Zach is the man, and him along with a very good majority of this country are fucking sick of militant capitalists spreading their culture with violence.
violence seems to be a language they understand and if that's what it takes for them to listen, fuck it, maybe that's the language we will use.
When a country essentially attacks you, retaliation is justified.
retaliation? is that what you call deliberately attacking hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians?
and you know damn well it's not as simple as another country attacking us; this was a much bigger issue in general, and there were much better ways to deal with it then killing more people. if that's what gets you off though, I guess it's fine. after all, what's another abdul dead, right?
retaliation? is that what you call deliberately attacking hundreds of thousands, if not millions, of innocent civilians?
and you know damn well it's not as simple as another country attacking us; this was a much bigger issue in general, and there were much better ways to deal with it then killing more people. if that's what gets you off though, I guess it's fine. after all, what's another abdul dead, right?
You're kind of being offensive now, and I did nothing to deserve it.
A country attacks you, it's your right -- and, possibly, your obligation -- to strike back. I guarantee without the offensive in Afghanistan, we would have had another terrorist attack in this country within the last seven years.
Innocent civilians die in war. It's terrible. But it happens. I mentioned WWII in my other post, and here's one difference between Japan and Afghanistan: In Japan, the US went OUT OF ITS WAY to kill innocent civilians. That was the point of the A-Bombs. In afghanistan, innocent civilians have died, but the U.S. has gone out of its way -- at times at the peril of its own military personnel -- to avoid collateral damage.
It can't be completely avoided, and that sucks, but it can be minimized. I don't believe at any point in the Afghan campaign anyone has said, "Let's go blow up a wedding full of completely innocent people! Yee hah!"
But back to justification: If Afghanistan was unjustified, then every war in the history of the world has been unjustified.
If you want to argue that all war is unjustified, fine. That's a viewpoint you're allowed to have. But if that's indeed your belief, there's no sense in us even discussing this further. We're operating in two separate universes.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
Zach is the man, and him along with a very good majority of this country are fucking sick of militant capitalists spreading their culture with violence.
violence seems to be a language they understand and if that's what it takes for them to listen, fuck it, maybe that's the language we will use.
It does work like that, but it also kicks everything up a notch at the same time, and that has it's own consequences for corruption within itself. Once the damage is done in a relationship, it never really quite gets back to the way it used to be without a lot of reparations....it's almost exponential but favoring the shit side.
Dual edged sword. I prefer the route that somehow neutralizes the situation sans genocide...
Progress is not made by everyone joining some new fad,
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
You're kind of being offensive now, and I did nothing to deserve it.
A country attacks you, it's your right -- and, possibly, your obligation -- to strike back. I guarantee without the offensive in Afghanistan, we would have had another terrorist attack in this country within the last seven years.
Innocent civilians die in war. It's terrible. But it happens. I mentioned WWII in my other post, and here's one difference between Japan and Afghanistan: In Japan, the US went OUT OF ITS WAY to kill innocent civilians. That was the point of the A-Bombs. In afghanistan, innocent civilians have died, but the U.S. has gone out of its way -- at times at the peril of its own military personnel -- to avoid collateral damage.
It can't be completely avoided, and that sucks, but it can be minimized. I don't believe at any point in the Afghan campaign anyone has said, "Let's go blow up a wedding full of completely innocent people! Yee hah!"
But back to justification: If Afghanistan was unjustified, then every war in the history of the world has been unjustified.
If you want to argue that all war is unjustified, fine. That's a viewpoint you're allowed to have. But if that's indeed your belief, there's no sense in us even discussing this further. We're operating in two separate universes.
I missed when "Afghanistan" attacked the U.S.?
All the rusted signs, we ignore throughout our lives, choosing the shiny ones instead...
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
honestly, it's rants like these that make me realize why I'm not such a big RATM fan anymore. i mean, burn down every office in Senate? #1 it's insane to even presume that could happen just because Obama won't pull troops out of Afghanistan. no one is going to fucking do that. honestly, i understand the rage, but the rage is retarded. piss poor, zack.
So when you've got no comeback ... insult the other person? That's a nice debate technique you've got going there.
no comeback? you, like most others, seem to completely ignore most points, such as the fact that it was not the country of Afghanistan that did 9/11 and that the U.S. does, in fact, DELIBERATELY attack many civilian areas in Afghanistan. you completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan as "collateral damage." well, what about the people killed in 9/11? 9/11 was an act of war, and in war, people die as "collateral damage." and don't dismiss this argument as being different because it is not different than the same tactics the U.S. use on Afghani civilians.
Me, on the other hand, like to simply resort to irrelevant grammar smack. As in: "Every day" should be two words in the above sentence, not one.
Wearing earplugs you are able to hear everything that you can hear without them...so your comment makes very little sense...
Now those blinders you wear are a real problem.
