I just read that on a thread.

I can't wait to hear the justification. This should be good.

I do not think ones political views make them a hypocrite. You do that on your own.

I think that is like saying that because you're black you're a slave, or if you're Asian that you have a little penis.

Yes. In other words: patently stupid.

The practice of liberal hypocriticism. For example, their constant clinging to their right to free speech, but their attempts to squash the freedom of speech for those speaking out against them. For example, take a look at the video for Operatoin Eagle Strike at the Protest Warrior website. You'll see the liberal A.N.S.W.E.R. group exercising their right to freedom of speech and their violent attempts to squash the freedom of speech of the ProtestWarriors. Hypocritical? You be the judge.

I fail to see how that makes all liberals hypocrites...

If what you say is true, that makes the group in question hypocrites, not all liberals.

Its pointing out the general hypocricy of the left.

There is no hypocrisy in the right?

Of course there is, but we don't try to suppress the lefts freedom of expression. We don't send cops to arrest all the protesters at these "peace" gatherings. But as soon as a right-winger walks in there with an opposing viewpoint, the swear words and fists fly, and then the cops are called on the people who were being non-violent. Take for example the Sinclair media group that's airing that show on Kerry, it's obviously anti-Kerry, but so is Farenheight 9/11. People have the option to watch biased media, and thus shouldn't complain. If a Moore film was showed on TV, I wouldn't complain - I'd probably watch it and comment on inaccuracies. I mean, Bowling for Columbine is shown in schools, but that's definately biased. It seems as soon as somebody threatens the monopoly the left has over the media, all hell breaks lose. God forbid somebody with an opposing viewpoint be born.

The monopoly the left has over the media? Wasn't there a special on HBO following Dick around? And I don't know what you're talking about with the sinclair media thing but is it not being shown or something?

I think the important distinction here is the following: liberals can be hypocrites, as can members from all sides. They are not always. I know plenty of liberals who are certainly far from hypocritical, including our own widely-supported senator Feingold.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9152.msg84448#msg84448 date=1097797948]
The monopoly the left has over the media? Wasn't there a special on HBO following Dick around? And I don't know what you're talking about with the sinclair media thing but is it not being shown or something?
[/quote]

The major news networks are commonly viewed as liberally slanted by members of both sides.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9152.msg84448#msg84448 date=1097797948]
The monopoly the left has over the media? Wasn't there a special on HBO following Dick around? And I don't know what you're talking about with the sinclair media thing but is it not being shown or something?
[/quote]

So a station does a report on a political figure and suddenly the left doesn't have a media majority? Too bad, according to a liberal station (MSNBC) 34% of news anchors identify themselves as liberal, while only 7% are conservative. Since they're the ones delivering the news, they are generall a reflection of their station. (For instance, Fox wouldn't hire Chris Matthews.)

What part of the Sinclair thing don't you know about?

The fact is that a liberal news anchor will always put a liberal slant on things, and a conservative anchor will always put a conservative slant on things. When I'm hearing a liberal anchor talk about the "mistakes" of a conservative President I have no reason to believe him.

I don't watch television at all and you're talking about a company that's putting on an anti-Kerry show from what I gather. That's all I know about it.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9152.msg84467#msg84467 date=1097799988]
I don't watch television at all and you're talking about a company that's putting on an anti-Kerry show from what I gather. That's all I know about it.
[/quote] Maybe I am reading this wrong, but what company is putting on the Anti Kerry show? I am a bit confused about this thread  :-X

Since I don't live in the states I don't feel qualified to comment on whatever bias the media might have. I just pity you guys for having to put up with it. I guess bias is what happens when misguided corporations try to turn news into entertainment.

Anyway:

[quote]
Of course there is, but we don't try to suppress the lefts freedom of expression. We don't send cops to arrest all the protesters at these "peace" gatherings. But as soon as a right-winger walks in there with an opposing viewpoint, the swear words and fists fly, and then the cops are called on the people who were being non-violent.
[/quote]

Hypocrites come in all flavours. I don't think you can talk much about free speech when it's the policy of your current administration to ensure that protestors have 'zones' from which they can stray, all of which are placed so far from whatever route bush is taking as to be made entirely ineffectual. I don't think you can talk about free speech when merely airing your views is enough for the patriot-act-empowered FBI/NSA/Whoever to start bugging you and reading your email.

btw, people who try to beat you up for airing your views are not hypocrites because they are liberal(/conservative/other), they are hypocrites because they are stupid.

