War on Terror / Justification for Terror?

[Irishsara]

The CIA used blood chokes and threatened to kill a detainee's family durring interrigation of suspected terrorists. Has the United States, like other states in the past, resorted to Terror to "prevent" terror overseas?

[Steve]

Blood chokes are nothing serious. If you've never had a blood choke put on you, you're not a man, yet.

I've had blood chokes put on me. You know what it did? It put hair on my testes!

Hair I now have to shave off because that's the way the ladies like it!

[Lazyking]

When terrorists decide to bomb our country I think we have every right to do whatever want with them.

[Phantom Lord]

There are some things we are better off not knowing that our Government does. But what ever the CIA did to get its nothing compared to what the enemy does all in the name of Allah.

At least we follow the rules of war.

[MissouriDragon]

If pulling out somebody's toenails will result in information that will stop 60 innocent people from being blown into a pink mist by a suicide bomber, I'm all for it. Sadly, people will say whatever the torturer wants to hear while they're being tortured, so it's ultimately ineffective.

You want the truth, torture their families in front of them. Worked for Saddam.

[Mentoch the Mindtaker]

Its very documented that torture just flat out doesnt work. The detainee will tell you anything to make the pain stop, but the odds on it being reliable information is incredibly small.

[Scott Uberman]

Our reason and justification for war is because an organized, coherent, determined, insane group of Radical Islamic terrorists jihadists have declared war on the world and seek to indiscriminately destroy everyone and everything that does not conform to their distorted theocratic fascist world view. Not to mention said group(s) have already directly attacked us numerous times. The 1993 World Trade Center bombing, 1998 African Embassy bombings, the 2000 bombing of the USS Cole, and the 9/11/01 terrorist attacks. They've murdered tens of thousands of people with no good reason and seek to create a "Pure" Islamic empire. Which only shows their hypocrisy since Bin Laden is supposedly anti-Empire. (aka anti-non islamic empire).

1. I don't bealive the Jihadists hate us simply "for our Freedom".
2. Nor do I believe that they will end their Jihad and attacks if we were to make a major foreign policy changes either.

They are a group of depraved insane people who mix legitimate anguish with severe poverty and opposition to U.S. Foreign policy with radical religious zealotry and mass murder which makes them lose all legitimacy in many people's eyes including my own. The U.S. needs to make major foreign policy changes and end constant interventions and "crusades to spread liberal democracies". But at the same time we need to recognize our enemy, condemn them, and destroy them.

Torture needs to end for the reason Missouri already said, and because we want to maintain the moral high ground.

[Irishsara]

The greatest Western Empires have used rape, tourture, threats and other horrific crimes under the cover of darkness. Be it the Gulags of Siberia, American Soldiers using scortched earth and rape in Vietnam. Americans equaled the Japanese in Vietnam in viciousness if not in scale. The British tortured their IRA subjects and inflicted needless pain upon The Irish for hundreds of years for their Protestant government for a Protestant people.

The Fact is that these acts of terror really just differ on perspective.

Oh and We have been meddling in the Middle East for far longer then they have been committing acts of terrorism in the West. Hell we have the fixing of elections, CIA puppet governments, CIA Kill Squads, British colonial denomination, Who gave Saddam the Red 15 chemical agent that he gassed the kurds with?

[Scott Uberman]

We've already been over why nuking Japan was justified. And Vietnam was the result of a few bad apples in the bunch. Many fought honorably.

[MissouriDragon]

Originally Posted by Irishsara

The greatest Western Empires have used rape, tourture, threats and other horrific crimes under the cover of darkness. Be it the Gulags of Siberia, American Soldiers using scortched earth and rape in Vietnam. Americans equaled the Japanese in Vietnam in viciousness if not in scale. The British tortured their IRA subjects and inflicted needless pain upon The Irish for hundreds of years for their Protestant government for a Protestant people.

The Fact is that these acts of terror really just differ on perspective.

Sinn Fein uber alles!!

