' profits.

The point of using sweatshops is not to end lives. Owners of corporations who employ their services do not do it for because they want some foreign worker to be abused by their boss and die.

Actually they do not care. So it is more to the point: people die or are left with no protection whatsoever if they lose their jobs following unfair treatment. Children working in sweatshops turn blind or get difformities then are left on their own afterwards because they are useless for the sweatshops. Consolation; they can always prostitute themselves!

See, unlike terrorists, most Americans (westerners, etc whatever) dont want everyone who disagrees with them to die. Someone who attacks their soil? Maybe. But not just people who agree. If that were the case, if Americans and terrorists thought alike, a big chunk of Europe would be level by now...

It has nothing to do with Americans; it has to do with a way of thinking where it is better to turn people "off" by having them killed, or worse, being debied their existence by saying that "we can't do anything about it" while we are at the source of the problem, all of us in industrialized countries.

It is not a call for a rebirth of communism; it is about making it right from our end first, before starting lecturing everyone else.

Seriously, though... I think that the only ties to terrorists any other human beings have is... well, human nature. Previously stated desire for revenge, etc. The terrorists have all those temptations etc to a much greater amplitude. For instance... I will get very very pissed off with someone who spits on Christianity (I am a Christian). But a terrorist will brutally murder anyone who spits on their religion. Similar concept, drastically different action.

Not that different; the terrorists besides being manipulated in doing what he/she does is also usually powerless, or have the feeling of powerlessness, and like Right-Thinking people, feel violence is the last resort.

[loki74]

Originally Posted by mitchell_pgh

The Bush administration on a few ocasions has said "North Korea and Iraq are very different situations" and I must agree. We have chosen a unilateral approach to Iraq and a multilateral approach to NK. I feel both have the best chance of success.

wow.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

SimpleLife: *sigh* ...I am beginning to give up hope we'll ever see eye to eye... Sweatshops are wrong. I'm open to solutions. If you think that we could organize a mass boycott of all sweatshops, and you have a plan on how it could be achieved (or any kind of plan) I'm ALL ears. And I mean a detailed, thought out plan... the main thing I object to is the hastiness of everything I've heard thusfar about stopping sweatshops. I mean, you want ME to go and find out exactly what companies buy from sweatshops and not buy from them anymore? What if its a company that buys from a company that buys from a sweatshop? How deep does the chain go? Not to mention that the only way it can be effective is if it is organized on a mass scale... I'm all for the "it only takes one" mentality, but I think the job of the "one" is to rally support to his cause. Thats how stuff happens. Right now, I'm not feeling very rallied... or something like that.

As for the terrorist/westerner link, I am now quite lost... But I will take back what I said before, about the money side of 9/11. I'm not sure if it was the case in that particular attack, but I have heard of the families of suicide bombers being paid off by oBL etc. So that is a factor. But I do not think it can relate us to them really. I mean, we attack military targets. Sure civilians die, but thats what we DONT want to happen. (Granted, in a war on terror, the lines between military and civilian become blurred, given that the terrorists are not an actual gov't) The terrorists, they WANT civilians to die... at this point, they're not even caring if its their own people anymore. Anyone who disagrees. Or even gets in the way...

I value all human life. I have no desire to kill anyone. There are people I think deserve to die, but it is not my job to exact that punishment. That makes me just a LITTLE different at least, doeesnt it? from obl and his buddies? I hope so...

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by loki74

I value all human life. I have no desire to kill anyone. There are people I think deserve to die, but it is not my job to exact that punishment. That makes me just a LITTLE different at least, doeesnt it? from obl and his buddies? I hope so...

No one said we are identical to OBL.

Some of us share a little more than others.

Motivations are key; for OBL, I am pretty sure he has his own despicable agenda. For his goons, I am not too sure; I am not ready to give them the same blame I would for OBL. They remain criminals nevertheless.

But how we deal with the world has consequences; The Road to Hell is full of good intentions, or so I heard. My point is that we need to question our ways at the individual level, meaning you, me, so we ensure we do everything to prevent more terrorism. Our relation with Oil is a problem. Our greed as well as our need for things that are useless is another issue. Doing business with countries that have no respect for their people is wrong. I am not saying this is going to be easy for everyone; we need to support one another instead of competing all the time. We are dealing with people, not objects.

