OT:Letter to Southern Califonia newspaper that was not printed

Page 2 of 5  


As an interesting exercise, take a look at what is required to be an alien in Mexico. Let's just say that openly criticizing the government of Mexico if you are an alien living there is *not* a good way to remain in that country.
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

It should be that way here as well there are allot of things I disagree with in the country however my dad fought in WWII and I fly my flag openly and with respect to what it stands for. The men that died for that flag did so to protect our way of life which is now very threatend. Unless you are a citizen of this country I don't feel you have the same rights as our citizens. I also feel you should be locked up if not shot for burning a US flag, to me that is treason against this country. As always this is my opinion and the way I feel strongly, so for all the people out there that want to I have my flaq jacket on go for it.
Al

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Emmons wrote: <SNIP>

Yes, I do believe, for some reason that you would indeed hide behind women and children to protect your self.
Glen
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

a
So essentially what you're saying is that survival by any means is the only thing that really counts. Forget about family, forget about honour, forget about basic human diginity. That's exactly what you'd be doing hiding behind those skirts. And, if you'd consider foregoing all those things just to survive, what kind of person would you be and what kind of life would you have left if you did survive?
Which leads me to ask, does such a person deserve to survive?

You couldn't be more wrong.

Easy to see what you think.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
<snip>

Never would I think somebody here would put a statement like that into print. That you would hide behind innocent women and children to accomplish your needs is one of the worst statements I've heard in any OT thread in this group. And to have the audacity to suggest anyone else here would do it... shame on you.
-jtpr
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

You're wrong. To them, it's a fight to take over the world and destroy other cultures and religions.
They don't want to be left alone by Israel, they want to destroy Israel and kill every living Jew.
They don't want to accomodate or be accomodated by the West, they want to destroy what we've built, our civilization, and replace it with what the Taliban accomplished in Afghanistan.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Like I said, they're fighting for their souls.
They want to destroy Israel and the west, we want to destroy them. Depending on where you live, one side is right.
The west wants the rest of the world to march in lock step with GW Bush's idea of freedom and democracy, based on freeing up as many of the earth's resources for use by the U.S. as possible while stopping others from having access to them.
The radical Islamists want a world that follows in lock step with their religious beliefs.
Nothing I've written contradicts any of that.
It's the context that seems to be lost, we in the west seem to feel that we have some sort of mandate to inflict our beliefs on others while condemning those who would do the same. The end result is the same, deaths of innocent people who want to be left alone to tend to their own.
I say lets all stop trying to tell the other folks what to do and see what happens, it's the only thing that hasn't been tried. Sooner or later, the people are gonna decide to stop killing one another for politicians. Til then, we're all complicit in this nonsense.
John E.
wrote:

understand
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

OK, where do *you* live?
Again, the above "moral equivalency" viewpoint just borders on the absurd. "we want to destroy them?" No, we want to prevent them from destroying us; our's is a "live and let live" philosophy, it's when others do impolite things like using airplanes as missiles to bring down skyscrapers or send their own children into other countries with bombs strapped to themselves to kill civlians that we tend to get a bit riled.

"It's all Bush's fault" I'm frankly growing somewhat tired of that silly old saw. IIRC, Bush wasn't in office when the World Trade Center was first bombed, nor when the USS Cole was attacked, nor when the Kobar towers came down. Dang! Those radicals were prescient, weren't they? ... and where in the world has anyone *ever* said that the US wants to prevent others from using earth's resources (except, of course for those in the US environmental movement who would just as soon have all of us living in mud huts and living as subsistence farmers while the bulk of the US was set aside as some western Serengeti)?

OK, so, which side are you on? You (or your descendants) don't get to be neutral in this. If the policies you advocate result in a radical Islamic middle-east, a radical Islamic Europe, and encroachment of radical Islam into the US and other western countries, you are going to have to take a stand -- neutrality will be counted by the radical Islamists as the equivalent of an infidel.

