Educate Me - What gives us the right?

[Paulie Walnuts]

er... no.

You avoid civilian casualties where possible. Killing everything that moves is not the way you fight a war.
Nor did I say it was. Slaughtering everything that moves is highly counterproductive, and inhuman.

Clearly, you've sat and beat off to Conan the barbarian movies far to often.

Young and dumb, full of Arab cum.

If that was directed at her, you need your ass kicked. Also you missed my point; I don't have to ask because I understand that she views them as a parallel to MLK and JFK. If so she's wrong, but so are we all sometimes.
Not a reason for a vulgar insult.

Your position that genocide is preferable to Attrition warfare make me hope you neither vote nor ever join the military. :roll:

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

***BTW, if you were a person of note and this was published in the media, you'd most likely be rooming with Salman Rushdie. Bin Laden's followers would take a dim view of your comparison of him to an infidel such as Dr. King

End of thread hijack...

Really? just goes to show how ignorant you are of anything to do with Bin Laden. If the US had heeded his message and gotten out of Saudi Arabia in particular and the middle east in general back in the 1990s, the US would be a lot richer and a lot of people wouldn't be dead.

Do we have to ask "what's in your wallet?"
Clearly not.
:lol:

 

[Airwolfe]

Wars are not fought the right way anymore.

If you are going to be bothered with going to war you should kill everything that moves. I mean every man, woman, and child. Then take all their shit after they are all dead.

1. It pays for the war.

2. It leaves no enemies behind.

Damn those Geneva and Hague Conventions and their meddlesome treaties! :roll:

Yeah I know. It sucks doesn't it?

They say you can't even use dum-dum bullets. Fuck if it were up to me I'd load that shit up with rusty nails and rock salt just so it hurts like Hell before they die.

 

[Mirra]

***BTW, if you were a person of note and this was published in the media, you'd most likely be rooming with Salman Rushdie. Bin Laden's followers would take a dim view of your comparison of him to an infidel such as Dr. King

End of thread hijack...

Really? just goes to show how ignorant you are of anything to do with Bin Laden. If the US had heeded his message and gotten out of Saudi Arabia in particular and the middle east in general back in the 1990s, the US would be a lot richer and a lot of people wouldn't be dead.

Yes really. The JFK comparison MAY be relevant but to compare Bin Laden to Dr. King is completely out of line. Their messages weren't remotely similar. Their motives weren't remotely similar. Their methods were almost complete opposites. You are the one putting his ignorance on display with this comparison, sir.

 

[Paulie Walnuts]

Wars are not fought the right way anymore.

If you are going to be bothered with going to war you should kill everything that moves. I mean every man, woman, and child. Then take all their shit after they are all dead.

1. It pays for the war.

2. It leaves no enemies behind.

Damn those Geneva and Hague Conventions and their meddlesome treaties! :roll:

Yeah I know. It sucks doesn't it?

They say you can't even use dum-dum bullets. Fuck if it were up to me I'd load that shit up with rusty nails and rock salt just so it hurts like Hell before they die.

Anger issues .... did someone touch you in a bad place when you were a child or something?

 

[Airwolfe]

er... no.

You avoid civilian casualties where possible. Killing everything that moves is not the way you fight a war.
Nor did I say it was. Slaughtering everything that moves is highly counterproductive, and inhuman.

You fight a war to win. My way ensures victory. War is not humane and should be avoided if at all possible. But if you are going to fight then make sure you win at all costs.

Young and dumb, full of Arab cum.

If that was directed at her, you need your ass kicked.

I guess I need my ass kicked then.

Your position that genocide is preferable to Attrition warfare make me hope you neither vote nor ever join the military. :roll:

I want war to be so God damn terrible that no one would even think about starting one.

I registered for selective service and to vote at age 18 and have voted in every single local, state, and federal election since then.

If ever called to serve I will answer the call.

 

[Red7227]

***BTW, if you were a person of note and this was published in the media, you'd most likely be rooming with Salman Rushdie. Bin Laden's followers would take a dim view of your comparison of him to an infidel such as Dr. King

End of thread hijack...

