It doesn't really matter what I consider the above groups - You and I
have biases toward believing one definition, whereas the folks holding
the opposing veiw, I'm sure, have a different definition for the same
group. That's been my point all along.
Perhaps then the a-bomb was a poor example... how about the fire-bombing
of Tokyo, the forest-fire bombs in the NW or the nightly bombing of
London? These actions, AFAIK, were intended to terrorize and break the
Well, I've got to let these political threads go - just gets me too
wound up - and I don't need to cause myself more thought on this stuff
- I come here for a diversion from such concerns. You, sir, may have the
last word if you like.
Owen Lowe and his Fly-by-Night Copper Company
Offering a shim for the Porter-Cable 557 type 2 fence design.
Yes, I think it does. In an earlier post, you equated those groups with the
Palestinian terrorists who murder innocent civilians. I said before, and I
repeat, that it takes a special kind of mind to see moral equivalence between
guerilla warfare directed at the soldiers of an occupying army, and terrorist
acts directed at an innocent civilian population.
Doug Miller (alphageek-at-milmac-dot-com)
Get a copy of my NEW AND IMPROVED TrollFilter for NewsProxy/Nfilter
by sending email to autoresponder at filterinfo-at-milmac-dot-com
You must use your REAL email address to get a response.
But you still have an annoying habit of not responding to what
was said. In the post you're replying to, Australopithecus
"BTW, equating loyal opposition to supporting terrorism is a
violation of the principles of democracy. You have your say,
which I may
disagree with, but will defend to the death your right to say,
expect the same of you."
I agree with him - do you?
Loyal opposition to specific government policies? Sure, I agree with
Opposition to hunting down islamofascist terrorists and exterminating
them? Not a chance. That means losing the war, which means our
extermination (I say "our" meaning the west in general).
Any opposition that is meant to interfere with winning this war is by
definition supporting terrorism.
I suppose one could make that argument. I'm not, but one could.
Pacifism in a struggle to the death (which you've agreed is the case)
could be logically and legitimately construed as giving aid and comfort
to the enemy.
I'm not a fanatic about anything. I'm expressing my opinions in what I
thout was a free exchange of ideas.
Your choice of course. That's unfortunate, as I enjoy your postings and
will continue to read them and probably reply from time to time.
But it's a typical response by members of the LL to uncomfortable
arguments and facts, so I'm not terribly surprised.
Well, I'd guess we might have a few more allies, we might have better
international cooperation on intelligence, and we might not have
invaded a country that had absolutely zero to do with Al Qaeda. We
might have done a lot of things smarter. Reagan had much better
judgement, much better diplomatic skills, and a much clearer vision of
how to lead by consensus.
Comparing Bush to Reagan is really just silly. To co-opt Lloyd
Bentsen's famous line against Dan Quayle, "We know Ronald Reagan and
George Bush is no Ronald Reagan."
If this is true we've got a real problem as this site was photographed OUTSIDE
Baghdad AFTER the war and then disappeared out from under our very noses.
There you go, either the people in the military are complete idiots, and that
would have to be an understatement, or the Trib is taking liberties with it's
Judging from your tone it would suit you better if the Tribune is lying, or not
reporting the complete truth.
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.