Here's one for you: celebrities who support strict gun control laws, but also hire armed bodyguards (who are armed in such a way that their weapons would most definitely not be legal if the proposed gun control laws were in effect).  If they believe that strongly that nobody (or at least not private citizens) should be carrying those guns, why're they paying guards (who are private citizens) to carry those types of guns? :)

Or celebrities that complain about wasted energy and that we need to get rid of nuclear energy plants, yet they live in huge mansions?

I totally think we should knock down all the coal plants and go nuclear.

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=9152.msg84607#msg84607 date=1097884835]
I totally think we should knock down all the coal plants and go nuclear.
[/quote] I aggree. France may suck, but they are virtually completely powered by nuclear. They are extremely efficient too. They reprocess their waste with something called a feeder reactor and use the crap over and over.

Yeah, that's truly the way to go.

Regarding liberal hypocrisy:

Today I was having a conversation with a hardcore liberal lesbian. She says, "BUSH IS AMERICA'S HITLER!" I say, "why?" She says Bush tries to control people's lives because of a ban on gay marriage, and that republicans should become open-minded. I then begin to tell her about how fiscal conservativism is far superior to liberal and foreign policy and how there has not been a single world war since America became the "world's police". After this, she said: "still...he wants a ban on gay marriage.  I hate him."

Hmm. I should become more "open-minded", yet she is totally closed minded about all the issues. I've seen this behavior exhibited a lot by liberals, _especially_ the gay rights crusaders.

PC disclaimer: not that there's anything wrong with that.

I know plenty of homosexuals who support George Bush and they believe gays are taking this whole thing too personally. These are the few who say "Hey wait a minute, gay marriage is not the only issue in this damn election."

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=9152.msg84740#msg84740 date=1097969049]
how there has not been a single world war since America became the "world's police".
[/quote]

What's your definition of "world war"? Isn't that a rather rare thing in the thousands of years since the last ice age already without America being the "world's police"?

Actually, I'm not convinced there haven't been a few world wars in the last couple of years, vs Iraq for example. All depends on exactly how you define it, how many countries are required to get involved.

None of which you have supported I'm sure, since you seem to preach that "War is not the answer." like the gospel.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg84823#msg84823 date=1098022534]
None of which you have supported I'm sure, since you seem to preach that "War is not the answer." like the gospel.
[/quote]

Well, the Kuwait one I supported. That was a response. The other ones recently have been more like "USA is the greatest and we do what we want to, just look at what happens to these small defenseless countries that annoyed us. We're going over to hand out some punishment!"

So what was your solution to the imminent threat of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan? I'd love to hear your response to that. I say "Let's Roll!" You say, "Lets roll over!"

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg84832#msg84832 date=1098029904]
So what was your solution to the imminent threat of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan? I'd love to hear your response to that. I say "Let's Roll!" You say, "Lets roll over!"
[/quote]

There was no imminent threat. Any other questions?

Perhaps you could make that point about Iraq, but not the Taliban/al Qaeda

[quote author=Banana fanna fo fanna link=topic=9152.msg84854#msg84854 date=1098035877]
Perhaps you could make that point about Iraq, but not the Taliban/al Qaeda
[/quote]

They didn't seem like an imminent threat either. The Taliban weren't any immediate threat to the USA.

hmm, I dunno. I think the war in afghanistan was much more likely to ge justified than Iraq. The taliban were actively supporting Al Qaida after all.

Al Qaida was responsible for 3000+ American deaths. The Taliban supported them openly. I do not care whether you like the fact that we can retaliate with such force. America is the only world power left, and because of that people are going to hate us. I can live with that.

Adron: You said you thought the Kuwait war was a just one. I am going to assume that you think that because America went to the defense of a country that was being unjustly over run. Now if we wouldn't have helped them the rest of the world would have criticized us.

You also say you do not think the Afghan war was just. Yet we were unjustly attacked and many civilians lost their life. Just because we can take them out in a small amount of time shouldn't make that any different.

[quote author=Tuberload link=topic=9152.msg84889#msg84889 date=1098050969]
Al Qaida was responsible for 3000+ American deaths. The Taliban supported them openly. I do not care whether you like the fact that we can retaliate with such force. America is the only world power left, and because of that people are going to hate us. I can live with that.
[/quote]

1. Americans are responsible for many deaths as well.

2. Revenge is not justice.

Anything else?


[quote author=Tuberload link=topic=9152.msg84889#msg84889 date=1098050969]
Adron: You said you thought the Kuwait war was a just one. I am going to assume that you think that because America went to the defense of a country that was being unjustly over run. Now if we wouldn't have helped them the rest of the world would have criticized us.