Really? just goes to show how ignorant you are of anything to do with Bin Laden. If the US had heeded his message and gotten out of Saudi Arabia in particular and the middle east in general back in the 1990s, the US would be a lot richer and a lot of people wouldn't be dead.

Yes really. The JFK comparison MAY be relevant but to compare Bin Laden to Dr. King is completely out of line. Their messages weren't remotely similar. Their motives weren't remotely similar. Their methods were almost complete opposites. You are the one putting his ignorance on display with this comparison, sir.

The comparison is to how Arabs viewed him. He was a moderate by their standards, choosing to attack symbolic targets like the world trade center rather than going for maximum carnage. The ironical thing is that the World Trade Center collapsed causing far more damage than he could ever imagined. The idea was to kill a bunch of CEOs and economically cripple US domestic aviation. He certainly didn't care that it also killed thousands of Americans, but it wasn't the objective of the attack.

 

[Mirra]

Yes really. The JFK comparison MAY be relevant but to compare Bin Laden to Dr. King is completely out of line. Their messages weren't remotely similar. Their motives weren't remotely similar. Their methods were almost complete opposites. You are the one putting his ignorance on display with this comparison, sir.

The comparison is to how Arabs viewed him. He was a moderate by their standards, choosing to attack symbolic targets like the world trade center rather than going for maximum carnage. The ironical thing is that the World Trade Center collapsed causing far more damage than he could ever imagined. The idea was to kill a bunch of CEOs and economically cripple US domestic aviation. He certainly didn't care that it also killed thousands of Americans, but it wasn't the objective of the attack.

You can speak for how all Arabs or even the majority viewed him? Fine... let's assume you can. I'm not convinced though.

And really? Symbolic targets like two extremely tall buildings staffed with civilians. You think those are symbolic as opposed to maximum carnage? Well I'll tell you they're certainly not very strategic targets in a modern warfare sense but symbolic? Targeting of civilians is not something I can speak so casually about. Perhaps you and Airwolfe should compare strategies. I believe he may be a kindred spirit. Cripple US domestic aviation? A lot of the airlines are doing a better job of that themselves without his assistance. Also if his aim was truly to kill a bunch of CEOs, I don't think the WTC was the ideal target. Oddly, the two targets the 9/11/01 attacks were least effective against were the two best targets strategically speaking.

Now let's say I throw you into a swimming pool. Your phone was in your pocket. My actions killed your phone... but my objective was only to throw you in the water getting you all wet. Does it matter to you?

 

[Shaun__]

The comparison is to how Arabs viewed him. He was a moderate by their standards, choosing to attack symbolic targets like the world trade center rather than going for maximum carnage. The ironical thing is that the World Trade Center collapsed causing far more damage than he could ever imagined. The idea was to kill a bunch of CEOs and economically cripple US domestic aviation. He certainly didn't care that it also killed thousands of Americans, but it wasn't the objective of the attack.

This attack really showed us filthy Americans a thing or two.

I bet his buddies in Iraq got a good laugh out of it too.

 

[Red7227]

Yes really. The JFK comparison MAY be relevant but to compare Bin Laden to Dr. King is completely out of line. Their messages weren't remotely similar. Their motives weren't remotely similar. Their methods were almost complete opposites. You are the one putting his ignorance on display with this comparison, sir.

The comparison is to how Arabs viewed him. He was a moderate by their standards, choosing to attack symbolic targets like the world trade center rather than going for maximum carnage. The ironical thing is that the World Trade Center collapsed causing far more damage than he could ever imagined. The idea was to kill a bunch of CEOs and economically cripple US domestic aviation. He certainly didn't care that it also killed thousands of Americans, but it wasn't the objective of the attack.

You can speak for how all Arabs or even the majority viewed him? Fine... let's assume you can. I'm not convinced though.

And really? Symbolic targets like two extremely tall buildings staffed with civilians. You think those are symbolic as opposed to maximum carnage? Well I'll tell you they're certainly not very strategic targets in a modern warfare sense but symbolic? Targeting of civilians is not something I can speak so casually about. Perhaps you and Airwolfe should compare strategies. I believe he may be a kindred spirit. Cripple US domestic aviation? A lot of the airlines are doing a better job of that themselves without his assistance. Also if his aim was truly to kill a bunch of CEOs, I don't think the WTC was the ideal target. Oddly, the two targets the 9/11/01 attacks were least effective against were the two best targets strategically speaking.

