(OT) War is hell, but not like it once was

(apologies to those who see my first post of this before it deleted, I
forgot to mark it as OT)

For an article by an athiest, I though this was pretty decent.

[url]http://www.neoatheism.com/editorials7.html#war[/url]


I personally long for the day when America had the balls to stand up for
itself regardless of how many civilians died. Granted, civilian death isn't
really a good thing, but if an innocent has to die because they are standing
in front of a terrorist, let them die.

Reasoned Insanity wrote:
[color=blue]
> itself regardless of how many civilians died. Granted, civilian death
> isn't really a good thing, but if an innocent has to die because they are
> standing in front of a terrorist, let them die.[/color]

Just out of curiosity, who defines someone as a 'terrorist'?
Sounds like a witch hunt to me.

[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1852835,00.html[/url]


--
// Janne

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:10:38 -0500, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>(apologies to those who see my first post of this before it deleted, I
>forgot to mark it as OT)
>
>For an article by an athiest, I though this was pretty decent.
>
>[url]http://www.neoatheism.com/editorials7.html#war[/url]
>
>
>I personally long for the day when America had the balls to stand up for
>itself regardless of how many civilians died. Granted, civilian death isn't
>really a good thing, but if an innocent has to die because they are standing
>in front of a terrorist, let them die.
>[/color]

I bet you'd fit right in with the government of China. They don't care
about people either.

You've probably heard about Tian'anmen Square?

In article <lcnHg.10904$UI5.1255@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
Janne Karhunen <Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> Reasoned Insanity wrote:
>[color=green]
> > itself regardless of how many civilians died. Granted, civilian death
> > isn't really a good thing, but if an innocent has to die because they are
> > standing in front of a terrorist, let them die.[/color]
>
> Just out of curiosity, who defines someone as a 'terrorist'?
> Sounds like a witch hunt to me.
>
> [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1852835,00.html[/url][/color]


The Webster book:

terrorist |?ter?rist| |?t?r?r?st| |?t?r?r?st|
noun
a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.


terrorism |?ter??riz?m| |?t?r??r?z?m|
noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
--

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 22:35:46 +0300, Janne Karhunen
<Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Reasoned Insanity wrote:
>[color=green]
>> itself regardless of how many civilians died. Granted, civilian death
>> isn't really a good thing, but if an innocent has to die because they are
>> standing in front of a terrorist, let them die.[/color]
>
>Just out of curiosity, who defines someone as a 'terrorist'?
>Sounds like a witch hunt to me.
>
>[url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1852835,00.html[/url][/color]

Except that terrorists actually exist.

Most sane people have no real problem defining who is a terrorist and
who isn't.

"Stuart Krivis" <jd@mongo.krivis.com> wrote in message
news:o53se21sq38d6edhser8nrd04jjl0mo23b@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 14:10:38 -0500, "Reasoned Insanity"
> <mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>>(apologies to those who see my first post of this before it deleted, I
>>forgot to mark it as OT)
>>
>>For an article by an athiest, I though this was pretty decent.
>>
>>[url]http://www.neoatheism.com/editorials7.html#war[/url]
>>
>>
>>I personally long for the day when America had the balls to stand up for
>>itself regardless of how many civilians died. Granted, civilian death
>>isn't
>>really a good thing, but if an innocent has to die because they are
>>standing
>>in front of a terrorist, let them die.
>>[/color]
>
> I bet you'd fit right in with the government of China. They don't care
> about people either.[/color]

Um, no, but I believe that our government should take whatever steps needed
to protect us. Only a complete idiot would assert such a thing from my
comment. I don't really care so much about what you think of me. I'm not the
one who seems to enjoy taking it up the ass by foreign powers.

" .dbu," <howard@dynoisadork.com> wrote in message
news:howard-F66BE3.15554924082006@news-rdr-03.rdc-kc.rr.com...[color=blue]
> In article <lcnHg.10904$UI5.1255@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
> Janne Karhunen <Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> wrote:
>[color=green]
>> Reasoned Insanity wrote:
>>[color=darkred]
>> > itself regardless of how many civilians died. Granted, civilian death
>> > isn't really a good thing, but if an innocent has to die because they
>> > are
>> > standing in front of a terrorist, let them die.[/color]
>>
>> Just out of curiosity, who defines someone as a 'terrorist'?
>> Sounds like a witch hunt to me.
>>
>> [url]http://www.guardian.co.uk/terrorism/story/0,,1852835,00.html[/url][/color]
>
>
> The Webster book:
>
> terrorist |?ter?rist| |?t?r?r?st| |?t?r?r?st|
> noun
> a person who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
>
>
> terrorism |?ter??riz?m| |?t?r??r?z?m|
> noun
> the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
> --
>[/color]

I prefer "chicken sh!ts who hide behind their religion and kill their own
kind and don't care".

The only good terrorist is one who has assumed room temperature. May many
more do so soon.

People don't understand these goofuses are not going to give up until we
raise the level of their pain. If they bring a knife, we bring a gun. If
they send one of ours to the hospital, we send one of theirs to the morgue.
That's the Chicago Way, and that's how you get these nuts. When the level
of their loss is higher than they can stand, they will quit.

