mudcat.org: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
Lyrics & Knowledge Personal Pages Record Shop Auction Links Radio & Media Kids Membership Help
The Mudcat Cafeawe

Post to this Thread - Printer Friendly - Home
Page: [1] [2]


BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?

Mrrzy 22 Oct 04 - 09:59 AM
Mrrzy 22 Oct 04 - 09:50 AM
GUEST,Anthony 22 Oct 04 - 09:13 AM
Peace 15 Oct 04 - 06:52 PM
Desert Dancer 15 Oct 04 - 06:50 PM
GUEST,Frank 15 Oct 04 - 06:22 PM
Amos 14 Oct 04 - 10:09 PM
CarolC 14 Oct 04 - 07:58 PM
McGrath of Harlow 14 Oct 04 - 05:33 PM
GUEST,Frank 14 Oct 04 - 03:35 PM
Peace 13 Oct 04 - 07:15 PM
Jim Dixon 13 Oct 04 - 11:18 AM
McGrath of Harlow 13 Oct 04 - 10:16 AM
Peace 13 Oct 04 - 10:13 AM
Gervase 13 Oct 04 - 09:56 AM
Peace 13 Oct 04 - 09:51 AM
GUEST,Seen the bombs in London 13 Oct 04 - 02:22 AM
The Fooles Troupe 13 Oct 04 - 12:38 AM
Peace 12 Oct 04 - 09:34 PM
Little Hawk 12 Oct 04 - 09:23 PM
GUEST 12 Oct 04 - 09:19 PM
Big Mick 12 Oct 04 - 09:14 PM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Oct 04 - 09:08 PM
Little Hawk 12 Oct 04 - 09:02 PM
jaze 12 Oct 04 - 09:01 PM
Little Hawk 12 Oct 04 - 08:54 PM
Peace 12 Oct 04 - 08:50 PM
Bill Hahn//\\ 12 Oct 04 - 08:49 PM
Little Hawk 12 Oct 04 - 08:47 PM
mg 12 Oct 04 - 08:41 PM
Peace 12 Oct 04 - 08:37 PM
Little Hawk 12 Oct 04 - 08:36 PM
Bill Hahn//\\ 12 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM
Peace 12 Oct 04 - 08:27 PM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Oct 04 - 08:21 PM
Nerd 12 Oct 04 - 08:16 PM
McGrath of Harlow 12 Oct 04 - 08:15 PM
Bill Hahn//\\ 12 Oct 04 - 08:11 PM
Peace 12 Oct 04 - 07:49 PM
The Fooles Troupe 12 Oct 04 - 07:42 PM
Bill Hahn//\\ 12 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM
Peace 12 Oct 04 - 07:32 PM
MZ Drifter 12 Oct 04 - 07:30 PM
MZ Drifter 12 Oct 04 - 07:21 PM
Jack the Sailor 12 Oct 04 - 07:17 PM
Little Hawk 12 Oct 04 - 07:10 PM
GUEST,tarheel 12 Oct 04 - 07:04 PM
Bobert 12 Oct 04 - 07:03 PM
MZ Drifter 12 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM
Ebbie 12 Oct 04 - 05:45 PM
Lyrics & Knowledge Search [Advanced]
DT  Forum
Sort (Forum) by:relevance date
DT Lyrics:






Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 09:59 AM

Also, terrorism is the attacking of non-military targets in order to accomplish something other than the death of those targets. The terror that inspires is secondary to whatever the goal actually is, like releasing hostages, gaining a homeland, or what have you. By this definition the attack on the French military and US Marine barracks in Beirut in October 1983 was not terrorism, as the target was military even if the purpose was other than the death of the Marines and paratroopers. Yes, states often sponsor terrorism, although many terrorists are not state-sponsored. Shooting a President to impress Jodie Foster is not terrorism, though, as it was a single target. Shooting dozens of classmates and teachers because you want to, or are bored, or think they deserve it, isn't terrorism either, IMO. But school shootings are a nuisance, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Mrrzy
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 09:50 AM

