lowing wrote:
Sure ya can, if your mother will let ya out after the street lights come on....go outside and play boy.
Yet again, when faced with an argument that you cannot dispute, you result to petty insults. Congratulations.
lowing wrote:
What I said I in PM I meant in general terms, not specifically about any one issue. You take on a liberal persona. Well that is fine, all I am saying is wait until you have a job, pay bills, work hard for a living, have a mortgage, kids, and actually contribute to your society before you tell others about what is right and what is wrong politcally.
By that logic I could tell you that your opinion is invalid because you have never fought injustice on a large scale, unlike people such as Gandhi and Nelson Mandela. If you must rely on taking a "What do you know" stance, and cannot win an argument based on logic and factual analysis, you're probably wrong. As to the PM being meant in general terms, here you make it very specific. I'm a little curious as to how having kids and paying bills makes you more aware of the situation re terrorists. I'm also a little curious as to if that's you logic, how you used the same line with Marconius, who does pay bills et al.
lowing wrote:
As far being affected by the 911 attacks, no, I was not personally harmed. I work an airline and I took it personally when I saw the events of 911. I can't say however I wasn't affected. It affected my country, my countrymen, my stability at the airline. I don't like that terrorism is and has been the number 1 news story in our country for 5 years now. I am sick of it I know a lot of people that lost their jobs as a result of 911. I didn't know anyone on the planes but some were friends of my friends. that itself was close enough to home for me.
Uh-huh. But you weren't actually
in the building, or
on the aeroplanes.
AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Bubbalo - I wish I could respond, however, your comments are out of context. Simply, they make no sense.
So, basically you can't respond so you're going to attempt to say my points are irrelevant? Not so. You made 2 points:
1) You have an obligation to seek justice for those who died
2) Emotion should not determine the response
The context was the attacks made on September 11th by extremist Muslim terrorists on a number of sites, and the response.
AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Just for the fun of it I'll respond to the second quote since you are attempting to draw an analogy of a point:
Incorrect in the case of 9/11 of which I believe you are referring to. Actually there was no promise of military force after the attack. Factually it was said that America would defend itself and bring the perpetrators to justice {seems like logic to me considering no one knew who actually attacked us at that horrible moment}. Later, once the facts came out of who did this cowardly act the threat of military force was stated as an option {no one knew at the time if it was another country or group that did this...}.
Really?
George Bush, 11 Sept 2001 wrote:
Our military is powerful, and it's prepared...........We will make no distinction between the terrorists who committed these acts and those who harbour them
That sounds like a threat to me.
AAFCptKabbom wrote:
And yes Bubbalo, it's a known human trait to be angered after receiving news that thousands of innocent people have been slaughtered.
Just the same as it is a human trait to feel sympathy for those who suffer, and seek justice and fair treatment of all.
AAFCptKabbom wrote:
However, in this case the professionals and people in the know responded, not reacted, appropriately to the matter as best as anyone could and should have done.
Which is why they're holding people without proving that they've committed any crime?
AAFCptKabbom wrote:
Kaboom.
You do know your name is spelled wrong?
Last edited by Bubbalo (2006-06-11 06:36:56)