I do not think that Right wing/conservatives are totally like terrorism. But like it or not, we, Conservatives, Liberals (and who knows what else?) are all related to them in our way of dealing with people.

Why should terrorist killing civilians be any different than our lack of care for people in sweatshops? That is our main similarity, and it is the most despicable.

It is so easy to say we are all alone, and therefore helpless, yet it is so paradoxical at the same time...

[loki74]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

I do not think that Right wing/conservatives are totally like terrorism. But like it or not, we, Conservatives, Liberals (and who knows what else?) are all related to them in our way of dealing with people.

Dont see how. Violence last resort? I believe you mentioned that before. No, terrorists have killing as their first resort. I've never killed anyone. I dont "deal with people" that way. Now, if you're comparing the average american serial killer/rapist etc to terrorists, thats perfectly fine. I can see that.

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

Why should terrorist killing civilians be any different than our lack of care for people in sweatshops? That is our main similarity, and it is the most despicable.

Like I said, the corporations dont buy from sweatshops for the sake of ending the lives of poeple in foreign countries. Terrorists bomb civilian locations for the sake of killing civilians.

Nobody said we're all alone. We're not hopeless. Thats why I'm glad we have someone in office willing to take action, regradless of what it will do to his polls.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Actually there is very much in common, both are humans that happen to live on the planet earth, are breathing the same air, drinking the same water and bleeding in the same colour.

If you are talking about political or military concepts, in the former case they share a lot of ideas with christian fundamentalists, while in the latter case they share a lot with the airforce and secret agencies like the CIA and with Pentagon's paramilitary-units.

Taliesin

Though it isn't the first time I've thought of the similarities and differences between the sides, I've never before listed them here.

My answers are the same as Taliesin's.

Those who maintain we share NO traits in common remind me of those whose mental dexterity requires the equivalent of Laddie pencils, GIANT Crayola crayons and paper with huge margins.

Those folks distinguish themselves by a passionate support for THEIR side of the issue.

In times of war these folks are invaluable.

However, if peace is EVER to be achieved through means other than military conquest, these folks are the ones who stand in the way of progress and if they won't go away quietly, they must be considered as much an enemy of peace as the initial enemy was.

The hard liners killed the Egyptian Sadat* and the Israeli Rabin as they moved toward peace.

Both sides, watch your hard line zealots.

Although, with al Qaeda it's hard to imagine anyone being harder line than OBL, himself.

Which means HE stands in the way of peace. Soooooo, the situation remains unchanged.

OBL must go.

Muslims who want peace and Westerners who want peace and anyone else who wants peace must do everything they can to kill, capture, incapacitate or remove OBL.

See?

There really IS a common ground to be shared.

* In a related story...

Egyptian Court Orders Sadat Assassin Freed
Tue Jul 12, 6:24 PM ET

An Islamic militant convicted in connection with the 1981 assassination of Egyptian President Anwar Sadat was ordered released from prison Tuesday after a court ruled he had completed his sentence.

Tarek el-Zomor, 45, should have been released in October 2003 after serving 22 years for his part in plotting Sadat's killing during a military parade in Cairo, the court said in a verdict issued Tuesday.

The Interior Ministry now must either release him or appeal the ruling. The ministry last year successfully appealed a similar order to free el-Zomor.

El-Zomor and his cousin, a lieutenant in the Egyptian army, were sentenced to 20 years prison, the maximum term under Egyptian law.

The Interior Ministry has the discretion to hold a prisoner for up to five years more on security grounds. Tuesday's ruling did not include the cousin, Lt. Col. Abboud el-Zomor, 57.

The two were arrested in October 1981 and convicted in 1984 of plotting Sadat's assassination and belonging to the outlawed Islamic Jihad group, but did not shoot the president. Those who did were captured and executed.

Islamic Jihad, the principal militant group behind the assassination, opposed Sadat's 1979 Camp David peace deal with Israel.

In the late 1990s, Islamic Jihad merged with al-Qaida, led by Osama bin Laden, which is blamed for the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks on the United States. Many of Islamic Jihad's jailed leaders have since renounced violence.

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by loki74

Terrorists bomb civilian locations for the sake of killing civilians.

