Take your vitamins grampa. You refered to liberals as leftist bullshit.lowing wrote:
there ya go sergeriver, don't post what I was responding to.....Remember?? you posted a website called thetruthaboutgeorge.com as your "proof" he was evil.?? LOLsergeriver wrote:
This is from another Lowest post:lowing wrote:
LOL, where did a call you a "lefty"??
<Lowest>Well hell!!! If all I need to prove allegations on leftist bullshit is a website!!.......well HERE YA GO THEN!!!!
http://www.ihateliberals.net/
NOW WE ALL GOT PROOF!!!!!!!!!!.........now what??
Last edited by lowing (Today 21:38:05)</Lowest>
LEFTIST yes!!!............LEFTIES??.............no! lolsergeriver wrote:
Take your vitamins grampa. You refered to liberals as leftist bullshit.lowing wrote:
there ya go sergeriver, don't post what I was responding to.....Remember?? you posted a website called thetruthaboutgeorge.com as your "proof" he was evil.?? LOLsergeriver wrote:
This is from another Lowest post:
<Lowest>Well hell!!! If all I need to prove allegations on leftist bullshit is a website!!.......well HERE YA GO THEN!!!!
http://www.ihateliberals.net/
NOW WE ALL GOT PROOF!!!!!!!!!!.........now what??
Last edited by lowing (Today 21:38:05)</Lowest>
Thanks ATG.....your will be done!!ATG wrote:
Lowing, I as so called Leader of the War MNongering Conservatives, name you Capitain and head of my war counsil.
Same shit with other smell.lowing wrote:
LEFTIST yes!!!............LEFTIES??.............no! lolsergeriver wrote:
Take your vitamins grampa. You refered to liberals as leftist bullshit.lowing wrote:
there ya go sergeriver, don't post what I was responding to.....Remember?? you posted a website called thetruthaboutgeorge.com as your "proof" he was evil.?? LOL
I would have said that the likes of Chernobyl and other financial disasters for USSR had more to do with them pulling out of Afghanistan than the military might of the Afghans. The money issue, with respect to the entire soviet regime, is what caused them to withdraw (as well as the pointlessness of their mission there). The Afghans did 'beat' them but it was not entirely through any kind of military brilliance. They certainly did not cause the Soviet bloc to collapse - that is just ridiculous.lowing wrote:
All during the 90's Clinton's lack of response to the terror attacks did nothing except build the terrorists confidence and thus their resolve to continue bigger and more devastating attacks. If you insist on taking a defensive posture in this war on terror, then DEFENSE is what you are going to have to do.
As far as the Soviets go, the war in Afghanistan was an military and political and economic disaster for the Soviets. It created discontent among its citizens. If it was a cake walk there things might have been different. After 15 or so years the soviets left in '88 and collapsed in '91. I will put my money on the Afghan war as having something significant to do with it.
Clinton's 'lack of response' does not constitute what I would describe as a good 'defence policy'. Let's not forget that Bush himself cut anti-terror funding and ignored explicit warnings himself when he first came to office. A better defence policy needs to be formulated, adopted and implemented. Prevention is better than making the problem worse. In line with a good defence policy you also have to address why muslims, especially moderate ones, decide to become extremists.
PS I have lived with guerrilla warfare on my island all through the 80s and early 90s - one, admittedly major, incident in USA and you guys think it's the fucking apocalypse. Calm down bros.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-18 18:54:01)
I said it played a major roll economically, politically, and militarily. I didn't say they were the absolute reason.Spumantiii wrote:
Really? I swore it was Gorbachev and the people of the USSR..lowing wrote:
Well, part of this same group that you say could never take down the west, sure as hell did a major part in taking down the Soviet Union.
Are you actually suggesting that although we may get attacked from time to time and even a dirty bomb may be exploded in one of our cites, that I should just relax, because events like that wouldn't really "dent" us that much?? I can't believe I just read that!!!
All good and well Cameronpoe, well then I guess it would be ok if it were YOUR family that was killed by a dirty bomb. After all the big picture is Ireland would still be there huh??
does that mean that Vietnam brought down the states?? I'm confused?
