storm1977 0 #1 July 26, 2005 Just watching fox news and they were reporting on the British terror suspects. They were talking about how there is a lot of Muslim support for these people in London. They had a video in fact of some muslim guy saying this. What the bombers did was bad. They should go after busses and the tube where people go to work and try to make a living. They should have bombed Parliment or Downing Street. These MORONs are obviously not afraid, and it is no wonder all suspects haven't been found. These are British Citicens supporting bombing their own government offices!!!! The suspects will not be found and this shit will continue because there are enough shit heads like this guy out there to support them and hide them. Chris ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
justinb138 0 #2 July 26, 2005 Eh, it was probably someone that just wanted attention, and the news people wanted something that would get them attention. Kinda like when something happens here in TX the news people always find the most idiotic half-drunk redneck willing to say something absurd about the event. There are many, many people out there that will say something just to be on TV... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,153 #3 July 26, 2005 That's why Fox interviewed that guy. Now people are talking about them, and some folks will tune in. How interesting would it be to hear that they interviewed some guy who thought terrorist was bad? How many people would click on their website to check it out? Consider the stockholders Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #4 July 26, 2005 Unbe-fucking-lievable Interesting use of an "infix". English makes extensive uses of prefixes and suffixes, but infixes are very rare. In fact, I can only think of two, "-fucking-" and "-bloody-", and they can generally be used interchangeably. I suspect "un-bloody-believable" would not change the meaning in any significant way.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #5 July 26, 2005 QuoteThat's why Fox interviewed that guy. Now people are talking about them, and some folks will tune in. How interesting would it be to hear that they interviewed some guy who thought terrorist was bad? How many people would click on their website to check it out? Consider the stockholders Wendy W. It doesn't change the fact that these morons exist, and do so in sheltered communites of like minded people. We ask "How do these things happen"? This guy and his buddies are how. Do you think he is the only one? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #6 July 26, 2005 QuoteUnbe-fucking-lievable Interesting use of an "infix". English makes extensive uses of prefixes and suffixes, but infixes are very rare. In fact, I can only think of two, "-fucking-" and "-bloody-", and they can generally be used interchangeably. I suspect "un-bloody-believable" would not change the meaning in any significant way. You are right it would not. However, as you know, to us americans "bloody" just doesn't really show the same enthusiasm as "fucking". I iwonder if the opposite is true in England? ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #7 July 26, 2005 Quote They had a video in fact of some muslim guy saying this. What the bombers did was bad. They should go after busses and the tube where people go to work and try to make a living. They should have bombed Parliment or Downing Street. Well, in a way, the guy was right. If you wanted to change the policy of a government, which is clearly the intent of the terrorists, then -does- it really make sense to attack the people in that country that have the absolute least ability to change policy? To me it makes about as much sense as bombing a local gas station over the jacked up price of crude. In otherwords -- it doesn't.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,153 #8 July 26, 2005 I'd be interested in your comment on the "redneck interview" mentioned in another post. The point there being that every community has yahoos and morons, and news and the internet give them a stronger and more powerful voice. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #9 July 26, 2005 no, neither make sense. You do not strap a bomb to you self and blow anything up if you object to a policy or government. That is just not a productive way to influence change. Not to mention the morality of it. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #10 July 26, 2005 QuoteI'd be interested in your comment on the "redneck interview" mentioned in another post. The point there being that every community has yahoos and morons, and news and the internet give them a stronger and more powerful voice. Wendy W. Well it is a tough comparison IMO. The difference I see here is that yes...every community has morons, however their mission is different. I do not recall seeing on Cops any rednecks whose soul purpose was to defeat western civilization by strapping a bomb to himself. Rednecks are stupid and say stupid things, but they do not go on interviews insisting others try to destory their government by self explosion. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #11 July 26, 2005 Quoteno, neither make sense. You do not strap a bomb to you self and blow anything up if you object to a policy or government. That is just not a productive way to influence change. Not to mention the morality of it. So then you agree that we should not have invaded Iraq? Perhaps we did not strap bombs to ourselves, but we certainly did drop quite a few for the sole reason that our leaders objected to both its policy and government. Morality? Who defines that? The winners I suppose.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #12 July 26, 2005 QuoteQuoteno, neither make sense. You do not strap a bomb to you self and blow anything up if you object to a policy or government. That is just not a productive way to influence change. Not to mention the morality of it. So then you agree that we should not have invaded Iraq? Perhaps we did not strap bombs to ourselves, but we certainly did drop quite a few for the sole reason that our leaders objected to both its policy and government. Morality? Who defines that? The winners I suppose. WOW... that is the biggest leap I have seen tried in a while. Because you obviously forgot. there were 12 years of negotiation leading to the war in Iraq. Iraq was found top be in violation of 15 different resolutions and would not comply. That my friend is what lead to the Iraq war. Not US terrorist actions like you wish it were. You are an enabler. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #13 July 27, 2005 Hmmm, I just think we have different views on the subject. I would say that Iraq had been "handled" for those years. Was it an ideal situation? Clearly not, but then again, this isn't much better and in a number of ways this is much, much worse for the U.S. in terms of blood and treasure. Tell me if you will what was the cost in human lives during that period and what was the cost of simply keeping them under control rather than invading? When you can post those numbers and prove me wrong, please do so.