You know, I just don't see that "inflict our beliefs on others" in western culture, at least not since the Inquisition was shown to be such a bad idea. Share our beliefs, yes --- inflict them, no, unless by that you mean by that stopping others from attacking and killing innocents in other countries is somehow inflicting our beliefs on others. or maybe you are espousing the opinion that killing innocent civilians is a bad thing is simply a cultural affectation of our own culture and we should not impose that on more blood-thirsty cultures who view inflicting such punishment on others as perfectly legitimate.

hmmm, seems that's been tried in the middle-east and other places numerous times. Hasn't generally worked out too well. That bit of nastiness that took place in the early 40's was a direct result of not trying to tell a certain couple of European dictators what to do. Seems that every time Israel has attempted to take a live and let live policy, even to the point of giving up land for peace, the land given up winds up being used to stage new attacks on Israel. Leaving Afghanastan alone with the Taliban, well, that didn't turn out too well either.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Well said.
Al
wrote:

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
John Emmons wrote:

You are an idiot. If there was any hope of helping you'd see the light, I'd make a longer post, but I think its hopeless.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
There's nothing quite so amusing as a zealot who can't bring themselves to even consider that there might be another way of seeing the world other than thru their own, myopic lenses.
I see "the light" quite fine thanks, if only those of you who think you've got all the answers did as well. I fear instead that you've been blinded by it.
When the situation is hopeless, there's really nothing to worry about.
John E.

Depending
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

... and most civilized nations when they have done so have acted to redress those ills.

No, what seems to be the case is some people will use the "moral equivalency" argument to justify darn near anything, no matter how horrendous or atrocious the act. To the point that "But *we* made them go for hours without sleep", or "*we* made them wear women's panties on their heads" is now considered rationalization and justification for someone taking another hostage, then slicing off their heads in front of a video camera. The moral equivalency adherents are quick to indicate that those acts of "torture" are sufficient provocation for the real torture of having one's throat cut.

OK, let's see. The terrorists launch suicide bombers into Israel, launch rockets from civilian homes in Lebanon into Israel to kill civilians (no military targets seem to be deliberately targeted). During the recent conflict, the only real military objectives attacked seems to have been the skirmish and kidnapping of several Israelli soldiers. ... and this helps the terrorist's quest for freedom, how?
During the recent activities, Israel places tanks and troops on Lebanon's border and bombs locations of terrorist rocket emplacements and storage. The terrorists respond by firing rockets on civilians in Israel. Israel enters Lebanon with tanks and troops, targeting terrorists who don't wear uniforms and who deliberately place their weapons in and around civilians and UN emplacements. The terrorists respond by launching rockets at civilians in Israel. The Israelis destroy said emplacements and rocket launch sites, unfortunately because the terrorists have deliberately placed them at civilian locations (and because terrorists don't wear uniforms), civilians are accidentally killed. The world condemns Israel for killing civilians. Meanwhile, the terrorists launch more missiles into Israel targeting civilians.
The point of the above paragraph? There are two points (and a half). First, the "moral equivalence" adherents will raise the cry that the terrorists are justified in what they are doing because they are outgunned and can't really defeat the Israeli army (who, by the way would *not* be firing at the terrorists if the terrorists weren't shooting at Israel). Again the question, how does attacking civilians in Israel help the terrorists in their search for freedom? Second point, this is a really stupid strategic maneuver -- why are the terrorists shooting at civilians 10's of miles into Israel and complaining about being overrun by the Israelli army? Why aren't they firing those rockets at the Israeli army? Wouldn't that be more logical? At a minimum, it would allow them to at least slow down the advancing troops and get their civilians out of harm's way if that was really their concern. The half a point? Why is it that the world is outraged at Israel when civilians are accidentally killed after they, or their nominal government allowed weapons caches and launch areas to be set up in civlian areas, around civilians, and manned by non-uniformed terrorists who look like civilians? Why isn't the ire directed at the government of that country for the failing to protect its citizens, at the citizens for allowing this to happen, and at the UN for failing to enforce its resolutions?
Now, the final point. What the @#$% are you talking about when you go on with the moral equivalence argument that these people are just fighting for their freedom? These people have avowed that their idea of freedom is: a) Israel is wiped off the map, b) their desired home country becomes an Islamo-fascist Shariah law paradise in which their women are considered chattel and infidels and dissidents have their arms or heads lopped off. ... and this is somehow the moral equivalent of a group of people who banded together to throw off an oppressive government that was yoking them with ever-increasing taxes, forcing them to quarter troops in their homes, and other oppressive regulations. Their rebellion was in order to form a country in which the citizens were allowed to be the best they can be and to live their own lives in freedom to worship as they please and to express their opinions about the world no matter how absurd. As far as your remark regarding people hiding behind trees and shooting at others -- there goes your moral equivalency silliness again, just because the Americans didn't buy into the European model for warfare in which two opposing groups of armed personnel marched at one another until they met and then slaughtered one another, they were still engaging military tactical and strategic targets. To be equivalent to your current "freedom fighters", they would have had to go to England and start shooting civlians in London while the British troops were attacking military posts in the colonies.
... and to call that "hypocritical" is well, silly.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

