What you are saying is simply not true, orn. A real American hero fights for rights, rights that apply to anyone regardless of their history, regardless of his own mortality. A real American hero might not even be in possession of the Amercan nationality. A real American hero rejects the temptation to set me on moderation, for he values to right to have an own opinion higher than the harmony he is seeking. A real American hero is not the terrorist you try to make him look by manipulating on personal pronouns.
My advice to you is: try to find your hidden agenda, try to find the terrorist within you and kill him. That would be a step forward. On Fri, Apr 15, 2011 at 4:40 AM, ornamentalmind <[email protected]>wrote: > Those who decide to die while fighting for a cause they believe in are > often called heroes in the USA (and other Western countries). > > ‘We’ on the other hand call those who do so from different backgrounds > than ours terrorists. > > > As to what is ‘rude’ or ‘bad manners’, few would disagree that such > issues are purely subjective and mostly culturally driven…and change > from place and time to place and time. > > Those who wish to follow any one of the countless sets of rules for > the general term of etiquette seldom, if ever, do so just to ‘be > nice’. When more honest, there is almost always an agenda involved. > > > On Apr 14, 10:25 am, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > wrote: > > You are correct. I am not getting the point. > > > > I agree that the leaders of Al Queda would rather send their 'soldiers' > to > > do their dirty work. But why would that stop them from sending someone in > > with a nuke or a dirty bomb if they assume that they are well enough > hidden? > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 11:20 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > I see you are still not getting the point. > > > > > If any terroist first had nuclear weapons and by such I assume > > > misslies. Then any launch will be easy enough for other powers to > > > track down the launch site, then we hit them with our own misslies. > > > The point is that if say the USA where attacked with nuclear misslies, > > > they would retaliate in kind, as they must, I dare say the same is > > > true for my goverment over here in the UK. > > > > > I doubt that Bin Laden wants to die, nor any top dog in any terrorist > > > organisation, power being a corrupting influence and all that. Nope > > > we can see that when we are hit by suicide bombers, these are normaly > > > young easily infulenced people who have undergone an amount of good > > > ole fashioned brain washing. Ahh the leaders though, nope I do not > > > belive they would relish the idea of of being killed them selves. > > > > > On Apr 14, 4:24 pm, Chuck Bowling <[email protected]> > > > wrote: > > > > On Thu, Apr 14, 2011 at 4:53 AM, [email protected] < > > > > > > [email protected]> wrote: > > > > > Ohh my freind there is soooo much differance. Have we in > retaliation > > > > > for the twin towers flown any planes into any terroist buildings? > > > > > > No but we've flown quite a few Hawk missles into 'em. ;) > > > > > > > Will we if attack by nucleuar weapns retaliat with nuclear weaponms > of > > > our > > > > > own? > > > > > > Tactical nuclear weapons can be as small as a couple of kilotons. > > > Dropping a > > > > bunker buster into a fortified cave in the side of a mountain would > be a > > > lot > > > > easier than taking it down with a few hundred troops. > > > > > > If Chicago were nuked I can't imagine much outcry if we vaporized the > > > side > > > > of a mountain in retaliation... > > > > > > Can you now see the huuuuge differance? > > > > > > > You are correct terrorists seem to rejoice in the killing of the > > > > > infidel, do you honestly belive they would rechoice in being nukked > in > > > > > their turn if they nuke us? > > > > > > If terrorist had the same type of economy and social structure that a > > > nation > > > > typically has then I would agree that nuclear weapons could be a > > > deterrent. > > > > But terrorist organizations don't have cities or central governments. > > > They > > > > are usually very decentralized and worry a lot less about assets > being > > > taken > > > > out by a single bomb. In fact, I doubt that our biggest bomb would do > > > much > > > > more than put a minor dent into an organization like Bin Laden's > which is > > > > spread across most of the planet. >