You also say you do not think the Afghan war was just. Yet we were unjustly attacked and many civilians lost their life. Just because we can take them out in a small amount of time shouldn't make that any different.
[/quote]

I didn't say I did not think the Afghan war was just. What I said was that I fail to see the imminent threat the Talibans offered. Coming to Kuwait's aid when they ask for it is one thing, attacking another country (Afghanistan) when that country hasn't itself made a direct attack on you is a different thing.

I suppose what you're saying is that "an eye for an eye" is your way of doing things? Justice as in they kill us, we kill them? Revenge at any cost? I hope you realize that means you support the attack on WTC, if that was in fact revenge for people killed by Americans?

There really, desperately needs to be an Islamic reformation.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg84841#msg84841 date=1098032488]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg84832#msg84832 date=1098029904]
So what was your solution to the imminent threat of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan? I'd love to hear your response to that. I say "Let's Roll!" You say, "Lets roll over!"
[/quote]

There was no imminent threat. Any other questions?
[/quote]

There was no immintent threat? The threat of biological, nuclear, or other types of terrorism are not imminent threats? Get your head out of your ass Adron.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg84841#msg84841 date=1098032488]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg84832#msg84832 date=1098029904]
So what was your solution to the imminent threat of the Taliban and al Qaeda in Afghanistan? I'd love to hear your response to that. I say "Let's Roll!" You say, "Lets roll over!"
[/quote]

There was no imminent threat. Any other questions?
[/quote] Like that Nick at Night commercial: Nip it in the bud. Why wait for there to be an imminent threat, why wait for them to have the ability to hit us again, perhaps with something a bit stronger. We do not know how long it would take them to be ready to hit us another time either, could be a week could be a year. I say it could happen quite soon if we are passive about it. The terrorists hate us, they are not going to just attack once,  light a cigarette, and say they are spent. If we let them they will attack again.

I guess in the end we all have different opinions, but yes I still believe in what happened.

What threat of biological or nuclear attack??? If they had the bombs and a way to get them here...

Our very own aircraft and other means of transportation and the suicidial "holy warriors" willing to die for it. Those are their means mert0. If you honestly don't believe it was and is a huge threat you are as ignorant as they are.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg84920#msg84920 date=1098058683]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg84841#msg84841 date=1098032488]
There was no imminent threat. Any other questions?
[/quote]

There was no immintent threat? The threat of biological, nuclear, or other types of terrorism are not imminent threats? Get your head out of your ass Adron.
[/quote]

They weren't read to attack on a broad front at that time. Imminent threat means their missiles are ready to fire, and they weren't. They were badly organized.

And now there should be  a lot better security at the airports. So no i don't think it's a threat anymore. If it is then we are a  lot worse off than I thought we were. And I don't think an airplane is a nuclear or biological weapon.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9152.msg85037#msg85037 date=1098130006]
And now there should be  a lot better security at the airports. So no i don't think it's a threat anymore. If it is then we are a  lot worse off than I thought we were. And I don't think an airplane is a nuclear or biological weapon.
[/quote]

Nuclear and biological "dirty bombs" are not outside the ability of terrorist factions. It is a real threat, believe it.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg84991#msg84991 date=1098099444]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg84920#msg84920 date=1098058683]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg84841#msg84841 date=1098032488]
There was no imminent threat. Any other questions?
[/quote]

There was no immintent threat? The threat of biological, nuclear, or other types of terrorism are not imminent threats? Get your head out of your ass Adron.
[/quote]

They weren't read to attack on a broad front at that time. Imminent threat means their missiles are ready to fire, and they weren't. They were badly organized.
[/quote]

Take a grease fire for example. You're in a situation where the signs are imminent, and you know there is a definite probability of a fire. You're saying that we should wait for the fire to go ahead and start, then put it out, rather than defuse the situation before it exists. Great idea.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85057#msg85057 date=1098138251]
Take a grease fire for example. You're in a situation where the signs are imminent, and you know there is a definite probability of a fire. You're saying that we should wait for the fire to go ahead and start, then put it out, rather than defuse the situation before it exists. Great idea.
[/quote]

I'm saying if there's an immediate threat, it better be dealt with. As there was no immediate threat, .....

