Dissatisfied Americans
-
CataclysmicQuantum wrote:
obama or hillery will not become president I can almost garentee it.
You may well have a future disappointment then.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You may well have a future disappointment then.
Yea, verily. Although I'll vote for McCain, I fully expect Obama to be the next president. Apparently Bill Clinton and CSS disagree with me.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
But I bet, no matter how pissed off they get, they still won't strap a bomb on and blow someone up.
-
Yep, but not very many of 'em are emigrating to Pakistan, are they? The number of Pakistanis trying to get into the US, on the other hand, seems to grow every year. Well, maybe the rest of Pakistan knows something you don't know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
-
Yep, but not very many of 'em are emigrating to Pakistan, are they? The number of Pakistanis trying to get into the US, on the other hand, seems to grow every year. Well, maybe the rest of Pakistan knows something you don't know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
Either they are sick of the filth that is islam, or they are infiltrating America.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
-
But it's a worthwhile cause.
-
But it's a worthwhile cause.
I think you got it wrong. He's referring to cases such Timothy McVeigh's. (sorry if I misspelled it)
-
I think you got it wrong. He's referring to cases such Timothy McVeigh's. (sorry if I misspelled it)
Ah, possibly but it is extremely rare and was for a completely different reason: apples and oranges.
-
Either they are sick of the filth that is islam, or they are infiltrating America.
The Digital World. It is an amazing place in which we primitive humans interact. Our flesh made this synthetic machine. You see, we are so smart, we know a lot of stuff. We were grown from cells that came from the universe, which the matter and physics I'm typing in it is amazing how the universe is working. Human life is very amazing. How I experience this sh*t its like wow.
The latter.
-
But it's a worthwhile cause.
digital man wrote:
But it's a worthwhile cause.
that's the same reason given by your opponents.
-
Yep, but not very many of 'em are emigrating to Pakistan, are they? The number of Pakistanis trying to get into the US, on the other hand, seems to grow every year. Well, maybe the rest of Pakistan knows something you don't know.
Jon Smith & Wesson: The original point and click interface
I hear more about Indians in US than Pakistanis.
-
digital man wrote:
But it's a worthwhile cause.
that's the same reason given by your opponents.
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
that's the same reason given by your opponents.
How very disingenuous of you: if your lot would make peace and mean it and stop killing innocents you'll get left alone. Until that happens we'll keep at it.
-
I hear more about Indians in US than Pakistanis.
That's because Indians as smart enough to recognize a good thing, while Pakis are too dumb to come here. Please press the switch soon.
-
Not sure what would happen if you critized Pervez Musharraf, even on this blog... In US we can be pissed at this and that and hang our laundry out to dry about it, with out fear of reprisal by the government.
MrPlankton
-
CataclysmicQuantum wrote:
obama or hillery will not become president I can almost garentee it.
You may well have a future disappointment then.
Richard A. Abbott wrote:
You may well have a future disappointment then.
I wonder if anyone said that to CQ's mother when she told them she was pregnant...
-
But it's a worthwhile cause.
-
That is very naive. If you know that an enemy is about to pounce do you wait until they have done so when it may well be too late to do something about it or do you take pre-emptive action to ensure that it does not happen at all? One would hope it would be by negotiation but experience shows that negotiation is often seen as weakness and stops nothing. In the case of islamics extremists, for instance, even when they are offered everything they ask for that does not stop them from further terrorist acts. (Arafat was offered everything he asked for but still refused it, possibly showing that actually getting what they'd asked for was not the real goal). So if I have to get violent on your arse to get you to leave me alone: you're damned right I will. If you choose, mistakenly, to call that terrorism then so be it: I call it defence wheraes what the extremists do is terrorism because they will not negotiate: their one and only tactic is violence.
-
That is very naive. If you know that an enemy is about to pounce do you wait until they have done so when it may well be too late to do something about it or do you take pre-emptive action to ensure that it does not happen at all? One would hope it would be by negotiation but experience shows that negotiation is often seen as weakness and stops nothing. In the case of islamics extremists, for instance, even when they are offered everything they ask for that does not stop them from further terrorist acts. (Arafat was offered everything he asked for but still refused it, possibly showing that actually getting what they'd asked for was not the real goal). So if I have to get violent on your arse to get you to leave me alone: you're damned right I will. If you choose, mistakenly, to call that terrorism then so be it: I call it defence wheraes what the extremists do is terrorism because they will not negotiate: their one and only tactic is violence.
I was talking about the Timothy McVeigh case. I felt that you were justifying it. If you feel that the policies and actions of a government / company/ religion is not in your interest, are you justified in using violence? It is terrorism to use violence instead of debate in civil society. If someone resorts to violence, law and order systems have to handle it - not an individual or a group. Since you brought up international affairs: Iraq was not any immediate serious threat to the US. Take away the war on Iraq, and you would not have ended up any worse. Don't give me the humanitarian aspect of removing a dictator and spreading democracy. I am still waiting for economic sanctions and wars on China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (although they ended up holding an election recently). There have been many dictators that the United States have worked with before.
-
I was talking about the Timothy McVeigh case. I felt that you were justifying it. If you feel that the policies and actions of a government / company/ religion is not in your interest, are you justified in using violence? It is terrorism to use violence instead of debate in civil society. If someone resorts to violence, law and order systems have to handle it - not an individual or a group. Since you brought up international affairs: Iraq was not any immediate serious threat to the US. Take away the war on Iraq, and you would not have ended up any worse. Don't give me the humanitarian aspect of removing a dictator and spreading democracy. I am still waiting for economic sanctions and wars on China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (although they ended up holding an election recently). There have been many dictators that the United States have worked with before.
A lot of cross purposes going on here! Doh! No, I don't attempt to justify any violence, it is abhorent but I recognise that it does have a place, however distastful, in our world and is used for all sorts of reasons, rightly and wrongly.
Thomas George wrote:
Since you brought up international affairs: Iraq was not any immediate serious threat to the US. Take away the war on Iraq, and you would not have ended up any worse.
That wasn't the point at the time: there was a perceived threat (even if that turned out to be not so true) and it was acted upon. And what do you mean by 'you would not have ended up any worse'?
Thomas George wrote:
Don't give me the humanitarian aspect of removing a dictator and spreading democracy. I am still waiting for economic sanctions and wars on China, Saudi Arabia, Pakistan (although they ended up holding an election recently). There have been many dictators that the United States have worked with before.
Now you're confusing pragmatic politics and an emotive response. There is no correlation between the two. I'd love to see the back of thsoe oyu have nmentioned but it won't happen: the inducements and the threats are not immediate or overwhelming.
-
Adnan Siddiqi wrote:
More than 80%[^]
Yeah, but nobody, including me, does jack shit about their dissatisfaction. I guess that's because "doing something" pretty much means taking a gun to various people's heads and pulling the trigger. Which unfortunately, is a crime, even when doing so to people that have lied to the American public, stolen taxpayer money to bail out corporate America, and destroyed our economy and educational systems. Marc
-
Does that mean that 100% of your BS is directed at only 20% of Americans? And you imagine that every time an innocent journalist gets his head lopped off by some dumbass jihadi buddy of yours that they must have been in that 20%? You're nothing but a troll.
Visit BoneSoft.com for code generation tools (XML & XSD -> C#, VB, etc...) and some free developer tools as well.