On Mon, 11 Jul 2005 13:47:09 -0500, B.B. u wrote:
In article ,
Dave Hinz wrote:

[...]

That's a _great_ idea. No, really. Let's all just give the terrorists
a big hug, and maybe they'll be nice to us. Yeah, that's it.

Where did I say hug? Be specific--don't just make up a bunch of ****.

It's the same thing. You're spouting the touchy-feely crap. They would
see that as weakness, not as a reason to stop hating us.

No, it isn't the same thing. If you don't pick any fights your
chances of getting your ass kicked go down. I don't hug bikers, but I
don't pick fights with 'em either. Nothing touchy-feely about it.

The fight has already been picked. It was picked centuries ago. W
didn't start the fight, yet you seem to be blaming him for it.
If you turn around during a biker bar fight, you get something smashed
over your head. It's not about not initiating a fight, it's about not
giving somene who is already fighting with you an opening.

Or maybe, they'd see it as an act of cowardice and weakness, just like
they saw all of Clinton's useless responses to the increasing level of
terrorist actions during his tenure. Had he responded strongly, they
wouldn't have escalated.

It's been increasing longer than Bush has been in office. Terrorism
escalated quite a bit during Clinton's years (do you need reminders?),
and he went from responding, to responding strongly, to responding quite
strongly, to "OK, now I'm really getting ****ed off guys, that's
enough". In other words, ineffectively. "Hey look, we can do whatever
we want and the most we get is a strenuous objection from the
weasel-in-chief".

So has there been any change in the rise in terrorism since Bush's
war?

Well, the US hasn't been attacked again, has it?

I mean, if what he's doing is effective then there should at least
be a slowdown in the increase, but that isn't what's happening.

Where was that followup to 9/11/01 that OBL threatened us with again?
I keep not seeing it.

According to everyone who studies these things (except Bush's
administration) it's still rising, and it's rising more quickly.

That's an unsupportably weak generality.

From all that I've seen terrorism is more or less a byproduct of a
conflict. Trying to eliminate terrorism by warfare is akin to trying to
burn away ashes.

Give me a break. If you have a group of bad people, you don't turn
them into good people by leaving them alone, you make them stop being
bad people by making them into dead people.

Were they born evil?

Nature vs. nurture? Who knows. Centuries of hate has a habit of
changing cultures.

Not true. And speaking of treason...how are you Anti-Bush and anti-war
types doing about the terrorists?

Nothing--we can't.

Really? Nothing at all?

Nothing I can think of. Care to offer a few ideas?

So you feel that the government not only is the only group that can do
anything about terrorism, but that they _should_ be the only ones to do
it?

How did you come up with that?

Well, if you're saying you can't do anything because the republicans
control the government, then logic would indicate that you feel the
gummint has to fix it. You complain that you're not in it and therefore
can't do anything; the logical meaning of that is that they're the only
ones who can.

Well, I suppose that's consistant with the whole Democrat point of
view - "take care of it for us, and tell us what's good for us". Let's
see. You could keep your eyes open. Have situational awareness.
Notice when someone or something doesn't look right. Maybe you could
even, you know, volunteer as an emergency resopnder or something.

Oh, well in that case, sure, we're doing something. But in terms of
laws, policies, and enforcement, we can't do anything.

Backpedal acknowledged.

The republican nutjobs have pretty much total
control of the US and therefore are the source of all the current
massive ****ups unfolding all of the US and Iraq. Congrats.

Tell me again how that congressional vote worked, please, you know, the
one to take action in Iraq? I seem to recall that a few people on
the blue side of the aisle voted for it too... and do you need to see
the quotes again?

So are you implying that the Iraq war is a ****up?

You seem to have confused you with me.

No, I stated pretty clearly that the war is a ****up because I'm
direct. You imply, infer, and just plain make **** up--like that
hugging thing.

I'm not implying it's a ****up, I'm stating outright that people on the
blue side of the aisle voted for it as well, so if you feel it's a
****up, you're welcome to blame _all_ the people who voted for it, not
just the red ones.

But above you
said we needed to respond strongly. Could you explain that apparent
contradiction?

