Remember when y'all had that War on Drugs, and now you can't buy drugs anymore? It'll be just like that.

As far as I know, the 'war on drugs' started back in the '30's (ever
hear of 'Reefer Madness') and is still going on. If it's efficacy is indicated
by the availability of drugs in the 21st Century, it's been a total failure.

So, what's the bit? Are you just trolling because you're bored?

Or are you just that out of it?

Take care :rolleyes:

William F. Buckley, Jr. Ed., National Review, 2/12/96
…it is our judgment that the war on drugs has failed, that it is diverting intelligent energy away from how to deal with the problem of addiction, that it is wasting our resources, and that it is encouraging civil, judicial, and penal procedures associated with police states.The 30s? Hell, we can go back to 1914 -- The Harrison Narcotics Act came about through the efforts of politicians, as well as of certain religious groups that viewed taking psychoactive drugs as sinful. These efforts eventually led to penal statutes under which the "sinners" become criminals and go to jail. Thus was laid the cornerstone of today's U.S. anti-drug laws, and thus began the demonization of "addicts," "pushers," "junkies," "marijuana," "heroin," etc.

The war on drugs failed. More and more social scientists, judges, and law enforcement officers are indicting our current narcotic policies as ineffective, counterproductive, and harmful -- a position directly contrary to the positions of Congress and of the President.

Peace.

Yeah, I KNOW the War on Drugs failed. That was my point. Get it? Get it? Oh never mind.

Xev, I'm mad at you "for something or other"? Think really really really hard and maybe you can figure it out, you stupid bitch. :rolleyes:

It's a cat fight!!!!!:p

Originally posted by Prosoothus
It's a cat fight!!!!!:p

If you want to see the rest of it, it's in the "Best weed you've ever toked" thread, and also the "I want to shoot a black bear" thread in Free Thoughts. ;)

Originally posted by Xev
"It's a cat fight!!!!!"

I'm not so sure that Mallory is female...:bugeye:


:confused: Why the fuck not you stupid bitch?

How in the hell can you have an opinion on whether or not I'm female?

Mallory Knox is female. I am sure of that :D

BTW Mallory, here is the difference.

There is a lot of demand for drugs in US. War on terrorism didn't do much to decrease the demand but it sure increased the profit margin for drugs.

There is absolutely no demand for terrorism in US.

So that is the difference.

Originally posted by Joeman
Mallory Knox is female. I am sure of that :D
BTW Mallory, here is the difference.
There is a lot of demand for drugs in US. War on terrorism didn't do much to decrease the demand but it sure increased the profit margin for drugs.
There is absolutely no demand for terrorism in US.
So that is the difference.

You're right. It was just a joke. A bad one apparently. I've been coding for hours, I'm not thinking straight. :)

"Hell, we can go back to 1914 -- The Harrison Narcotics Act ..."

Hmm ... Wasn't that the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act?

Take care ;)

Originally posted by Chagur
Wasn't that the Harrison Narcotics Tax Act?Well, hell.
If you're asking, it must have been!

But I'll go check, in any case. :D

As long as your time machine is ON....

Opium trade in the last 12 centuries?

http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om15.htm

Originally posted by kmguru
As long as your time machine is ON....
Opium trade in the last 12 centuries?
http://www.druglibrary.org/schaffer/history/om/om15.htm

:rolleyes: As I've explained more than once in this thread, I know drugs are rampant, that was the joke. J-O-K-E. Get it?

As I've discovered in this forum the old cliche about Americans not understanding irony is, sadly, true.

Anyway, I thought the point you made was a good one. So here's a little news flash currently doing the e-mail circuit in the UK to give you a little bit of hope:


SAN FRANCISCO - Jay Fullmer, 38, yesterday became the first American to get to grips with the concept of irony. "It was weird" Fullmer said. "I was in London and like, talking to this guy and it was raining and he pulled a face and said, "great weather eh?" and I thought "wait a minute, no way is it great weather". Fullmer then realised that the other man's 'mistake' was in fact deliberate.

Fullmer, who is 39 next month and married with two children, aged 8 and 3, plans to use irony himself in future. "I'm, like, using it all the time," he said. "Last weekend I was grilling steaks and I burned them to hell and I said 'Hey, great weather!'".

Originally posted by Mallory Knox
As I've explained more than once in this thread, I know drugs are rampant, that was the joke. J-O-K-E. Get it?I doubt it was a joke, Captain Canada, as MK has proven to be a Troll and was banned by Porfiry. I was merely looking to turn the thread into some kind of interesting duscussion. :)

Peace

Not aware of the history.

