I agree that it would be good thing if the people wanted it to happen. The problem with this is that many want sharia law. They will come around eventually I think, there was recently a massive protest against islamization (is that a word?) in Turkey, most of Iran is secular even though their government is run by religious nuts. Many good things have come from religion but so have tons of bad things. Religion has no place in government I think, it's too easily perverted.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.
"We need more terrorist attacks" says GOP chairman
- Thread starter b22
- Start date
Reason for suicide attacks...
Many of them are poor uneducated people, who feel that only by blowing up "infidels" can they be happy. They don't have access to resources like here. Most of them are pretty much on their last string of hope before they commit to the act. Nutcases like Westboro choose to be ignorant even though they have the resources to learn more, they are also small in number. Also the fact of the matter is one religion is fairly dominant in this country, they don't have to bomb people in order to get what they want, they can use the media and their own followers to push for political change because they are the majority. However they fail to see that the first amendment is there to make sure that NO religion was favored over another, we've kinda lost sight of that. These terrorists commit to the actions they do because they feel the west doesn't give them a chance to truly voice what the issue is. Personally I believe religion and government are a terrible mix, and that it's because of the religous right that abortion, gay marrige, and responsible drug consumption are huge issues. I feel that no religion is absolutely right, and that if we live in a free country we should act as such and neither favor or disfavor a religion.
Epyon
Many of them are poor uneducated people, who feel that only by blowing up "infidels" can they be happy. They don't have access to resources like here. Most of them are pretty much on their last string of hope before they commit to the act. Nutcases like Westboro choose to be ignorant even though they have the resources to learn more, they are also small in number. Also the fact of the matter is one religion is fairly dominant in this country, they don't have to bomb people in order to get what they want, they can use the media and their own followers to push for political change because they are the majority. However they fail to see that the first amendment is there to make sure that NO religion was favored over another, we've kinda lost sight of that. These terrorists commit to the actions they do because they feel the west doesn't give them a chance to truly voice what the issue is. Personally I believe religion and government are a terrible mix, and that it's because of the religous right that abortion, gay marrige, and responsible drug consumption are huge issues. I feel that no religion is absolutely right, and that if we live in a free country we should act as such and neither favor or disfavor a religion.
Epyon
If I say "all whatever.com needs is another server crash and people will see why software security is important," am I saying I want whatever.com to crash?
If you sold security software, yes. That's a very good parallel to the real situation, thanks for the analogy.
Just one point Epyon.
If they were truely the majority, I think this country would be a different place, I think the key is they do not feel powerless, like for example the Palestians do.
The Christian right, has options, either at the polling place, the newspapers and such. Thus with options, and the knowledge of those options people feel as though they have power to change the world around them.
Not a major point, but I think an important one.
because they are the majority.
If they were truely the majority, I think this country would be a different place, I think the key is they do not feel powerless, like for example the Palestians do.
The Christian right, has options, either at the polling place, the newspapers and such. Thus with options, and the knowledge of those options people feel as though they have power to change the world around them.
Not a major point, but I think an important one.
LightningJoe
New member
A certain religion teaches that its followers are preferred by God and everybody else should die or be a servant. The reality is that the devotees of this religion are the most backward and impoverished people outside of sub-Saharan Africa, whereas the non-believers in the West are wealthy and powerful. This is concrete, unambiguous proof that their religion is wrong. Hence, the hostility.
as for the post above me, I'd say ALL religion is wrong
While the guy in the article is a douchebag I can't help but point out that his comment is being misinterpreted. Like threegun said, he's pointing out what another attack would bring about, not that he's hoping for one. This is about as silly as twisting Al Gore's words and pretending he claimed to invent the internet.
This thread should die soon, things like this just clog up the series of tubes.
While the guy in the article is a douchebag I can't help but point out that his comment is being misinterpreted. Like threegun said, he's pointing out what another attack would bring about, not that he's hoping for one. This is about as silly as twisting Al Gore's words and pretending he claimed to invent the internet.
This thread should die soon, things like this just clog up the series of tubes.
b22,
The problem isn't so much how they see themselves, it's how others see them...specifically the group they claim to represent.
Indeed (and I know this will get everybody screeching) "terrorists" *are* "freedom fighters". There's no distinguishing between the two, other than which government's targeted and which people are "defended".
When it comes down to it, there's *no* difference between them and us. None. Nada.
Anybody here could become so devoted to a cause that they'd be willing to die or kill for it (even if that means killing non-combatants). The individual motives may vary (ending slavery, ending abortion, ending the encroachment on our civil liberties, ending the imperialism of the Zionist "great Satan") but they're only motives.
Same goes for methods. Whether it's hanging uppity darkies from trees, lopping heads off Americans, or exploding truck bombs where toddlers are present...all just methods.