Now let's say I throw you into a swimming pool. Your phone was in your pocket. My actions killed your phone... but my objective was only to throw you in the water getting you all wet. Does it matter to you?

Say he wanted to kill as many people as possible. How long does a football or baseball game go? He took 4? airliners and crashed them all into targets within an hour of each other. I know where the world trade center was, I also know that the US, as usual, was arrogant enough to call it the World Trade Center rather than just the USA Trade Center. It was an obvious political target and not as potentially damaging as other possible targets he could have chosen.

As for the deaths of a few thousand Americans, or even the deaths of 30,000 Americans as it was first thought. How does that compare to the 600,000 people, mostly children, that died because of the embargoes on Iraq up until that time. The embargoes stopped all drugs of any description from entering the country and prohibited the manufacture of any drugs in the country. Very little of their medical equipment still worked because they couldn't get nuclear materials needed to power them.

There was, and is, a lot of hate in the Middle East directed at the US. Bin Laden could have done a far better job of killing civilians if that had been his only objective.

 

[sweetiebatman]

The fact is that Al-Qaeda is an "organisation" torn apart by infighting. The leader who replaced Bin Laden has little or no interest in attacking targets outside of the middle east as he allegedly sees them as of little capital to the organisation. Its known from the documents removed from Bin Ladens compound that Bin Laden wanted to continue to take the fight to the US but Ayman al Zawahiri (then the 2nd in command but now leader) wanted to persue the Americans in the middle east and also the regimes & governments that supported them.

This has lead to the almost total loss of support amongst ordinary citizens that, although hate the US hate the spilling of Muslim blood by these suicide bombings

Osama Bin Laden was, you are correct in saying interested in Symbolic targets but loss of American life was equally important, In documents again lifted from the compound "American blood" is listed time and time again

 

[Shaun__]

Say he wanted to kill as many people as possible. How long does a football or baseball game go? He took 4? airliners and crashed them all into targets within an hour of each other. I know where the world trade center was, I also know that the US, as usual, was arrogant enough to call it the World Trade Center rather than just the USA Trade Center. It was an obvious political target and not as potentially damaging as other possible targets he could have chosen.

As for the deaths of a few thousand Americans, or even the deaths of 30,000 Americans as it was first thought. How does that compare to the 600,000 people, mostly children, that died because of the embargoes on Iraq up until that time. The embargoes stopped all drugs of any description from entering the country and prohibited the manufacture of any drugs in the country. Very little of their medical equipment still worked because they couldn't get nuclear materials needed to power them.

There was, and is, a lot of hate in the Middle East directed at the US. Bin Laden could have done a far better job of killing civilians if that had been his only objective.

Damn, you can make up big numbers. If only Saddam had been able to do something about that number, but he was busy.

The largest number of deaths during his reign is attributable to the Iran-Iraq war (1980-1988). Iraq claims to have lost 500,000 people during that war.

The 1990 occupation of Kuwait and the ensuing Gulf War caused 100,000 deaths, by Iraq's reckoning--probably an exaggeration, but not by much: the 40-day bombardment of Iraq before the three-day ground war, and the massacre of escaping Iraqi troops on the "highway of death" make the estimate more credible than not.

"Casualties from Iraq's gulag are harder to estimate," Burns wrote. "Accounts collected by Western human rights groups from Iraqis and defectors have suggested that the number of those who have 'disappeared' into the hands of the secret police, never to be heard from again, could be 200,000."


Add it up, and in three decades, about 900,000 Iraqis have died from violence, or well over 3% of the Iraqi population--the equivalent of more than 9 million people in a nation with a population as large as that of the United States. That's what Iraq will have to recover from over the next decades--not just the death toll of the last six years, but that of the last 30.

 

[LadyLuna]

I want war to be so God damn terrible that no one would even think about starting one.

I think this is the only thing you've said in this thread that I can agree with 100%.