Just because the war on drugs, and the war on terror share two of their three words, doesn't mean they'll end up the same. Drugs don't fly planes into buildings, terrorists do. For that reason this is a real war, that is fought with lives, more lives than the Drug War.

Originally posted by thecurly1
Just because the war on drugs, and the war on terror share two of their three words, doesn't mean they'll end up the same. Drugs don't fly planes into buildings, terrorists do. For that reason this is a real war, that is fought with lives, more lives than the Drug War.

Is that so? More lives than the Drug War? That's quite laughable. The upper limit of people who have died on terrorist attacks on the US is 3000. At least 10s of thousands have died from the War on Drugs.

Many more lives are at risk of being taken, then there are from drugs. Terrorism is a much more tangable threat to the free world's security than drugs.

Funny thing is drugs sales fund terrorism, so both wars are twined in with eachother.

Originally posted by thecurly1
Many more lives are at risk of being taken, then there are from drugs. Terrorism is a much more tangable threat to the free world's security than drugs.

Funny thing is drugs sales fund terrorism, so both wars are twined in with eachother.

A threat to the security of the free world? A war isn't the way to solve it, Bush is a fucking idiot. To solve such a problem one needs to take action.

Oh so I'm gonna let my countrymen get killed by a bunch of fanatics, while a bunch of liberal European crazies sing "Kumbaya"?

No.

How is Bush an idiot. Anyone with common sense would be prosecuting a war against these terrorists. My only complaint is that we are being underreactive to the threat.

Originally posted by thecurly1
Oh so I'm gonna let my countrymen get killed by a bunch of fanatics, while a bunch of liberal European crazies sing "Kumbaya"?

No.

How is Bush an idiot. Anyone with common sense would be prosecuting a war against these terrorists. My only complaint is that we are being underreactive to the threat.

Less people will die if it is dealt with in a diplomatic way with terrorists.

Ever look at why they do what they do? Their demands aren't really THAT bad.

And European crazies--? Please! I live in the same country as you, and if you feel that way about your "countrymen", then you're obligated to save me as well! XD

I don't remember Osama bin Laden offering to talk things out between the US and his followers.

Why is it that the nation without the gripe, should have to extend the olive branch in the first place.

OBL is a rich and intelligent (I say that because a dolt can't run a multi-national organization without some brain power) with a lot of backing in followers and Mideast power players. He doesn't want peace, or even want the US out of the Mideast.

OBL, the terrorists, and their fanatical minions want to see all Western culture, religions and ways of live GONE. They want to return the whole of the Mideast, and eventually the world back into a Dark Ages, fundamentalist Islamic superstate.

This idea is about as bad as the Communists', and the Nazis before them. Thankfully these ass holes haven't gotten quite as far in pursuing their goals.

They will if we don't stop them now.

Originally posted by thecurly1
I don't remember Osama bin Laden offering to talk things out between the US and his followers.

Why is it that the nation without the gripe, should have to extend the olive branch in the first place.

OBL is a rich and intelligent (I say that because a dolt can't run a multi-national organization without some brain power) with a lot of backing in followers and Mideast power players. He doesn't want peace, or even want the US out of the Mideast.

OBL, the terrorists, and their fanatical minions want to see all Western culture, religions and ways of live GONE. They want to return the whole of the Mideast, and eventually the world back into a Dark Ages, fundamentalist Islamic superstate.

This idea is about as bad as the Communists', and the Nazis before them. Thankfully these ass holes haven't gotten quite as far in pursuing their goals.

They will if we don't stop them now.

Hon, don't you remember a couple days ago when they showed a short video on the Jahzirah of a bin Laden exec? He said specifically WHY the Qaedah do what they do. Perhaps you should review that video?

Whoopie!

Just because they are saying what they want doesn't mean we can yeild to that, even if (hypothetically) diplomatic measures were taken.

Don't you think if they really care about the people of the Mideast they would have sent an ambassador of sorts to America in the 1990s before they started the jihad against the US and West.

Are you on al-Qadea's side?

Originally posted by thecurly1
Whoopie!

Just because they are saying what they want doesn't mean we can yeild to that, even if (hypothetically) diplomatic measures were taken.

Don't you think if they really care about the people of the Mideast they would have sent an ambassador of sorts to America in the 1990s before they started the jihad against the US and West.