Have any of you above lost an actual relative, friend or even acquaintance to terrorism? I have. The same brand of terrorism that struck in the US in 2001 was tried in the US back in 1993, but the towers didn't fall and only 5 people died. It is the same brand that destroyed our embassies in Africa in 1998. It blew my dad to bits in 1983, in Beirut, the first embassy bombing. It blew several planes up in various places in the 1980's when it seemed to be slaughtering Americans wholesale overseas as well as raining down their body parts on unsuspecting other nationalities. Why think it began in 01? It's been a nuisance since those students took over the Tehran embassy in Nov. 1979. After that we all (embassy families) had terrorist training - how to run a roadblock, how to run a car off the road if it was trying to run you off the road, when to leap out of burning buildings and when not to... and it "didn't help one little bit, Barney." The gov't also gave everybody dip passports, even though we weren't diplomatic, so that the next time an embassy was taken over the terrorists couldn't tell the spooks from the rest of us. It's been a nuisance for about 2 decades, in other words. It's a nuisance that it takes hours to get through security instead of minutes, but I'll take the nuisance over the lack of security any day. And in Northern Ireland, Northern Spain, Southern France and elsewhere, anywhere people are fighting against the odds, it's been a nuisance for even longer. What makes Americans think they shouldn't be annoyed (is that the right verb for nuisiance?)?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: GUEST,Anthony
Date: 22 Oct 04 - 09:13 AM

Intersting point about how absurd it sounds for war on terrorism to end terrorism.

Don't know if you are religious but the priests in Christ's time charged him with driving out demons by demons. He answered that a house divided against itself would fall. That if Satan were to drive out Satan then his kingdom would be divided.

So I agree war on terrorism will not drive out terrorism.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:52 PM

Hitler was a master at editing. The Republicans are good at it, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Desert Dancer
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:50 PM

The New York Times magazine article from which Kerry was misquoted and taken out of context (10/10/04) was really good -- and unfortunately the depth of information and insight about Kerry's perspective that it gave is not amenable to soundbites (or quotes here). I recommend heading to the library to give it a thorough read. I've been an anti-Bush Kerry supporter, and this article made me more of a pro-Kerry Kerry supporter.

~ Becky in Tucson


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 15 Oct 04 - 06:22 PM

McGrath,

I take your point. But DQ's actions did affect others but not in such an extreme way as does Bush. My point is that Bush probably really believes in his Quest and in that way he is as commited as Quixote. I agree however that the Madness of our King George is far more pernicious.

CarolC, reading your posts convince me that we are on the same page.
Thank you for the nice comment.

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Amos
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 10:09 PM

I've sent a note to Kerry's campaign office providing the URL of this thread to him. You may do the same:

http://www.johnkerry.com/contact/contact.php


A


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: CarolC
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 07:58 PM

Good post, Frank.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 05:33 PM

" he is very much a Quixote in that in his twisted logic, he really believes that he had been given a "divine dispensation" to lie, distort, smear and belittle anyone that doesn't agree with him.

That's very unfair to Don Quixote, who never went in for stuff like that. And even when he mistook some windmills for giants ("creatures of mass destruction" as you might say) he didn't send any else off to fight them, he did it himself. And that has certainly never been Bush's style.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: GUEST,Frank
Date: 14 Oct 04 - 03:35 PM

CarolC, I agree with you that the Bush administration has used what some call "terrorism". The problem is semantics. In my view, any war is really a form of terrorism but this doesn't explain enough. It doesn't get into the meaning that some give the word. I believe if we use the term in it's broadest form, terrorism is probably done by every country in the world. People find it necessary to kill others over arbitrary borders.

Narrowing in on what the Bush Adminstration calls terrorism, you are correct in saying that I believe that what they are attempting to address as an enemy is not state-supported. The problem is that Bush is unable to define what he classifies as an "enemy". Those that don't appreciate "freedom"? That includes Saudi Arabia who denies equal rights for women. That also includes Karzai and Allawi who want to suppress true freedom by closing newspapers, rigging elections and adopting an oppressive military enforcement, so-called democracy at the point of a gun. It also doesn't include Putin as he leads Russia down a path toward dictatorship. Sharon doesn't care about freedom for poor Palestinians. So who is this enemy? It can be defined as Kerry does as a network called Al Quaeda who operate from an independent base from any country or state and in my view not unlike various corporations whose bottom line such as Halliburton or Bechtel are more important than the principles of American democracy. It's a new kind of terrorism that John Kerry is talking about.

