On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 7:06 PM, Michael Dinowitz <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > On Mon, Mar 10, 2008 at 9:40 PM, denstar <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: .... > > Sure, words have meanings. But my argument wasn't about the word so > > much as the application. > > And I'm arguing that the application is apt. Again, the example of the > innocent students murdered the other day. Not soldiers, not military > advisers or workers, students.
It's the idea that "they" are a certain way. I'm sick of people who think they know better, telling me that "the terrorists think X, so you should do Y" and all that crap. That "they" are like, I don't know, all Arab or whatever. News flash: "they" is "us" too. White guys who go to church. No different than the rest-- "they" think violence is the answer. Violence should be last-ditch. Last-ditch may not be an objective thingie. Making such a big deal about it is exactly what they want tho, isn't it? Just taking it in stride, might do what, do you think? > > That was the crux of my "freedom fighter" comment. I'm against "acts > > of terror", obviously, but I'm also against loose labels. > > A freedom fighter who kills civilians for the very fact of them being > civilians of the 'other' side is no longer a freedom fighter but is instead > a terrorist murderer. That's a very exact label, not a loose one. Sure. It's just that you were throwing it around, saying shit like "dem terrorists are 'frait of the big bad republicans". Meanwhile, we're actually calling in the Lawyers to decide what constitutes torture, right? I'm tired of the idea that somehow this is all unique-- we need to change how we do stuff cuz there are crazy people out there. It's o.k. to give up these core tenets, cuz the state should be protecting us, anyways, etc.. I've known people who have dealt with people blowing up their coffee joints, their disco techs, their schools, their whole life. I don't want it to get that bad here, right? Have there ever been more people feeling bad about the United States? > > Are there folks you can think of that were our "buds" but that are now > > "terrorists", or vice versa? > > Saudi Arabia X'Zactly. "Ties to Iraq" -- You know who I would have preferred to "take on". We should have used that street cred to take out someone "bigger". Or at least get them to change their ways. =] > Yup. Their goal, and some of our fearless leaders goals. Fear is > > good for control. > > But we do it too so we can dilute the fact that they do it. Want to rail on > the FUD created by the American government? have fun but by putting it in > the same sentence as the FUD created by terrorists dilutes both and gives > the feeling of 'moral equivalence' . They do it but we do it too so we > shouldn't complain. FUD is FUD, man. Fear is good and all, for some stuff, as all things are, probably by their very existence-- but I digress... > > Hamas represents all Palestine peoples, just like our .gov represents > > all US peoples. > > Never said that but even those who do not support Hamas seemed to be dancing > in the street (in Lebanon and PA controlled areas) There are many more people than those we see on T.V.. I bet most are just trying to get by, you know? > > Are you really so sure yours is the only side that yearns for peace? > > That is the logic I'm trying to prevent. We must work with each > > other, at the end, if we want to get anywhere. Or we can disdain > > compromise, and stick to absolutes, and get nowhere. > > Which side is offering more and more land? Which side is removing its people > from their homes to give it to the other side? Which side is holding back > its military from killing every man, woman and child in Gaza as a response > to the daily rocket attacks? > And don't give me the "well, it was their land" answer because its not an > answer and not 100% true. Most of the land was won in defensive wars. There > was no Arab Palestine. Gaza was owned by Egypt and never gave it to the > Palestinians. The west bank was owned by Jordan who never gave it to the > Palestinians. It sounds like Israel has it together, why are we supporting them directly? I get the chess-like "we're pals with X, so don't fuck with them" stuff, but somehow I think picking sides is sorta wrong, considering who our friends are. I made a joke about "native plants" or something a while ago-- it was in reference to the idea that we need to keep ecosystems "pure", sorta. It tickles me because it makes an assumption about "natural", kinda. At least in my eyes. I really wish that we could all just share the land. Especially the "holy" bits. Sadly, lots of-- ok, some, religions are pretty exclusionary, ya know? To the point of violence, by the "strong" believers. Just the idea that religions, even, are some kind of cohesive unit, or whatever-- ha! sheesh. Ok, I'm wandering. Something bothers me about certain generalizations, I guess. "democrats feel that X" and whatnot. I'm also tired of the fear. -- We're all individuals, but we group together like a fucking survey. -Dell , roughly. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Adobe® ColdFusion® 8 software 8 is the most important and dramatic release to date Get the Free Trial http://ad.doubleclick.net/clk;160198600;22374440;w Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/message.cfm/messageid:256136 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/CF-Community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=89.70.5