[Irishsara]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

We've already been over why nuking Japan was justified. And Vietnam was the result of a few bad apples in the bunch. Many fought honorably.

The US system in vietnam promoted death and abuse. It rewarded civillian death tolls. The US backed a souless dictator who was beheading buddists. The US overturned a democratic election because it showed that the majority of people wanted Ho Chi Mihn. Don't let modern revisions of vietnam change the facts.


A group of terrorist and trouble makers rioted and threw stones at soldiers, to aviod the riot they fired 1 volley and then subdued the rioters with batons. - The Boston Massacre

The soldiers discovered a stash of illegal weapons and they moved to destroy the cash of weapons. When those soldiers were attacked by a group of insurgents they defeated them but on the withdrawl the soldiers were cut down by snipers from the trees. - Lexington and Concord

[Scott Uberman]

I believe armed rebellion was justified in the American Revolution.

[Irishsara]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

I believe armed rebellion was justified .

That is why terror and terrorism is a matter of perspective. If you didnt think the American revolution was justified then you would see the American Patriots as terrorists. Are there extremes? sure, Are there extremists in every war? hell yeah. In every revolution there are people seeking glory or monitary gain. John Hancock had an economic reason for financing the revolution. There was an armed insurection in america before the constitution was ratified (Shays's rebellion, look it up) . Half the people didnt even want to succeed from britian. To those people what were the American Revolutionaries?


The French Resistance was declared a Terrorist group by Nazi Vichy government.
Claus von Stauffenberg was hung for treason and terrorism for trying to kill Hitler.
The Lockerbie Bomber was hailed as a hero in returning to lybia.
Nelson Mandella was branded a Terrorist.

[Mentoch the Mindtaker]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

I believe armed rebellion was justified in the American Revolution.

Exactly, you're American.

So why exactly was it justified? Because you were being taxed without representation? I'm not saying that the British were correct in that, but I dont see why the American Revolution would be any more justified than the IRA, or Hamas.

[stuck_in_hell]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

Our reason and justification for war is because an organized, coherent, determined, insane group of Radical Islamic terrorists jihadists have declared war on the world and seek to indiscriminately destroy everyone and everything that does not conform to their distorted theocratic fascist world view. Not to mention said group(s) have already directly attacked us numerous times. They've murdered tens of thousands of people with no good reason and seek to create a "Pure" Islamic empire. Which only shows their hypocrisy since Bin Laden is supposedly anti-Empire. (aka anti-non islamic empire).

This post really got my attention. I am assuming that this is really how majority of Americans think about these wars. While I have nothing against this point of view, it always helps to look at the situation from the other side. Just think of yourself as a citizen of the opposite country instead of US for just a minute and tell me how this description fits for the American army ‘attacking’ your country:

* An organized, coherent, determined, insane group.
* declared war on the world (Islamic instead of western)
* seek to indiscriminately destroy everyone and everything (The innocent victims of crossfire)
* does not conform to their distorted world view ( Cold hearted Capitalist instead of theocratic fascist)
* Not to mention said group(s) have already directly attacked us numerous times.
* They've murdered ‘millions’ of people with no good reason. (Millions instead of tens of thousands)

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Yep, you've hit the nail right on the head there. PR-smart terrorist groups preach to the poorest, most disenfranchised, most miserable people all over the world about how Americans are evil, the cause of all their problems, and plot to kill all Muslims, and then we play right into their hands. If a bomb drops on your village who are you going to believe, the foriegn trigger men who tell you that it was just "collateral damage" and they really didn't mean it, or the locals who "predicted" that this very thing would be done to you?

As for the torture debate, well, there is no torture debate. We should never torture anyone for any reason, ever. Not because torture is a vile act that distinguishes it's perpetrators as true human scum of the lowest grade (although it is), and not because torture is the least effective way to extract information (although it is), but more importantly because not everyone whom we arrest as a terrorist is really a terrorist.