Are you on al-Qadea's side?

Hmm, let's see... why send a diplomate of their own when already countless diplomates have been sent to request these simple things?

Why the fuck do you think they do what they do? Nobody just blows himself up with no real reason. These people have political motives, they've found that their last hope of reaching them is by killing innocents.

Who's fault is that?

That's a line of crapolah and you know it.

They are racist, xenophobic ass holes. These guys are mass murders and should be killed themselves. How can you defend their actions. Some of their complaints may be legit, but the means at which they are trying to have them resolved are crimes against humanity.

INNOCENT people were killed in cold blood. Say what you want the US hasn't ran into a country for the hell of it, and slaughtered 3000 civilians with absolutley no control over the nation's policy concening Jack Squat.

Originally posted by thecurly1
That's a line of crapolah and you know it.

They are racist, xenophobic ass holes. These guys are mass murders and should be killed themselves. How can you defend their actions. Some of their complaints may be legit, but the means at which they are trying to have them resolved are crimes against humanity.

INNOCENT people were killed in cold blood. Say what you want the US hasn't ran into a country for the hell of it, and slaughtered 3000 civilians with absolutley no control over the nation's policy concening Jack Squat.

Defending their actions? Not at all. I'm just trying to assert my opinion on why they did what they did, and how we should solve it differently than President BUllSHit wants to. (is it a coincidence that he believed the "talking to americans" host when it was said that Canadian PM Poutine supported him? what an idiot, he should at least know Chretien, even if he doesn't know India's leader or the leader of South Korea.)

Generally, Europeans have dealt with terrorism by targeting the root causes and they've been successful in that respect. However, Bush and Israel feel that the solution is to kill all the terrorists and their supporters. While this may work, it will lose many more innocent lives and is therefore pointless.

Innocent people have been killed by the US in cold blood. At the end of WWII, thousands of innocent Japanese were murdered when a military target could've been used instead, and when even General McArthur himself said that he believed that the Japanese were about to surrender anyways and the a-bomb wasn't nessecary.

Just because Bush DIDN'T know the name of a 2nd world nation's PM doens't make him stupid. Let's be real, the man went to Harvard, a school that we'd both cut our arms off to get into. I will agree that he can't speak proper English very well, but you can't win every category in the contest.

Europeans-terrorism-delt with? Really? A few days ago ETA Basque seperatists blew up a bunch of Spaniards. Doesn't seem like they did that well. The Balkans have had their fare share of terrorism.

I would argue that there is "less" terrorism in Europe, because the main target is now the US, which is the only Superpower that can make trouble for the Terrorist Whackos. In April terrorists almost blew up the Embassy in Italy, they would have killed Italians as well as Americans.

I'm all for fixing the root causes of terrorism, poverty, ignorance, and totalitarian governments. But you can't fix the causes of terrorism, until the terrorists are gone.

If we could fix the three problems aformentioned, instantly, then OBL, Hamas, Hezbollah, et cetra would lose their power base in the region. In truth keeping people oppressed helps their cause because it keeps them in power. Why don't you think Saddam hasn't rebuilt Iraq? He's got the money, he has no interest because when the Iraqis are poor he keeps his power and blames their pleight on the US.

The a-bomb juxtoposition has no place. The Japaneese were stubborn for holding on, when they knew the war was over. They didn't surrendure before the bombs hit and had no intention to if there was either an invasion or naval blockade. The alternatives to the atomic bombings would have assuredly killed millions of Japaneese through starvation or battlefield deaths.

In conculsion:
War is unjust, its the most horrible thing mankind has ever thought of. I hate war, war is hell. There is no way of denying this truth. Sadly we have to resort to this because now there is no other way to resolve the conflict. If we don't fight, they'll keep killing us until there is no one or nothing left to fight for. Peace cannot come in this situation. I would hope that the whole of humanity never has to fight again, but I know that is largely a pipe dream that will never come to fruition.

Just because Bush DIDN'T know the name of a 2nd world nation's PM doens't make him stupid. Let's be real, the man went to Harvard, a school that we'd both cut our arms off to get into. I will agree that he can't speak proper English very well, but you can't win every category in the contest.

Canada is our neighbour to the North. Not simply a 2nd world nation in the middle of nowhere, but rather a nation sharing a border thousands of miles long with us.