Ummm...... once again.....i have to point out. World trade center in the morning, when the working day was just getting started....wouldnt have been the best time to kill as many ppl as possible. If civilian casualties were their goal, there are many other ways to kill more ppl if they wanted to. Their 'score' is 3000 civilians (approx).

In London, same thing.....i dont think their primary 'goal' was to kill as many ppl. they would have had better 'results' if they targeted the G8 protests, given the number of ppl concentraded in that area, but they didnt....which leads me to suspect that civilian death tolls were not the aim. (dotn ask me what is cause i dont know).

Now.... the U.S. government....Their 'score' is 100,000 civilians (just in Iraq, i dont know the civilian death toll in Afghanistan). So....
-Terrorists barbarian:3000
-Civilized, informed governments: 100,000 (very conservative estimate)

Now....if your trying to prove intent, you need more than just accusations and speculation. 100,000 is a damn large number of innocent 'bystanders' in a war. (i dont know the motive or reason for U.S. invasion of Iraq or Afghanistan). But judging just the damange done so far by both sides.....well it's hard to see who the bigger 'threat' is.

If you want to bring in motive...well Terrorists have rather bizzare motives that im not even going to try to comprehend. their hate of the west is just unimmaginble to me given the crappy social/political/economic system they have in place in the middle east today. But at the same time, the U.S. stated its motive as being WMDs and links to terrorists, which after 2 full years of occupation have not produced any proof....therefore, their reasons for killing 100,00 are ******** as well. So since both sides have absolutely no justifiable reasoning for inflicting civilian casulaties, i dont think either side can point fingers to the other (terrorists and the current Republican(Right) party) and say that their 'cause' is unjust....theyre both unjust. They have both commited atroticities, at varying degrees by not sufficiently distinguishing between armed forces and civilians.

And, i might be mathematically challenged or naive or whatever, but 100,000 is a larger atroticity when compared to 3,000.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by SimpleLife

No one said we are identical to OBL.

Some of us share a little more than others.

Motivations are key; for OBL, I am pretty sure he has his own despicable agenda. For his goons, I am not too sure; I am not ready to give them the same blame I would for OBL. They remain criminals nevertheless.

But how we deal with the world has consequences; The Road to Hell is full of good intentions, or so I heard. My point is that we need to question our ways at the individual level, meaning you, me, so we ensure we do everything to prevent more terrorism. Our relation with Oil is a problem. Our greed as well as our need for things that are useless is another issue. Doing business with countries that have no respect for their people is wrong. I am not saying this is going to be easy for everyone; we need to support one another instead of competing all the time. We are dealing with people, not objects.

I do not think that Right wing/conservatives are totally like terrorism. But like it or not, we, Conservatives, Liberals (and who knows what else?) are all related to them in our way of dealing with people.

Why should terrorist killing civilians be any different than our lack of care for people in sweatshops? That is our main similarity, and it is the most despicable.

It is so easy to say we are all alone, and therefore helpless, yet it is so paradoxical at the same time...

Simple Life, I am totally impressed by the progress you've shown since you first began posting here in expressing your ideas and directing or steering a debate.

Your thought processes are noticeably less mushy than before and your use of English has also greatly improved. You may think no one notices or cares. That's not true. Although I still disagree with your points of view, I no longer feel contempt for your posts.

You have every right to be confident about your future progress, too. One day, if you are really smart, you will become a conservative.

[christ]

Originally Posted by loki74

no. Not aims. Beliefs. Values. Culture. etc etc.

The invasion into Iraq was not because Bush believed the Iraqi people are "infedels." It was because he had multiple, some international, sources telling him that Saddam had WMDs. (Lets pleeeeaaaaaase not have an argument about the validity of the information or whos fault it was... save that for another thread) To disarm him casualties could be expected.

Now if Bush's reason for invading was that they were not Christian... and he wanted not to convert them, but to kill them... that would be the equal of the terrorists.

Bush's (ostensible) reason for invading was that the Iraqis [or at least their leaders] were not democratic, he appeared not to worry how many of them he killed in the process of converting the remainder, and he is currently in the business of attempting to demonstrate that 'resistance is futile'. Bush's chanting of the 'Democracy is Good' mantra appears little different to the religious rhetoric that you so disparage.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by loki74

no. Not aims. Beliefs. Values. Culture. etc etc.

