|
i fail to see how rehearsing outlines of the cartoon "terrorist" in any way helps to legitimate the category.
everyone is aware of what the "terrorist" is supposed to mean in the vacant little world that is particular to american conservatism. if you read through the "defining" features listed by ncb and stevo--with a characteristic aside from ustwo---you will see a demonstration of the point i was trying to make earlier. that you repeat this terminology and rehearse what everyone already knows about it really does not help if your point is that---somehow----the notion of "terrorist" or "them" is functional. addendum: then i saw this from stevo: Quote:
btw: so that an even more idiotic trajectory does not get set up by this: no-one is denying that the states might face political threats from people. the claim is that the category "terrorist" of "them" is worthless for thinking about them, much less doing anything. |
Quote:
:lol: thank you for clarifing raochboys point even more. And what can we do with this precious analysis of yours? Hunt every musilm who is younger than 22y? Don't you think it could be more useful to have some better information? I know you Administration loves fishy intel but... We need to know more about the different terrorist groups, about their motivations and so on. I said it numerous time already but you right winger are happy to fight a vague "symptom" rather than exaim and fight the illness |
Quote:
Are you trying to say that islamic suicide bombers are just every day normal people trying to express themselves politically and its useless to try and seperate them from the rest of the populatation? |
Quote:
The MI5 checked him and they thought he was unsuspicious |
So are you saying it is useless to try and separate suicidal mass murderers from the rest of the popupation?
|
Quote:
|
before
Quote:
and stevo ... for the record..islamic jihad is a palestinian group. it had nothing to do with the killing of american marines at that base. what you are thinking of is Hizbollah. if i were you i'd be checking my sources. i stopped reading the article after that. |
Quote:
So apparently he had no strong ties to extremist terror groups when they checked him, or they failed to find those links. |
Quote:
They;re committed to the same outcome....no Jews in Israel |
................Mark...................
|
"Mark", Tecoyah? I'm not clear on your meaning.
|
The new topic explains it. :)
|
Quote:
And there were references to Iranian-back Islamic Jihad, which was meant to say Hizbollah as well. Just because two terror organizations' names were mixed up doesn't mean the attacks listed never happened. |
Quote:
Brian: Excuse me. Are you the Judean People's Front? Reg: Fuck off! We're the People's Front of Judea ..... FRANCIS: Wankers. BRIAN: Can I... join your group? REG: No. Piss off. BRIAN: I didn't want to sell this stuff. It's only a job. I hate the Romans as much as anybody. PEOPLE'S FRONT OF JUDEA: Shhhh. Shhhh. Shhh. Shh. Shhhh. REG: Stumm. JUDITH: Are you sure? BRIAN: Oh, dead sure. I hate the Romans already. REG: Listen. If you really wanted to join the P.F.J., you'd have to really hate the Romans. BRIAN: I do! REG: Oh, yeah? How much? BRIAN: A lot! REG: Right. You're in. Listen. The only people we hate more than the Romans are the fucking Judean People's Front. P.F.J.: Yeah... JUDITH: Splitters. P.F.J.: Splitters... FRANCIS: And the Judean Popular People's Front. P.F.J.: Yeah. Oh, yeah. Splitters. Splitters... LORETTA: And the People's Front of Judea. P.F.J.: Yeah. Splitters. Splitters... REG: What? LORETTA: The People's Front of Judea. Splitters. REG: We're the People's Front of Judea! LORETTA: Oh. I thought we were the Popular Front. REG: People's Front! C-huh. FRANCIS: Whatever happened to the Popular Front, Reg? REG: He's over there. -------------------- |
Quote:
And to put 'hugs' and 'understanding' in the same sentence degrades the value of 'understanding'. Is that your intent? Do you see NO value in understanding your opponent? Understanding how they* recruit. Understanding their* tactical methods. Understanding their* strategic (specific) aims. Understanding their* relationships with other organizations. Understanding the specific flows of money within their* organizations. *the use of 'they' and 'their' refers those that actually have connection to acts of violence. I'm sure there are more... I don't think anyone on this board would argue that getting "understanding" of those things is a bad idea. Or related to "hugs". Anyone on the NCB side of things want to say that understanding those things is bad or usless? If not, then please stop with the rhetoric that "understanding" is a problem. What I get out of Pacifier/Roachboy's posts is that talking about generalities, and hyping up the fear level is useless. I have no idea why anyone could, or would, disagree with that. |
Quote:
Quote:
Also, you're not correct about the hugs thingy. There are people on the left side of the spectrum who have suggested as such, so it's not a stretch for me to suggest so. Here's one example: Melt their weapons, melt their hearts, melt their anger with love." -- Shirley MacLaine on her anti-terrorism policy |
ncb:
your primary point of departure appears to be that odious little pep talk rove gave to loyalists a few weeks ago. you repeat the same logic, use the same words, yet you pretend this is your argument. this appears to be how folk from your side of the political spectrum operate, however: through the internalization of talking points. which is the best proof i know of exactly what the right really means when they talk about individualism. your decision to cite shirley maclaine is really funny. is shirley an autonomous state? does she have an anti-terrorism policy? can i get a passport that would make me a citizen of shirley maclaine? and of course the question that would most concern me as a right-thinking american: can i launder money in shirley maclaine? she would be a smaller state than sealand. that is pretty impressive. |