BillH, Bush is a kind of Tony Soprano who probably believes he is endowed by God to save the world regardless of international law. In his "crusade", he is very much a Quixote in that in his twisted logic, he really believes that he had been given a "divine dispensation" to lie, distort, smear and belittle anyone that doesn't agree with him. His refusal to accept responsibility for his actions is shown in that he doesn't make mistakes. That would be too "wimpy". Oddly enough, a case can be made for leading figures of organized crime who probably have the belief that what they do is really in the best interest of the world. This kind of insanity prevails today on all levels of society.

The only difference is that Bush's "enemies" might be not only Saddam, and not necessarilly Al Quaeda (who doesn't spend much time worrying about bin Laden) but they are those "liberals" that don't agree with him.

"First they came for the intellectuals"....................

Frank


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 07:15 PM

I wonder if StbiL will answer. Hello?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Jim Dixon
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 11:18 AM

Re: arguing about whether terrorism could ever be considered a nuisance or not.

It reminds me of some arguments I've had with my wife.

Something will go wrong, say a fuse is blown, and she'll whine about it. I'll say, "It's not the end of the world," and she'll say, "WHAT DO YOU MEAN IT'S NOT THE END OF THE WORLD?"

Likely I'm going to be the one who fixes the problem, but she gets mad at me for not taking it seriously enough, and not fixing it fast enough. Go figure.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:16 AM

I'd go for the man who wants to work towards creating a society where terrorism is a mere nuisance, rather than the idiot who thinks he can declare war on it.

That puts it about as well as it could be put. Someone send it to Kerry so he can quote it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 10:13 AM

Re would I feel the same.

There is a difference when people have been duped into giving money to fraternal organizations only to find out that indeed the money is supporting something else. One doesn't shoot people because they did something like that. However, when a terrorist camp is located, would you find it a bad thing to visit them and say hello? Or do you want to wait until some people are killed and then exact revenge? You seem to be saying that innocent people should use a rule book despite there being no such thing for terrorists, StbiL. Exactly what IS your position, other than you don't like mine?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Gervase
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:56 AM

Like begging prostitution and theft, terrorism will always be with us.
The problem is that, as a technique, it's bloody effective. Forget your peaceful protests, boycotts and non-violent direct action; terrorism and the fear of terrorism is the business. Put simplistically, terrorism does what is says on the tin - it terrorises people, and terrorised people make governments uneasy.
At some point in most terrorist campaigns, those on the receiving end sit down and do an audit - call it a body-count, call it a cost-benefit analysis or whatever - and change their attitudes.
Generally that takes time - to be properly effective terrorism needs to be a nagging sore; a chronic problem rather than an acute one. But generally the change of attitude that results goes some way towards redressing the grievances aired by the terrorists.
If you doubt that, ask EOKA, the Irgun, PIRA or any number of organisations that have used terror in the past. They'll tell you that when politicians say: "We will never listen to the demands of terrorists," they have their fingers crossed behind their backs and their eyes and ears closed to history.
So if I had to make a choice in November, I'd go for the man who wants to work towards creating a society where terrorism is a mere nuisance, rather than the idiot who thinks he can declare war on it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 09:51 AM

Saw the bombs in Quebec. Answer is Yes. You don't have a corner on the misery market, StbiL.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: GUEST,Seen the bombs in London
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 02:22 AM

Some intersting responses. I wonder if Brucie would say the same if the SAS had gone round bars in Boston shooting NORAID collectors.

Maybe without the American pump priming money the IRA expertise wouldn't have been picked up by the Islamic fundamentalists in the first place.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 13 Oct 04 - 12:38 AM

Oh Dear! Now it seems that Saddam's Naughty Bits got looted just after the War when the UN inspectors had to leave, and the American troops made no attempt to stop the looting or protect the sites, so now the black market is awash with the stuff...

Now who said that it would have been better not to invade so the UN inspectors could keep track of the stuff?

Saw a reply of the sort of tactics used by the Russians against their Muslim 'Terrorists' - 'the knock on the door in the night, and never seen again sort of Terrorism'... Stalin just deported the lot to Siberia... the old gentle style of Muslim religion is being replaced by the hardline Wahabi Jihadists...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:34 PM

Big Mick is a truly good person. He thinks before he posts, and his posts are the result of thought and consideration. So, whoever YOU are GUEST, not only are you wrong, but your poetry sucks, too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:23 PM

And what are you?