The invasion into Iraq was not because Bush believed the Iraqi people are "infedels." It was because he had multiple, some international, sources telling him that Saddam had WMDs. (Lets pleeeeaaaaaase not have an argument about the validity of the information or whos fault it was... save that for another thread) To disarm him casualties could be expected.

Not quite, if Bush really believed Saddam had usable and unaccounted WMD's, he would have never ordered the invasion of Iraq, much too risky and hazardous. That's why the US would never invade North-Corea, it has WMD's.

Taliesin

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Not quite, if Bush really believed Saddam had usable and unaccounted WMD's, he would have never ordered the invasion of Iraq, much too risky and hazardous. That's why the US would never invade North-Corea, it has WMD's.

Taliesin

There's a big difference between taking on N. Korea in a nuke exchange with a Communist China next door vs. taking on Saddam with WMD's and almost everyone else in the region is no real friend of the US except Israel and none of them have the ability to strike a major blow to the US in retaliation!

If we start nuking N. Korea, China might join in to help N. Korea. Not good.

If Saddam had WMD's and chose to use them against the attacking coalition forces it would have given W a reason to do in two weeks what has taken three years and still isn't complete.

Anyway, it looks like we MAY be talking about the wrong WMD's. There are a reported 20 al Qaeda nukes already in place in major US cities.

Tancredo to request
al-Qaida nuke briefing
Congressman to ask Justice Department for report on 'American Hiroshima' plan
Posted: July 13, 2005
1:00 a.m. Eastern


© 2005 WorldNetDaily.com

WASHINGTON – Rep. Tom Tancredo, R-Colo., a staunch critic of the federal government's lax immigration and border enforcement policies, said yesterday he would request a briefing from the Justice Department on information it has on plans revealed by WND this week for a nuclear attack on the U.S. by al-Qaida terrorists.Tancredo said he was greatly alarmed by the report and would seek whatever information he could get from the nation's law enforcement authorities – either in classified or unclassified reports.

Al-Qaida's plans, known as "America's Hiroshima" according to captured terrorists and terrorist documents, calls for the multiple detonation of nuclear weapons, already in the possession of Osama bin Laden's operatives currently inside the U.S. The agents and arms having been smuggled across the U.S.-Mexico border with the help of the MS-13 street gang and other organized crime groups, according to the report originating in Joseph Farah's G2 Bulletin, a premium, online intelligence newsletter published by the founder of WND.

The attack is designed to kill at least 4 million Americans.

Al-Qaida has obtained at least 40 nuclear weapons from the former Soviet Union – including suitcase nukes, nuclear mines, artillery shells and even some missile warheads, according to the report. In addition, documents captured in Afghanistan show al-Qaida had plans to assemble its own nuclear weapons with fissile material it purchased on the black market.

In addition to detonating its own nuclear weapons already planted in the U.S., military sources also say there is evidence to suggest al-Qaida is paying former Russian Spetznaz, or special forces operatives, to assist the terrorist group in locating nuclear weapons formerly concealed inside the U.S. by the Soviet Union during the Cold War. Bin Laden's group is also paying nuclear scientists from Russia and Pakistan to maintain its existing nuclear arsenal and assemble additional weapons with the materials it has invested hundreds of millions in procuring over a period of 10 years.

The plans for the devastating nuclear attack on the U.S. have been under development for more than a decade. It is designed as a final deadly blow of defeat to the U.S., which is seen by al-Qaida and its allies as "the Great Satan."

At least half the nuclear weapons in the al-Qaida arsenal were obtained for cash from Chechen terrorist allies.

But the most disturbing news is that high-level U.S. officials now believe at least some of those weapons have been smuggled into the U.S. for use in the near future in major cities as part of this "American Hiroshima" plan, according to an upcoming book, "The al-Qaida Connection: International Terrorism, Organized Crime and the Coming Apocalypse," by Paul L. Williams, a former FBI consultant.

According to Williams, former CIA Director George Tenet informed President Bush one month after the Sept. 11, 2001, attacks that at least two suitcase nukes had reached al-Qaida operatives in the U.S. President Bush reportedly went "through the roof" upon hearing the news, prompting him to order his national security team to give nuclear terrorism priority over every other threat to America.

