You cannot simply be over-run and stand pat doing dick about it
There is nothing good going on here - I admit that
your thought patern suggests that violence and war is the ONLY answer to this problem... what i am saying is that there are much more effective ways of non-violence direct action that could be applied...plain and simple... just take a look at how war is working? not going to peachy is it? HOW MANY INNOCENT CIVIALINS MUST DIE? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
your thought patern suggests that violence and war is the ONLY answer to this problem... what i am saying is that there are much more effective ways of non-violence direct action that could be applied...plain and simple... just take a look at how war is working? not going to peachy is it? HOW MANY INNOCENT CIVIALINS MUST DIE? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
Let me guess what your more effective way of dealing with Islamic terrorism is.
HOW MANY INNOCENT CIVIALINS MUST DIE? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
'
How about asking that question to the sick fucks who are blowing up innocent Iraqi civilians every day for the mere reason that they aren't in the same sect of Islam???
your thought patern suggests that violence and war is the ONLY answer to this problem... what i am saying is that there are much more effective ways of non-violence direct action that could be applied...plain and simple... just take a look at how war is working? not going to peachy is it? HOW MANY INNOCENT CIVIALINS MUST DIE? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
It might suggest it my friend, but it is not entirely accurate - I was totally for the invasion of Iraq - yes -
that being said - how is it working? Not so great - I don't mean to tell you that war is the ultimate answer - only that I believe it was the necessary one
given the choices - 9/11 made a lot of people re-think things in the world -
you and I obviously came to two different conclusions -
Bush has my support because if I were president I would have taken extremely similar steps after that gruesome day - you would not have - and I understand that completely - as far as innocent civilians - let's not forget who is responsible for blowing people up SINCE the invasion - I'll give you a hint ...it starts with M and ends with S - and to be even clearer here - it's not the US Soldiers - they are trying to help the people there
I'll keep taking punches
Untill their will grows tired
How about asking that question to the sick fucks who are blowing up innocent Iraqi civilians every day for the mere reason that they aren't in the same sect of Islam???
how about the sick fucks that fire a missile into a home full of people because an "insurgent" may be there?
Reason with people who's belief has them strapping bombs on their little sisters to blow up a bus full of children?
The only clear solution would've been to drop a couple of Nuclear Bombs on the entire Middle East - There I said it -
I would never wish such a thing and I'm glad that did'nt happen
The other alternative is to unleash the mightiest Military force known to man on the Middle East and try to change this crap from the top to the bottom
That is only how my eyes see it , at least
Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer. - the prince
make sure the fortune that you seek...is the fortune that you need
I can't tell you exactly where this lesson is taught, but i'm sure some of the religious people on the train can fill in that blank. Famous story dude.
As for the other part of your post all I can say is violence is not the answer. You want proof? Look at how the situation is going now and every other time we've used violence to solve our problems.
you misunderstand, i didnt say that jesus didnt teach "turn the other cheek"
i argue that he never practiced it
so war isnt the answer? tell me where has peacfull negotiation ever worked with islamofaciest terrorists.?
War isn't a solution to anything. It's not like this Zinn guy is saying anything particularly intelligent. It suprises me that people (sheeple) have to read an article that states the blatantly obvious by someone who they've heard described favorably by someone else before they can formulate these concepts in their own head.
The only people we should try to get even with...
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
War isn't a solution to anything. It's not like this Zinn guy is saying anything particularly intelligent. It suprises me that people (sheeple) have to read an article that states the blatantly obvious by someone who they've heard described favorably by someone else before they can formulate these concepts in their own head.
Wait. War = bad / Peace = good. Fucking brilliant!! You and Zinn should get peace prizes.
I don't think many dispute that. The point is that Zinn did a great job of criticising and sloganeering and offered not one solution in his article. That was what people were saying in their posts.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Wait. War = bad / Peace = good. Fucking brilliant!! You and Zinn should get peace prizes.
I don't think many dispute that. The point is that Zinn did a great job of criticising and sloganeering and offered not one solution in his article. That was what people were saying in their posts.