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: GUEST
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:19 PM

big mick is a PRICK!!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Big Mick
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:14 PM

Now there is three of you mixing up your metaphors and using demogogery. The simple fact is that you are taking a small phrase completely out of context. Every major analysis of what Kerry said shows that to be the case. I reiterate what I said to you, tarheel, in another thread. I tire of self righteous conservatives who seem to think they have a lock on patriotism. Most of them are chicken hawks, just like Cheney and Bush. This has nothing to do with some folks, like you, who want to act as a shill for this person who has made us a pariah, and created more terrorism in the process.

So I ask you, tarheel, who said anything about accepting terrorism as a nuisance. Get your facts right, or continue to look ignorant.

Oh ... and by the way .... there are enough people here who have met me and know my size. But that ain't got much to do with anything. But stop by sometime and let's get to know each other, eh???

BIG Mick


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:08 PM

Sorry Bill - "one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter" is the same kind of statement as "one man's drunk driver is another man's joy rider". Joy riders may be drunk or sober, drunk drivers can be driving a stolen car or their own car. The two categories just aren't co-terminous.

What's essentially meant by that cliche is something like "One man's armed insurgentis another man's freedom fighter ", which would be a meaningful sentence, and a true one.

Some of the things done by armed insuyrgents/freedom fighters - call them what you will - are terrorist acts, some are not. The same goes for members of uniformed armed forces.

I'm not talking about people being killed by accident. When civilians are rounded up and shot, that is an act of terrorism, whoever does it - German SS, US Marines, Death Squads, Resistance Fighters. When a building full of random civilians is intentionally blown up, that is an act of terrorism, whoever does it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:02 PM

Amen!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: jaze
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 09:01 PM

Does it have to be the total focus of our lives? There are other issues and concerns facing people today. Yes, it is a reality we have to face nowadays, but not the only problem or reality.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:54 PM

Terrorism has been around ever since Grug looked at Ugh's cache of food and decided he would take it by force...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:50 PM

www.terrorismfiles.org/encyclopaedia/ history_of_terrorism.html

or google

terrorismfiles.org : History of terrorism


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:49 PM

Mary--Perhaps I misunderstood. Though I doubt that. Kerry ---who has been taken ut of context---was referring to our shores.   Something I am sure you can relate to and to your own neck.

Mafioso are still here---they are a nuisance. Many things are nuisances---and, terrorism when it hits you is a tragedy---when it strikes only a few times---still a tragedy but a nuisance in the big picture of our nation. WW2, Nam, ---tragedies.   Sporatic attacks---tragedies to the individuals and nuisances to the nation. How is that for a definition---too complicated for the W one liners the ply for votes and yet what Kerry---like Stevenson, Lincoln, JFK, and more try to infuse into public debate.   Bottom line---Kerry (substance) vs Bush (machoman one liners)

Bill H


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:47 PM

That's what the guys who did those awful things think too. They're under the impression they're defending themselves against someone else's terrorism on their people. They are equally righteous and indignant, Mary, and they're willing to kill over it.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: mg
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:41 PM

I think having your father beheaded or your daughter embedded with nails from a bomb is a little bit more than a nuisance. Silly me. mg


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:37 PM

A History of Biological Warfare from 300 BCE to the Present

Google that. It's a good read and should put to rest the notion that terrorism or 'other' types of warfare are new.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:36 PM

In order to eliminate terrorism one would need to eliminate a great many aggressive governments, including those of the USA and Israel. One would have to kill all aggressive and selfish people...or re-educate and convert them into a more pacifistic attitude.

That would be a big job. :-)

I don't think either Bush or Kerry will be able to do it. To have a war on terrorism is like having a war on ugliness or stupidity or paranoia or violence...or drugs. It's not feasible to ever win such a war, but it is certainly feasible to use it to win elections, raise money, seize power, and sell arms.

It's a propaganda exercise. The people who are engaging in it NEED terrorists, and if they can't find real ones they will manufacture some...in a convenient location where there's something valuable to be stolen, such as oil.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:31 PM

Regular forces are engaged in combat (would that need not be). Civilians get killed and/or injured. Tragic.

Freedom Fighters vis a vis Terrorists are a different issue. Sure, one man's freedom fighter is another man's terrorist. (Forgive the term "man"---not PC I know).   

My point was that in the world we live in the Kerry idea of community, nuance, and such is a better thing than the shoot from the hip W philosophy.   