Europeans-terrorism-delt with? Really? A few days ago ETA Basque seperatists blew up a bunch of Spaniards. Doesn't seem like they did that well. The Balkans have had their fare share of terrorism.

I'm speaking generally. In the Balkans, who were called the terrorists? The Albanians? They're Muslims, yet they were the ones who were systematically killed by Serbs...

Take a look at Ireland, that was dealt with fairly well. However there is still the issue of N. Ireland...

I would argue that there is "less" terrorism in Europe, because the main target is now the US, which is the only Superpower that can make trouble for the Terrorist Whackos. In April terrorists almost blew up the Embassy in Italy, they would have killed Italians as well as Americans.

Gee, I wonder why the US might be the main target... PERHAPS BECAUSE THEY INTERFERE TOO MUCH IN INTERNATIONAL AFFAIRS WITHOUT AN UNDERSTANDING OF THE SITUATION AND TAKE THE ANTI-MUSLIM SIDE BASICALLY 100% OF THE TIME?

I'm all for fixing the root causes of terrorism, poverty, ignorance, and totalitarian governments. But you can't fix the causes of terrorism, until the terrorists are gone.

Why not?

If we could fix the three problems aformentioned, instantly, then OBL, Hamas, Hezbollah, et cetra would lose their power base in the region. In truth keeping people oppressed helps their cause because it keeps them in power. Why don't you think Saddam hasn't rebuilt Iraq? He's got the money, he has no interest because when the Iraqis are poor he keeps his power and blames their pleight on the US.

Uhm... yeah. Well, you know what? It isn't 100% the fault of the US, but rather the US and the UN because with embargoes it is almost impossible for Saddam's people to get what they need to live. This wouldn't nessecarily be his fault for not bending to the wills of these organisations, but that AND the fault of US and UN for their embargoes. It's all relevant...

The a-bomb juxtoposition has no place. The Japaneese were stubborn for holding on, when they knew the war was over. They didn't surrendure before the bombs hit and had no intention to if there was either an invasion or naval blockade. The alternatives to the atomic bombings would have assuredly killed millions of Japaneese through starvation or battlefield deaths.

What a dumb fuck. You saw the word "a-bomb" and replied without reading the rest of that paragraph. Why not drop atomic bombs on military targets, hmm? And the officials from the time (on the US side) generally agree that the Japanese were about to surrender anyways.

In conculsion:
War is unjust, its the most horrible thing mankind has ever thought of. I hate war, war is hell. There is no way of denying this truth. Sadly we have to resort to this because now there is no other way to resolve the conflict. If we don't fight, they'll keep killing us until there is no one or nothing left to fight for. Peace cannot come in this situation. I would hope that the whole of humanity never has to fight again, but I know that is largely a pipe dream that will never come to fruition.

Oh please. What an idiotic thing. You stated earlier that what I said would work but more people would die on both sides as a result. And you don't hate war, you enjoy war as long as it's against those Islaym tayroristees.

Looks like there is a war going on right here in this topic.....:D

Originally posted by kmguru
Looks like there is a war going on right here in this topic.....:D

If terrorism really means what the word sounds like it should mean, Bush would be successful in his War on Terrorism only if he committed suicide.

Did you hear the report on the bomb dropped because 3 moving hotspots (living things) were spotted in bare terrain that ended up killing 3 tribal elders on their way to a meeting because they were thought to be members of the Qaedah? (contrary to CNN beliefs, it's supposed to be pronounced "kah-eh-dah")

Oh, and I doubt Bush got into Harvard because of his skills, but rather his connections. Perhaps his father deserved to be a Harvard student, but I highly, highly doubt that Bush would've been a Harvard student if my father was his father, but Bush kept his own intelligence.

DUMB FUCK???

Excuse me.

First, I was refering to the Indian Prime Minister, not Goddam Canada.

Cool, i'm for the US not "interfering with international affairs." Let's see how long it would have taken for Iraq to invade Saudi Arabia in 1991 and destroy the worlds economy. We could have sat on our hands, not expell Saddam and let him place an embargo on the west.

Anti-Muslim? Really? If the US was really truly anti-Muslim every Arab and Muslim in the States would have been locked up Sept. 12th. If we were anti-Muslim we would have poisioned the Afghani water supplies (which was actually brought up during a National Security meeting in September, Slate magazine has an article on that). Trust me, if we were anti-Muslim the world would be feeling it.

Oh yeah, remember Bosnia? Who were we protecting? Muslims. From who? Christians. Wow, that's a racist action from a predominatley white Christian nation.