"Each suitcase weighed between 50 and 80 kilograms (approximately 110 to 176 pounds) and contained enough fissionable plutonium and uranium to produce an explosive yield in excess of two kilotons," wrote Williams. "One suitcase bore the serial number 9999 and the Russian manufacturing date of 1988. The design of the weapons, Tenet told the president, is simple. The plutonium and uranium are kept in separate compartments that are linked to a triggering mechanism that can be activated by a clock or a call from the cell phone."

It is worth noting Bush failed to translate this policy into securing the U.S.-Mexico border through which the nuclear weapons and al-Qaida operatives are believed to have passed with the help of the MS-13 smugglers. He did, however, order the building of underground bunkers away from major metropolitan areas for use by federal government managers following an attack.

Bin Laden, according to Williams, has nearly unlimited funds to spend on his nuclear terrorism plan because he has remained in control of the Afghanistan-produced heroin industry. Poppy production has greatly increased even while U.S. troops are occupying the country, he writes. Al-Qaida has developed close relations with the Albanian Mafia, which assists in the smuggling and sale of heroin throughout Europe and the U.S.

Some of that money is used to pay off the notorious MS-13 street gang between $30,000 and $50,000 for each sleeper agent smuggled into the U.S. from Mexico. The sleepers are also provided with phony identification, most often bogus matricula consular ID cards indistinguishable from Mexico's official ID, now accepted in the U.S. to open bank accounts and obtain driver's licenses.

The Bush administration's unwillingness to secure the U.S.-Mexico border has puzzled and dismayed a growing number of activists and ordinary citizens who see it as the No. 1 security threat to the nation. The Minuteman organization is planning a major mobilization of thousands of Americans this fall designed to shut down the entire 2,000-mile border as it did in April with a 23-mile stretch in Arizona.

According to Williams' sources, thousands of al-Qaida sleeper agents have now been forward deployed into the U.S. to carry out their individual roles in the coming "American Hiroshima" plan.

Bin Laden's goal, according to the book, is to kill at least 4 million Americans, 2 million of whom must be children. Only then, bin Laden has said, would the crimes committed by America on the Arab and Muslim world be avenged.

There is virtually no doubt among intelligence analysts al-Qaida has obtained fully assembled nuclear weapons, according to Williams. The only question is how many. Estimates range between a dozen and 70.

The future plan, according to captured al-Qaida agents and documents, suggests the attacks will take place simultaneously in major cities throughout the country – including New York, Boston, Washington, Las Vegas, Miami, Chicago and Los Angeles.

In response to the G2 Bulletin revelations, Chris Simcox, founder of the Minuteman Civil Defense Corps, a citizen action group demanding the U.S. government take control of its borders, said an immediate military presence on the borders is now imperative "to stop the overwhelming influx of unidentified, potentially hostile and seditious persons coming across at an alarming rate."

"Terrorists have carte blanche to carry practically anything they want across our national line at this time," he said. "As ordinary citizens have warned this government for years, the only surprising part about the new information reported here is that nothing apocalyptic from Mexican-border weapons trafficking has yet happened. Terrorism has reared its ugly head in London again these past few days, and as we know all too well we are not immune in this country.

"At this point, the next attempt to attack America at home is just a matter of 'when,' not 'if.' And our unsecured borders have surely contributed to this threat – yet our government officials continue to fiddle while our nation's margin of security and safety burns away. The president and Congress had better wake up before they have to answer for another devastating terrorist incursion on our own soil."

[Hawkeye_a]

Originally Posted by Taliesin

Not quite, if Bush really believed Saddam had usable and unaccounted WMD's, he would have never ordered the invasion of Iraq, much too risky and hazardous. That's why the US would never invade North-Corea, it has WMD's.

Taliesin

Huh....i never thought of it that way. It does make sence though. Very good point.

[mojo2]

Originally Posted by Hawkeye_a

Huh....i never thought of it that way. It does make sence though. Very good point.

No, it doesn't. See my post above.

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

There's a big difference between taking on N. Korea in a nuke exchange with a Communist China next door vs. taking on Saddam with WMD's and almost everyone else in the region is no real friend of the US except Israel and none of them have the ability to strike a major blow to the US in retaliation!

