Quote:
|
Originally Posted by politicophile
Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden. Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden. Pat Robertson is more dangerous than Osama bin Laden... - I thought that if I said it out loud a few times, I might be able to make sense of it.
|
The Terrorists are incompetent. Terrorism in general is a poor and ineffective way to cause harm to your opponents, unless your opponents sieze up and go into spasms.
The largest Terrorist attack in history managed to kill more people in that month than the number of traffic accidents --
in that same city -- in that same month. I believe by the second month, traffic accidents where once again ahead.
And that attack succeeded far beyond the wildest dreams of the attackers. They got increadibly "lucky", they had no idea they would cause nearly that much damage.
Terrorism, as an offensive weapon, is ineffective and gimpy.
The US military machine is highly effective at overthrowing nations, causing megacivilian deaths, and generally causing damage. Do I really need to provide citations of the nations which the US has invaded, attacked, overthrown, or destabalized? Here is a game! You pick a year -- any year from 1960 on -- and I'll tell you a nation that the US was destabalizing, attacking, or invading within 4 years of that date.
Maybe you'll win. But I doubt it. After all, the US election cycle is 8 years long, and what are the odds that a president would give up that big a popularity boost?
What I see is two men. One of which has a broken neck and is wielding a wet noodle, and swearing he wants to slice you open with it. The other has a rocket launcher aimed at you, and tells you to start dancing. Who is the more dangerous?
Because that is the relative power involved here.
Yes, OBL managed to encourage people to kill a few thousand people. This sucks. But at the scale of global conflict and US military power, it is a pittance.
Quote:
Pat Robertson says that it would be a good idea to kill one person and you think that makes him more dangerous than the man who authorized the 9/11 attacks and God knows what else? I'm sorry, but I cannot understand this position. Where do Hitler and Stalin fit in? Maybe in between OBL and Robertson? 
|
Pat Robertson says it is a good idea for the US government to kill the democratically elected leader of a country that has engaged in nothing that even approximates acts of war against the USA.
Unilateral, covert, acts of war by the USA have caused untold damage over the world. The USA has been willing to engage in doings these thinly vieled acts, and the people of the USA have stood by and cheered. Continued support for such acts is dangerous, deadly, immorral and evil.
And I will not stand idly by, and pretend it doesn't matter. I mean, he just wants the US government to overthrow a popular, democratically elected, Latin American president. Nothing the US hasn't done before, anon and anon -- that makes it right and just? Right?
No. It does not. I will not pardon these acts. There is a line, and I will not cross it, nor will I excuse those who do.
Quote:
|
Back at you Jack: what side are you on?
|
Truth. I will not ally with liars. I will not pretend murderers are not murderers. I will not excuse someone of their crimes just because they wear a suit, look like me, and speak honeyed words.