Don't kid yourself. We're going to kill every terrorist if it takes a damned century. These are Nazis disguizing themselves as Muslims, who have distorted Islam beyond any true defintion of the religion.

The UN has the oil for food program, which Saddam is raping to build WMDs. When he doesn't jerk around weapons inspectors then we can talk lifting the embargo.

"Innocent people have been killed by the US in cold blood. At the end of WWII, thousands of innocent Japanese were murdered when a military target could've been used instead, and when even General McArthur himself said that he believed that the Japanese were about to surrender anyways and the a-bomb wasn't nessecary."

How is that not about droping the a-bomb on Japan? Stop trying to fake me out when you have no substantal argument to oppose my oppinion.

Wrong. If California has seceded from the US and killed 3,000 citizens, I would be making the same statement. We're acting in defense, they provoked us.

Eventually the terrorists will be gone, and my point will be proven.

That's just the kind of fanaticism we need to fight these terrorist fanatics Curly! Fight fire with fire I say.

God bless America!

Hardly fanatisism, only the harsh reality of terrorism.

DUMB FUCK???

Excuse me.

First, I was refering to the Indian Prime Minister, not Goddam Canada.

Oh, well then what do you have to say of "Prime Minister Poutine" (since you probably don't know, his REAL name is Jean Chretien)?

Cool, i'm for the US not "interfering with international affairs." Let's see how long it would have taken for Iraq to invade Saudi Arabia in 1991 and destroy the worlds economy. We could have sat on our hands, not expell Saddam and let him place an embargo on the west.

I highly doubt that Iraq would've invaded Saudi Arabia, they knew that was too risky a move. Kuwait was enticing, it was a small country.

And if you say that's wrong, well then sir, the whole creation of your nation is wrong and the founding of your nation was based on a bunch of xenophobic assholes who felt that it was their right to drive the original inhabitants of North America into small areas and take the rest for themselves. And what do you have to say about Hawai'i? They were a SMALL NATION that was INVADED BY THE US FOR NO GOOD REASON. In cold blood, one might say...

Anti-Muslim? Really? If the US was really truly anti-Muslim every Arab and Muslim in the States would have been locked up Sept. 12th. If we were anti-Muslim we would have poisioned the Afghani water supplies (which was actually brought up during a National Security meeting in September, Slate magazine has an article on that). Trust me, if we were anti-Muslim the world would be feeling it.

That's not true, only an idiotic nation (err... sorry, I guess the US already is that. I should say "horribly idiotic nation") would lock up all their Muslims, as that would definetly warrant an attack from all the Arab countries in the world. In all the conflicts in the world that have a Muslim side and the US is involved, the US takes the other side in all but one case, that of the Serbs against the Albanians.

Oh yeah, remember Bosnia? Who were we protecting? Muslims. From who? Christians. Wow, that's a racist action from a predominatley white Christian nation.

It isn't one action that speaks for the nation, but rather all the actions as a whole.

Don't kid yourself. We're going to kill every terrorist if it takes a damned century. These are Nazis disguizing themselves as Muslims, who have distorted Islam beyond any true defintion of the religion.

You know what? They ARE Muslims. Although perhaps killing in the name of their religion isn't warranted. Also, they can't be Nazis, as Nazis don't like Muslims! They don't kill because they feel they need to kill infidels, but rather because they feel that injustices are being done to Muslims by the US purposefully. And if I didn't know otherwise, I'd say they were right (judging by the US position in recent conflicts...) And yes, Islam does advocate the actions they're taking if in fact their suspicions about the US are correct.

The UN has the oil for food program, which Saddam is raping to build WMDs. When he doesn't jerk around weapons inspectors then we can talk lifting the embargo.

What OTHER countries don't let weapons inspectors in? How hard is the US on THEM?

"Innocent people have been killed by the US in cold blood. At the end of WWII, thousands of innocent Japanese were murdered when a military target could've been used instead, and when even General McArthur himself said that he believed that the Japanese were about to surrender anyways and the a-bomb wasn't nessecary."

How is that not about droping the a-bomb on Japan? Stop trying to fake me out when you have no substantal argument to oppose my oppinion.

Uhh... I do have a substantial arguement, there is no excuse to kill any number of innocents, especially when a military target is availible. The a-bomb was only dropped on a city because the US wanted to show off to the USSR. And seeing as MacArthur, as well as a few others made these statements, I think it should be quite easy to believe.