In fact, if the number of people we've released from Gitmo is any indication, most of the people we arrest turn out not to be terrorists. So rather than sit there and judge what you're willing to do to a terrorist in custody, perhaps it would be more valuable to consider what you're willing to do to an innocent man in custody.

[Mentoch the Mindtaker]

Originally Posted by FearlessVampireKiller

Not because torture is a vile act that distinguishes it's perpetrators as true human scum of the lowest grade (although it is), and not because torture is the least effective way to extract information (although it is), but more importantly because not everyone whom we arrest as a terrorist is really a terrorist.

All 3 of these points are very valid reasons not to torture, but I feel you are missing one, and thats that if you torture, you've given up the moral high ground and are basically giving the other side free reign to torture, mutilate, or decapitate anyone they happen to capture. By torturing, you are putting the men and women of your armed forces (not to mention the private contractors) in even more danger than they already would be.

Even if the "ticking time bomb" scenario were to be a viable one that would be solved by torture, I'd still think the negatives would outweigh the positives.

Originally Posted by stuck_in_hell

This post really got my attention. I am assuming that this is really how majority of Americans think about these wars. While I have nothing against this point of view, it always helps to look at the situation from the other side. Just think of yourself as a citizen of the opposite country instead of US for just a minute and tell me how this description fits for the American army ‘attacking’ your country:

* An organized, coherent, determined, insane group.
* declared war on the world (Islamic instead of western)
* seek to indiscriminately destroy everyone and everything (The innocent victims of crossfire)
* does not conform to their distorted world view ( Cold hearted Capitalist instead of theocratic fascist)
* Not to mention said group(s) have already directly attacked us numerous times.
* They've murdered ‘millions’ of people with no good reason. (Millions instead of tens of thousands)

Again all these points are really bang on, however the fact of the matter is that they attacked a country (Iraq, not Afghanistan) that really didnt declare war on the world (at least not since '91).

This is a bit of a tangent, but I really have to laugh when I hear Right Wing pundits claiming that reforming healthcare would be a waste of billion's of dollars, and would "bankrupt the nation", but fail to mention anything about the oodles of money that has been spend on war's that harm America's standing in the world (not just the Arab world) and transferred truckloads of government money to companies like Blackwater and Haliburton.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

But in a country like Syria or rural Pakistan, where terrorist groups wage a propaganda war for the hearts and minds of the locals (one in which they routinely kick our asses), people do indeed think that America has declared war on Islam and that we've been plotting to wipe them out for several decades, because that's what they've been told. When we do things like invade Iraq, those same groups tout our actions as "proof" of what they've claimed all along.

I'm counting down the seconds until one of the conservatives around here gets on our cases about "blaming American first" and claiming that it's not neccesary that we understand the enemy's point of view so long as we just kill them all, but until we actually start the hard work of understanding why people become terrorists in the first place then it doesn't matter how many we bomb, more will always replace them.

[Irishsara]

The West has been exerting a presence in the Middle East since the fall of the Turkish Ottoman empire. The West gave away an entire country to a group of Europeans (Mostly European Jews) The West felt that only Egypt deserved to have self government less then 100 years ago. The west kept the corrupt saudi Gov. in power. the West doesnt care about the people. The west only cares about what they can take or economically drain from the Mid East. Without Oil the Middle East would be like Africa and no one would care but The West wants to rape the Middle East for its Oil.

The US overthrew a democratic government in Iran before.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Most of that is true, but of course the argument we should be making in response is that those are the sins of the past and modern Americans and Europeans shouldn't be punished for them. Of course, in order for that to hold water we have to stop doing bad shit...

[Wevv Mang]

Torture is ineffective, and actually, can be used by the enemy to help in their recruiting.

There was a time when a large organization decided to try and root out opposition. They went to extreme methods and tortured people to try and find answers. The results were quite ineffective, and only put the organization into a bad light.

In fact, some people used the organzation to settle personal grudges, giving names to the organization and lying to make sure that the person they wanted to settle their beef with was taken care of.

The organization?

The Catholic church.

The event is known as the Spannish Inquisition.