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg85066#msg85066 date=1098140526]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85057#msg85057 date=1098138251]
Take a grease fire for example. You're in a situation where the signs are imminent, and you know there is a definite probability of a fire. You're saying that we should wait for the fire to go ahead and start, then put it out, rather than defuse the situation before it exists. Great idea.
[/quote]

I'm saying if there's an immediate threat, it better be dealt with. As there was no immediate threat, .....
[/quote]

Terrorism is not an immediate threat? We should only act if they are in progress of another attack?

This is something that you do not just sit around and wait to become a problem. Why would you let the terrorists become more organized?

This was not in the news for very long, but in iraq insurgets were found with shells filled with sarin gas. From what the articles I read said they did not know what they had. But the fact remains that they had it and if they used it correctly could have really screwed up some convoys. There is crap floating around out there and if it gets into the wrong hands we are in some deep crap. Why wait for the stuff to end up in the hands of someone who can use it? If you have waited that long then you probably do not have the time to stop it.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85085#msg85085 date=1098144298]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg85066#msg85066 date=1098140526]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85057#msg85057 date=1098138251]
Take a grease fire for example. You're in a situation where the signs are imminent, and you know there is a definite probability of a fire. You're saying that we should wait for the fire to go ahead and start, then put it out, rather than defuse the situation before it exists. Great idea.
[/quote]

I'm saying if there's an immediate threat, it better be dealt with. As there was no immediate threat, .....
[/quote]

Terrorism is not an immediate threat? We should only act if they are in progress of another attack?
[/quote]
THe way terrorism works you can't really plan for it. They are usually attacks plannned at a small level. And people who do stuff like that usually keep to themselves so it would be hard to have insiders in groups like that so how do you prepare for surprise attacks? just go into any country that has a problem with us and kill everyone....

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9152.msg85148#msg85148 date=1098156627]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85085#msg85085 date=1098144298]
[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg85066#msg85066 date=1098140526]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85057#msg85057 date=1098138251]
Take a grease fire for example. You're in a situation where the signs are imminent, and you know there is a definite probability of a fire. You're saying that we should wait for the fire to go ahead and start, then put it out, rather than defuse the situation before it exists. Great idea.
[/quote]

I'm saying if there's an immediate threat, it better be dealt with. As there was no immediate threat, .....
[/quote]

Terrorism is not an immediate threat? We should only act if they are in progress of another attack?
[/quote]
THe way terrorism works you can't really plan for it. They are usually attacks plannned at a small level. And people who do stuff like that usually keep to themselves so it would be hard to have insiders in groups like that so how do you prepare for surprise attacks? just go into any country that has a problem with us and kill everyone....
[/quote]

You sure as shit can plan for terrorism. You can have every countermeasure possible in place and ready to go, which is much like the USA has done. You can go across the oceans and take the fight to them before they bring it to us, which is the best  place for it.

Bullshit that's just what Bush is feeding you. You bring the fight to them and kill them and their sons will be here in a couple of years with 10* the hate his father had for us. And you cannot plan for terrorism unless you post a man at every corner of the united states. It's an absurd thought.
That's why Bush can't and won't get bin laden... the poeple hated sadam because he was a tyrant . People like bin laden because he is working to get revenge on people who keep killing their families.

He is also the reason why we are over there. I am sure people are pissed at al sauder who is 'fighting for the people' becuase he is the reason we keep rapeing falluja and surrounding it and forcing people out, ect. We would be (and did) do that same kind of crap with osama when we had a good idea of where his butt was.

Yes you can take the fight to them. When you dismantle every training camp, the terrorists setup, when you bust into safe houses with machine guns blazing it kind of puts a damper on their plans. It hurts their ability to organize something. They do not have the same ability to get stuff off the gound. If we were not there at all right now they would be training armies of people right now.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9152.msg85190#msg85190 date=1098195881]
Bullshit that's just what Bush is feeding you. You bring the fight to them and kill them and their sons will be here in a couple of years with 10* the hate his father had for us. And you cannot plan for terrorism unless you post a man at every corner of the united states. It's an absurd thought.
That's why Bush can't and won't get bin laden... the poeple hated sadam because he was a tyrant . People like bin laden because he is working to get revenge on people who keep killing their families.
[/quote]

Well actually mert0, thats what the Democrats and liberals are feeding you. I'd rather fight this war over there than over here, and thats just the way it is.

You sure can. You can educate the public. You can make plans for the neccessary evacuations that might become neccessary. You can train our air power and other countermeasures to fight back.

Bush can and will get bin Laden, if he is not already dead. We won't give up until we find him. People hated Saddam because he was a tyrranical dictator. People hate bin Laden because he is a cowardice terrorist. He has no purpose but hatred and jealousy based on his insane interpretation of his holy text.