Why not shoot the mailman for infringing on your property while you're at it. He might try to deliver you anthrax.
do you even know anyone who was affected by terrorism? As far as I know no troops were being killed by terrorists in any significant numbers before the invasion. Incomparable. To try and say you and I are at the same risk as a citizen in the middle east is just arrogant!
If mailmen start killing thousands of people by flying planes int our buildings, then yes, maybe we would need to keep an eye on them, until then not so much
I worked for an airline, so yes the attacks did hit close to home for me. the airline industry is surprising small as far as people you know who are in it. I have since lost my job at my airline, although the attacks started the ball rolling, I concede corporate greed played the major roll in my demise.
Last edited by lowing (2006-08-18 18:54:13)
Cameron, what about the Checnen [ spelling ] terrorist, or freedom fighters, if you will.
They have brought mother bears economy to her knees.
All muslims.
And, cant we all disagree with a little less venom?
They have brought mother bears economy to her knees.
All muslims.
And, cant we all disagree with a little less venom?
What did I say that was venemous?ATG wrote:
Cameron, what about the Checnen [ spelling ] terrorist, or freedom fighters, if you will.
They have brought mother bears economy to her knees.
All muslims.
And, cant we all disagree with a little less venom?
Chechens have little to do with the financial ills of that lumbering giant, Russia. Chechens aren't trying to turn Russia into an Islamic state - the irrational fear you have for the USA - Chechens want their country Chechnya to be free and independent of Russia, just like Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, etc. What's the problem with that? Chechnya is filled to the gills with oil! They won't be getting their independence anytime soon.
Never said it was the "apocolypse" I however, will argue that blowing up an airliner, (Pan AM 103), 2 embassies , a warship, and WTC '93 is more than 1 attack. or even more than 1 major attack.CameronPoe wrote:
I would have said that the likes of Chernobyl and other financial disasters for USSR had more to do with them pulling out of Afghanistan than the military might of the Afghans. The money issue, with respect to the entire soviet regime, is what caused them to withdraw (as well as the pointlessness of their mission there). The Afghans did 'beat' them but it was not entirely through any kind of military brilliance. They certainly did not cause the Soviet bloc to collapse - that is just ridiculous.lowing wrote:
All during the 90's Clinton's lack of response to the terror attacks did nothing except build the terrorists confidence and thus their resolve to continue bigger and more devastating attacks. If you insist on taking a defensive posture in this war on terror, then DEFENSE is what you are going to have to do.
As far as the Soviets go, the war in Afghanistan was an military and political and economic disaster for the Soviets. It created discontent among its citizens. If it was a cake walk there things might have been different. After 15 or so years the soviets left in '88 and collapsed in '91. I will put my money on the Afghan war as having something significant to do with it.
Clinton's 'lack of response' does not constitute what I would describe as a good 'defence policy'. Let's not forget that Bush himself cut anti-terror funding and ignored explicit warnings himself when he first came to office. A better defence policy needs to be formulated, adopted and implemented. Prevention is better than making the problem worse. In line with a good defence policy you also have to address why muslims, especially moderate ones, decide to become extremists.
PS I have lived with guerrilla warfare on my island all through the 80s and early 90s - one, admittedly major, incident in USA and you guys think it's the fucking apocalypse. Calm down bros.
Over a relatively vast expanse of time and under various banners you must admit.lowing wrote:
Never said it was the "apocolypse" I however, will argue that blowing up an airliner, (Pan AM 103), 2 embassies , a warship, and WTC '93 is more than 1 attack. or even more than 1 major attack.CameronPoe wrote:
I would have said that the likes of Chernobyl and other financial disasters for USSR had more to do with them pulling out of Afghanistan than the military might of the Afghans. The money issue, with respect to the entire soviet regime, is what caused them to withdraw (as well as the pointlessness of their mission there). The Afghans did 'beat' them but it was not entirely through any kind of military brilliance. They certainly did not cause the Soviet bloc to collapse - that is just ridiculous.lowing wrote:
All during the 90's Clinton's lack of response to the terror attacks did nothing except build the terrorists confidence and thus their resolve to continue bigger and more devastating attacks. If you insist on taking a defensive posture in this war on terror, then DEFENSE is what you are going to have to do.