I reiterate---"Crusaders come to mind". My point there was merely to show that there was a lot of state sponsored "terrorism," many years ago also. How Israel entered into it was that I was trying to show that the Brits were the state in those years, the Arabs were being teroristic, and the new state was merely defending itself after a UN mandate and the "terror" agains the Brits was self defense.   

By the way--you forgot to mention 1972. Any comment there about terrorists.


Bill Hahn


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:27 PM

I agree with McG of H on this. The purpose of terror is to terrorize. It has strategic value to many world governments, the US amongst them.

"The patron state provides its beneficiary terrorist organization with political support, financial assistance, and the sponsorship necessary to maintain and expand its struggle. The patron uses the beneficiary to perpetrate acts of terrorism as a means of spreading the former's ideology throughout the word [sic], or in some cases, the patron ultimately expects the beneficiary to gain control of the state in which it resides or impart its ideology to broad sections of the general public."

from www.ict.org.il/inter_ter/st_terror/State_t.htm    or google

state-sponsored terrorism


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:21 PM

For Pete's sake Bill, that "one man's terrorist is another mans freedom fighter" stuff is rubbish, as you surely know.

Terrorism is about what people do, not about who they are or why they do it. A terrorist is someone who uses terror against non-combatants as a way of achieving some kind of political or military aim. "Freedom fighters" do that sometimes, and so do regular armed forces, and when they do that they are acting as terrorists.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Nerd
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:16 PM

tarheel loses all credibility whan he claims Kerry said "acceptable nuisance," which he did not say.

Bush said "I don't think you can win it" about the war on terror, explaining that what you CAN do is make it more and more difficult to be a terrorist so you REDUCE terrorism until it is much less of a threat.

Kerry says the EXACT SAME THING in different words, and the Right Wing buttheads start screaming: "Kerry thinks terrorism is just a nuisance," or "Kerry isn't in favor of eliminating terrorism entirely!"

Kerry said he'd like to REDUCE terrorism to the point where it was just a nuisance, because you CAN'T eliminate it entirely. Just what Bush said, tarheel.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:15 PM

When did anyone say anything about you needing peremisssin to post on this threads, tarheel? What on earth are you on about imagiuning that Big Mick, or anyoine else said anything like that?

Sometimes, too often, people flare off about stuff that just hasn't been said at all. Like complaining about Kerry saying that September 11th was "acceptable", when he said nothing of the sort.

Obviously can be lots of occasion for differences of opinion, and for disagreeing with what people said. But when it comes down to getting all hot under the collar about things people never said, and never even implied, it's just a bit ridiculous. Level that kind of crap to the professional politicians who do that all the time to distract people's attention.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 08:11 PM

Does Crusader come to mind? Among others.

As to Israel in the years of the British Mandateb and its aftermath----we must get some definitions now---freedom fighter (revolutionary) vs terrorist. British policy vs fairness, Arab intransigance and teror vs legal purchase and ownership of land, UN resolutions vs war by neighbors.

I am sure you all have views---hopefully, you will recall the year 1948, the year 1967, the year 1972(that one you sports fans will know), and the year 1973.

Bill Hahn


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:49 PM

The policy of state-sponsored terrorism predates the present State of Isreal by thousands of years.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: The Fooles Troupe
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:42 PM

Israel started the policy of state sponsored terrorism to achieve political ends - just ask the British why they - with extensive urging from the USA - left 'Palestine'...


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Bill Hahn//\\
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:40 PM

Guest Frank:   G. Bush and Don Quixote in the same sentence? Please!!!! Insane was Don Quixote---but on a quest for justice and fairness.   G. Bush---who knows. Other than the interests of the oil folks, his family, and, frankly, his religious fanaticism what is his quest? To lead us into a quagmire that costs innocent lives, makes generations later pay for his mistakes, protect the very wealthy while he acts like "that good ole boy choppin' down the brush on his simple spread"---worth who know how many millions.

Kerry---wealth and all at least has the intellectual capablity of seeing more than one side, listening ( a great attribute--beats bullying) to experts outside his field of expertise, and being nuanced---yes, nuanced. THe Bushies make this seem as dirty a word as "liberal"---which W is now spouting ad naseum---he is making it sound like it is offensive like the N word. It is not. Perhaps one might best look at W and say the terrible C word---what makes one think that a Caring Conservative that only cares for his own and his class interests is any better? WHat makes one think that a shoot from the hip macho attitude beats diplomacy in this new world we live in, after all the advances in communication, science, and such? After 2 World Wars---and one that we should have learned from about being wrong and arrogant. And---losing sight of what this nations stands for.