 

[sweetiebatman]

War IS terrible,

We have just become so desensitised to it its just an accepted norm of society

My Grandad was in WW2 and he only ever spoke of it with us once, and that was through tear stained eyes of his friends that had died and how he wished he could have unseen some of the things he had seen in France

TV has "taught" us that violence and to some extent war is glorious and right when the reality is much much different

 

[Shaun__]

I want war to be so God damn terrible that no one would even think about starting one.

I think this is the only thing you've said in this thread that I can agree with 100%.

There are people on this planet that want the world to end. The only thing that scares those people is the thought of peace.

 

[Bocefish]

Anyone who thinks that a nuclear Iran will be restrained by the unspoken threat of mutual annihilation doesn't realize the nature of fervor -- Marilyn vos Savant

Recent bloody riots over a perceived religious insult clearly proves why nuclear weapons shouldn't be readily available to certain regions.

 

[Mirra]

Say he wanted to kill as many people as possible. How long does a football or baseball game go? He took 4? airliners and crashed them all into targets within an hour of each other. I know where the world trade center was, I also know that the US, as usual, was arrogant enough to call it the World Trade Center rather than just the USA Trade Center. It was an obvious political target and not as potentially damaging as other possible targets he could have chosen.

As for the deaths of a few thousand Americans, or even the deaths of 30,000 Americans as it was first thought. How does that compare to the 600,000 people, mostly children, that died because of the embargoes on Iraq up until that time. The embargoes stopped all drugs of any description from entering the country and prohibited the manufacture of any drugs in the country. Very little of their medical equipment still worked because they couldn't get nuclear materials needed to power them.

There was, and is, a lot of hate in the Middle East directed at the US. Bin Laden could have done a far better job of killing civilians if that had been his only objective.

I'm not completely sure what your point is at the beginning there but using 2 jets to kill nearly 3000 people is pretty efficient. Did he know the towers would fall as a result? I could only speculate. And if he didn't, he surely considered it a bonus. As for the name of the WTC, really? A bit upset about the World Series too I take it? And a political target? Fuck dude. Everything can be made political.

You've already been blasted for your made up numbers, so I'll leave that alone. As for the embargoes, you do know that wasn't only the US, right? You also know the reason for it, yes? Then you pin those deaths solely on the US? Yeah okay.

As for the hatred, there's a lot of hate in the US for those in the middle east. I tend to think most of the haters are rather ignorant. I like to think the same is true of middle eastern folk who hate the US. Also I never said it was his only objective. I just think it was an objective. I still think your comparison of him to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is so insulting and off-base that it makes so angry I just want to punch something right now.

Anyone who thinks that a nuclear Iran will be restrained by the unspoken threat of mutual annihilation doesn't realize the nature of fervor -- Marilyn vos Savant

Recent bloody riots over a perceived religious insult clearly proves why nuclear weapons shouldn't be readily available to certain regions.

Oh Bocefish and your carefully chosen words. It was quite clearly a religious insult. Perception has nothing to do with it. The current situation frightens me though because it proves those hateful people Red mentioned definitely exist. What's more, it also makes me feel more certain that the hateful ones are also the ignorant ones. Of all the ways we've wronged some of these nations in the last decade, this is what they get riled about. They connect the "speech" of a US citizen with the US embassy. Terribly misguided in my opinion. That would be comparable to invading and overthrowing a nation because some loudmouth civilian has been talking shit.

I have more thoughts on this but I think it requires a new thread.

 

[Bocefish]

Oh Bocefish and your carefully chosen words. It was quite clearly a religious insult. Perception has nothing to do with it.

I have zero doubt it was an insult, their perception of where it came from was what I meant. My bad for not clarifying that.

 

[Red7227]

I'm not completely sure what your point is at the beginning there but using 2 jets to kill nearly 3000 people is pretty efficient. Did he know the towers would fall as a result? I could only speculate. And if he didn't, he surely considered it a bonus. As for the name of the WTC, really? A bit upset about the World Series too I take it? And a political target? Fuck dude. Everything can be made political.

You've already been blasted for your made up numbers, so I'll leave that alone. As for the embargoes, you do know that wasn't only the US, right? You also know the reason for it, yes? Then you pin those deaths solely on the US? Yeah okay.