You seem Anti-War. What you're really for is "Sparing Foreign Enemies."

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85263#msg85263 date=1098228958]
Well actually mert0, thats what the Democrats and liberals are feeding you. I'd rather fight this war over there than over here, and thats just the way it is.
[/quote]

I think the point there was that it's not a war you can win by killing. The more people you kill, the more lust for revenge you awaken. And as was pointed out earlier, that makes it justice to kill Americans, especially by flying jumbojets into their towers.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg85265#msg85265 date=1098229314]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85263#msg85263 date=1098228958]
Well actually mert0, thats what the Democrats and liberals are feeding you. I'd rather fight this war over there than over here, and thats just the way it is.
[/quote]

I think the point there was that it's not a war you can win by killing. The more people you kill, the more lust for revenge you awaken. And as was pointed out earlier, that makes it justice to kill Americans, especially by flying jumbojets into their towers.


[/quote] But not doing naything does not not get rid of the hatered for us either. They hate our way of life. So sitting on our asses does not solve the problem. Atleast by going to war we keep the fighting over there and cramp their ability to hit us with something. If we introduce democracy over there it will get rid of the environment that breeds hatred for us.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg85265#msg85265 date=1098229314]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85263#msg85263 date=1098228958]
Well actually mert0, thats what the Democrats and liberals are feeding you. I'd rather fight this war over there than over here, and thats just the way it is.
[/quote]

I think the point there was that it's not a war you can win by killing. The more people you kill, the more lust for revenge you awaken. And as was pointed out earlier, that makes it justice to kill Americans, especially by flying jumbojets into their towers.
[/quote]

Whats the solution? That we hold hands and sing songs with these animals? No. You find them, you kill them, and you kill their followers. Its the only way to make it work in the real world.

Our war and their "war" is not the same, so don't try to make it so. We specifically target their militants, leaders, and terrorists. They target innocent civillians and non-combatants, including women and children.

That's fucking ignorant. That's the same reason they are killing Americans.
You need to pull your head out of your ass. I don't watch the news so no it's not shit they are feeding me. I work with arabs everyday. They tell me what is going on over there and i believe them more than the news or any crap a politician is feeding you.

What are our other options? A twofold approach is necessary, and seems to be what we're doing:

1. Kill terrorists, and disrupt their activities.
2. Educate the people of the Middle East with a more neutral perspective, many of whom receive muslim fundamentalist teachings as part of their normal schooling.

What is IGNORANT is to stand by and do nothing while thousands of Americans, Spaniards, and countless other nationalities perish to terrorist attacks.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9152.msg85300#msg85300 date=1098241671]
That's fucking ignorant. That's the same reason they are killing Americans.
You need to pull your head out of your ass. I don't watch the news so no it's not shit they are feeding me. I work with arabs everyday. They tell me what is going on over there and i believe them more than the news or any crap a politician is feeding you.
[/quote]

Look at the numbers coming out of Iraq. You will notice that a very slim number of civillians are being harmed at all, and it is in no way blatant. All of their attacks are blatant. If you'll notice, their terrorist attacks now adays aren't even against American and allied troops, they are against their own people. I know plenty of Arabs as well, and many of them are all go no quit for this war. They understand the atrocities going on by some of their fellow Arabs in the middle east. You say you work with Arabs every day. Do they live over in Iraq and Afghanistan? Do they spend their lives in fear of the terrorist regiemes that run their countries? I doubt it. They are just Arabs siding with Arabs for the sake of it. Let me tell you something, what do those Arabs say about the terrorist attacks on other Arabs? And how about the terrorist attacks of the Arab nations against Israel?

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85290#msg85290 date=1098237760]
Whats the solution? That we hold hands and sing songs with these animals? No. You find them, you kill them, and you kill their followers. Its the only way to make it work in the real world.
[/quote]

You kill or imprison the terrorists, and hold hangs and sing songs with their children. The children are the key to the future - you really have to treat them right and give them a good opinion of you.


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85290#msg85290 date=1098237760]
Our war and their "war" is not the same, so don't try to make it so. We specifically target their militants, leaders, and terrorists. They target innocent civillians and non-combatants, including women and children.
[/quote]

Yes, but you hit some civilians as well, and that awakens more hatred...

But Adron what you say makes no sense. Your entire theory is that we must only take out those who are directly responsible and only when they are already guilty of harming us. Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard.