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #14 July 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteQuoteno, neither make sense. You do not strap a bomb to you self and blow anything up if you object to a policy or government. That is just not a productive way to influence change. Not to mention the morality of it. So then you agree that we should not have invaded Iraq? Perhaps we did not strap bombs to ourselves, but we certainly did drop quite a few for the sole reason that our leaders objected to both its policy and government. Morality? Who defines that? The winners I suppose. WOW... that is the biggest leap I have seen tried in a while. Because you obviously forgot. there were 12 years of negotiation leading to the war in Iraq. Iraq was found top be in violation of 15 different resolutions and would not comply. That my friend is what lead to the Iraq war. Not US terrorist actions like you wish it were. You are an enabler. So why haven't we invaded and occupied Israel? Israel is also in violation of a bunch of UN resolutions. BTW, the final UNSCOM report indicated compliance in almost all respects - then we invaded Iraq.... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #15 July 27, 2005 QuoteHmmm, I just think we have different views on the subject. I would say that Iraq had been "handled" for those years. Was it an ideal situation? Clearly not, but then again, this isn't much better and in a number of ways this is much, much worse for the U.S. in terms of blood and treasure. Tell me if you will what was the cost in human lives during that period and what was the cost of simply keeping them under control rather than invading? When you can post those numbers and prove me wrong, please do so. Firtst of all you want me to speculate of the # of deaths SH would have caused if we did nothing.... I can't do that. The only thing I have to go by is his past history. I think it would be a fair estimate to say that over 1,000,000 people have been killed under the reign of SH. He had been in power for 23 years... So that is about 43,000 people a year killed by Him. I don't think Containment was the right idea. Containment of Hotler wasn't a good idea either. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kallend 1,651 #16 July 27, 2005 QuoteQuoteHmmm, I just think we have different views on the subject. I would say that Iraq had been "handled" for those years. Was it an ideal situation? Clearly not, but then again, this isn't much better and in a number of ways this is much, much worse for the U.S. in terms of blood and treasure. Tell me if you will what was the cost in human lives during that period and what was the cost of simply keeping them under control rather than invading? When you can post those numbers and prove me wrong, please do so. Firtst of all you want me to speculate of the # of deaths SH would have caused if we did nothing.... I can't do that. The only thing I have to go by is his past history. I think it would be a fair estimate to say that over 1,000,000 people have been killed under the reign of SH. He had been in power for 23 years... So that is about 43,000 people a year killed by Him. I don't think Containment was the right idea. Containment of Hotler wasn't a good idea either. Hotler? Are you trying to invoke Gidwon's Law... The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #17 July 27, 2005 I know not what "Gidwon's Law" is. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
kelel01 1 #18 July 27, 2005 I think it's an anagram of "Godwin's Law". Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 3 #19 July 27, 2005 QuoteI think it would be a fair estimate to say that over 1,000,000 people have been killed under the reign of SH. He had been in power for 23 years... So that is about 43,000 people a year killed by Him. You are off by about an order of ten. The real numbers are closer to 100,000 killed by him during his rein. Even so, the -minimum- number of estimated kills by coalition forces is around 8,000 with a median estimate of 100,000 with an addition of over 1,700 US deaths. I dunno man, containment seems have worked a HELL of a lot better than what we're doing right now.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
ltdiver 3 #20 July 28, 2005 Very interesting conclusion to that article you posted. Quote Like all of us, journalists need to believe they are honest, reasonable human beings. There is a problem, however - career success depends on their not finding +too+ much to criticise in the operation of elite state-corporate power. The art of successful mainstream journalism is the art of reconciling these two irreconcilables without admitting the lie to conscious awareness. As with the individuals in Luborsky's experiments, journalists somehow understand what is going on and rush a protective filter into place, steering awareness away from what threatens. It is an awesome and intriguing phenomenon of human psychology. The consequences are awesome, too - incinerated children, dismembered bodies, and families smashed and broken in depthless grief. ltdiver Don't tell me the sky's the limit when there are footprints on the moon Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #21 July 28, 2005 QuoteI do not recall seeing on Cops any rednecks whose soul purpose was to defeat western civilization by strapping a bomb to himself. Only in America would some one use an interview on FOX and what he sees on Cops to shape his thoughts and impressions of international terrorism.... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,153 #22 July 28, 2005 Just remember -- it's just as unfair to characterize all Americans by the actions of one as it is to poke fun at all Canadians because of, say, Celine Dion Of course, if I were going to look for an ample supply of yahoos, "Cops" would provide a target-rich environment. The one problem is that they wouldn't be commenting on world affairs -- you have to look at the back of pickups for that. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
SkyDekker 1,147 #23 July 28, 2005 very true.....and for the record, "only in America" is not the same as "All Americans".... Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #24 July 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteI think it would be a fair estimate to say that over 1,000,000 people have been killed under the reign of SH. He had been in power for 23 years... So that is about 43,000 people a year killed by Him. You are off by about an order of ten. The real numbers are closer to 100,000 killed by him during his rein. Even so, the -minimum- number of estimated kills by coalition forces is around 8,000 with a median estimate of 100,000 with an addition of over 1,700 US deaths. I dunno man, containment seems have worked a HELL of a lot better than what we're doing right now. I think you are off!! you are only counting the Kurds he killed. Do some reasearch. If you want to count what the US has killed during a war, then you must count what Iraq has killed during a war too. Over 500,000 died in Iran due to the Iraq Iran war. 100,000 kurds killed. And 100 of thousands other iraqis over the years. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
storm1977 0 #25 July 28, 2005 QuoteQuoteI do not recall seeing on Cops any rednecks whose soul purpose was to defeat western civilization by strapping a bomb to himself. Only in America would some one use an interview on FOX and what he sees on Cops to shape his thoughts and impressions of international terrorism.... Maybe you will want to reread the thread. It seems to me that Wendy made the comparrison. But you will believe what you want. ----------------------------------------------------- Sometimes it is more important to protect LIFE than Liberty Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
