Nutjobs Ranting About Politics.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
So I believe what you are saying is that in the wake of 9/11, despite Afghanistan and Iraq, terrorist incidents have seen a significant increase. Does this suggest anything about our response? Wasn't invading Iraq supposed to lessen terrorism, not increase it?

I was helping a Bagguette this weekend with homework. We spoke of causation and correlation. Perhaps you'd like to sit in next time?

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by bilmore
I was helping a Bagguette this weekend with homework. We spoke of causation and correlation. Perhaps you'd like to sit in next time?

The nifty thing about sitting in the White House is you have enormous resources at your disposal and can make decisions that will change the course of events.

The drag is that you are held accountable for your watch - you get to figure out what to do to cause the right result, but if you fail, you lose. Bush decided to wage a war on terror by invading Iraq; he had other choices he could have made, but this is where he spent his resources, and we get to judge him on the results.

Now that you're talking cause and effect and correlation, perhaps you'd like to explain to me just what effect invading Iraq was intended to have?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by bilmore
Please. I show you a list like what I pasted in, and you imply that we take precipitate action? Weak.

I wasn't implying that we take precipitate action. I was implying that you are thinking like a racist.

You suggested killing all Arabs who fail to ake what you consider to be adequate action to demonstrate that they aren't one of "them," although you fail to explain how the nukes you suggest dropping are going to be so discriminating.

I'm simply asking, if your position is so sensible and correct, and it is justified by the fact that "those people" are soulless killers, shouldn't we apply the same solution to the nascent terrorists here in America, before they too get out of hand? Or am I correct in thinking that your solution to the problem of Arab terrorism is only okay with you because it is directed at someone other than white Americans?

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Greedy,Greedy,Greedy
Careful, Wonk, talking analytically about terrorism never got anyone any points, and that's what this is all about. This analytical garbage might help you understand and combat terrorism, and might help us come up with a strategy that works, but that is very much what this is NOT about.

God, why won't these Democrats get tough on terrorists and just nuke somebody. All the softies do is talk, talk, talk. (Oh, yeh, and occassionally win bronze stars).

Actually, it's not at all about points, 3G. It's about fear. I see normally intelligent, rational people talking about killing a massive number of people different from them and justifying it on the basis of the actions of a dedicated minority of that group and it frightens me.

Edited to remove some shit that I posted before realizing that 3G is simply either (i) provoking debate or (ii) just stirring up the shit. Either way, my initial response was wrong.

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
Yes. Not one of those entries took place on our shores. Iraq has technically increased terrorism. Elsewhere.

I'm sure that brings comfort to the families of the 995 Americans who have died. Elsewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5911852/

[taxwonk]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
2.

All those who answer "yes" to "Do you believe those whose religious beliefs are not the same as yours will go straight to hell?" should be gathered up and sent to a desert island. Each of them should be given a knife. Three months later, we fly over and drop a dozen daisy cutters to polish off the survivors.

World peace ensured.

Unless they decide that they are small enough in number that the world is big enough for THEM to share. All they have to do is joint together and finish off the rest of us.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
I'm sure that brings comfort to the families of the 995 Americans who have died. Elsewhere.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/5911852/

You can't always get what you want. Bush could only hope to control what happens here. So he got what he needed, and it will probably get him re-elected.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by taxwonk
I wasn't implying that we take precipitate action. I was implying that you are thinking like a racist.

You suggested killing all Arabs who fail to ake what you consider to be adequate action to demonstrate that they aren't one of "them," although you fail to explain how the nukes you suggest dropping are going to be so discriminating.

I'm simply asking, if your position is so sensible and correct, and it is justified by the fact that "those people" are soulless killers, shouldn't we apply the same solution to the nascent terrorists here in America, before they too get out of hand? Or am I correct in thinking that your solution to the problem of Arab terrorism is only okay with you because it is directed at someone other than white Americans?

Cool. I show you a list of twenty years of Islamicist terrorism directed at infidels. You give me one bombing by a nutcase backed by no organization. I suggest in past posts that we are confronted with a movement - a virulent Islamicist movement (note the distinction between that and Islamic) - bent on returning world power to their gawd. I also suggest that, given the scope and horror of their thinking and actions, I would be proud to participate in their end. I make it clear that I include, as I said, participants, supporters, and the quiet sort of suppporters who won't say anything against butchering little kids, agree that Allah should rule the whole earth, and don't mind this path to that end.

And I'm a racist.

Ran out of arguments, huh?

[Shape Shifter]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You can't always get what you want. Bush could only hope to control what happens here. So he got what he needed, and it will probably get him re-elected.

Does the London Bach Choir not count as horns?

[Did you just call me Coltrane?]

Originally posted by sebastian_dangerfield
You can't always get what you want. Bush could only hope to control what happens here. So he got what he needed, and it will probably get him re-elected.

What the fuck has he done here? Our food supply, airports, etc are still highly vulnerable. But at least we're safe from Saddam's WMDs.

[Sexual Harassment Panda]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Unless they decide that they are small enough in number that the world is big enough for THEM to share. All they have to do is joint together and finish off the rest of us.

That's why we keep the technological advantage.

Plus, they'll have to swim ashore. The Christians will be a bigger problem there - apparently they can walk on water.

[bilmore]

Originally posted by Sexual Harassment Panda
Plus, they'll have to swim ashore. The Christians will be a bigger problem there - apparently they can walk on water.

It's still workable. You can safely predict that someone in that crowd will turn all the water into wine. There being no indication that they can walk on wine, they will all drown along with the less blessed.

[Greedy,Greedy,Greedy]

Originally posted by taxwonk
Actually, it's not at all about points, 3G. It's about fear. I see normally intelligent, rational people talking about killing a massive number of people different from them and justifying it on the basis of the actions of a dedicated minority of that group and it frightens me.

Yes, there is a lot here that is about fear, but I expect leaders, like Bush, and people with the analytical ability of Bilmore, Club, et al. not to succomb to that fear and let it overcome their good sense. The lists like the one Bilmore put together are wonderful rhetorical devices, but are getting used here as a way to avoid debate and appeal to emotion. I have a disdain for that approach; it is the Not Me/Hank approach.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Did you just call me Coltrane?
What the fuck has he done here? Our food supply, airports, etc are still highly vulnerable. But at least we're safe from Saddam's WMDs.

He put the war elsewhere. Sure, our shit is highly vulnerable, but the gamble is that Queda's resources are spread now. Iraq is the flytrap for a lot of the people who'd otherwise focus energy on striking our shores. Why leave the front line on our beaches when we can place it smack in the center of the Arab world? Is this a wise policy? There's only one way we'll find out.

[sebastian_dangerfield]

Originally posted by Shape Shifter
Does the London Bach Choir not count as horns?

No. No they do not.

And that's the most clever Coke commercial in decades.