It's different, yes, but also very dangerous, considering that the WMD's would not only have been used against the invading american troops but also against Israel, Europe and maybe also against Saudi-Arabia, and to make the day, maybe also against Iran, to bring them into the mess, too.

Originally Posted by mojo2

Anyway, it looks like we MAY be talking about the wrong WMD's. There are a reported 20 al Qaeda nukes already in place in major US cities.

Is that copied from a chapter of the new Tom-Clancy-novel or is there some unbiased internet-link for that story?

Taliesin

[Taliesin]

Originally Posted by mojo2

No, it doesn't. See my post above.

Yes, it does. See my post above.

Taliesin

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by loki74

Dont see how. Violence last resort? I believe you mentioned that before. No, terrorists have killing as their first resort.

So you say. I am not sure about that.

I've never killed anyone.

Whether you did or not is beside the point here. I am referring to our participation to a system that can sometimes kill innocent people. Our responsibility is just as great whether we are at the end of the process or at the beginning if we know that what we do perpetuates that system of abuse. If this system triggers the creation of local terrorism, which could hypothetically go overboard and include people of other countries, we are only one other factor in its inception.

Closing our eyes on si=ocial injustice abroad is one thing. Closing our eyes on the impact of actions we do locally, which support a situation that is unethical, immoral and abusive elsewhere makes us hypocrites.

I dont "deal with people" that way.

I guess not, otherwise you would be posting here; that goes without saying. But our countries support the use of violence as if it is our last resort, that is certainly a problem.

Now, if you're comparing the average american serial killer/rapist etc to terrorists, thats perfectly fine. I can see that.

They are not the same, although all are criminals. Terrorists deal in the realm of politics, and the gain they can get through the violence they do. Other criminals have no such thing as a political agenda. IMHO, terrorist will use a political agenda to achieve goals that are more often than not as remote as they could be from the ideologies of fairness and justice some of their members may be looking for. You don't see that amongs other criminals unless their insanity is twisted that way, which incidentally may be applicable to some terrorists.

But the fact they are using such violence to achieve their goals appears as if it is their first resort. But then, if they are only a minority of people facing an immense power that they feel they have to fight, instead of submit themselves, how else can they do what they do? Usually, such movements have a more peaceful start.

In South America, a few countries had a "freedom of press", but the reporters were often silenced by violence -terrorism- by the powers in place. Then these guys were told by some of their supporters that the pen is not as "mighty as the sword" and the sword itself might be more efficient. That is the birth of some terrorist movements.

We see a similar process happening right now in some countries of North Africa. Some of the dispossess, not even able read, have taken the words of a specific interpretation of the Quran and have decided they will create "Law and Order" in their are. Even the Army does not want any involvement with these guys. They are basically poor, uneducated, and live from what they steal in the neibourghood through acts of violence, but also imposing a religious morality of extreme conservatism.

There is a variety of terrorism, and Al Qaeda is only one of them, and although they look the same, their genesis is not, and the principle guiding them are not always the same. Yet, it is very likely that the foot soldiers have the same rationale; one seeking revenge from justice depravation. But if they believe they are powerless, they will do what they can to be "even".

Like I said, the corporations dont buy from sweatshops for the sake of ending the lives of poeple in foreign countries. Terrorists bomb civilian locations for the sake of killing civilians.

I understand the intent is different, but in some cases, the result is not different. Why is this still going on do you think?

Nobody said we're all alone. We're not hopeless. Thats why I'm glad we have someone in office willing to take action, regradless of what it will do to his polls.

If that is your feeling, I hope you are right.

[SimpleLife]

Originally Posted by mojo2

Simple Life, I am totally impressed by the progress you've shown since you first began posting here in expressing your ideas and directing or steering a debate.

Your thought processes are noticeably less mushy than before and your use of English has also greatly improved. You may think no one notices or cares. That's not true. Although I still disagree with your points of view, I no longer feel contempt for your posts.

You have every right to be confident about your future progress, too. One day, if you are really smart, you will become a conservative.

Hmmm... Ok.

This type of dichotomy does not work very well for me. I certainly have a certain level of conservatism as well as liberalism. The issue at hand, however, is about the idea that we can all become terrorists, provided the right circumstances, either by direct action, or proxy. And political allegiances have nothing to do with that.