As for the hatred, there's a lot of hate in the US for those in the middle east. I tend to think most of the haters are rather ignorant. I like to think the same is true of middle eastern folk who hate the US. Also I never said it was his only objective. I just think it was an objective. I still think your comparison of him to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is so insulting and off-base that it makes so angry I just want to punch something right now.

Hey, he was some black guy fighting to give black people rights in the 1960s i picked at random. You make it sound like he was a saint, that's nice, but that doesn't mean the rest world knows or cares. My point is that Bin Laden was seen in the same light in the middle east. He will turn up in people's phones and be quoted in Arab circles because he was seen as a moderate and positive influence. Both he and Saddam was doing wonders for Arab self esteem. As for casualties from the embargo and who was responsible, pretend what you like, but the perception is that it was all the US.

My Uni in 2001 had parties to celebrate the September 11 attacks and a young american friend of mine was being told "you deserved it bitch" Even my sensible and moderate friends from Serbia And Bosnia thought "yes!" when it happened. You have no idea how much the world hates the USA.

 

[Just Me]

I'm not completely sure what your point is at the beginning there but using 2 jets to kill nearly 3000 people is pretty efficient. Did he know the towers would fall as a result? I could only speculate. And if he didn't, he surely considered it a bonus. As for the name of the WTC, really? A bit upset about the World Series too I take it? And a political target? Fuck dude. Everything can be made political.

You've already been blasted for your made up numbers, so I'll leave that alone. As for the embargoes, you do know that wasn't only the US, right? You also know the reason for it, yes? Then you pin those deaths solely on the US? Yeah okay.

As for the hatred, there's a lot of hate in the US for those in the middle east. I tend to think most of the haters are rather ignorant. I like to think the same is true of middle eastern folk who hate the US. Also I never said it was his only objective. I just think it was an objective. I still think your comparison of him to Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. is so insulting and off-base that it makes so angry I just want to punch something right now.

Hey, he was some black guy fighting to give black people rights in the 1960s i picked at random. You make it sound like he was a saint, that's nice, but that doesn't mean the rest world knows or cares. My point is that Bin Laden was seen in the same light in the middle east. He will turn up in people's phones and be quoted in Arab circles because he was seen as a moderate and positive influence. Both he and Saddam was doing wonders for Arab self esteem. As for casualties from the embargo and who was responsible, pretend what you like, but the perception is that it was all the US.

My Uni in 2001 had parties to celebrate the September 11 attacks and a young american friend of mine was being told "you deserved it bitch" Even my sensible and moderate friends from Serbia And Bosnia thought "yes!" when it happened. You have no idea how much the world hates the USA.

He preached non violent protest, just like someone else you might have heard of or know about, Ghandi.

What did your young american friend have to do with the USA's foreign policy? This crazy hatred of any country and the guilt by association for the people, just boggles my mind.

 

[Red7227]

He preached non violent protest, just like someone else you might have heard of or know about, Ghandi.

What did your young american friend have to do with the USA's foreign policy? This crazy hatred of any country and the guilt by association for the people, just boggles my mind.

Sure, I've heard of Ghandi, and I've seen the movie, but knowing one American from another is more of a stretch though. As for my friend, kids are stupid and cruel and hateful. In between the 20 yo douche bags calling her names, was a lot of sympathy for her plight, because she lived in Manhattan and could not get in contact with her family for a couple days.

 

[bob]

He preached non violent protest, just like someone else you might have heard of or know about, Ghandi.

What did your young american friend have to do with the USA's foreign policy? This crazy hatred of any country and the guilt by association for the people, just boggles my mind.

Sure, I've heard of Ghandi, and I've seen the movie, but knowing one American from another is more of a stretch though. As for my friend, kids are stupid and cruel and hateful. In between the 20 yo douche bags calling her names, was a lot of sympathy for her plight, because she lived in Manhattan and could not get in contact with her family for a couple days.

:thumbleft:
biggest mistake we make is to generalize the desires of everyone from the actions of a few

 

[Bocefish]

Kinda sums it up AFAIC regarding the initial topic ...

Iran’s clerical regime rules in the name of a fundamentalist religion for whom the hereafter offers the ultimate rewards.