As far as the Soviets go, the war in Afghanistan was an military and political and economic disaster for the Soviets. It created discontent among its citizens. If it was a cake walk there things might have been different. After 15 or so years the soviets left in '88 and collapsed in '91. I will put my money on the Afghan war as having something significant to do with it.
Clinton's 'lack of response' does not constitute what I would describe as a good 'defence policy'. Let's not forget that Bush himself cut anti-terror funding and ignored explicit warnings himself when he first came to office. A better defence policy needs to be formulated, adopted and implemented. Prevention is better than making the problem worse. In line with a good defence policy you also have to address why muslims, especially moderate ones, decide to become extremists.
PS I have lived with guerrilla warfare on my island all through the 80s and early 90s - one, admittedly major, incident in USA and you guys think it's the fucking apocalypse. Calm down bros.
nehhhhh this has been very civil, it hasn't felt "venomous to me. unless you guys are talkin' about me behind my back!!!!!!
No, over a steady decade and 1 banner, Islamic terrorism.CameronPoe wrote:
Over a relatively vast expanse of time and under various banners you must admit.lowing wrote:
Never said it was the "apocolypse" I however, will argue that blowing up an airliner, (Pan AM 103), 2 embassies , a warship, and WTC '93 is more than 1 attack. or even more than 1 major attack.CameronPoe wrote:
I would have said that the likes of Chernobyl and other financial disasters for USSR had more to do with them pulling out of Afghanistan than the military might of the Afghans. The money issue, with respect to the entire soviet regime, is what caused them to withdraw (as well as the pointlessness of their mission there). The Afghans did 'beat' them but it was not entirely through any kind of military brilliance. They certainly did not cause the Soviet bloc to collapse - that is just ridiculous.
Clinton's 'lack of response' does not constitute what I would describe as a good 'defence policy'. Let's not forget that Bush himself cut anti-terror funding and ignored explicit warnings himself when he first came to office. A better defence policy needs to be formulated, adopted and implemented. Prevention is better than making the problem worse. In line with a good defence policy you also have to address why muslims, especially moderate ones, decide to become extremists.
PS I have lived with guerrilla warfare on my island all through the 80s and early 90s - one, admittedly major, incident in USA and you guys think it's the fucking apocalypse. Calm down bros.
A decade. How many Palestinians have died in that time at the hands of the US ally, Israel? How many casualties of innocents and extremists at the hands of the US can be accounted for in their Gulf Wars? I think a decade is pretty long. It certainly doesn't look like the US is on the brink of crumbling after those attacks.lowing wrote:
No, over a steady decade and 1 banner, Islamic terrorism.CameronPoe wrote:
Over a relatively vast expanse of time and under various banners you must admit.lowing wrote:
Never said it was the "apocolypse" I however, will argue that blowing up an airliner, (Pan AM 103), 2 embassies , a warship, and WTC '93 is more than 1 attack. or even more than 1 major attack.
You are incorrect with your Islamic terrorism quip. You are being too tunnel-visioned. Each of the various groups that carried out attacks will have had various different ethos' and reasons for attacking. The PAN-AM bomb certainly doesn't have anything to do with trying to over-run the west with Islam. You need to differentiate between the various groups. Al Qaeda are true Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Hamas - Palestinian freedom fighters (their charter states no desire to damage or get invovled in anywhere outside of Palestine). Fatah - Palestinian freedom fighters (who even recognise the current state of Israel). Mehdi Army - Shi'a protection army in Iraq (no expansionist/anti-west/convert everybody policies). Hezbollah - goal of ridding Lebanon of ongoing Israeli occupation (no expansionist/anti-west/convert everybody policies). Chechen rebels - Freedom fighters of Chechnya. Etc. Etc. Etc. It seems to me that any crackpot muslim can decide to blow some people up and then attribute it to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not some international organisation with sophisticated chains of command - it's an ideological stamp someone can use to flavour their attack.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-18 19:12:17)
Thats why I said, Freedom fighters, if you will.CameronPoe wrote:
What did I say that was venemous?ATG wrote:
Cameron, what about the Checnen [ spelling ] terrorist, or freedom fighters, if you will.