It's all very morally ambiguous, and people absolutely hate hearing it.
Here's what's not ambiguous: They are attacking us. We have an obligation to protect ourselves and our loved ones. They are nothing but an ill-screened, ill-equipped, ill-trained, and numerically small third-world army that transcends borders and doesn't wear uniforms. The rest of this religious/moral/ethical debate is just a sideshow that distracts us from the main focus. We're afraid to really look at the enemy; we're too afraid we might see ourselves. So much easier to couch it in terms of "good vs. evil", assume that they're products of insanity and/or a malignant religion, even if that means following policies that help them more than us.
We need to get away from the good/bad distinctions and start thinking in terms of we/they. They're really not that hard to beat, but we have so many reasons to not do what it takes. Especially if "we're" the government, who would much rather keep us in fear of the terrorists than eliminate the threat.
And ultimately, harnessing that fear (such as in the article) is just another form of terrorism when you get down to it.
The problem with getting rid of these groups is that they see themselves as freedom fighters. I think lots of government officials in the middle east also think that's what they are. Pakistan has one of the most powerful militaries in the middle east and could easily kick Al-Qaeda out of the country, I think. They won't do it because their soldiers wouldn't cooperate. Remember when the first americans fought against their imperialist british masters? Well...
The problem isn't so much how they see themselves, it's how others see them...specifically the group they claim to represent.
Indeed (and I know this will get everybody screeching) "terrorists" *are* "freedom fighters". There's no distinguishing between the two, other than which government's targeted and which people are "defended".
When it comes down to it, there's *no* difference between them and us. None. Nada.
Anybody here could become so devoted to a cause that they'd be willing to die or kill for it (even if that means killing non-combatants). The individual motives may vary (ending slavery, ending abortion, ending the encroachment on our civil liberties, ending the imperialism of the Zionist "great Satan") but they're only motives.
Same goes for methods. Whether it's hanging uppity darkies from trees, lopping heads off Americans, or exploding truck bombs where toddlers are present...all just methods.
It's all very morally ambiguous, and people absolutely hate hearing it.
Here's what's not ambiguous: They are attacking us. We have an obligation to protect ourselves and our loved ones. They are nothing but an ill-screened, ill-equipped, ill-trained, and numerically small third-world army that transcends borders and doesn't wear uniforms. The rest of this religious/moral/ethical debate is just a sideshow that distracts us from the main focus. We're afraid to really look at the enemy; we're too afraid we might see ourselves. So much easier to couch it in terms of "good vs. evil", assume that they're products of insanity and/or a malignant religion, even if that means following policies that help them more than us.
We need to get away from the good/bad distinctions and start thinking in terms of we/they. They're really not that hard to beat, but we have so many reasons to not do what it takes. Especially if "we're" the government, who would much rather keep us in fear of the terrorists than eliminate the threat.
And ultimately, harnessing that fear (such as in the article) is just another form of terrorism when you get down to it.
Last edited:
So which to hope for? Do we hope for another terrorist attack (which would actually work against us, since it would prove that this whole mess was for nothing), or hope that the Republican party continues it's slide into obscurity?
Goslash, Maybe liberals hope for the death of fellow Americans for political gain but normal people don't. The thought of it is disgusting to me. If you get that from the quote posted you lack comprehension.
Goslash, Maybe liberals hope for the death of fellow Americans for political gain but normal people don't. The thought of it is disgusting to me. If you get that from the quote posted you lack comprehension.
It is interesting that you post this in defense of the GOP, yet maintain that liberals who say similar WANT fellow Americans to die while talking about comprehension problems.
Nobody roots for US casualties, either military or civilian. Nobody.
targetshootr
New member
We should be taking odds on how long that bozo keeps his job. And also how long before he's in the Whte House getting a medal.
So many only hear what they want to hear
A common condition in humanity, sadly. Not restricted to any one side or cause. What the "GOP leader" said is fundamentally true. Another terrorist attack would bring a lot of people together, the way we all did after Sept 11.
There was virtually no dissent about what we should do in the days following 9/11/01. Certainly not as much as their should have been, otherwise we wouldn't have all the argument today over the "Patriot Act".
We "all" acted together, and blindly followed whatever suggestion our leaders put forth, both because we had to do something, and to feel "patriotic".
Another attack could create a similar feeling again, for as long as it lasts. And any politician speculating about it is just business as usual. It would certainly make his job easier. People say these kind of things all the time, it is just a manner of speaking, and should not be instantly interpreted as the individual having a serious desire for harm to come to innocent people.
The curse of modern times is that too many people take some things way too seriously, and don't take other things seriously enough.
A common condition in humanity, sadly. Not restricted to any one side or cause. What the "GOP leader" said is fundamentally true. Another terrorist attack would bring a lot of people together, the way we all did after Sept 11.