I'm blind? why? because I see the Israeli occupation for what it is? because I can't stop noticing oppression in its many forms? because I actually care about the civilians being killed in places like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and don't brush them all off as just "collateral damage?"
no comeback? you, like most others, seem to completely ignore most points, such as the fact that it was not the country of Afghanistan that did 9/11 and that the U.S. does, in fact, DELIBERATELY attack many civilian areas in Afghanistan. you completely ignore the hundreds of thousands of civilians killed in Afghanistan as "collateral damage." well, what about the people killed in 9/11? 9/11 was an act of war, and in war, people die as "collateral damage." and don't dismiss this argument as being different because it is not different than the same tactics the U.S. use on Afghani civilians.
I'm not ignoring your points. I'm just disagreeing with them. That is allowed, right?
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
I'm blind? why? because I see the Israeli occupation for what it is? because I can't stop noticing oppression in its many forms? because I actually care about the civilians being killed in places like Palestine, Iraq, and Afghanistan, and don't brush them all off as just "collateral damage?"
I didn't say "blind" I said "blinders"...like race horses...keeps them looking in 1 direction unable to see the rest all around them.
"For these last eight years, all we've heard about is a mysterious outside force that threatens our security and our liveihood everyday... *indecipherable* ...that some outside force is threatening our wayof life and our jobs and our livelihoods...and after *indecipherable*...it must dawn on us that its the big government that is the terrorist force sitting across from us.
"And I'm not just talking about the Bush administration, but the whole sick, conformist apparatus *indecipherable*
"They're supposed to step up and be our voice and congress they turned their backs on us. They turned their backs on the workers. They turned their backs on the soldiers. They got right behind Bush lock step and got this country into another sick war.
"Now we know brother Obama. We know brother Obama. But I tell you what, if he comes to power come November and he doesn't start pulling troops out of Afghanistan, I know a lot of people who are gonna stand up and burn down every office of every Senate.
"All this now we've been seeing is just the beginning, it's just the beginning. And no matter what happens in these *indecipherable*, I'll say this. That there is a generation of young black and latino brothers and sisters that are gonna force everyone in this country to make a decision very soon about what side they're going to stand on. And they're a generation of kids who don't give a fuck about national politics. They care about bread. They care about water. They care about housing and they care about justice. And they ain't gonna fucking stand for any of that shit. They're just gonna take it.
"This new generation of blacks and latinos *indecipherable* are gonna make this country an offer it can't refuse. So wake up!
Nice job of dividing the american population. Dividing them into nice, little groups of race, Zack.
Nice job of promoting a Race War.
Thanks for stepping out of that Blind Racist Closet and exposing yourself for the blithering moron, you really are.
It's nice to be a radical. It's not admirable to be an idiotic radical.
Just one question, Zack.
During this revolution and uprising, what are the scheduled Bong Hit Breaks?
They're assholes too. But they are assholes with nukes, which makes them a touchier sort of problem.
If you really want to argue the Taliban bears no culpability in bin Laden's ability to plan, fund and execute the 9.11 attacks, go for it. It's going to be tough to convince me, though.
everybody wants the most they can possibly get
for the least they could possibly do
If you really want to argue the Taliban bears no culpability in bin Laden's ability to plan, fund and execute the 9.11 attacks, go for it. It's going to be tough to convince me, though.
the Taliban were good people kept in power by the majority of Afghanistan's citizens! they didnt harbor terrorists! A revisionist historian told me so, and i forget everything that happened more than a couple of years ago.
i wouldnt be so sure. When things go berserk they really go berserk. Remember the 1960's/70's where you had Patty heart robbing a bank, you had a radical activist organization in america, the weathermen, hold a convention where they called for the murder of their parents and the murder of prominent politicians, where radical feminists didnt want to give birth to white babies and responded that the acceptable course was to "throw it away".
Uh-huh. How many of the people at that convention actually murdered parents and politicians? And last I checked, there were plenty of white babies born after the 60s and 70s and dumpster babies haven't exactly skyrocketed since then. You can't tell me that other ethnicities are somehow more akin to feminist ideals anyway (hip hop and burkhas anyone?).
There is so much bullshit rhetoric and posturing in this nonsense it's not even funny. Nobody is going to burn down the Senate. They can barely get enough people for a meaningful anti-war rally. Nobody is going to take to the streets if Obama doesn't immediately pull all troops from Afghan or Iraq. Your rage is not shared by most of the American people. Many now realize Iraq was a mistake and we should be getting out, but that does not apply to Afghanistan and people are definitely not so outraged that they're going to start burning and looting.
I'm not ignoring your points. I'm just disagreeing with them. That is allowed, right?
awesome. so, you disagree with the fact that U.S. deliberately attacks many civilian areas in Afghanistan? You think hundreds of thousands of civilians die by accident? you disagree that the people in 9/11 who died are comparable to the innocents who died in Afghanistan? Iraq? Palestine? why is that?
and feel free to ignore these points again by just saying "I disagree."
Comments
When a country essentially attacks you, retaliation is justified.
Was WWII justified?
for the least they could possibly do
violence seems to be a language they understand and if that's what it takes for them to listen, fuck it, maybe that's the language we will use.
and you know damn well it's not as simple as another country attacking us; this was a much bigger issue in general, and there were much better ways to deal with it then killing more people. if that's what gets you off though, I guess it's fine. after all, what's another abdul dead, right?