Terrorism is an idea. Fighting it with force is an uphill battle. You need to fight the idea win the war.

[Scott Uberman]

Originally Posted by Mentoch the Mindtaker

Exactly, you're American.

So why exactly was it justified? Because you were being taxed without representation? I'm not saying that the British were correct in that, but I dont see why the American Revolution would be any more justified than the IRA, or Hamas.

Because the U.S. was fighting for economic freedom opposed to committing genuine terrorist actions or for religious reasons.

[MissouriDragon]

Mods, you can lock this one.

Nothing is beating Wevv's post. I defy somebody (you know who you are) to attempt to refute that one.

[Irishsara]

Me? I guess its me ...

Wevy is ... Wro ... wait for it ... WRONG!

The Spanish Inquisition was a movement started in 1478 by Catholic Monarchs Ferdinand II of Aragon and Isabella I of Castile, NOT the catholic church to replace the Midevil inquisition which investigated heresy without tourture in fact there was a papal rule against torture as a method used by the inquasition. It was a rule that durring an interrigation you could spill no blood to get answers. you couldnt mortally wound and you couldnt mame. You could also only use enhanced interrigation once. The Spanish Inquisition found a way around that by using hot pokers which prevented bleeding and the rack.

[Son of Repoman]

But they had to get permission to conduct the Inquisition from The Vatican. They got it in the form of "Exigit Sinceras Devotionis Affectus" from Pope Sixtus IV. That gave the authority to the monarchs to name their inquisitors and their methods.

Fact is, The Vatican could have put out a cease and decist order at any time, but they never hit the brakes. It was to the point that the best pope ever IMO (Pope John Paul II) issued a "our bad" statement about the lack of the Vatican stepping in to stop the inquisition.

That being said... would the Inquisition be more of a terrorist movement than say the punishment of "war criminals" during The Crusades (on both sides of the fence?)

[Irishsara]

No they couldnt have, The combined monarchs of Spain had a significantly bigger army, were fighting the Muslims in the tip of Spain, and it was durring the Refermation, the Pope had almost no ability politically to refuse the remaining Catholic Monarchs. It has been a long time since they made a king go around a fortress on his knees.

(The Catholic Church had almost no power outside of Italy until St. Ignatius of Loyola )

Don't get me wrong, Pope JP II saved the world, defeated Communism (more than Regan) and helped modernize the faith. But out of modern Popes, the greatest is still John XXIII because of the changes he made in the Church.

This also ignores the fact that tourture was a common way of confession by almost all Countries in the High Middle Ages especially after Excommunication

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

Because the U.S. was fighting for economic freedom opposed to committing genuine terrorist actions or for religious reasons.

September 11 2001. The reason for the terrorist attack? Osama bin Laden was against American foreign policy towards Israel, which he said killed his people (they do) and undermine their security (look at Lebanon they do) as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, (Also true) he even said that he did to undermine America's security like America undermines the security the Muslim countries of the Middle East. (also true, look at what happened in Iraq with no pre-emption)

Its not like they did it because they hate freedom or didnt want to pay taxes.

[Son of Repoman]

Originally Posted by Irishsara

No they couldnt have, The combined monarchs of Spain had a significantly bigger army, were fighting the Muslims in the tip of Spain, and it was durring the Refermation, the Pope had almost no ability politically to refuse the remaining Catholic Monarchs. It has been a long time since they made a king go around a fortress on his knees.

Had the Vatican taken a hard nose stand about the inquisition, they would have had to have had their decision upheld as Spain at the time did not want any piece of taking on Italy.

I am not saying the Vatican could have prevented it, but they didn't have to blindly condone it, which is the problem at hand.

[Scott Uberman]

Originally Posted by Irishsara

September 11 2001. The reason for the terrorist attack? Osama bin Laden was against American foreign policy towards Israel, which he said killed his people (they do) and undermine their security (look at Lebanon they do) as well as the continued presence of American troops in Saudi Arabia after the Gulf War, (Also true) he even said that he did to undermine America's security like America undermines the security the Muslim countries of the Middle East. (also true, look at what happened in Iraq with no pre-emption)

Its not like they did it because they hate freedom or didnt want to pay taxes.