They have brought mother bears economy to her knees.
All muslims.
And, cant we all disagree with a little less venom?
Chechens have little to do with the financial ills of that lumbering giant, Russia. Chechens aren't trying to turn Russia into an Islamic state - the irrational fear you have for the USA - Chechens want their country Chechnya to be free and independent of Russia, just like Georgia, Azerbaijan, Armenia, etc. What's the problem with that? Chechnya is filled to the gills with oil! They won't be getting their independence anytime soon.
My statement about venom was specifically NOT directed at you. Sorry if it seemed that way.
I have respect for you, don't worry.
Sorry you lost your job, not joking man. That, beyond any difference we can have, is a real shit. But, you should blame this administration for the thousands of jobs that have been lost since Bush is president. You are a worker dude, I don't understand how you defend this guy, considering the problems that middle class are having in America coz of his mistakes in the economy issue. The only winners here are the Ceos. That you defend?lowing wrote:
I said it played a major roll economically, politically, and militarily. I didn't say they were the absolute reason.Spumantiii wrote:
Really? I swore it was Gorbachev and the people of the USSR..lowing wrote:
Well, part of this same group that you say could never take down the west, sure as hell did a major part in taking down the Soviet Union.
Are you actually suggesting that although we may get attacked from time to time and even a dirty bomb may be exploded in one of our cites, that I should just relax, because events like that wouldn't really "dent" us that much?? I can't believe I just read that!!!
All good and well Cameronpoe, well then I guess it would be ok if it were YOUR family that was killed by a dirty bomb. After all the big picture is Ireland would still be there huh??
does that mean that Vietnam brought down the states?? I'm confused?
Why not shoot the mailman for infringing on your property while you're at it. He might try to deliver you anthrax.
do you even know anyone who was affected by terrorism? As far as I know no troops were being killed by terrorists in any significant numbers before the invasion. Incomparable. To try and say you and I are at the same risk as a citizen in the middle east is just arrogant!
If mailmen start killing thousands of people by flying planes int our buildings, then yes, maybe we would need to keep an eye on them, until then not so much
I worked for an airline, so yes the attacks did hit close to home for me. the airline industry is surprising small as far as people you know who are in it. I have since lost my job at my airline, although the attacks started the ball rolling, I concede corporate greed played the major roll in my demise.
You can call them what ever you want CameronpoeCameronPoe wrote:
A decade. How many Palestinians have died in that time at the hands of the US ally, Israel? How many casualties of innocents and extremists at the hands of the US can be accounted for in their Gulf Wars? I think a decade is pretty long. It certainly doesn't look like the US is on the brink of crumbling after those attacks.lowing wrote:
No, over a steady decade and 1 banner, Islamic terrorism.CameronPoe wrote:
Over a relatively vast expanse of time and under various banners you must admit.
You are incorrect with your Islamic terrorism quip. You are being too tunnel-visioned. Each of the various groups that carried out attacks will have had various different ethos' and reasons for attacking. The PAN-AM bomb certainly doesn't have anything to do with trying to over-run the west with Islam. You need to differentiate between the various groups. Al Qaeda are true Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Hamas - Palestinian freedom fighters (their charter states no desire to damage or get invovled in anywhere outside of Palestine). Fatah - Palestinian freedom fighters (who even recognise the current state of Israel). Mehdi Army - Shi'a protection army in Iraq (no expansionist/anti-west/convert everybody policies). Hezbollah - goal of ridding Lebanon of ongoing Israeli occupation (no expansionist/anti-west/convert everybody policies). Chechen rebels - Freedom fighters of Chechnya. Etc. Etc. Etc. It seems to me that any crackpot muslim can decide to blow some people up and then attribute it to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not some international organisation with sophisticated chains of command - it's an ideological stamp someone can use to flavour their attack.
the bottom line and the end result is, they purposely go out and kill innocent civilians by the droves.
