6 years later...

[uBeR]

Assuming, biased, ignorant, offensive, and incivil? Asking why he still lives in America is assuming, biased, ignorant, offensive, and incivil. Say what you must, but at least try to stay consistent.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by there's nothing here

So, let the economy collapse then.

Sounds a little like you're justifying things.

The thing is, what's been started has been started.. and there's probably no going back. The provoking's been done, see.

Let's say everything will be peachy, after. Then let the economy collapse. Who the fuck needs money? Isn't that a welcome trade-off to more people dying?

And, not to be a hippie, but it's also about time people stopped using gasoline anyway.

*Weren't like, gas prices lower before the war?

I think you are sadly mistaking the outcome of events here. Oil stops, planes and ships are the first to be grounded. International trade ceases. Business collapse, jobs are lost on a massive scale world wide. Complete disruption in services. You think THAT wouldn't cause massive deaths? On a global scale? How many people in China alone would die if their economy stopped? If food could not be shipped and produced as fast as it had in the past? If the global economy collapses you're talking about billions of deaths, not millions. I'm stunned that you believe no one would die as a result of a complete global economic collapse.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Here's a good twist. Why wouldn't non-violent resistance work for Al Qaeda against the United States? Wouldn't it be better for them to try something like a flower power revolution to implement change? Shouldn't you be angry with them for their violence and instead believe THEY should be looking for a non-violent solution?

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

That slope you've made seems to be extra lubed.

[ekiM]

So, how close to Islamic theocracies are Japan, Canada, Singapore, France, Germany, South Korea...? How often do they get attacked by Islamic terrorists?

Originally Posted by uBeR

Assuming, biased, ignorant, offensive, and incivil? Asking why he still lives in America is assuming, biased, ignorant, offensive, and incivil. Say what you must, but at least try to stay consistent.

Innoc is consistent. Consistently hypocritical.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Here's a good twist. Why wouldn't non-violent resistance work for Al Qaeda against the United States? Wouldn't it be better for them to try something like a flower power revolution to implement change? Shouldn't you be angry with them for their violence and instead believe THEY should be looking for a non-violent solution?

I don't think anyone in this thread has condoned Al Qaeda's activities.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by Thread Context for ekiM

You're allowed to think that. Do you have anything you'd like to add to the debate regarding Al Qaeda and use (or lack thereof) of non-violent resistance? Or did you just enter this thread to troll and attack Innoc:

Originally Posted by ekiM

Innoc is consistent. Consistently hypocritical.

We're having a good debate, please do not get this thread locked too.

Scuzzy

[there's nothing here]

Yeah. But, flower power? Against guns? Are you kidding me? Hey, way to be hippocritical though, why didn't the U.S. instead use a non-violent approach?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I think you are sadly mistaking the outcome of events here. Oil stops, planes and ships are the first to be grounded. International trade ceases. Business collapse, jobs are lost on a massive scale world wide. Complete disruption in services. You think THAT wouldn't cause massive deaths? On a global scale? How many people in China alone would die if their economy stopped? If food could not be shipped and produced as fast as it had in the past? If the global economy collapses you're talking about billions of deaths, not millions. I'm stunned that you believe no one would die as a result of a complete global economic collapse.

Yanno what Scuzzy, you're an ass, and you're also not staying on subject. But I think Imbrifer put it best.

Originally Posted by Imbrifer

Baseless claims. There is strong interest in the middle east in maintaining peace between nations and profiting by selling oil to the rest of the world, and these have kept things in the middle east stable for this past half-century, not US military intervention.

China's economy is on the rise, man. Besides that, they have always been self reliant, and they don't import food.

Finefine, you want to argue about oil.. well there didn't seem to be much problems before the war. What have people from the east there been doing all that time anyway? Oil is like their main source of income, they're not going to give it up.

And hey, if we didn't spend so much time using oil for things like.. let's say, filling up gianormous gas guzzling tanks, hummers, and planes, we could be doing more stuff like shipping food to poorer countries.

Are we changing the subject to enviromental problems now? Cause I could go on about that a lot better than I can about this.

[Imbrifer]

Originally Posted by Innoc

I'm done discussing this with you. If you decide to be civil then perhaps we have something to talk about.

Originally Posted by uBeR

Asking why he still lives in America is assuming, biased, ignorant, offensive, and incivil.

ftw.
I'm being civil, but still responding to your incivility. Claiming I'm not is a convenient way to ignore my points that you have been ignoring this entire thread

Shouldn't you be angry with them for their violence and instead believe THEY should be looking for a non-violent solution?

Make no mistake, as I've said they are butchers. But there are a few problems with simply saying 'al-Qaeda should be nonviolent'. Number one, the cause of the violence, as I've (and the 9/11 commission report, al-Qaeda, etc.) have stated, is US military intervention in the middle east. The best way to treat a sickness is to stop the cause, not treat the symptoms. Number two, I live in the good ol' USA, and my power is here, not with psycho extremist groups even the US government has trouble tracking down. Number three, there are many non-violent resisters of US foreign policy, but when we are consistently violent against them, some people will not be satisfied with nonviolent solutions, and they join terrorist groups. Remove our violent presence, we remove anything for them to get angry over, and they won't be pissed.

Wow more people discovering that this forum is riddled with douchebags. How unsurprising.


Hint: Don't post expecting respect. Since there are, as of yet, NO consequences for anyone's actions besides the (oh noes!) ban (which is at the very unfair discretion of possibly very immature people as they bring their own beliefs in to it, not any Fair Management Practices). No keyboard warrior hiding behind their anonymity is going to give you any leeway or be polite or civil. Best keep your opinions to people you can actually reach and punch in the face.