1. Our presense in Saudi Arabia was allowed by the Saudis in order to protect the Gulf from Iraq after the first Gulf War, we haven't killed anyone or done anything wrong there.
2. Isreal is loaded issue, but I don't think we shoul entirley abandon Isreal as Bin Laden would. Bin Laden is not intrested in a two state solution, he's intrested in a "pure islamic state solution", regardless of the US policy towards Isreal Radicals will always want to eliminate jews.
3. Al-Qaeda DOES hate freedom, but you are correct to say that is not their sole purpose in waging jihad, infact it's a very small part.
4. They wanted to kill American civillians because Bin Laden himself said he does not consider ANY tax paying American to be innocent due to their tax dollars funding the U.S. Gov and Military.


High Ranking members of Al-Qaeda such as Osama Bin Laden are very wealthy and were rasied in priveledged enviroment and actually bealive in wahabisim and bealive the shit they say. If the U.S. changed it's policy towards the middle east in a more positive light in the eyes of most moderate muslims groups like Al-Qaeda and the Bin Ladens of the world would still exist, but they would be much smaller and less powerfull because they would lack the recruitment of the depraved, brainwashed, foot soldiers.

[Irishsara]

Originally Posted by Scott Uberman

1. Our presense in Saudi Arabia was allowed by the Saudis in order to protect the Gulf from Iraq after the first Gulf War, we haven't killed anyone or done anything wrong there.
2. Isreal is loaded issue, but I don't think we shoul entirley abandon Isreal as Bin Laden would. Bin Laden is not intrested in a two state solution, he's intrested in a "pure islamic state solution", regardless of the US policy towards Isreal Radicals will always want to eliminate jews.
3. Al-Qaeda DOES hate freedom, but you are correct to say that is not their sole purpose in waging jihad, infact it's a very small part.
4. They wanted to kill American civillians because Bin Laden himself said he does not consider ANY tax paying American to be innocent due to their tax dollars funding the U.S. Gov and Military.


High Ranking members of Al-Qaeda such as Osama Bin Laden are very wealthy and were rasied in priveledged enviroment and actually bealive in wahabisim and bealive the shit they say. If the U.S. changed it's policy towards the middle east in a more positive light in the eyes of most moderate muslims groups like Al-Qaeda and the Bin Ladens of the world would still exist, but they would be much smaller and less powerfull because they would lack the recruitment of the depraved, brainwashed, foot soldiers.

1. American intervention has kept the house of Saud in power in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has long been considered the most important Arab ally of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf. the U.S. gave Marshall Plan funds to Ibn Saud. more than 50 members of the House of Saud are billionaires. The king's palace alone is estimated to be worth $17 billion, and the royal family's budget is $6 to $7 billion. The U.S. has sold billions of dollars in military hardware to Saudi Arabia throughout its history, not only to protect the Saudi oil from outside intervention, but also from internal instability. If there was a democratic revolution it would hurt oil production which in turn would hurt America. The fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive societies in the world is not an issue to America and the fact that Amnesty International ranks them equal to Iran in social and political repression should show you the problem with US support of Saudi Arabia.

2. Israel is an example of Europeans and Western people being made more important then the people who were already living there ,now the Palestinian refugees. Do not makes this about them being Jews because Jews and Muslims have always lived in harmony together in the Middle East, it was not until the creation of the state of Israel that violent action against Jews began in the Muslim Countries. The West created an artificial state that excluded the people who had been living there for generations. The US Sponsered state has been committing war crimes against Muslims and allowing torture and other horrific human rights violations with the US ok for years.

Osama sees himself as a champion of Palestine, this is an issue of Territory not religion.

3. This is not a war on Western morality even if the soldiers find those actions immoral.

4. Bin Laden killed civilians because he was attacking symbols of America, the Two Towers were a Symbol of America. He was showing he could stike anywhere and in turn undermind the US security. He didnt pick just civillian targets remember? just symbolic ones.