In a decade, how many people have died at the hands of Islamic terror world wide?? We are talking genocide Cameronpoe.
I think its important to point out that I do not refer to the people detailed in this post; http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=32041 when I talk about a crusade. Again, I refered not to individual crimes, but crimes of governments. Like this;
Iran is alleged to have executed over 4000 people for the crime of being gay. It's a closed soceity and don't expect reports about it on CNN. The guy who blogged this risked his life by doing so.
Just because something comes from a blog doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed. I would argue that things from major network news deserves that more.
I may be a moron, but you sir, are a coward.
Iran is alleged to have executed over 4000 people for the crime of being gay. It's a closed soceity and don't expect reports about it on CNN. The guy who blogged this risked his life by doing so.
Just because something comes from a blog doesn't mean it should be automatically dismissed. I would argue that things from major network news deserves that more.
Frankly, I think annonymous karma messages is way out of style. I'm 38 own a company and have two small children. My wife became pregnant immediately after 9-11-, So does this mean I can't have a opinion about our war? And, if you think I'm a moron why don't you address me where it belongs; in the thread or in a pm.then do your part and join the military moron. are you unpatriotic or something?
I may be a moron, but you sir, are a coward.
You are misinformed.sergeriver wrote:
But, you should blame this administration for the thousands of jobs that have been lost since Bush is president. You are a worker dude, I don't understand how you defend this guy, considering the problems that middle class are having in America coz of his mistakes in the economy issue. The only winners here are the Ceos. That you defend?
Last edited by ATG (2006-08-18 19:33:47)
I really do have to say that you are over-estimating the threat posed by true Islamic terrorists. To eradicate true Islamic fundamentalism is actually nigh on impossible. It is something that has to be managed. Another attack is inevitable.You still haven't given me your solution to this overblown threat posed to western civilisation.lowing wrote:
You can call them what ever you want CameronpoeCameronPoe wrote:
A decade. How many Palestinians have died in that time at the hands of the US ally, Israel? How many casualties of innocents and extremists at the hands of the US can be accounted for in their Gulf Wars? I think a decade is pretty long. It certainly doesn't look like the US is on the brink of crumbling after those attacks.lowing wrote:
No, over a steady decade and 1 banner, Islamic terrorism.
You are incorrect with your Islamic terrorism quip. You are being too tunnel-visioned. Each of the various groups that carried out attacks will have had various different ethos' and reasons for attacking. The PAN-AM bomb certainly doesn't have anything to do with trying to over-run the west with Islam. You need to differentiate between the various groups. Al Qaeda are true Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Hamas - Palestinian freedom fighters (their charter states no desire to damage or get invovled in anywhere outside of Palestine). Fatah - Palestinian freedom fighters (who even recognise the current state of Israel). Mehdi Army - Shi'a protection army in Iraq (no expansionist/anti-west/convert everybody policies). Hezbollah - goal of ridding Lebanon of ongoing Israeli occupation (no expansionist/anti-west/convert everybody policies). Chechen rebels - Freedom fighters of Chechnya. Etc. Etc. Etc. It seems to me that any crackpot muslim can decide to blow some people up and then attribute it to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not some international organisation with sophisticated chains of command - it's an ideological stamp someone can use to flavour their attack.
the bottom line and the end result is, they purposely go out and kill innocent civilians by the droves.
In a decade, how many people have died at the hands of Islamic terror world wide?? We are talking genocide Cameronpoe.
Genocide? Please. Be serious.
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-18 19:38:50)
No i do not defend corporate greed. not at allsergeriver wrote:
Sorry you lost your job, not joking man. That, beyond any difference we can have, is a real shit. But, you should blame this administration for the thousands of jobs that have been lost since Bush is president. You are a worker dude, I don't understand how you defend this guy, considering the problems that middle class are having in America coz of his mistakes in the economy issue. The only winners here are the Ceos. That you defend?lowing wrote:
I said it played a major roll economically, politically, and militarily. I didn't say they were the absolute reason.Spumantiii wrote:
Really? I swore it was Gorbachev and the people of the USSR..
does that mean that Vietnam brought down the states?? I'm confused?