It’s one thing to live in a state of mutual assured destruction with Stalin or Brezhnev, leaders of a philosophically materialist, historically grounded, deeply here-and-now regime. It’s quite another to be in a situation of mutual destruction with apocalyptic clerics who believe in the imminent advent of the Mahdi, the supremacy of the afterlife and holy war as the ultimate avenue to achieving it.

The classic formulation comes from Tehran’s fellow (and rival Sunni) jihadist al-Qaeda: “You love life and we love death.” Try deterring that.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/ ... story.html

 

[camstory]

Thank you everyone who posted here, even airwolf who I don't agree with, but understand the ideology of. And also Isabella_deL who I think maybe got a little carried away in making what I think she meant for her point to be, that we in the US, and the non Arab world, see things from a very skewed POV. I think that may have also been Red's main point. From what I understand, Bin Ladin was a good and charitable man in regards to his own ppl, and capable of love beyond himself. (He was fucked in the head by religious beliefs, and a mass murderer from our POV. But we can only imagine how we would feel about him if we were brought up to believe the same bullshit religious doctrines as he was, and had clean drinking water and a place to send our kids to school because of him. But we should try to imagine that.) I find no such redeeming qualities in Saddam Hussein, and find the comparison of the two almost as outlandish as comparing ether one to J.F.K. or Dr. King. And Red you fucked up in making any analogy that compared Dr.King to even the better of the two, - Bin Ladin. If you were suggesting that there are some in the Arab world who feel about Bin Ladin as we do about King, that may be so, but I would defer to Mirra's suggestion that such ppl are ignorant. To make any such comparison would be ludicrous in light of the facts. And yes if ever there was a saint it was Doctor Martin Luther King. (MLK was far more than just a black man fighting for black ppl's rights)

Those are my feelings about where the thread went beyond the OP. As far as the question I was struggling with, - I guess, I think, that there are times when responsibility trumps that which is righteous. Also, I did not know that Iran had signed the non-pro treaty, in that sense we (I understood that to be, not just the US) do have some right to demand no new nukes. Although I am more inclined to consider our actions to deny others the development of nuke weapons as hypocrisy, yet one we must live with, b/c as Paulie said, some don't play well with others. I think we should be clear that it is a hypocrisy though.

 

[Red7227]

Thank you everyone who posted here, even airwolf who I don't agree with, but understand the ideology of. And also Isabella_deL who I think maybe got a little carried away in making what I think she meant for her point to be, that we in the US, and the non Arab world, see things from a very skewed POV. I think that may have also been Red's main point. From what I understand, Bin Ladin was a good and charitable man in regards to his own ppl, and capable of love beyond himself. (He was fucked in the head by religious beliefs, and a mass murderer from our POV. But we can only imagine how we would feel about him if we were brought up to believe the same bullshit religious doctrines as he was, and had clean drinking water and a place to send our kids to school because of him. But we should try to imagine that.) I find no such redeeming qualities in Saddam Hussein, and find the comparison of the two almost as outlandish as comparing ether one to J.F.K. or Dr. King. And Red you fucked up in making any analogy that compared Dr.King to even the better of the two, - Bin Ladin. If you were suggesting that there are some in the Arab world who feel about Bin Ladin as we do about King, that may be so, but I would defer to Mirra's suggestion that such ppl are ignorant. To make any such comparison would be ludicrous in light of the facts. And yes if ever there was a saint it was Doctor Martin Luther King. (MLK was far more than just a black man fighting for black ppl's rights)

Those are my feelings about where the thread went beyond the OP. As far as the question I was struggling with, - I guess, I think, that there are times when responsibility trumps that which is righteous. Also, I did not know that Iran had signed the non-pro treaty, in that sense we (I understood that to be, not just the US) do have some right to demand no new nukes. Although I am more inclined to consider our actions to deny others the development of nuke weapons as hypocrisy, yet one we must live with, b/c as Paulie said, some don't play well with others. I think we should be clear that it is a hypocrisy though.

That is of course your opinion, as a bias and ignorant American, but please give the world the same credit. We neither know, or care about, the full details of your leaders or famous historical characters. Ranting and complaining at the comparison rather that trying to understand the message is exactly what a lot of other have been doing over the last few weeks.