"So if an action will inevitably kill innocent people, it is as immoral as a deliberate attack on civilians. And when you consider that the number of innocent people dying inevitably in "accidental" events has been far, far greater than all the deaths deliberately caused by terrorists, one must reject war as a solution for terrorism. "
Not to me. The line you quoted shows him rejecting war as a solution for terrorism, but doesn't propose an alternative solution. As far as I can tell, your quote perfectly illustrated my point.
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Don't worry any attempt to offer any non-violent solution is usually met with hostility and disbelief of how unrealisitic it sounds...the desire for blood (revenge) is too great in your nation to accept anything but violent retribution (where it seems the majority lie)....unfortunatly that path will lead to more blood letting from the other side upon these people....like I said this scenerio breeds more war.....until people realize that war is not an option I hope they come to understanding that more and more body bags are going home chilled...if you want to promote war as the only option better deal with the consequences it will bring to you and that includes opening oneself to more attacks....
Don't worry any attempt to offer any non-violent solution is usually met with hostility and disbelief of how unrealisitic it sounds...the desire for blood (revenge) is too great in your nation to accept anything but violent retribution (where it seems the majority lie)....unfortunatly that path will lead to more blood letting from the other side upon these people....like I said this scenerio breeds more war.....until people realize that war is not an option I hope they come to understanding that more and more body bags are going home chilled...if you want to promote war as the only option better deal with the consequences it will bring to you and that includes opening oneself to more attacks....
Sweet. Another non-answer. What's the alternative? What non-violent altnernatives have proven effective against terrorist in the past?
"I'll use the magic word - let's just shut the fuck up, please." EV, 04/13/08
Sweet. Another non-answer. What's the alternative? What non-violent altnernatives have proven effective against terrorist in the past?
I can count at least 20 times I have offered my solution.....and guess what either the person demanding NEVER responds to it or it gets ridiculed for being unrealistic...funny coming from someone whose support for a losing effort is so strong...as for repeating what i think can be done...I am not repeating right now.....
I can count at least 20 times I have offered my solution.....and guess what either the person demanding NEVER responds to it or it gets ridiculed for being unrealistic...funny coming from someone whose support for a losing effort is so strong...
What the hell are you on about? If you're talking about the war in Iraq you'll have to point out where my strong support is in evidence. For the record I'm opposed (and always have been) to the Iraq war. But I was in favor of the Afghanistan operation. We were going after Al Qaida. Unfortunately, as is typical with this administration, objectives weren't clear, and political distractions got in the way. But had we focused on the task, war would have been an effective and appropriate way to eradicate those assholes.
As for your solution, maybe it was ridiculed for being unrealistic because it was, um, unrealistic? I don't know since I don't recall reading it.
My comments in this thread have nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with the general statements that Zinn is making.
Sweet. Another non-answer. What's the alternative? What non-violent altnernatives have proven effective against terrorist in the past?
If violence causes terrorism...what do you think would prevent terrorism?
Like, say, not invading arab countries, or not stationing tens of thousands of troops next to MEcca, or say not supporting radical Isalam, or say not supplying the most violent State in the middle east with 2 billion in millitary hardware every year, or not bombing third world countries, or not supporting brutal dicatators in arab countries..and on...
Comments
So is the alternative - that's my point
You cannot simply be over-run and stand pat doing dick about it
There is nothing good going on here - I admit that
Untill their will grows tired
your thought patern suggests that violence and war is the ONLY answer to this problem... what i am saying is that there are much more effective ways of non-violence direct action that could be applied...plain and simple... just take a look at how war is working? not going to peachy is it? HOW MANY INNOCENT CIVIALINS MUST DIE? 50,000? 100,000? 1,000,000?
Let me guess what your more effective way of dealing with Islamic terrorism is.
Could it be, appeasement?
How about asking that question to the sick fucks who are blowing up innocent Iraqi civilians every day for the mere reason that they aren't in the same sect of Islam???
It might suggest it my friend, but it is not entirely accurate - I was totally for the invasion of Iraq - yes -
that being said - how is it working? Not so great - I don't mean to tell you that war is the ultimate answer - only that I believe it was the necessary one
given the choices - 9/11 made a lot of people re-think things in the world -
you and I obviously came to two different conclusions -
Bush has my support because if I were president I would have taken extremely similar steps after that gruesome day - you would not have - and I understand that completely - as far as innocent civilians - let's not forget who is responsible for blowing people up SINCE the invasion - I'll give you a hint ...it starts with M and ends with S - and to be even clearer here - it's not the US Soldiers - they are trying to help the people there
Untill their will grows tired
how about the sick fucks that fire a missile into a home full of people because an "insurgent" may be there?
i will not debate with you, it is a waste of time
Hence it is to be remarked that, in seizing a state, the usurper ought to examine closely into all those injuries which it is necessary for him to inflict, and to do them all at one stroke so as not to have to repeat them daily; and thus by not unsettling men he will be able to reassure them, and win them to himself by benefits. He who does otherwise, either from timidity or evil advice, is always compelled to keep the knife in his hand; neither can he rely on his subjects, nor can they attach themselves to him, owing to their continued and repeated wrongs. For injuries ought to be done all at one time, so that, being tasted less, they offend less; benefits ought to be given little by little, so that the flavour of them may last longer. - the prince
you misunderstand, i didnt say that jesus didnt teach "turn the other cheek"
i argue that he never practiced it
so war isnt the answer? tell me where has peacfull negotiation ever worked with islamofaciest terrorists.?
...are those who've helped us.
Right 'round the corner could be bigger than ourselves.
Wait. War = bad / Peace = good. Fucking brilliant!! You and Zinn should get peace prizes.
I don't think many dispute that. The point is that Zinn did a great job of criticising and sloganeering and offered not one solution in his article. That was what people were saying in their posts.
looks like an answer to me
Not to me. The line you quoted shows him rejecting war as a solution for terrorism, but doesn't propose an alternative solution. As far as I can tell, your quote perfectly illustrated my point.
Don't worry any attempt to offer any non-violent solution is usually met with hostility and disbelief of how unrealisitic it sounds...the desire for blood (revenge) is too great in your nation to accept anything but violent retribution (where it seems the majority lie)....unfortunatly that path will lead to more blood letting from the other side upon these people....like I said this scenerio breeds more war.....until people realize that war is not an option I hope they come to understanding that more and more body bags are going home chilled...if you want to promote war as the only option better deal with the consequences it will bring to you and that includes opening oneself to more attacks....
Sweet. Another non-answer. What's the alternative? What non-violent altnernatives have proven effective against terrorist in the past?
I can count at least 20 times I have offered my solution.....and guess what either the person demanding NEVER responds to it or it gets ridiculed for being unrealistic...funny coming from someone whose support for a losing effort is so strong...as for repeating what i think can be done...I am not repeating right now.....
And the current American/British method of handling terror is effective?
Give me some examples it has been......
What the hell are you on about? If you're talking about the war in Iraq you'll have to point out where my strong support is in evidence. For the record I'm opposed (and always have been) to the Iraq war. But I was in favor of the Afghanistan operation. We were going after Al Qaida. Unfortunately, as is typical with this administration, objectives weren't clear, and political distractions got in the way. But had we focused on the task, war would have been an effective and appropriate way to eradicate those assholes.
As for your solution, maybe it was ridiculed for being unrealistic because it was, um, unrealistic? I don't know since I don't recall reading it.
My comments in this thread have nothing to do with Iraq, and everything to do with the general statements that Zinn is making.
Well, far be it from me to keep you from doing something more important.
If violence causes terrorism...what do you think would prevent terrorism?
Like, say, not invading arab countries, or not stationing tens of thousands of troops next to MEcca, or say not supporting radical Isalam, or say not supplying the most violent State in the middle east with 2 billion in millitary hardware every year, or not bombing third world countries, or not supporting brutal dicatators in arab countries..and on...