One minor point, and I hate that it contradicts an otherwise impressive argument...
Put yourself in the uptight Brit's shoes circa the 1770's... after decades of fighting "civilized" war in which you face your opponent openly on the battlefield, suddenly you are faced with a new kind of war. The opponent hides from your formations and uses the barbaric strategies of guerilla warfare to enable his smaller forces to have a chance. I'm sure they were appalled.
The BIG difference these days, it seems, is that any morality has gone out of it. The thing of it is, the Americans didn't involve civilians as shields and didn't target civilians as a rule, but they did take some of the "honor" out of war - if war can actually have it. I speak of the "honor" defined by the prevailing power of the time - the Brtis. They pretty much defined warfare at the time.
The animals we are dealing with in the middle east are further up against the wall than pre-Revolutionary War Americans ever were. They are desperate, starving, uneducated, and totally without hope. And their leaders fill these starving ingorants with a perverted religious fervor to make them do stupid things.
I hope I live to see the day when oil is no longer important. The middle east will make North Africa look like the land of plenty and the Islamists can go back to what they want to do.
And no one will give a rat's ass.
<<snip>>
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:

That's exactly why we should nuke their asses and get it over with.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I wouldn't go that far. At least not right now. I've got two gas burning vehicles and I buy food that is delived by diesel truck that is grown using gas powered farm equipment. If you think about it, our entire world would collapse without a dependable source of oil.
I'm just waiting on the price of oil to get high enough to make alternatives (Canadian Oil Sands) to the middle east more palatable. It's getting there. 70$ a barrel tops most of the cut-off points for making stuff like the Oils Sands in Canada a profitable enterprise. Right now, that place is hopping like Texas back in the early to mid 1900's.
Would you pay 5$ a gallon for gas in the USA in order to watch the middle east dry up and return to a bunch of peaceful and poor nomadic tribes? Of course, we'd first have to suffer through a bout of the harshest desert starvation to dwindle their angry numbers and temper their attitude of religious superiority and intolerance. Our friends (Dubai, UAE) would be OK, I hope.
THAT'S what I hope to live to see. I've only got another 30-40 years, and I sorely think I may miss it.
More than likely, nations will get more desparate over their dependance and go into some kind of war. Economies will fail. Millions will die (maybe billions when you think of how far the Chinese and Indians have moved from an agragarian socoiety).
America should be pretty safe as long as we annex Canada and make sure that southwestern fence is strong. We'll still suffer horribly, but should survive.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
As far as the oil goes we have our own reserves the inviromentallist are keeping us oiut of it for now. If it came to it they would be ignored and we would drill our own oil. My information comes directly from the science channel so hey lol it could be wrong but I doubt it.
opinions are like A@#wholes everyone has one.
Al

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

There would be more peace and more oil if we nukes Israel instead. We won't because they are nuclear themselves, so it teaches ALL other nations that they had better get a nuke soon to protect themselves. I predict massive nuclear proliferation in the near future.
--
Free men own guns, slaves don\'t
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

And this differs from the rest of the last 60+ years how? Nuclear proliferation prevention always has been a pipe dream no matter where or who is in charge of the US or any other country. Israel has only acted in self defense and does a real good job of making nice-nice with those who merely say they won't try to wipe them off the map. Egypt signed a peace treaty recognizing Israel's right to exist, got all their land back and developed an important trading partner.
Kurt (We'll try to remain serene and calm when Alabama gets a Bomb) Ullman
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
wrote:
... snip

I don't disagree with that viewpoint to a degree; although the prevailing idea of "civilized" war was quite a nasty thing when viewed logically -- and that would be whether one was viewing it as someone vastly outgunned or just as an outside observer.

.. and the silly thing about it is that all of the oil that really could feed and prosper those people is in the hands of those with whom they are mostly in agreement religion-wise. The whole situation is nonsensical: Iranians could be a rich and prosperous country but they are bent on erecting a radical Islamic curtain and becoming a nuclear power to further their delusions of jihadist victory. Same for Syria, Libya, and more recently Iraq. All of those countries could be prosperous, reasonable members of a very rational trading world society -- they have what other countries want and could readily build a market economy in which all of their citizens thrive. Look at what happened to all of the "aid" sent to Yasser & Co, most of it wound up in mansions in the Riviera while the people it wsa intended to help stayed poor, starving and ripe for exploitation (couldn't have been by design, could it?). Oil for food? That worked out well, didn't it.

+--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+ If you're gonna be dumb, you better be tough +--------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

"Civilized" war is just war fought by rules invented to make the bigger guy win. If you fight by his rules you are guaranteed to lose.
--
Free men own guns, slaves don\'t
www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/5357/
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.