 

[bob]

That is of course your opinion, as a bias and ignorant American, but please give the world the same credit. We neither know, or care about, the full details of your leaders or famous historical characters. Ranting and complaining at the comparison rather that trying to understand the message is exactly what a lot of other have been doing over the last few weeks.

wow....that seems uncalled for
i sorta see it like this......you presented analogies that compared two men's actions to those of two americans who were instrumental in shaping some of the progess america has made towards the ideals it espouses.
all four of these men are now part of america's story, and it's completely understandable that most americans are gonna have a bias about which of them are constructive parts of american history, and which of them are not.....so i accept the word "biased" with regard to camstory's post.

but ignorant?.....i read in that post a struggle to balance the bias he knows exists (hell, you're just as biased as he is, and i didn't see him calling you ignorant)....i even read in that post camstory trying to understand your analogies, without offering a blanket acceptance of what part of them might contain some truth.....that could be construed as leaving the door open to discussion.....

your post?.....well, i see that as closing that door.....not slamming it in his face, just closing the door....
:twocents-02cents:

 

[Red7227]

wow....that seems uncalled for
i sorta see it like this......you presented analogies that compared two men's actions to those of two americans who were instrumental in shaping some of the progess america has made towards the ideals it espouses.

Yes they were really popular leaders. Saddam and Bin Laden were equally popular leaders for the Middle Eastern Arab community. That is the beginning and end of the comparison. Going on an on about how "unjust" the comparison is has nothing to do with anything.

And ignorant means lacking in knowledge. If you want to take it as an insult you should probably go find an embassy to firebomb.

 

[bob]

Yes they were really popular leaders. Saddam and Bin Laden were equally popular leaders for the Middle Eastern Arab community. That is the beginning and end of the comparison. Going on an on about how "unjust" the comparison is has nothing to do with anything.

i'll disagree with that....all comparisons exist in context....that's what makes them meaningful to your audience

And ignorant means lacking in knowledge. If you want to take it as an insult you should probably go find an embassy to firebomb.

:lol: good one

 

[LadyLuna]

Red, dear, do you know what MLK's thing was? Honestly? Or do you just know that he was a popular leader that got the African Americans a lot of rights?

MLK's dream was for a world in which nobody is judged by their race by anybody. That means that he wanted Middle Eastern, Asian, European, African, American, Hispanic... et. al. ...children to be playing peacefully with each other without fear that their parents would start hating on each other. MLK's dream for peace and equality was not just about his own people, it was a dream of peace and equality for ALL people.

THIS is why we find it insulting that you would liken Bin Laden to him. Bin Laden hated Americans. He was not preaching peace with Americans.

Now, JFK, I'm not sure about him. I don't know much about him. Never really studied him. I know he was important, but I don't know what he stood for. All I really know about him was that he was killed for some reason or other. Yup, my ignorance of that part of history is very glaring. If I get bored someday, I will do a bit of research and come back to this.

 

[Red7227]

Red, dear, do you know what MLK's thing was? Honestly? Or do you just know that he was a popular leader that got the African Americans a lot of rights?

MLK's dream was for a world in which nobody is judged by their race by anybody. That means that he wanted Middle Eastern, Asian, European, African, American, Hispanic... et. al. ...children to be playing peacefully with each other without fear that their parents would start hating on each other. MLK's dream for peace and equality was not just about his own people, it was a dream of peace and equality for ALL people.

THIS is why we find it insulting that you would liken Bin Laden to him. Bin Laden hated Americans. He was not preaching peace with Americans.

Now, JFK, I'm not sure about him. I don't know much about him. Never really studied him. I know he was important, but I don't know what he stood for. All I really know about him was that he was killed for some reason or other. Yup, my ignorance of that part of history is very glaring. If I get bored someday, I will do a bit of research and come back to this.

My dad liked King. He thought he was an honest man. I should probably have used Malcolm X, but he just didn't have the popularity that Bin Laden did with Arabs.

Kennedy I've liked because he was a high functioning morphine addict, because of some back trouble he had. I'm hopping to be one of those in a few years. High functioning that is, the morphine addict is a given.