We kill 99.9% enemy combatants and .05% women and children.
They kill 100% innocent civillians.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85384#msg85384 date=1098305099]
But Adron what you say makes no sense. Your entire theory is that we must only take out those who are directly responsible and only when they are already guilty of harming us. Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
[/quote]

If you read my last post, how could you miss the emphasis I placed on making a good impression on their children? Holding hands and singing songs is can "win this war".


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85384#msg85384 date=1098305099]
We kill 99.9% enemy combatants and .05% women and children.
They kill 100% innocent civillians.
[/quote]

I doubt that. They probably kill 75% innocent civilians and 25% defense contractors, people involved in military, infrastructure, economy, government, and other important strategical targets. Considering their tech level, it seems like a reasonable accuracy.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg85432#msg85432 date=1098313071]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85384#msg85384 date=1098305099]
But Adron what you say makes no sense. Your entire theory is that we must only take out those who are directly responsible and only when they are already guilty of harming us. Thats the stupidest thing I've ever heard.
[/quote]

If you read my last post, how could you miss the emphasis I placed on making a good impression on their children? Holding hands and singing songs is can "win this war".


[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85384#msg85384 date=1098305099]
We kill 99.9% enemy combatants and .05% women and children.
They kill 100% innocent civillians.
[/quote]

I doubt that. They probably kill 75% innocent civilians and 25% defense contractors, people involved in military, infrastructure, economy, government, and other important strategical targets. Considering their tech level, it seems like a reasonable accuracy.


[/quote]

Thats funny, I don't recall any defense contractors and military personell in the towers.

[quote]
2. Educate the people of the Middle East with a more neutral perspective, many of whom receive muslim fundamentalist teachings as part of their normal schooling.
[/quote]

Right on. I think something like an Islamic reformation would be a great thing for everyone involved.

And gosh durn it, those Iraqi kids sure hate us.

EDIT: fixed url

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85384#msg85384 date=1098305099]
We kill 99.9% enemy combatants and .05% women and children.
They kill 100% innocent civillians.
[/quote]

Where did that thoroughly spurious statistic come from?

And the remaining .05%? Innocent men?

No NO the last .05% was Ronald McDonald and the gang.... I think hamburgaler was the only one that deserved it though.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85440#msg85440 date=1098315009]
Thats funny, I don't recall any defense contractors and military personell in the towers.
[/quote]

They hit the Pentagon too, and there's bound to be some people just walking around and happening to end up in that place at that time.

[quote author=Adron link=topic=9152.msg85543#msg85543 date=1098390236]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85440#msg85440 date=1098315009]
Thats funny, I don't recall any defense contractors and military personell in the towers.
[/quote]

They hit the Pentagon too, and there's bound to be some people just walking around and happening to end up in that place at that time.
[/quote]

And what did they use? A hijacked military aircraft full of Army Rangers? No. A passanger liner full of innocent civillians.

[quote author=muert0 link=topic=9152.msg85531#msg85531 date=1098387357]
No NO the last .05% was Ronald McDonald and the gang.... I think hamburgaler was the only one that deserved it though.
[/quote]

Typical, avoid the topic by distracting from the original message to make a lame joke.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85598#msg85598 date=1098404040]
Typical, avoid the topic by distracting from the original message to make a lame joke.
[/quote]

Typical, avoid a valid question (Arta's) by simply pretending it doesn't exist.

This whole debate is typical. One sided arguments with no attempt to understand what the other person is saying.

[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85597#msg85597 date=1098403980]
And what did they use? A hijacked military aircraft full of Army Rangers? No. A passanger liner full of innocent civillians.
[/quote]

Yeah, they were casualties of war. Considering the how much money they had to spend on their weapons, it seems they had a reasonable accuracy. And besides, most of them weren't innocent, they probably weren't muslims.

[quote author=Arta[vL] link=topic=9152.msg85499#msg85499 date=1098372345]
[quote author=Hazard link=topic=9152.msg85384#msg85384 date=1098305099]
We kill 99.9% enemy combatants and .05% women and children.
They kill 100% innocent civillians.
[/quote]

Where did that thoroughly spurious statistic come from?
[/quote]

Tomorrow if I have some extra free period's I'll calculate you some exact percentages. It was meant to be a figure of speech, I'm sure that even the British can understand that.

[quote author=Tuberload link=topic=9152.msg85603#msg85603 date=1098405389]
This whole debate is typical. One sided arguments with no attempt to understand what the other person is saying.
[/quote]

Yes indeed! That's why I stopped posting in it (mostly).