Charles of Schaumburg

Stuart Krivis wrote:

[color=blue]
> Except that terrorists actually exist.
>
> Most sane people have no real problem defining who is a terrorist and
> who isn't.[/color]

OK shoot. Tell us the definition and who sets it.


--
// Janne

n5hsr wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> terrorism |?ter??riz?m| |?t?r??r?z?m|
>> noun
>> the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.[/color][/color]

Wouldn't this make G.W.B terrorist as well?

[color=blue]
> The only good terrorist is one who has assumed room temperature. May many
> more do so soon.
>
> People don't understand these goofuses are not going to give up until we
> raise the level of their pain. If they bring a knife, we bring a gun.[/color]

I'm afraid you're wrong here. Doing 'terror' will only get you
more 'terrorists', not less. But I take it you are not dumb and
this is precisely what you want. Right?


--
// Janne

In article <5pvHg.11031$y_7.7792@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
Janne Karhunen <Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
> n5hsr wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
> >> terrorism |?ter??riz?m| |?t?r??r?z?m|
> >> noun
> >> the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.[/color][/color]
>
> Wouldn't this make G.W.B terrorist as well?[/color]

I knew someone would come up with it. No I don't consider GWB a
terrorist.


[color=blue]
>
>[color=green]
> > The only good terrorist is one who has assumed room temperature. May many
> > more do so soon.
> >
> > People don't understand these goofuses are not going to give up until we
> > raise the level of their pain. If they bring a knife, we bring a gun.[/color]
>
> I'm afraid you're wrong here. Doing 'terror' will only get you
> more 'terrorists', not less. But I take it you are not dumb and
> this is precisely what you want. Right?[/color]

So what do we do? Let terrorists continue to terrorize? This has been
tried for many years, but they continued to blow up airplanes, hijack
airplanes, blow up buses, kidnap persons ect. What do you do about the
terrorist problem then??
--

.dbu, wrote:
[color=blue][color=green]
>> I'm afraid you're wrong here. Doing 'terror' will only get you
>> more 'terrorists', not less. But I take it you are not dumb and
>> this is precisely what you want. Right?[/color]
>
> So what do we do? Let terrorists continue to terrorize? This has been
> tried for many years, but they continued to blow up airplanes, hijack
> airplanes, blow up buses, kidnap persons ect. What do you do about the
> terrorist problem then??[/color]

Well, only thing certain in this respect is that do not
terrorize anyone (no wars with political agendas). That
alone might do the trick.

And as far as 9/11 and London bombings go, in my humble
opinion it is not even proven who was responsible. At
least the evidence was never released to general public.
Still think it was Osama? May very well be, but there is
really no hard evidence to prove it. If you have some,
tell it to FBI as well [link to Osamas resume]:
[url]http://www.fbi.gov/wanted/terrorists/terbinladen.htm[/url]

So who did it? Get an answer to that first before jumping
into new war.


--
// Janne

"Janne Karhunen" <Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:A0CHg.11266$V54.356@reader1.news.jippii.net...[color=blue]
> .dbu, wrote:
>[color=green][color=darkred]
>>> I'm afraid you're wrong here. Doing 'terror' will only get you
>>> more 'terrorists', not less. But I take it you are not dumb and
>>> this is precisely what you want. Right?[/color]
>>
>> So what do we do? Let terrorists continue to terrorize? This has been
>> tried for many years, but they continued to blow up airplanes, hijack
>> airplanes, blow up buses, kidnap persons ect. What do you do about the
>> terrorist problem then??[/color]
>
> Well, only thing certain in this respect is that do not
> terrorize anyone (no wars with political agendas). That
> alone might do the trick.[/color]

Blowing terrorists heads off will do the trick. How many American lives do
you want to let be killed before you decide that live and let live isn't
working?

In article <A0CHg.11266$V54.356@reader1.news.jippii.net>,
Janne Karhunen <Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> wrote:

[color=blue]
> Well, only thing certain in this respect is that do not
> terrorize anyone (no wars with political agendas). That
> alone might do the trick.
>
> And as far as 9/11 and London bombings go, in my humble
> opinion it is not even proven who was responsible.[/color]

I'm not responding to you anymore because you are a goof ball. Good bye.
--

On Thu, 24 Aug 2006 17:49:45 -0500, "Reasoned Insanity"
<mintclovers@@yahoo.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>
>Um, no, but I believe that our government should take whatever steps needed
>to protect us. Only a complete idiot would assert such a thing from my[/color]

Yeah, kill 'em all and let God sort them out!

[color=blue]
>comment. I don't really care so much about what you think of me. I'm not the
>one who seems to enjoy taking it up the ass by foreign powers.
>[/color]

Interesting that you would pick that metaphor. Are you Gay?

On Fri, 25 Aug 2006 07:48:42 +0300, Janne Karhunen
<Janne.Karhunen@gmail.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>Stuart Krivis wrote:
>
>[color=green]
>> Except that terrorists actually exist.
>>
>> Most sane people have no real problem defining who is a terrorist and
>> who isn't.[/color]
>
>OK shoot. Tell us the definition and who sets it.[/color]

Here's a good definition:

"Premeditated, politically motivated violence perpetrated against
noncombatant targets by subnational groups or clandestine agents."

Hezbollah is a terrorist organization. The US Marines are not.