I urge these internet toughies to post their addresses, but they all act like I didn't say that.

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by there's nothing here

China's economy is on the rise, man. Besides that, they have always been self reliant, and they don't import food.

Ok TNH, you're point was that world economic collapse would be better then people dying in a war. You must be making that judgement based on some facts. How many people would die if the entire economy of the world collapsed?

Scuzzy

[Demasu]

You people bitch at each other too much.

[there's nothing here]

Oh yeah.

How would I know how many people are gonna die if the economy collapsed? You don't need money to help each other, okay. If such a thing we to happen, are you suggesting that everyone is going to just hog supplies to themselves?

Because if you are, I can see that happening for myself. That's just human nature, and greed.

It was just against the point that you made, stating that the world economy was gonna collapse if Americans pulled out. How so? Because of no oil? Now you're justifying America's actions for the sake of global economy.. I thought it had something to do with like, getting rid of terrorists and bringing Iraqis their freedom.

You didn't even answer anything about the other things in my post.. just only that?

Maybe you're taking your time trying to form a coherent argument.. if ya are.. then good job.

[ekiM]

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

You're allowed to think that. Do you have anything you'd like to add to the debate regarding Al Qaeda and use (or lack thereof) of non-violent resistance?

Uh, I imagine that nobody in this thread condones Al Qaeda and that everybody in this thread would prefer it if they renounced terrorism, disbanded, and sought their goals in a non-violent way - there is no debate here so there is nothing to add.

Apparently you have some kind of false perception that anyone critical of US foreign policy is sympathetic to Al Qaeda. That kind of thinking is simply wrongheaded. One can loathe Al Qaeda with all one's heart and still seek to understand the causes of their actions.

Implying that people who disagree with you are terrorist sympathizers is an extremely lame debate tactic. Tantamount to trolling, really.

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

Or did you just enter this thread to troll and attack Innoc:

The first line of my post was the main content of it. I wonder why you removed it when you quoted me? Do you have anything to add to the debate of why the US is more of a target than, say, Japan? Is it just because the US is bigger, or could it be because of your interventionist foreign policies?

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

We're having a good debate, please do not get this thread locked too.

You got the other thread locked by acting insane when I said I didn't want to talk to you about current affairs. Guess why I didn't want to talk to you?

[YomMamasHouse]

Reminds me of Bush saying "You're either with us or you're against us".

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by there's nothing here

Oh yeah.

How would I know how many people are gonna die if the economy collapsed? You don't need money to help each other, okay. If such a thing we to happen, are you suggesting that everyone is going to just hog supplies to themselves?

Well duh.

Originally Posted by there's nothing here

It was just against the point that you made, stating that the world economy was gonna collapse if Americans pulled out. How so? Because of no oil? Now you're justifying America's actions for the sake of global economy.. I thought it had something to do with like, getting rid of terrorists and bringing Iraqis their freedom.

I'm not justifying anything, I asked you what would happen if the United States pulled all troops, workers, and support out of the Middle East. You have yet to answer that question. You believe, for whatever reason, that that would stop Islamic Terrorism, but haven't outline the consequences of those actions. I stated my opinion of what would occur, what's yours?

Originally Posted by there's nothing here

Maybe you're taking your time trying to form a coherent argument.. if ya are.. then good job.

LOL, that doesn't work for ekiM, and it surely isn't going to work for you.

Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by ekiM

Uh, I imagine that nobody in this thread condones Al Qaeda and that everybody in this thread would prefer it if they renounced terrorism, disbanded, and sought their goals in a non-violent way - there is no debate here so there is nothing to add.

Well good, glad we're done then.

Thanks,
Scuzzy

[Scuzzy]

Originally Posted by YomMamasHouse

Reminds me of Bush saying "You're either with us or you're against us".

Which is absolutely true. If you stand by and do nothing you're simply enabling them.

Scuzzy

[uBeR]

It's a false dichotomy.

[YomMamasHouse]

That is a good way to oversimplify it. Giving them weapons and and funds is a way of enabling them, and no country in their right minds would give weapons and money to radical Middle Eastern factions....

People who don't want to follow the US into some costly war of attrition are not terrorist enablers, they just don't have the military capabilities to go all the way like the US, not to mention they do not owe them anything. There is a middle ground in this.

EDIT To restate what ekiM has said, we don't like the terrorists, we think they are murderous monsters and we would love to see them disarm and disband but we know that isn't going to happen.

[Iggy]

Originally Posted by Backstaber

In response to Iggy:
September 11th, 2001 happened not at all because of the US being a bullying superpower. It happened because of our unresponsiveness towards terrorist attacks during the 90's and the fact that we just did not take Al-Qaeda seriously. We were attacked several times by terrorists in the 90's and into 2000. I have in fact made a very similar post in a Bush "bash" thread over a year ago. If anything, it is because we didn't act like a superpower and pussy footed around that we were attacked.

No....we were attacked for a few simple reasons:

We fuck with them. We support Israel without even considering what their point of view is... Americans believe that they must impose their will, their form of government upon all others. Wait, didn't you just say that about the "enemy"? Now how could that be?

Oh, we also put Al-Qaeda in power(as the Taliban, against the USSR), and most of the weapons they have we made in the US.

We try to do the same thing to them, that you accuse them of doing to us. So what is the difference? You are talking about one society forcing IT's beliefs and ideals upon another.

You are talking about fanatics, and their are fanatics on both sides. Rednecks are about as fanatical to their leadership as terrorists.