Im not saying that Osama was right, im saying that he had logical reasons to attack America and lead armed insurrections against US soldiers in the Middle East. Just like The French resistance against the Vichy Government in France, Just like the Boers against British domination in South Africa, Just like the Bast terrorists in Spain Just like the Chechnians in Russia, Just like the mujahideen against the Soviet Union.

[Scott Uberman]

Originally Posted by Irishsara

1. American intervention has kept the house of Saud in power in Saudi Arabia.

Saudi Arabia has long been considered the most important Arab ally of the U.S. in the Persian Gulf. the U.S. gave Marshall Plan funds to Ibn Saud. more than 50 members of the House of Saud are billionaires. The king's palace alone is estimated to be worth $17 billion, and the royal family's budget is $6 to $7 billion. The U.S. has sold billions of dollars in military hardware to Saudi Arabia throughout its history, not only to protect the Saudi oil from outside intervention, but also from internal instability. If there was a democratic revolution it would hurt oil production which in turn would hurt America. The fact that Saudi Arabia is one of the most repressive societies in the world is not an issue to America and the fact that Amnesty International ranks them equal to Iran in social and political repression should show you the problem with US support of Saudi Arabia.

I agree the U.S. must cease to support Saudi Arabia since they are extremely oppressive, we need to beat our addiction to foreign oil. But with that being said Bin Laden's hatred for the Saudi Government has nothing to do with their political and religious views. This can be seen when Al-Qaeda allied with the Taliban and Bin Laden praised the Afghanistan under the Taliban as a "true Islamic country". I doubt need to list the evils of the Taliban to you.

Originally Posted by Irishsara

2. Israel is an example of Europeans and Western people being made more important then the people who were already living there ,now the Palestinian refugees. Do not makes this about them being Jews because Jews and Muslims have always lived in harmony together in the Middle East, it was not until the creation of the state of Israel that violent action against Jews began in the Muslim Countries. The West created an artificial state that excluded the people who had been living there for generations. The US Sponsered state has been committing war crimes against Muslims and allowing torture and other horrific human rights violations with the US ok for years.

Again I partially agree with you, I support a genuine two-state solution and feel the whole 1948 ordeal was poorly handled.

Originally Posted by Irishsara

Osama sees himself as a champion of Palestine, this is an issue of Territory not religion.

Islamic Fundamentalist views of ruling that area for Jerusalem plays a role.

Originally Posted by Irishsara

. He didn't pick just civilian targets remember? just symbolic ones.

He also "just" murdered 3000 people, nearly all civilians.

Originally Posted by Irishsara

.Im not saying that Osama was right,

I know, I never thoguht you were endorsing Al-Qaeda despite disagreements.

Originally Posted by Irishsara

im saying that he had logical reasons to attack America and lead armed insurrections against US soldiers in the Middle East. Just like The French resistance against the Vichy Government in France, Just like the Boers against British domination in South Africa, Just like the Bast terrorists in Spain Just like the Chechnians in Russia, Just like the mujahideen against the Soviet Union.

Bin Laden isn't fighting solely for the liberation of a territory like the Frecn or Mujaheddin though, he wants to install a "pure" Islamic state similar to the Taliban. Bin Laden's role in "defending" Palestine is much different that that of a common Palestinian Muslim fighting in Gaza. Bin Laden does have more Political and religious goals he wishes to enforce.

[Irishsara]

The Targets werent planned to be all civilian targets, I mean there are idealogical reasons for the picking of targets, not just death tolls. One was a symbol of Economic opression, another was a symbol of military opression.

Osama hates the Saudis because they are tools of the West. Osama hates israel because the majority of the Jewish population are European jews and it replaced an islamic country while displacing (and continuing to displace) a muslim people.

There are reasons Osama strikes at the West that are political in nature. He wants to end Western interference in the Middle East. By making it costly and by bringing the bloodshed that the CIA, Special Forces, and Armed Forces has brought to his countries to American shores he hopes to do that.