Wrong. If California has seceded from the US and killed 3,000 citizens, I would be making the same statement. We're acting in defense, they provoked us.

Is that so? They provoked us by us spending millions to fund the murder of their Muslim brothers in Iraq and Palestine? No.

Eventually the terrorists will be gone, and my point will be proven.

Yes, the terrorists will be gone because they will stop doing what they do, as the US will no longer exist and there will no longer be any reason to be agressive against the Americans.

A bloody war is coming, a very, very, very bloody war. Somebody's gonna do something wrong, that'll lead the WHOLE WORLD into a war in which each nation will take a side. Generally, I have two opinions here. One is that everybody will go against the US, the other is that at least a few countries will be on the side of the US.

I believe in what we are fighting for.

You obviously don't and you support the terrorists, and the slaughter of innocent Americans.

That's enough said for this matter.

Originally posted by thecurly1
I believe in what we are fighting for.

You obviously don't and you support the terrorists, and the slaughter of innocent Americans.

That's enough said for this matter.

Is that so? Do I really support terrorism? No, I don't. I just think that if it can be solved without violence, less Americans will die and perhaps America will continue to exist for a much longer time.

The slaughter of innocent Americans? If the US is truly a representative democracy as you say, they aren't innocent but rather responsible for their government's actions.

However I still don't think it's OK to kill them.

And "that's enough said for this matter"? That's an immature brat who can't stand to lose an arguement for this matter. You.

Not a bad point Trans Global, but a few things I noticed, just offhand while skimming through here...

Ever look at why they do what they do? Their demands aren't really THAT bad.
Yea, and maybe if we give Hitler Sudetenland, he'll stop trying to take over countries in Europe.

It's basic human behavior, if they get some, they want more. What you're talking about is called appeasement. Appeasement is the act of giving in to demands, but only partially so, in hopes of keeping someone happy. Historically, appeasement <b>rarely</b> works. What needs to happen is a common ground needs to be found on both sides, <b>not</b> give in to their demands. That's rewarding terrorists, then they realize terror works, and they'll keep terrorizing and getting more. Terrorism should <b>never</b> be treated as a valid political tool. If they want to send a diplomat, negotiate, or even fight a war that's one thing. But terrorizing citizens should never be tolerated.

...as that would definetly warrant an attack from all the Arab countries in the world.
Ah, of course. The US is anti-Muslim, we're just laying low right now so as not to warrant attacks from Muslim countries. Then, BAM, we'll jump out and genocide them all! Please, like he said, if the US was really, and I mean <b>really</b> truly anti-Islamic, there would be no doubt about it. Every man woman and child would know it. What's the old phrase... "Whenever there is doubt there is no doubt." I'll grant you that a good chunk of redneck types are anti-Islamic, there was a strain of anti-Muslim attacks after Sept. 11, but it's not fair to say the whole country is that way.

Although perhaps killing in the name of their religion isn't warranted.
"Perhaps" it isn't warranted? Does that mean that "perhaps" it is warranted? Can I kill you because my religion says so?

http://www.rushonline.com/photoswar3/onepicturearnold.jpeg

Yea, and maybe if we give Hitler Sudetenland, he'll stop trying to take over countries in Europe.

It's basic human behavior, if they get some, they want more. What you're talking about is called appeasement. Appeasement is the act of giving in to demands, but only partially so, in hopes of keeping someone happy. Historically, appeasement <i>rarely</i> works. What needs to happen is a common ground needs to be found on both sides, <i>not</i> give in to their demands. That's rewarding terrorists, then they realize terror works, and they'll keep terrorizing and getting more. Terrorism should <i>never</i> be treated as a valid political tool. If they want to send a diplomat, negotiate, or even fight a war that's one thing. But terrorizing citizens should never be tolerated.

Not really. Historically, there's been proven a difference between two different things: positive reinforcement, and negative reinforcement. NEGATIVE rewards would be to STOP FUNDING Israel in slaughtering Arabs, otherwise they see no real reason to stop. And fight a war? It is a war! That's what they did! If you say terrorizing citizens should never be tolerated, then Pearl Harbour was 100% OK but Hiroshima and Nagasaki were acts of terrorism... (far greater than 11/9, 10s of thousands died instead of 3000 give or take 500)

Essentially, WHICHEVER SIDE IS MORE MATURE WILL BE THE SIDE THAT IS THE FIRST TO REALIZE THAT RETALIATION WON'T GET ANYWHERE, IT WILL LEAD TO AN ENDLESS CIRCLE OF EVENTS. If terrorists ARE immature or inferior or whatever you say they are (I don't think so, I think they're soldiers), then your national policy should reflect that by taking some non-violent action.