Poor W ---he still does not know that redemption from all his past errors of drink--smoke---and the rest does not make him Gary Cooper in High Noon---Hallelujah, brother. And Amen. Just the kind of thing W likes to hear.

Bill Hahn


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Peace
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:32 PM

" . . . and now have a massive void in the NYC skyline to show for it."

The same can be said of the Baghdad skyline and they didn't have a damned thing to do with New York's skyline being destroyed.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: MZ Drifter
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:30 PM

Dam'n, Tarheel, maybe it is just a nuisance. The firehouse I visited in NYC didn't think so. But what the hell do they know? They didn't lose eveyone in that nusiance event - nope - just 11 of 13. I fly almost every week and feel safe. I don't, however, stick my head in the sand and pretend it didn't happen.

Now, its' not a question of "the heat in the kitchen", I just have better things to do with my time so I bid you a fon.....well, so long.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: MZ Drifter
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:21 PM

I don't know about the rest of you, but I found posting to this thread was purely voluntary. Stupid on my part perhaps, but still voluntary. My "civil" rights, among them life, liberty and the persuit of happines are a helluva' lot more insured today than they were on 9-10-01.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Jack the Sailor
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:17 PM

Talk about missing the point.

Let terrorism run your lives, if you want. Shit yourself every time the "terror" alert changes. Are you two posting from underneath your beds? Or are you just echoing that little bantam rooster scare monger you call a President? Actually bantam rooster implies courage. He's more like a barking toy poodle. Keep tossing his salad. When he causes his version of Armageddon maybe he'll make room for you in his bunker.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Little Hawk
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:10 PM

Year-long presidential election campaigns and commercial advertising are a f**king nuisance too. Not to mention speedboats and jetskis on quiet lakes and aggressive drivers who won't let other people in. Then there's commercial radio stations, by which I am tortured when I try to eat a quiet meal in the local restaurant. Then there are people who start threads just so they can fight with everybody else on Mudcat.

Face it, life is full of nuisances. And life is full of excuses to get people to give up their civil rights for their own "safety" too.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: GUEST,tarheel
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:04 PM

thank you,MZ Drifter...good advice and accepted as such,here!i just find it incredible that a few people here in mudcat.org, think that they can control other peoples lives online around the globe by telling them,what they should do or not do!
yea,it is too f**king funny that they try it!
i've never had to get anyones permission in here to post a thread and not one damn soul in here has never asked me for permission,either!so....there!!!!!


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: Bobert
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 07:03 PM

Anyone who wants to be president who doesn't have as a goal to reduce the incidents of terrorism to a level that could be considered a "nuissance" should just quit... I mean, I don't get it tarheel. Like why fight it if you don't expect to suceed and by todays standards, nuisance is as close to a victory as can be reasonably expected...

Bobert


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrorism as a nuisance?
From: MZ Drifter
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 06:49 PM

Tarheel, just give it up as a lost cause. I normally stay away from threads of this type but some how stumbled onto this. I can't believe some of the rationalization I have read here. It smacks of the rationalizing we put up with for years which lead to the destruction of 7 buildings in New York. Doesn't anyone remember the first Trade Center attack, the USS Cole, the Saudi barracks, the two embassies too say nothing of ignoring the Mogadeshi disaster, How many of you have flown into New York the last couple years. Hopefully, none of you that think terror is a nusiance. We treated terror as a nusiance for a long time and now have a massive void in the NYC skyline to show for it. And we will just ignore the fact that NO remains were found for upwards of 2000 innocent people. Tarheel, I'll see ya in the funnies.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate

Subject: RE: BS: accepting terrrorism as a nusiance?
From: Ebbie
Date: 12 Oct 04 - 05:45 PM

tar_heel, it's probably a good thing - heaven forbid that there should be two of you- but you're no Martin Gibson.


Post - Top - Home - Printer Friendly - Translate
Next Page

 


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.


You must be a member to post in non-music threads. Join here.



Mudcat time: 31 October 7:05 AM EDT

[ Home ]

All original material is copyright © 1998 by the Mudcat Café Music Foundation, Inc. All photos, music, images, etc. are copyright © by their rightful owners. Every effort is taken to attribute appropriate copyright to images, content, music, etc. We are not a copyright resource.