Why not shoot the mailman for infringing on your property while you're at it. He might try to deliver you anthrax.
do you even know anyone who was affected by terrorism? As far as I know no troops were being killed by terrorists in any significant numbers before the invasion. Incomparable. To try and say you and I are at the same risk as a citizen in the middle east is just arrogant!
If mailmen start killing thousands of people by flying planes int our buildings, then yes, maybe we would need to keep an eye on them, until then not so much
I worked for an airline, so yes the attacks did hit close to home for me. the airline industry is surprising small as far as people you know who are in it. I have since lost my job at my airline, although the attacks started the ball rolling, I concede corporate greed played the major roll in my demise.
The main deference for me domestically speaking is I am a true believer ( at the risk of sounding cliche'ish)
that in America you can be whatever you want to be, the opportunities are here!! I am a big fan of small govt. and more personal responsibility. I do not want or need the govt. involved in anything in my life except protecting me so I can pursue my LIFE my LIBERTY, and my HAPPINESS. Bush is doing what must be done to protect that freedom, and I support his efforts because to date there have been NO attacks since 911 and several foiled attempts. How on earth can you call that a bad thing??
I appreciate your comments about my job,however, I bounced back rather quickly and was not affected too much by it. Except for the fact that for now I am out of the field I love.
Last edited by lowing (2006-08-18 19:47:55)
Please don't try and nullify the significance of the deaths of my countrymen by shear arithmetic.CameronPoe wrote:
I really do have to say that you are over-estimating the threat posed by true Islamic terrorists. To eradicate true Islamic fundamentalism is actually nigh on impossible. It is something that has to be managed. Another attack is inevitable.You still haven't given me your solution to this overblown threat posed to western civilisation.lowing wrote:
You can call them what ever you want CameronpoeCameronPoe wrote:
A decade. How many Palestinians have died in that time at the hands of the US ally, Israel? How many casualties of innocents and extremists at the hands of the US can be accounted for in their Gulf Wars? I think a decade is pretty long. It certainly doesn't look like the US is on the brink of crumbling after those attacks.
You are incorrect with your Islamic terrorism quip. You are being too tunnel-visioned. Each of the various groups that carried out attacks will have had various different ethos' and reasons for attacking. The PAN-AM bomb certainly doesn't have anything to do with trying to over-run the west with Islam. You need to differentiate between the various groups. Al Qaeda are true Islamic fundamentalist terrorists. Hamas - Palestinian freedom fighters (their charter states no desire to damage or get invovled in anywhere outside of Palestine). Fatah - Palestinian freedom fighters (who even recognise the current state of Israel). Mehdi Army - Shi'a protection army in Iraq (no expansionist/anti-west/convert everybody policies). Hezbollah - goal of ridding Lebanon of ongoing Israeli occupation (no expansionist/anti-west/convert everybody policies). Chechen rebels - Freedom fighters of Chechnya. Etc. Etc. Etc. It seems to me that any crackpot muslim can decide to blow some people up and then attribute it to Al Qaeda. Al Qaeda is not some international organisation with sophisticated chains of command - it's an ideological stamp someone can use to flavour their attack.
the bottom line and the end result is, they purposely go out and kill innocent civilians by the droves.
In a decade, how many people have died at the hands of Islamic terror world wide?? We are talking genocide Cameronpoe.
Genocide? Please. Be serious.
So what exactly DID happen to the Kurds in '88? and What exactly do they mean when the president of Iran calls for the destruction of Israel and all people that support it.
I have never claimed that I had a solution to any of this. I simply do not. I just refuse to accept the notion that it is best to ignore these threats and go home and we will be left alone.
Last edited by lowing (2006-08-18 19:47:22)
The most humorous part of otherwise smart guys like Cameron is that history for them seems to begin after world war one. It's as if they've never heard of the Ottoman Empire.