There was virtually no dissent about what we should do in the days following 9/11/01. Certainly not as much as their should have been, otherwise we wouldn't have all the argument today over the "Patriot Act".
We "all" acted together, and blindly followed whatever suggestion our leaders put forth, both because we had to do something, and to feel "patriotic".
Another attack could create a similar feeling again, for as long as it lasts. And any politician speculating about it is just business as usual. It would certainly make his job easier. People say these kind of things all the time, it is just a manner of speaking, and should not be instantly interpreted as the individual having a serious desire for harm to come to innocent people.
The curse of modern times is that too many people take some things way too seriously, and don't take other things seriously enough.
Well said, 44 AMP!
I personally wouldn't be surprised if more terrorist attacks ARE what some in the US government want (e.g., the hardcore neocons). I just can't see why else they would insist on (1) continuing an aggressive, belligerent Middle East policy for the sole benefit of Israel that substantially increases the number of people who want to get revenge on the US, and (2) refusing to take real steps to secure the US borders. This is a one-two punch to US national security: make millions of enemies, then allow a few to slip into your country.
I personally wouldn't be surprised if more terrorist attacks ARE what some in the US government want (e.g., the hardcore neocons). I just can't see why else they would insist on (1) continuing an aggressive, belligerent Middle East policy for the sole benefit of Israel that substantially increases the number of people who want to get revenge on the US, and (2) refusing to take real steps to secure the US borders. This is a one-two punch to US national security: make millions of enemies, then allow a few to slip into your country.
SecDef,
Well the though/accusation was posted here by Goslash. I'm not a liberal so I don't know the thinking process of one. I assume that goslash is a liberal because many liberals have comprehension problems especially when a conservative speaks.
My intent was to say maybe thats how you guys think you know since it was them that said it.
It is interesting that you post this in defense of the GOP, yet maintain that liberals who say similar WANT fellow Americans to die while talking about comprehension problems.
Well the though/accusation was posted here by Goslash. I'm not a liberal so I don't know the thinking process of one. I assume that goslash is a liberal because many liberals have comprehension problems especially when a conservative speaks.
My intent was to say maybe thats how you guys think you know since it was them that said it.
No, I'm saying that the interpretation changes due to the speaker... it is similar to the accusations that leftists were "Blame America first" but Ron Paul was "just telling the truth, which you don't hear very often in washington"
I highly doubt the AK GOP leader wants an actual attack. I'm just amused that certain people get your defense (where "your" equals whoever wants to reply... it doesn't much matter, this is just a discussion, not an attack) while others get condemnation for what is essentially the same argument.
The point still stands that whether we have a 180 page protocol or the president plans on sucking his thumb, we can't tell the difference if we don't get attacked. The AK GOP leader was correct in that assertion, though what his intent in saying it is is vague.
I highly doubt the AK GOP leader wants an actual attack. I'm just amused that certain people get your defense (where "your" equals whoever wants to reply... it doesn't much matter, this is just a discussion, not an attack) while others get condemnation for what is essentially the same argument.
The point still stands that whether we have a 180 page protocol or the president plans on sucking his thumb, we can't tell the difference if we don't get attacked. The AK GOP leader was correct in that assertion, though what his intent in saying it is is vague.
I don't think his intent is vague at all.though what his intent in saying it is is vague.
He said he’s “150 percent” behind Bush on the war in Iraq.
“At the end of the day, I believe fully the president is doing the right thing, and I think all we need is some attacks on American soil like we had on [Sept. 11, 2001 ], and the naysayers will come around very quickly to appreciate not only the commitment for President Bush, but the sacrifice that has been made by men and women to protect this country,” Milligan said.
He is saying that the reason the nay-sayers *haven't* come around is because there haven't been any more terrorist attacks. And I am simply following this logically. If I throw a non-sequitur in here, please let me know.
The nay-sayers will not come around unless there is another terrorist attack.
So it stands to reason that if it's in the Republican party's best interest to have the nay-sayers come around (assumption on my part), then another terrorist attack would be politically beneficial. I personally disagree at this point. I think it'd be a political disaster for the Republicans, but I digress.
This establishes a link between the political fortunes of the Republican party and the actions of the terrorists.
I submit that that's a direct result of policies enacted by people such as him, and the Republican party needs to extricate itself from the bonds.
The reason it is vague, and actually wrong as I now read it, is that if there *is* another 9/11, it will be devastating to the Bush administration.
What possible conclusion could you draw except that they failed to secure our homeland?
He is vague in that he is asking for something like 9/11, but so different that that conclusion could not be drawn. What kind of event would that be?? I have no idea.
What possible conclusion could you draw except that they failed to secure our homeland?
He is vague in that he is asking for something like 9/11, but so different that that conclusion could not be drawn. What kind of event would that be?? I have no idea.