Quote:
If you are argueing with the whole world, good luck and god bless. I'll not be reading you anymore. If you want to discuss current events with the members here, bring it on. If someone would care to respond to Pacifier's posts, or RB's, what a great conversation we could have. I'd sure learn something. But I don't hold much hope. I continue to see those on the 'left' respond to points of those on the 'right', and those on the 'right' respond to nutjobs somewhere out there. But I'm sure I'm just biased and crazy... |
Quote:
But I can tell you from my own experience that there have been many times that I read a newsstory, see a bit on tv, or get in a conversation with another person about a topic or current event before I hear anyone else's opinion on the matter (and days before a 'talking points' memo is delivered to my doorstep). I then develop my own opinions and ideas about whatever issue is at hand. Sometimes I keep those opinions to myself (say if I'm by myself and I'm reading a newsstory) or I may begin a dialogue with someone if I am in company. More often than not, if its a big enough story, the next day there's a buzz. Rush says this, the whitehouse says that, some fox news contributor says whatever. And you know what, I say to myself, "hey, thats just what I thought" - not all the time, but more often than not. I think possibly because you don't think like a conservative you don't understand that I (we) are not being told what to think or how to think it. We formulate our own opinions and ideas, and it just so happens, they are often similar. Its not a suprise to me that like-minded folk come to the same conclusions independent of one another. I find it mildly insulting that you dismiss someone's opinion because it is similar to an official memo or right-wing 'talking points'. Try to understand the possibility that people can come to their own conclusions without the help of big brother. |
ok stevo.
but i find this repetition happening over and over on this board and elsewhere. i dont know, maybe it's just a really really long string of coincidences. maybe it's a function of operating within a tightly controlled media environment within which there is no operational distinction between information and political spin on information. of the two, the second seems most plausible, dont you think? btw: to clarify--i dont have anything against people who are conservative as people. i really dont......i disagree with conservative politics, and argue against that politics....but i do find the tight co-ordination of conservative opinions unsettling at times, in a stepford wives kind of way. |
Its also possible that once people arrive at their own conclusions, as similar as they are to 'official talking points,' a person then takes the talking points as their own. and individual opinions can get blurred and it appears as tho the right has only one stance or one idea on a particular issue. I will agree that there is little distinction between information and political spin on information, but then again, you just have to know where to look.
---add--- But I read the same NYTimes articles and Washington Post articles as you do, yet we arrive at different conclusions. There has to be some distinction between information and political spin on it. I would have to say the info comes first, but it depends on where you hear it first. |
stevo,
with regards to my last post, i only brought it up to make a point that if these sources cannot get it right, then you should be wary of them. that was all. but after googling it, here is what i found... Quote:
|
Quote:
"Only trouble with this war on terror is that even though the terrorists are real, we can't ever find them all. It's like trying to kill all the mosquitos. It's just not gonna happen." - shakran This is my exact thought about this "War". I'm really not sure what the US and it's allies are trying to accomplish. They are fighting people who are willing to blow themselves to pieces, They are teaching their children to become what they are. I really don't think there is a way to stop terrorism. It could be slowed down within our own country with heavy security in hot spots that may be prime targets for terrorists to strike..But that's the thing, They can strike anywhere, If it's a populated area..Then it's a prime target. I would like to think that if america and it's allies pulled out and left them to live their lives, They would do so..But, Bush's ego is too big for that and I don't think it would stop them from attacking the wests soil even if every country involved in this "war" pulled out. So..I think that their is no right way to deal with Terrorists or Insurgents..whatever you want to call them. They are a different type of Cancer that most likely will never be cured. |
Quote:
At no point I said "it is americas fault", at no point i said "hug the enemy" :mad: boatin listed perfectly what I meant, an additional important point would be: Understanding what moviates someone to become one of them* |
a remarkably sane intervention from a politico......
somehow this line of interpretation of the phantom "terrorism" has been excluded from the hysteria-based discourse on the topic particular to the states. Quote:
|
| All times are GMT -8. The time now is 10:55 AM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.0 PL2
© 2002-2012 Tilted Forum Project