But beyond everyone's personal responsibility, there's a rol that must be taken by any goverment, and this administration missed its obligations. It's a responsibility of the goverment not to cut taxes to such low levels that it spends more than it earns. Worse, if you spend all your money in war issues and forget about domestic ones.lowing wrote:
No i do not defend corporate greed. not at allsergeriver wrote:
Sorry you lost your job, not joking man. That, beyond any difference we can have, is a real shit. But, you should blame this administration for the thousands of jobs that have been lost since Bush is president. You are a worker dude, I don't understand how you defend this guy, considering the problems that middle class are having in America coz of his mistakes in the economy issue. The only winners here are the Ceos. That you defend?lowing wrote:
I said it played a major roll economically, politically, and militarily. I didn't say they were the absolute reason.
If mailmen start killing thousands of people by flying planes int our buildings, then yes, maybe we would need to keep an eye on them, until then not so much
I worked for an airline, so yes the attacks did hit close to home for me. the airline industry is surprising small as far as people you know who are in it. I have since lost my job at my airline, although the attacks started the ball rolling, I concede corporate greed played the major roll in my demise.
The main deference for me domestically speaking is I am a true believer ( at the risk of sounding cliche'ish)
that in America you can be whatever you want to be, the opportunities are here!! I am a big fan of small govt. and more personal responsibility. I do not want or need the govt. involved in anything in my life except protecting me so I can pursue my LIFE my LIBERTY, and my HAPPINESS. Bush is doing what must be done to protect that freedom, and I support his efforts because to date there have been NO attacks since 911 and several foiled attempts. How on earth can you call that a bad thing??
I appreciate your comments about my job,however, I bounced back rather quickly and was not affected too much by it. Except for the fact that for now I am out of the field I love.
Well I sure as hell have heard of them!!!......matter of fact I am going to them this weekend to buy one with a matching sofa.ATG wrote:
The most humorous part of otherwise smart guys like Cameron is that history for them seems to begin after world war one. It's as if they've never heard of the Ottoman Empire.
The deaths of your fellow countrymen were tragic but don't play down the significance of the word genocide by trying to call the attacks anything nealy approaching genocide. It was murder pure and simple, not genocide.lowing wrote:
Please don't try and nullify the significance of the deaths of my countrymen by shear arithmetic.CameronPoe wrote:
I really do have to say that you are over-estimating the threat posed by true Islamic terrorists. To eradicate true Islamic fundamentalism is actually nigh on impossible. It is something that has to be managed. Another attack is inevitable.You still haven't given me your solution to this overblown threat posed to western civilisation.lowing wrote:
You can call them what ever you want Cameronpoe
the bottom line and the end result is, they purposely go out and kill innocent civilians by the droves.
In a decade, how many people have died at the hands of Islamic terror world wide?? We are talking genocide Cameronpoe.
Genocide? Please. Be serious.
So what exactly DID happen to the Kurds in '88? and What exactly do they mean when the president of Iran calls for the destruction of Israel and all people that support it.
I have never claimed that I had a solution to any of this. I simply do not. I just refuse to accept the notion that it is best to ignore these threats and go home and we will be left alone.
Hmmm. Kurds. Muslims if I recall correctly. In fact - isn't Ansar Al Islam a kurdish muslim fundamentalist paramilitary organisation? Please - you have again failed to differentiate between Islamic fundamentalist 'genocide' and a secular despotic regime committing genocide. That attempted genocide was committed in the name of Islam.
Iran is calling for the destruction of the state of Israel, not all jews everywhere all across the world. There are about 25000 jews in Iran itself FGS. I think they would have been mincemeat by now if Ahmedinejad was truly genocidal/anti-semitic.
You don't ignore the threats - that is rule number one - do you think I was suggesting that or something?
Last edited by CameronPoe (2006-08-18 20:04:15)
How does the Ottoman Empire, of which I am very much aware, play into this conversation?ATG wrote:
The most humorous part of otherwise smart guys like Cameron is that history for them seems to begin after world war one. It's as if they've never heard of the Ottoman Empire.