What ya thinkin'?
You're kind of being offensive now, and I did nothing to deserve it.
A country attacks you, it's your right -- and, possibly, your obligation -- to strike back. I guarantee without the offensive in Afghanistan, we would have had another terrorist attack in this country within the last seven years.
Innocent civilians die in war. It's terrible. But it happens. I mentioned WWII in my other post, and here's one difference between Japan and Afghanistan: In Japan, the US went OUT OF ITS WAY to kill innocent civilians. That was the point of the A-Bombs. In afghanistan, innocent civilians have died, but the U.S. has gone out of its way -- at times at the peril of its own military personnel -- to avoid collateral damage.
It can't be completely avoided, and that sucks, but it can be minimized. I don't believe at any point in the Afghan campaign anyone has said, "Let's go blow up a wedding full of completely innocent people! Yee hah!"
But back to justification: If Afghanistan was unjustified, then every war in the history of the world has been unjustified.
If you want to argue that all war is unjustified, fine. That's a viewpoint you're allowed to have. But if that's indeed your belief, there's no sense in us even discussing this further. We're operating in two separate universes.
for the least they could possibly do
It does work like that, but it also kicks everything up a notch at the same time, and that has it's own consequences for corruption within itself. Once the damage is done in a relationship, it never really quite gets back to the way it used to be without a lot of reparations....it's almost exponential but favoring the shit side.
Dual edged sword. I prefer the route that somehow neutralizes the situation sans genocide...
and reveling in it's loyalty. It's made by forming coalitions
over specific principles, goals, and policies.
http://i36.tinypic.com/66j31x.jpg
(\__/)
( o.O)
(")_(")
Pretty much.
You just called Zach a dumb shit but then you went on to equate militarised 1940's Japan with Afghanistan. Hmmmmm...
Maybe its just me, but there might be a few scholars who would disagree with that comparsion.
BTW how did a band of terrorists suddenly amplify to country status?
I missed when "Afghanistan" attacked the U.S.?
And he who forgets, will be destined to remember...
I hear ya, loud and clear because I too wear earplugs.
When you harbor, help and fund a known terrorist organization, you ARE a terrorist organization.
UBL was in Afghanistan at the Tailban's blessing, and they knew damn well what he was up to. Bin Laden was basically running Afghanistan at that time.
On 9/11, Al Qaeda was the gun, the Tailban was the trigger.
for the least they could possibly do
You need to study the relationship between Al Qaeda and the Taliban, circa 2001 then.
for the least they could possibly do
like, everyday of your life?
So when you've got no comeback ... insult the other person? That's a nice debate technique you've got going there.
Me, on the other hand, like to simply resort to irrelevant grammar smack. As in: "Every day" should be two words in the above sentence, not one.
for the least they could possibly do
Ignorance is bliss.
Wearing earplugs you are able to hear everything that you can hear without them...so your comment makes very little sense...
Now those blinders you wear are a real problem.
It should be "I," not "Me."
Now your (sic) getting the hang of it.
As for the rest of this:
I'm not ignoring your points. I'm just disagreeing with them. That is allowed, right?
for the least they could possibly do
I didn't say "blind" I said "blinders"...like race horses...keeps them looking in 1 direction unable to see the rest all around them.
I know I shouldn't have lashed out like that. I was just soooooo hurt by the stinging wittiness of his "ear plug" joke.
for the least they could possibly do
Nice job of dividing the american population. Dividing them into nice, little groups of race, Zack.
Nice job of promoting a Race War.
Thanks for stepping out of that Blind Racist Closet and exposing yourself for the blithering moron, you really are.
It's nice to be a radical. It's not admirable to be an idiotic radical.
Just one question, Zack.
During this revolution and uprising, what are the scheduled Bong Hit Breaks?
Every 15 minutes or 20 minutes?
But the money trail traced back to Pakistan.
They're assholes too. But they are assholes with nukes, which makes them a touchier sort of problem.
If you really want to argue the Taliban bears no culpability in bin Laden's ability to plan, fund and execute the 9.11 attacks, go for it. It's going to be tough to convince me, though.
for the least they could possibly do
Uh-huh. How many of the people at that convention actually murdered parents and politicians? And last I checked, there were plenty of white babies born after the 60s and 70s and dumpster babies haven't exactly skyrocketed since then. You can't tell me that other ethnicities are somehow more akin to feminist ideals anyway (hip hop and burkhas anyone?).
There is so much bullshit rhetoric and posturing in this nonsense it's not even funny. Nobody is going to burn down the Senate. They can barely get enough people for a meaningful anti-war rally. Nobody is going to take to the streets if Obama doesn't immediately pull all troops from Afghan or Iraq. Your rage is not shared by most of the American people. Many now realize Iraq was a mistake and we should be getting out, but that does not apply to Afghanistan and people are definitely not so outraged that they're going to start burning and looting.
others however choose to ignore everything, including the deaths of millions of innocents, while just sticking to their agenda...
please, feel free to enlighten me... what am I not paying attention to?
and feel free to ignore these points again by just saying "I disagree."