Ah, of course. The US is anti-Muslim, we're just laying low right now so as not to warrant attacks from Muslim countries. Then, BAM, we'll jump out and genocide them all! Please, like he said, if the US was really, and I mean <i>really</i> truly anti-Islamic, there would be no doubt about it. Every man woman and child would know it. What's the old phrase... "Whenever there is doubt there is no doubt." I'll grant you that a good chunk of redneck types are anti-Islamic, there was a strain of anti-Muslim attacks after Sept. 11, but it's not fair to say the whole country is that way.

I'm referring to foreign policy, not citizens. And just the other day, I was at a BB very similar to this one where almost everybody agreed that all Muslims, even citizens, should have to leave America because they were 1. a threat to national security 2. because they weren't patriotic 3. because they don't appreciate their freedom 4. because they criticize "boosh" (as it was said that the Muslims call him) However I am totally sure that generally this sort of extreme right opinion is a minority in the US.

"Perhaps" it isn't warranted? Does that mean that "perhaps" it is warranted? Can I kill you because my religion says so?

Religion? Do you think these people KILL others BECAUSE they want to kill nonbelievers FOR NOT BELIEVING? No, they want to kill nonbelievers for killing fellow Muslims. Basically, you need to look at your own general philosophy: "It's OK to retaliate against another ______ group (religious, political, etc.) if they hurt somebody from my _____ group" (thus your philosophy that it is OK for the US to fund Israel in its combatting Arabs as it is a democracy, which is invalid in itself as the US is a federalist republic and most definetly not a democracy, as any almanac will tell you.)

http://voluntrans.abavagada.net/onepalpic.jpg

















just goes to show you what a little MSPAINT can do when you don't have PS or PSP with you...

NEGATIVE rewards would be to STOP FUNDING Israel in slaughtering Arabs, otherwise they see no real reason to stop.

Let's use a smaller scale example:

You hate someone. You like beating this person up. Your friends, who regularly loan you money (to go to the movies) have stopped giving you money because they saw you beating up someone else.

Now when this happens, are you going to

a) stop beating up this person, and realize that you were wrong

-or-

b) continue beating up this person and cut off all relations with your friends because you don't believe that they understand

Cutting off our funding to Israel certainly won't help the situation down there, they seem to be able to hold their own against the poor (money-wise) palestinians.

Now if you were the friend of this person who was beating someone up, would you

a) continuously tell him to stop, even if he never listened

-or-

b) tell him to stop a few times, then restrain him with force

Which solution is going to solve the problem? Force seems to be the only answer, but I'd like to hear other opinions.

Originally posted by Memnoch_The_Devil


Let's use a smaller scale example:

You hate someone. You like beating this person up. Your friends, who regularly loan you money (to go to the movies) have stopped giving you money because they saw you beating up someone else.

Now when this happens, are you going to

a) stop beating up this person, and realize that you were wrong

-or-

b) continue beating up this person and cut off all relations with your friends because you don't believe that they understand

Cutting off our funding to Israel certainly won't help the situation down there, they seem to be able to hold their own against the poor (money-wise) palestinians.

Now if you were the friend of this person who was beating someone up, would you

a) continuously tell him to stop, even if he never listened

-or-

b) tell him to stop a few times, then restrain him with force

Which solution is going to solve the problem? Force seems to be the only answer, but I'd like to hear other opinions.

Perhaps Israel WOULD be able to survive, but definetly not as well. Also, I would stop being friends with that person and take sides with the other person. *hint hint*

To go back to the war on terrorism:

I think the US is overdoing it drasticly. They blunder into houses and celebrations in Pakistan, shooting and shouting.

Also they come unannounced breaking in people's houses, 'cause they think members of Al Quaida are everywhere.

With what godforsaken right does the US do this things? Is everything allowed now? In the name of the war on terrorism?

I think it is ridiculous and that the US has to reconsider its objectivity in this. Is it possible for the US to be objective? As they are so obsessed by seeing Al Quaida people everywhere...

Screw all the fucking wars! It is so damn easy to talk about it on a message board, while sitting safe and with enough food and shelter behind a keyboard.

It's about time this whole madhouse stops! :mad: