GC, Yahoo.com Thread / Flames

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Uh-huh, suuuuurrre...

[Guest evenflowDDT]

And if you're "bored" by the hideous deaths of 3000 people, approximately 200 in group suicides, just because you didn't know them, I'm not going to waste my time trying to convince you it's significant. Go right ahead and be bored. It's your right to be a callous piece of shit.

Hey, that's not fair, you replied while I was away!

 

Now then... I guess I am a "callous piece of shit". What can I say? Being forcefed the same footage over and over again pissed me off not at any terrorists, but at the media who kept playing such footage. After all, overdoing something IS what builds callouses (sp?), so I guess that's a pretty true statement.

 

And if you simply buy the media line about some vague "civil rights" going down the toilet every time a directly elected bicameral legislature passes a bill proposed by the executive branch, despite the fact that our judiciary remains independent, I won't waste my time trying to educate you. Go right ahead and hyperventilate and shriek about the evil government. It's your right to be an ignorant moron subsisting on the regurgitated balls of premasticated factoids you're fed.

 

"Fed" by the media? What the hell media are you watching? The one I remember back in those days spewed nothing but the repetitive footage, allegations (some of which were true, some of which weren't), and Anyway, in regards to your statement, even though the judicial branch is "free from executive influence", when you have a nation as brainwashed as America was to non-existent fears of further attacks, the fact is that if a challenge were brought (which to my knowledge, none were), the members would be either buying into that or be too afraid of political backlash (members of the judicial branch CAN be impeached, and conflicting politics and a McCarthy-ist state of mind can make trumped up charges a LOT easier to pass) to vote their true beliefs. In regards to those beliefs, if memory serves me properly, the majority of Supreme Court Judges now are conservative/Republican, so their political views would be in key with these activities, because most of the people whose rights were taken away were immigrants anyway, so its no skin off their back.

 

Oh, and I totally agree about your "posse", it's a little silly...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

non-existent fears of further attacks

I'm guessing that was supposed to be "fears of non-existent further attacks." I'd like to know what information you base that assessment on. Do you have any training in military analysis, for instance? What's your FBI clearance? (PM me on that one.) What do you know that Justice, State, and Defense don't, and how? They all say that there's a serious risk. Why should I take your word over the government's? What are your sources of information?

 

the majority of Supreme Court Judges now are conservative/Republican

Y'know, despite what Democrats repeat constantly, Republicans and conservatives are human beings. And they're at least as capable as Democrats of reasoning out and doing the right thing instead of mindlessly toeing the party line.

 

Oh, and I totally agree about your "posse", it's a little silly...

Like I said, don't blame me. I've never encouraged such behaviour.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

the majority of Supreme Court Judges now are conservative/Republican

Y'know, despite what Democrats repeat constantly, Republicans and conservatives are human beings. And they're at least as capable as Democrats of reasoning out and doing the right thing instead of mindlessly toeing the party line.

I never said Republicans and conservatives weren't human beings (although now that you mention it... j/k), and I realize some (the "moderate" ones) are "at least as capable as Democrats of reasoning out and doing the right thing", and that's where political differences come into play. To some, being extra-strict on immigrants, particularly those from the Middle East, for a little while is OK because theoretically any one of them could be a terrorist. Then there are others, like me, who see something like that and say, "I don't care where they're from, that's a violation of their civil rights and that's messed up!" Admittedly I don't know much about the current members of the Supreme Court, but I doubt that there are many who share the latter viewpoint, and like I said earlier, in such a volatile political environment I doubt they'd be brave enough to "stand up" against public opinion, the President's opinion (even though they are constitutionally able to), and yes, the media's opinion.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Thing is, to paraphrase Miss Coulter, when the last 50 terrorists have been Moslem males between 18 and 40, and the next 50 terrorists are guaranteed to be Moslem males between 18 and 40, it stops being racial profiling (or whatever scareword the left is using these days). It's called a description of the suspect.

Their being Moslem males between 18 and 40 is the (notice I didn't say only) direct cause of their being terrorists. We are fully justified in using any and all profiling techniques in order to find the guilty before they kill another 3000 people. Your implicit idea that race and religion have nothing to do with criminal tendencies only holds true in the United States - and even here not to a great degree. Who do we look at when we're looking for crack addicts or dealers? Black males. Who do we look at when we're looking for serial killers? White males. Abortion clinic bombers? White male fundamentalist Christians. A black church burns down? White males. A Mafia don gets shot? Italians (but we don't look very hard).

And outside the United States, it's completely wrong. But if you want to blind yourself to the facts, I guess I can't stop you.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

What facts? There's still no factual basis for tendency to commit crimes... just because racial profiling and other activities catch and imprison more people of a certain race doesn't mean that that race is more apt to commit the crime.

 

And after all, racial profiling at its most extreme (like this) worked so well for Japanese Internment...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

<sigh> It's like talking to a wall. How many Jews and Christians have you seen hijacking aeroplanes to kill for Allah? Do you think these people are killing for their religion or not? Do you think there is any reason to believe that they're lying when they flat-out SAY they're killing because of their religious beliefs? If not, how do you justify NOT investigating people who share those beliefs?

 

Stick to creating stupid gimmick identities and posting in General Chat. You have the intellect for that.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Marney, you have to realize talking to you is like talking to a barbed-wire brick wall. Also, you're missing the point, sure SOME of them did, and the other Muslims silently condone it by not speaking out. The solution to that isn't messing with ALL Muslims or people of Arab descent, but rather trying to find some anti-war/terrorism Muslims (which there are) who have the balls to get organized and say "I'm a Muslim and I don't condone this" on a huge level. Although really, since that'd make them the next assasination target I can see why that, unfortunately, will never happen.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Also, you're missing the point

What was your point again? First you say that Islam doesn't cause terrorism and thus investigating Moslems is cruel and bigoted and useless. Now you seem to be admitting that it does cause terrorism but nevertheless investigating Moslems is cruel and useless but presumably not bigoted. And instead of what we're doing, which has produced very tangible results even though stupid attitudes like yours hobble us at every turn, you're proposing something which you yourself say has no hope of ever working.

 

Did I miss something or is that fairly accurate? I mean just what the fuck do you expect us to do? Go with your idea because it makes you feel warm and cuddly and tolerant and liberal inside (because obviously if another 3000 people die you won't really care after the media "oversaturates" you with it) despite the fact that you also say it's worthless? What would that accomplish, other than making you feel good? Because quite frankly, that isn't one of our priorities. Saving lives is.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

My point isn't that Islam doesn't cause terrorism, but that not all Muslims and not all Middle Eastern immigrants are terrorists. That's all.

 

You're right, I am proposing something that I myself say has no hope of ever working. How is that different than you proposing the same thing from the other side? And yes, it would make me feel all warm and cuddly and liberal knowing that the Civil Rights remained intact.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

not all Muslims and not all Middle Eastern immigrants are terrorists.

And my point is that all terrorists are Moslems and Middle Eastern immigrants. (And for Christ's sake don't mention McVeigh. We're talking about systematic organised large-scale ideology-driven terrorism, not half a dozen ugly guys with bad haircuts.)

 

You're right, I am proposing something that I myself say has no hope of ever working.  How is that different than you proposing the same thing from the other side?

It's different because what it's what we're already doing, because it has already worked, and because it is continuing to work.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Continued bombing or warfare in the Middle East only encourages them. Remember that over there, we're the terrorists. Why else would they celebrate so much and have such an Anti-American sentiment.

 

And America's more extreme militia are organized, ideologically driven, and terrorists. Klansmen are also terrorists. It's not never all one ethnic group.

[Guest treble charged]

I just wonder when it stops being patriotic and starts being racist.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Why else would they celebrate so much and have such an Anti-American sentiment.

Because they're evil?

 

Wow, that was hard.

 

America's more extreme militia are organized, ideologically driven, and terrorists.

Agreed, but they really don't do much, so we don't care. Until they make a nuisance of themselves, there are better things to concentrate on. Like radical Moslems.

 

Klansmen are also terrorists

No, Klansmen are a sad joke that would have died out a decade ago if the media didn't constantly use them to fill up column inches.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Why else would they celebrate so much and have such an Anti-American sentiment.

Because they're evil?

 

Wow, that was hard.

 

Isn't another full-scale military operation in the Middle East that will accomplish absolutely nothing "evil" as well?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

And how do you know that it would accomplish "absolutely nothing?"