I do not think he is right but i can see the reasons why he believes he is doing the right thing.

Hell i agree with the Palestine issue and i believe that the Jewish Theocracy should end. The US should take a heavier hand with Israel and force a solution that either creates a secular state in which all are equal in Israel or recreates a free and independant Palestinian homeland with equal share of resources in the current state of Israel.

[Tito]

I'm just amazed at some of the things IrishSara says... I'll just keep walking by, not worth my time to enter this one...

Hell i agree with the Palestine issue and i believe that the Jewish Theocracy should end. The US should take a heavier hand with Israel and force a solution that either creates a secular state in which all are equal in Israel or recreates a free and independant Palestinian homeland with equal share of resources in the current state of Israel.

Wow, just wow!

I'm sure you agree that Yasser Arofat (sp?), former head of Palestine, was a worthy recipient of the Nobel Peace Prize?

[Son of Repoman]

What the deuce?

You've gone round and round with guys the likes of Destroyah, E_O, and even goatee, and now you are deciding to be a pacifist?

It's cause she's a girl, isn't it?

[Villiano 187]

It has more to do with her intelligence level than anything else. That's why I quit posting in some of these threads.

I wonder if she hates herself for being an American?

[Phantom Lord]

Originally Posted by Son of Repoman

What the deuce?

You've gone round and round with guys the likes of Destroyah, E_O, and even goatee, and now you are deciding to be a pacifist?

It's cause she's a girl, isn't it?

LoL probably. Some people have trouble going toe to toe with a woman. I honestly think thats why Sarah Palin scares the hell out of the left.

BTW, Osmam Bin Laden has probably been dead since 2002. But if anyone found out it would have wrecked that whole war thing we had going on.

[Scott Uberman]

Not really because we need to destroy his network.

[Tito]

Originally Posted by Son of Repoman

What the deuce?

You've gone round and round with guys the likes of Destroyah, E_O, and even goatee, and now you are deciding to be a pacifist?

It's cause she's a girl, isn't it?

Are you even reading what she posts, politics wise? Not worth it...

At least with Destroyah, EO, goatee, they at least presented their lefty views with facts (even if skewed)... I mean, IrishSara's assessment that Bush's tax cuts caused the technology bubble, even though the tech stocks within the NASDAQ were crashing by mid-2000...

Seriously, look what she just posted about Israel/Palestine, along with everything else in this thread...

In all reality, she's a fine poster outside of politics... (See ECW tag teams thread).

But a "yes woman" liberal, completely in the tank for the Left, just isn't worth pain in my hands from typing excessively.

[Steve]

Originally Posted by Tito

But a "yes woman" liberal, completely in the tank for the Left, just isn't worth pain in my hands from typing excessively.

Please, don't lump all liberals in with her beliefs. I consider myself a liberal but I do not agree with anything she's said here, especially the anti-semetic stuff. Personally, I belief we should stay out of Israel's way and I am 100% against any sort of Palestinian state.

[FearlessVampireKiller]

Is criticizing Israel anti-semitic?

[Son of Repoman]

Originally Posted by Tito

Are you even reading what she posts, politics wise? Not worth it...

At least with Destroyah, EO, goatee, they at least presented their lefty views with facts (even if skewed)... I mean, IrishSara's assessment that Bush's tax cuts caused the technology bubble, even though the tech stocks within the NASDAQ were crashing by mid-2000...

Seriously, look what she just posted about Israel/Palestine, along with everything else in this thread...

In all reality, she's a fine poster outside of politics... (See ECW tag teams thread).

But a "yes woman" liberal, completely in the tank for the Left, just isn't worth pain in my hands from typing excessively.

Tito's got a girlfriend! Tito's got a girlfriend.

In all seriousness, fair enough. Was just shocked the day I'd read Tito saying I'm not going to entertain a discussion with someone who is wrong. It was a huge shock.

I need to lie down.