You whily old fox you! Om I approve.
On Apr 15, 1:09 pm, ornamentalmind <[email protected]> wrote: > Regardless of the obvious personal issues displayed in attempted > analysis by many, at the core, humanity is one. > > Those who are attracted to killing terrorists display the very > behavior projected upon the apparent other. > > Humans who have been relegated to a position where all that is left > for them in the way of protecting and saving their way of life and all > that they hold dear is to go forth on what is known as a suicide > mission is not a behavior limited to any culture, place, time nor > theology. > > Those who see no other option than action that will most likely result > in their own death defending what is dear to them are seen by most > cultures as heroes. > > Now, one can take the analysis a bit further and ask what is at the > center of such a holy war…for Americans, Germans, Israelites, > Pakistanis, Iraqis, Buddhists (one just set fire to himself in Tibet > this week), American Indians etc. > > Often empathy is needed to be able to see such things… and is not > always available. > > Yes, there are internal wars…in fact, I suggest there is no other. > And, such wars are but projected upon the apparent external world. > > Since my original post about this topic had to do with pointing out > the poor analysis apparently fueled by hatred and propaganda presented > here, lets return to look at those who have attracted such derision by > our posters here at Minds Eye. > > http://www.iraqbodycount.org/http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War > > Civilians. Military. Human beings all. If these were our biological > brothers, sisters, mothers, fathers etc. rather than ‘just’ our > metaphorical brothers et al, how would we feel? Bottom line, ‘we’ have > killed more civilians in this unnecessary war than ‘we’ had of our own > military killed. Yes, I’ll use the group identifier of ‘we’ based upon > nationalistic identification…although there just might be one or two > who don’t so identify. The quotation marks are merely to point out the > issue of nationalism…something propagandists love to shout. > > “Of course the people don’t want war. But after all, it’s the leaders > of the country who determine the policy, and it’s always a simple > matter to drag the people along whether it’s a democracy, a fascist > dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship. Voice or > no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the > leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being > attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism, and > exposing the country to greater danger.” > - Herman Goering at the Nuremberg trials > > May eyes open… > …personal agendas…indeed! > > On Apr 15, 12:33 am, gabbydott <[email protected]> wrote: > > > > > 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.- Hide quoted text - > > - Show quoted text -