[Guest treble charged]

Has anything really been accomplished during the whole 'War on Terrorism'? Bush just wants to go into Iraq and get Hussein to make up for not getting bin Laden.

 

Terrorism will always exist, and, while it is noble to try and stop it, it is also futile.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

And how do you know that it would accomplish "absolutely nothing?"

Well, we already destroyed Afghanistan, started and won a civil war for them, and yet the "bad guys" are still around. And what exactly did our last action in Iraq accomplish? A bunch of "accidental" chemical tests on U.S. soldiers and the saving of the Middle East's oil so that our corporations could continue to buy it up and overcharge for energy.

 

Yep, sounds like nothing to me.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

yet the "bad guys" are still around

Uh no, several thousand are dead. I think we did pretty good.

[Guest KoR Fungus]

There haven't been any terrorist attacks here since September 11th, so that to me is a sign that we're doing something right. We haven't accomplished everything we've set out to accomplish, but we've certainly accomplished something. Just because we haven't gotten many big names doesn't mean that we haven't caught or killed hundreds of terrorists and majorly disrupted their networks.

 

Heh, nice to see more liberals here than in NHB. If only the quality of discussion wasn't so much worse...

[Guest evenflowDDT]

yet the "bad guys" are still around

Uh no, several thousand are dead. I think we did pretty good.

You sure? We got so many villagers I can't tell anymore... but according to the media, *gasp* Bin Laden and the Taliban are still alive! Weren't they the big bad wolves in this scenario?

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Nope. The media invented that goal. We went in to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda, and that's exactly what we did.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

Klansmen are also terrorists

No, Klansmen are a sad joke that would have died out a decade ago if the media didn't constantly use them to fill up column inches.

You ever live around Klan? They're stupid and fucked in the head, which is no secret, but they're still VERY serious about their beliefs.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

There are very few of them and they take no large-scale action. Of course they're serious about their beliefs; so are some flat-earthers, and they're about as much of a threat. Again, our focus is and should be Moslem terrorists, not the relatively harmless idiots in our back yards.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Nope. The media invented that goal. We went in to smash the Taliban and al Qaeda, and that's exactly what we did.

What goal?

 

Oh, and try telling a black man in the South how harmless the Klan is. And you think I'M a naive idiot...

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Just fucking shut up now. This is like explaining to a 3 year-old why the sky is blue. What the fuck do you mean "what goal?" I was answering a direct question you had asked. Our goal was not to kill one specific man but to destroy the ability of the terrorist network to strike at the United States and that is what we did. Thank you shut the fuck up and drive the fuck through.

As for the fucking Klan, when the fuck was the last time they killed 3000 American citizens? I said RELATIVELY HARMLESS and that is exactly what they are. They are also completely fucking irrelevant to our concerns right now and if you really think that we should be checking on rednecks from Missouri as carefully as we should be checking on Moslem Arab immigrants you most certainly ARE a naive fucking idiot.

 

Jackass.

[Guest Agent of Oblivion]

There are very few of them and they take no large-scale action. Of course they're serious about their beliefs; so are some flat-earthers, and they're about as much of a threat. Again, our focus is and should be Moslem terrorists, not the relatively harmless idiots in our back yards.

Klan aren't organized/smart/rich enough to do anything other than light fires. They're still around though, and flare up like so many hemmoroids now and then, causing pain and discomfort to those afflicted, which is pretty much my only point on the subject.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

I know they're still around, and I agree with your point.

[Guest evenflowDDT]

Just fucking shut up now. This is like explaining to a 3 year-old why the sky is blue. What the fuck do you mean "what goal?" I was answering a direct question you had asked. Our goal was not to kill one specific man but to destroy the ability of the terrorist network to strike at the United States and that is what we did.

No, we didn't. What we did was kill a bunch of innocent villagers (more that died in 9/11 BTW), whose orphaned children will grow up to become more terrorists, and since there was never any official confirmation that we even got who we were looking for, we didn't even accomplish that.

 

By the way, the need for all this "remove civil rights to check for terrorism" b.s. is enough evidence that obviously SOMEONE thinks that the ability of any terrorist network isn't destroyed.

[Guest Cancer Marney]

Innocent villagers who refused to turn over Osama bin Laden while admitting he was their guest, armed with Kalashnikovs, grenade launchers, and SAMs, thousands strong, hiding in mountain fortresses.

 

Sure.