US brings "Terror to Terrorists"

[kane]

Glad to see British and US jet fighters and cruise missiles are finally bringing "terror to the terrorists". We're giving the filthy murdering scum, a taste of their own Terror. Now the bastards are finding out what it's like to be on the RECEIVING end!
Go, US !! Go, Brits !!

[Crendowing]

Pathetic. Humans killing their own kind. I tell you, this is not the worst of it. Humankind will no doubt get its just desserts when something from beyond our system invades us. Even then, it's still pathetic. Fighting is just a product of the ignorance of any intelligent species.

Go ahead, flame me. I only offer my own opinions.

[Naked Snake]

What did kane do to get on probation?

[Phoenix]

Pathetic. Humans killing their own kind. I tell you, this is not the worst of it. Humankind will no doubt get its just desserts when something from beyond our system invades us. Even then, it's still pathetic. Fighting is just a product of the ignorance of any intelligent species.

Go ahead, flame me. I only offer my own opinions.

If someone slaps you in the face ... you go about your business, or do you hit back?
I think to defend one self is very much intelligent. Predators either need to be contained or destroyed. Ignoring those, and doing it again, like Chamberlain did with Hitler would prove to be extremely empty-headed.
BTW, not a flame just my opinion.

[danarchist]

If someone slaps you in the face ... you go about your business, or do you hit back?

/me turns the other cheek

[kane]

gangsta, I don't know what I did, never bothered to ask.

[Crendowing]

If someone slaps you in the face ... you go about your business, or do you hit back?

The former. I'm passive resistant. I only fight to save my life....my own life.

[kane]

The 3rd attack today just ended, one pilot said he was glad to kill the scum who were protecting the terrorists who killed our US citizens. Maybe, he had someone who died there.
One of the attacks caught a bunch of Taliban troops and tanks that were getting ready to ambush the guerrillas (who are supporting the US). When our guys finished, the scumbag Taliban terrorist troops were just red meat, and the tanks were burning hulks.
Well done.

[kane]

Grendowing, I admire your principles against fighting except to save your own life. But suppose someone grabbed your wife or little kid and did something bad to them? Or even, killed them? What would you do then? Just curious, this ain't a flame.

[Kid Airbag]

Hmm, from what I heard, we were very careful to avoid as much civilian area as possible. I think we were gunning for training camps or other such facilities. What really pisses me off is that some spokesman from the Taliban called this a "Terrorist Act"

Oh, and when someone hurts me, unless it's not intentional and it's in something where there is a risk of injury (i.e. sports) my first reaction is to want to get them back. I think it's pretty much human nature. Kill or be killed.

[nxn]

I have to agree, I hate the human race as well. I was actually hoping for ww3 so we could all, or atleast I could die. I don't see where in hell we'll get fighting each other. We're supposed to be more advanced then animals yet they don't brutally kill each other.

Just like that dood from the matrix said, humans are a virus, living, and using resources untill they are gone, then we move and do the same thing over untill there's nothing left to feed on. I am starting to be more and more sure that humans will be the reason why life on this planet will end.

Time to listen to some more Slayer.

[Lüt]

We're supposed to be more advanced then animals yet they don't brutally kill each other.

I see you don't get the Discovery channel.

[Xenoman]

What really pisses me off is that some spokesman from the Taliban called this a "Terrorist Act"

I think he even called it: "These brutal terrorist attacks", what a lame bastard.

[ShadyXMR]

The human race is pathetic. But we all are part of it, and whether you're a pacifist or not you are participating in its ultimate downfall.

The former. I'm passive resistant. I only fight to save my life....my own life.

So your individual welfare is more important to you than your freedom? I would not be surprised if you are one of the many Americans that are all for protecting our freedom (wait; maybe you don't even value your freedom enough to at least support military action) but will run to Mexico if you actually get drafted. "Let the other guy do it."

Let me present all of you with an article that includes excerpts by a fellow named George Orwell, author of "Animal Farm" and "1984". (Sorry if the words are smushed together, my email is retarded)

____________
Pacifists are not serious people, although theydevoutly believe they are, and their arguments are not being taken seriously atthe moment. Yet it is worth taking seriously, and in advance of need, thepacifists and their appeal.