You put words into my mouth and then ask me to defend them? Sorry, but
I recognize your (failed) rhetorical technique.

Then please explain why you bring up the vote for the war to defend
what I called "****ups" in Iraq.

Because your people also voted for it, so don't just blame my people.

It seemed as if you were trying to
say, basically, "Yeah? Well, the Democrats supported this ****up as
much as the Republicans did!" If that's not what you were trying to say
then, by all means, explain what you were trying to get at by bringing
up the congressional vote.

Yes, that _IS_ what I was saying. Democrats also voted for it. I can
roll out all the quotes from Clinton, Clinton, Kerry, and all those, if
you'd like, regarding OBL, SH, and so on. But, you've seen 'em already.

But if you noticed the mass protests after that vote you'll see that
the democratic wing of congress diverged from its base pretty wildly in
that case.

So, you're mad at Bush. Got it. Wouldn't it be more helpful to direct
your anger at the people who you feel abandoned you? They're more
likely to listen than the people who already know you disagreed before
the vote.

I'm not mad at Bush so much as appalled that anyone would think this
war is a good idea.

Take it up with your congresscritters then.

But I suppose you've got a point--who am I to expect the president of
the US to pay any attention to half of his people?

Well, I know you're trying to be a snot, but his job is to run the damn
country, not govern based on polls like the last guy did.

happened ever since the beginning of history, and probably since far
before that. Traditionally, the easiest way to keep yourself from
getting killed is to just make friends with everyone around you.

Or, to have a bigger stick than the gorilla who is trying to steal your
stuff or kill you.

The terrorists are not gorillas.

So now you're not only putting words in my mouth, but telling me what
the ones I use mean? Wow.

Then why did you call them gorillas.

gorilla. Not guerilla. FFS. It's a ****ing analogy. Some big guy
wants your stuff. Do you try to be friends, or do you whack 'em with a
big stick?

They are people and think pretty
much the same way all other people think. What works for controlling
one group will likewise work for controlling terrorists.

You're delusional. They. Don't. ****ing. Like. Us.

No ****. Why don't they? Wouldn't it stand to reason that some of
their hatred might come from years of us meddling with their governments?

If you substitute "years" with "centuries", "meddle" with "being
fundamentally incompatible with" and "government" to
"culture", then I'd agree.

Trying to pretend otherwise has only caused problems so far.

Riiiight, because leaving 'em alone and "protesting strongly" during
Clinton's years sure kept things from getting out of hand, didn't they.
Oh wait, they didn't.

Eight years of Clinton killed fewer people than four years of
Bush--both on the battlefield and off.

Yes. Maybe he should have taken definative action instead of
pussy-footing around, and we wouldn't have been attacked on 9/11/01.
Maybe. Weak responses (which you seem to see as good or something)
emboldened the terrorists.

Yeah, except it's naiive to think that if we're just friendly that
they'll stop attacking us. Dangerously naiive.

It won't stop them, and I allowed for that: "population at large
would be far less likely to attack us and far more likely to help us
find any actual terrorists that may stick around."

And then people like you would call them "puppets of the Bush regime" or
something. Yes, that's already happening.

No, people like me wouldn't. That's why I'm not. Those people who
are calling them puppets aren't like me.

OK, fair enough. Then why do you pretend the population who is helping
us, isn't?

The counter to "fighting" is "not fighting". If you just stop fighting
them, sorry, put the guitars away but that ain't gonna make 'em like us,
or stop killing us; that just gives them room to expand.

I never said we had to stop fighting when needed. But I don't think
Iraq was needed. Nor do I think our entire history of trying to
manipulate governments in the Middle East was needed.

Well then, let's get independant of their resources and they can just
kill each other instead of us. I'm fine with that.

Even those who don't want to fight against you also won't want to help.
Terrorism breeds pretty quickly in that sort of environment. In the
end, people get killed anyway, the only difference is that their lives
sucked before they died in a police state.

And who do you feel lives in a police state, exactly?

Singapore, for one.

Relavance being....?

It's a police state. You asked for a police state, so I named one.
Was that not what you wanted? I can only read what you've typed in; I
can't read your mind.

Relavance of Singapore to a US vs. mideast terrorist group being what,
exactly?