Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
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 is ineffective? Tell that, first, to the families of the 9/11 victims. Then tell that to Zapatero and the other cowards in Spain. Terrorists kill people: they kill innocent people, which is the very thing you demonize the United States for doing. Let's try and avoid a double standard here.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
Terrorism, as an offensive weapon, is ineffective and gimpy.
|
Soviets in Afghanistan, Americans in Vietnam - 'nuff said.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
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?
|
A particularly smelly red herring, but nothing more. Pat Robertson, as a single American and not a political leader, cannot and should not be blamed for what you consider to be immoral actions of the United States. I don't blame OBL for forcing Saudi Arabian women to walk around in 100 degree heat wearing black shadoors.
Megadeaths are millions of deaths. The U.S. has participated in some conflicts where there were civilian megadeaths: WWI (I'm guessing), WWI, possibly Vietnam and Korea - that's all. Especially post-1960 (otherwise, you will invariably start talking about Native Americans or slavery), the United States has not been causing civilian megadeaths.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
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?
|
I agree with you that this is the situation we are facing: now we need to stop worrying about Robertson's wet noodle (which is very small in the first place
) and focus on OBL's rocket launcher.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
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.
|
Ooooookay. But Pat Robertson casually suggesting we off the President of Venezuela some how does measure on that scale? We're not comparing OBL with The Great Satan here - we're comparing him to the annoying, incorrect blowhard known as Pat Robertson.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
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.
|
Part slippery slope, part red herring. The progression is facinating, but I still feel that your analogy here is entirely incorrect.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Yakk
[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.
|
I'm not suggesting you ally yourself with anybody, least of all Pat Robertson. I'm just suggesting you face the breath-takingly obvious reality that Osama bin Laden is more dangerous, more sinister, more evil, etc - than Pat Robertson. I can't put it any more clearly than that.