It is worth it, first of all, because the idea ofpeace is inherently attractive; and the more war there is, the more attractivethe idea becomes. Second, it is worth it because the reactionary left-liberalcrowd in America and in Europe has already staked out its ground here: Whathappened to America is America's fault, the fruits of foolish arrogance andgreedy imperialism, racism, colonialism, etc., etc. From this rises an argumentthat the resulting war is also an exercise in arrogance and imperialism, etc.,and not deserving of support. This argument will be made with greaterfearlessness as the first memories of the 7,000 murdered recede. Third, it isworth it because the American foreign policy establishment has all the heartfor war of a titmouse, and not one of your braver titmice. The first faint,let-us-be-reasonable bleats can even now be heard: Yes, we must do something,but is an escalation of aggression really the right thing? Mightn't it justmake matters ever so much worse?

Pacifists see themselves as obviously on the sideof a higher morality, and there is a surface appeal to this notion, even forthose who dismiss pacifism as hopelessly naive. The pacifists' argument isrooted entirely in this appeal: Two wrongs don't make a right; violence onlybegets more violence.

There can be truth in the pacifists' claim to themoral high ground, notably in the case of a war that is waged for manifestlyevil purposes. So, for instance, a German citizen who declined to fight for theNazi cause could be seen (although not likely by his family and friends) asoccupying the moral position. But in the situation where one's nation has beenattacked -- a situation such as we are now in -- pacifism is, inescapably andprofoundly, immoral. Indeed, in the case of this specific situation, pacifismis on the side of the murderers, and it is on the side of letting them murderagain.

In 1942 George Orwell wrote this, in PartisanReview, of Great Britain's pacifists:

"Pacifism is objectively pro-Fascist. Thisis elementary common sense. If you hamper the war effort of one side youautomatically help out that of the other. Nor is there any real way ofremaining outside such a war as the present one. In practice, 'he that is notwith me is against me.' "

England's pacifists howled, but Orwell's logicwas implacable. The Nazis wished the British to not fight. If the British didnot fight, the Nazis would conquer Britain. The British pacifists also wishedthe British to not fight. The British pacifists, therefore, were on the side ofa Nazi victory over Britain. They were objectively pro-Fascist.

An essentially identical logic obtains now. Organizedterrorist groups have attacked America. These groups wish the Americans to notfight. The American pacifists wish the Americans to not fight. If the Americansdo not fight, the terrorists will attack America again. And now we know suchattacks can kill many thousands of Americans. The American pacifists,therefore, are on the side of future mass murders of Americans. They areobjectively pro-terrorist.

There is no way out of this reasoning. No honestperson can pretend that the groups that attacked America will, if let alone,not attack again. Nor can any honest person say that this attack is not atleast reasonably likely to kill thousands upon thousands of innocent people. Tonot fight in this instance is to let the attackers live to attack and murderagain; to be a pacifist in this instance is to accept and, in practice, supportthis outcome.

As President Bush said of nations: A war has beendeclared; you are either on one side or another. You are either for doing whatis necessary to capture or kill those who control and fund and harbor theterrorists, or you are for not doing this. If you are for not doing this, youare for allowing the terrorists to continue their attacks on America. You aresaying, in fact: I believe that it is better to allow more Americans -- perhapsa great many more -- to be murdered than to capture or kill the murderers.

That is the pacifists' position, and it is evil.
____________

Actually it is quite typical of your liberal position. "I want other people to get taxed into submission to pay for my food stamps but don't tax me, government!" Liberals have no sense of repsonsibility. Anyone but liberals are responsible for the shit in the world, right comrade? If the guy in apartment 3B murders his brother it's not his fault, it's the government's fault for not tapping his phones and monitoring him, or he's "mentally retarded", right comrade?

I'm sure you value your value your freedoms, but to not even express the slightest support for the protection of them is quite alarming. If you are the future of this country, God save us.

[Xenoman]

I didn't read the whole thing but, we must live with eachother whether we like it or not?

[danarchist]

We're supposed to be more advanced then animals yet they don't brutally kill each other.

I see you don't get the Discovery channel.

I think what he is refering to is the fact that animals don't hurt or kill others of their own kind, unless they ane fighting for mates or self-preservation. Both of which are essential for the continuation of the species.

Some people believe that the fact that animals kill each other in the wild is justification that humans can fight and kill each other within society. And these people, the Social Darwainists (Neitze was their philosopher, I believe), are fools who twist the words of the good old man who invented the theory of evolution.

Sorry for the rant, but I learned this in phychology, and I want to rant...anyways, back to your lives...

[Lüt]

Sorry to cut this short, but keep comments on this in this thread. Thanks.