Traitors amongst us

[anon789]

Courtesy of Lao:
I'm way more concerned about the dangers that people like Aaron Brachowitz pose to our society than those posed by people like Osama bin Laden

I have two comments on this:
First; As far as I'm concerned, this comment and others of its type are traitorous.

Secondly, the US is close to being castrated by vocal minority liberal voices such as these. People apparently can undermine the government, who is trying to protect our freedom, by assuming that they can say/do ANYTHING they want without ANY repurcussions - despite the fact that war has been declared. I think this is becoming the case, I also don't think it should be so.

[Anonymous]

Just because Lao's not on Israel's side doesn't mean he's a traitor to America.

This article shows GWB shares Lao's views.

"US asks Israel to leave PA territory and never return."

http://dailynews.yahoo.com/h/ap/20011022/ts/us_mideast_8.html

This next article shows Israel isn't a real ally and only uses the US for aid and military support.

"Israel rejects US demand."

http://israelinsider.com/channels/diplomacy/articles/dip_0107.htm

Israel and the US have opposing foreign policy objectives. A true American sticks with his country always, even if it means going against Israel.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Voice of Reason on 2001-10-22 21:19 ]</font>

[aNoNo]

Pop Quiz for V of R -

Can you name a functioning democracy in the Middle East?

Is there any moral reason for the U.S. supporting a democracy surrounded by despotic dictatorhips?



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: aNoNo on 2001-10-23 08:39 ]</font>

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-22 20:54, anon789 wrote:
Courtesy of Lao:
I'm way more concerned about the dangers that people like Aaron Brachowitz pose to our society than those posed by people like Osama bin Laden

I have two comments on this:
First; As far as I'm concerned, this comment and others of its type are traitorous.

Secondly, the US is close to being castrated by vocal minority liberal voices such as these. People apparently can undermine the government, who is trying to protect our freedom, by assuming that they can say/do ANYTHING they want without ANY repurcussions - despite the fact that war has been declared. I think this is becoming the case, I also don't think it should be so.


Stop it! It hurts when I laugh that hard!

"anon789" is no good. You should change your handle to "The Defender of the Faith." And, aside from your lack of familiarity with the First Amendment, you also seem to be unaware that only Congress can declare war, and I don't believe that it has done so in this case (war with whom?).

I wonder how many of the nitwits who are currently rushing to the defense of the government are the same ones who decry government intrusions (real or imagined) during times of peace. The IRS should be scrutinized as a threat to our liberty, but we shouldn't question (or even know about!) what the military does? I'm sorry -- no one can be that stupid: you folks must be being dishonest, maybe with yourselves in addition to with everyone else.

[Aaron Brachowitz]

One striking similarity between Lao et al and terrorists -- they both look at the United States and see only detestable things. It has probably been a valuable learning experience for lots of ordinary Americans who were unaware of the level of hatred for the US in the mainstream left -- that they could use even such an indefensible act as support for their wacko arguments.

[Laocoön]

Watch it sport! Didn't you read what anon789 wrote? I'm close to castrating the US, and buddy, your nuts are hanging by just one thread!

[Abducens]

>>Watch it sport! Didn't you read what anon789 wrote? I'm close to castrating the US, and buddy, your nuts are hanging by just one thread!

Nice post. I like the smart-ass overtones. Man, you were THIS close to fully concealing the fact that you are wrong.

[Laocoön]

Snip, Abducens. SNIP!

There is no content in this thread; this thread is to write inane things. Whether I'm right or wrong has nothing to do with this thread.

Now, if you think I'm wrong, you should identify those things that I have written and present your argument for why I am wrong, if it bothers you and you think I might be misleading people.

Or, if your belief that I am wrong is more a gastro-intestinal than a cerebral phenomenon, then stay here.

[Abducens]

Sorry... I am conditioned from the Sports forums that cute sounding one-liners are just as acceptable as well-thought-out, reasoned arguments here. From the sounds of your post, I shall be welcomed here! Am I allowed to post in secret code?

[Abducens]

Cut the crap!

[Indep]

"I have two comments on this:
First; As far as I'm concerned, this comment and others of its type are traitorous.

Secondly, the US is close to being castrated by vocal minority liberal voices such as these. People apparently can undermine the government, who is trying to protect our freedom, by assuming that they can say/do ANYTHING they want without ANY repurcussions - despite the fact that war has been declared. I think this is becoming the case, I also don't think it should be so. "

Don't you think you're reaching a bit with that one? Come on. First, we can say anything with out repurcussions, except slander and so on... Second, just because someone doesn't get excited about the idea of dressing up as a dead Afghan for halloween, doesn't make them a traitor. Some people actually have the nerve to question whether the US's actions have always been correct regarding the situation. How dare they! Depending on how they feel, they may have mixed feelings on the situation. Me, I wonder too, but I don't think we have any choice but to overthrow the Taliban. However, I'd like to see us help establish some stability in the region once we do. It'd be a shame to have this same arguement again in 10 years.

[Guerilla poster]

I think AB (and anon 789) would support nuclear annihilation of all Mideast countries as long as Israel was not impacted by the nuclear fallout.



<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Guerilla Poster on 2001-10-23 13:51 ]</font>

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: guerilla poster on 2001-10-23 14:10 ]</font>

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-23 13:50, Guerilla Poster wrote:
I think AB (and anon 789) would support nuclear annihilation of all Mideast countries as long as Israel was not impacted by the nuclear fallout.

That's ridiculous. The pyramids and oil fields are much too valuable to destroy.

[Hierophant]

"Abducens" for those of you who didn't already know and were too lazy to look up, is one of the 12 cranial nerves. A curious reference for a forum handle.

As to policy, I don't think it would take too much to totally antagonize the country. For example, supposing a few hundred thousand or a million U.S. people were to die, and the Arab world were to celebrate (and probably even if they didn't.)

It would not surprise me to see a push to "sweep" the Middle East, and basically destroy every Arab/Muslim country in our path, most of the people, and take over the oil fields for our own.

While that would be a terrible and generally un-American approach (we have not been imperialists) I don't think it would take much right now to convince the public to proceed in that direction. It would probably work, and there wouldn't be much the rest of the world could do about it, except the Russians.

These are troubled times.

[G. Ringo]

I see it as very hard right now to get the United States to view the Arab countries that produced the terrorists as enemies. Why?

[an2001on]

The Russians are tired of Chechnya, don't like Afghans a bit and probably wouldn't mind to join in (for a share).

The Ukrainians would also try to offer some help. Something like offering their air-space to our air-force. I hope we would gently turn down the invitation. :smile:

[Aaron Brachowitz]

On 2001-10-23 15:53, Gregor Grub wrote:
I see it as very hard right now to get the United States to view the Arab countries that produced the terrorists as enemies. Why?

Their reticence to take action against the terrorist groups may leave us no choice but to view them as enemies. The Saudis and Egyptians have smiled and said all the right things, but have stonewalled on matters of substance. They have refused to provide information on the hijackers' backgrounds that might be valuable in dismantling the terrorist networks. They have refused to freeze assets of organizations known to support terrorists. They refuse even now to provide passenger lists for US-bound planes for comparison to terrorist databases. And they continue to support Wahhabi "schools" throughout the region whose only curriculum is memorizing the Koran and hatred for the West.

Need any more reasons?

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-23 13:08, Abducens wrote:
Cut the crap!


I wouldn't use the word "cut" around here if I were you, sport. Not unless you want to start singing soprano.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-23 14:27, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:

On 2001-10-23 13:50, Guerilla Poster wrote:
I think AB (and anon 789) would support nuclear annihilation of all Mideast countries as long as Israel was not impacted by the nuclear fallout.

That's ridiculous. The pyramids and oil fields are much too valuable to destroy.


Don't you mean "the pyramids and OUR oil fields?"

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-23 15:53, Gregor Grub wrote:
I see it as very hard right now to get the United States to view the Arab countries that produced the terrorists as enemies. Why?


I'm sure that Osama bin Laden has been wondering why it has been so hard to get those Arab countries to view the United States as an enemy as well. Maybe what you need to do is to get rid of all the moderate people.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-23 16:14, Aaron Brachowitz wrote:
Their reticence to take action against the terrorist groups may leave us no choice but to view them as enemies. The Saudis and Egyptians have smiled and said all the right things, but have stonewalled on matters of substance. They have refused to provide information on the hijackers' backgrounds that might be valuable in dismantling the terrorist networks. They have refused to freeze assets of organizations known to support terrorists. They refuse even now to provide passenger lists for US-bound planes for comparison to terrorist databases. And they continue to support Wahhabi "schools" throughout the region whose only curriculum is memorizing the Koran and hatred for the West.


The Arabs have a similar (but much stronger) complaint against the US for its support of Israel.

[Indep]

"I see it as very hard right now to get the United States to view the Arab countries that produced the terrorists as enemies. Why?"

Because we are a civilized people. We recognize the enemy as a few people leading others (or misleading) into commiting terrible acts. With all the religious fervor that they can draw upon, they follow, to dumb to know better. However, we aren't after genocide, but ridding ourselves or the problem is more difficult. I guess some do want to take the easy way out.

[alex]

why's everyone saying these are different times, and the world is different, and implying that this would justify about anything militarily. every time is different, the movies change every week, baseball changes to football, things are always different, so what's so freakin different about this??

I think it is funny that alot of the folks who fight for every penny they have to give to the IRS are fully behind this spend spend spend bomb bomb bomb mentality.

and what's so bad about losing 5 or 6 thousand people. That's not many at all. and you've gotta admit, some of them were certainly jerks who deserved to die. Rawandans lost hundreds of thousands, and they aren't hitting the us for not getting involved, when they had the chance, and knew it was genocide. this is just a big overreaction, from a president looking for an out cause he's so dumb. look at his approval rating now. If OJ was somehow president tomorrow, he could get 96% by bombing afghanistan. it's so boring. I hope another building get's knocked down soon, and no one I know is among the casualties, cause I could sure use some more cheap entertainment.

[Anonymous]

On 2001-10-23 21:28, alex wrote:
why's everyone saying these are different times, and the world is different, and implying that this would justify about anything militarily. every time is different, the movies change every week, baseball changes to football, things are always different, so what's so freakin different about this??

I think it is funny that alot of the folks who fight for every penny they have to give to the IRS are fully behind this spend spend spend bomb bomb bomb mentality.

and what's so bad about losing 5 or 6 thousand people. That's not many at all. and you've gotta admit, some of them were certainly jerks who deserved to die. Rawandans lost hundreds of thousands, and they aren't hitting the us for not getting involved, when they had the chance, and knew it was genocide. this is just a big overreaction, from a president looking for an out cause he's so dumb. look at his approval rating now. If OJ was somehow president tomorrow, he could get 96% by bombing afghanistan. it's so boring. I hope another building get's knocked down soon, and no one I know is among the casualties, cause I could sure use some more cheap entertainment.




At least Alex has a unique, interesting perspective. He also gets kudos for sincerity, you just can't make that stuff up.

[Griffin 1]

On 2001-10-24 00:30, Voice of Reason wrote:
At least Alex has a unique, interesting perspective. He also gets kudos for sincerity, you just can't make that stuff up.


Kudos denied. Although the perspective is somewhat unique (at least out of the mainstream), it is hardly interesting, and I doubt it is sincere.

[Anonymous]

Hehe, everybody's up late studying.

[Rockhound]

I see it as very hard right now to get the United States to view the Arab countries that produced the terrorists as enemies. Why?

I think you are wrong about how most American's feel. The media is bending over backward with stories on how we shouldn't hate these countries or their people, and the government is trying to build a worldwide alliance. But, to the average Joe on the street (that is, not the one's hanging out on this forum, or in the liberal meccas of this country), nuking most of the countries in the mid-east (and to many Israel as collateral damage wouldn't be so bad) would be cheered.

[Laocoön]

On 2001-10-23 21:28, alex wrote:
and what's so bad about losing 5 or 6 thousand people.


What's your life worth, alex? If losing 5 or 6 thousand times that isn't so bad, you must be a pretty pathetic person. Maybe less time on this board would help.

[Guerilla poster]

to alex and vor,

since when is talking nonsense considered a different opinion.

[alex]

lao,

losing 5 or 6K people is not as bad, maybe, as internet service disruption, especially if I don't know them,and they are more or less random victims. However, we kill animals everyday, millions of em, and eat 'em. That's fine though. And so is killing people. Just that some of us are selective about the sacred nature of life when it happens to be human. And it's not like the terrorists invented mortality - it's a fact of life! We live so much longer than other animals (w/a few exceptions, like space lobsters) that 30 40 50 years is a very long life.

That being said, I wish their was a way to undo the heartache and heartbreak of the victims families and survivors.

[Laocoön]

Alex, when I was in high school, some lunatic had attacked the statue "Winged Victory" (in Italy somewhere) with a hammer. A friend of mine -- someone whom I respect quite a bit -- commented that it was really worse to destroy great art than it was to kill someone. At that time, I probably agreed with him.

However, as I have grown older and wiser (well, older at least), I have come to realize that the greatest works of art are barely a pale shadow of human life, and I would see all the museums of the world razed and their contents -- both artistic and historical -- destroyed if it would save the most miserable human life imaginable. And I care about art and history a lot more than most people I know.

I am sorry that your life is so thoroughly impoverished.

[E. Blackadder]

On 2001-10-24 17:48, Laocoön wrote:
...A friend of mine -- someone whom I respect quite a bit -- commented that it was really worse to destroy great art than it was to kill someone. At that time, I probably agreed with him.

However, as I have grown older and wiser (well, older at least), I have come to realize that the greatest works of art are barely a pale shadow of human life, and I would see all the museums of the world razed and their contents -- both artistic and historical -- destroyed if it would save the most miserable human life imaginable. And I care about art and history a lot more than most people I know.


I despise most works of art. And yet I'm prepared to claim that some art is worth far more than some lives.

I propose to take this one up in November. Allah did not so will that I would not post at all, but he has not forced me to spend hours composing arguments. For which I am grateful.

[Rockhound]

Back to the title of this thread. This morning I saw Dick Gephart on TV saying: "on September 11, we all failed, and last week we all failed again..." for not testing postal workers for anthrax faster.

So Gephart now is starting to jump on the "we are to blame" theme. If we were in a less democratic country, he would now be in prison. Here's hoping that come the next election, his opponent plays those words over and over, against a backdrop of the WTC being hit by those planes.

[Guerilla poster]

RH,

What is wrong with admitting that the gov't f'ed up? Is it better to cover up?

[Weatherman]

On 2001-10-25 11:29, Rockhound wrote:
Back to the title of this thread. This morning I saw Dick Gephart on TV saying: "on September 11, we all failed, and last week we all failed again..." for not testing postal workers for anthrax faster.

So Gephart now is starting to jump on the "we are to blame" theme. If we were in a less democratic country, he would now be in prison. Here's hoping that come the next election, his opponent plays those words over and over, against a backdrop of the WTC being hit by those planes.


Can you provide more of a quote? From what you said, it certainly doesn't seem traitorous. Is it wrong to suggest that we need more security against terrorism and bioattacks?

[Rockhound]

Point is, that we did not fail on September 11. (Issue with the postal workers may be different). We were attacked. WE are not to blame for the Sept. 11 attack, even intimating that is tantamount to treason, as it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.

[Guerilla poster]

The government did fail. If we had better airport security or better intelligence, the gov't may have been able to stop the attack. It was an attack but it may have been preventable. It is okay to place blame for not preventing something. That is much different than taking blame for what the terrorists did (that is excusing the terrorists) but blaming the FBI or the FAA or the airlines is legitimate to me.

One can learn from failure. Why is failure such a bad word too you? This must come from taking too many actuarial exams.

<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: Guerilla Poster on 2001-10-25 14:23 ]</font>

[independent]

On 2001-10-25 14:11, Rockhound wrote:
Point is, that we did not fail on September 11. (Issue with the postal workers may be different). We were attacked. WE are not to blame for the Sept. 11 attack, even intimating that is tantamount to treason, as it gives aid and comfort to the enemy.


I'm glad that the military doesn't (usually) accept this strange proposition. If they did, saying "I think we made a tactical error in that last attack" would put you in front of a firing squad.