Scares me?? I find it sad. A waste of effort. If you want to do something about the Wackos at Waco, bring a lawsuit .. Being a dead victim tends to leave the lawsuit option out of the equation.
You misunderstood... I was referring to YOU. If YOU want to do something about the killings,
bring a lawsuit or propose legislation to prevent such occurrences in the future. Blowing up a building does nothing... except to kill more innocents.
McVeigh was pissed about Waco... so he created another tragedy. Did it solve anything? Of course not.
When I see a cop in my neighborhood, I'm glad that they are showing a presence here. When I needed a cop, I called and one was at my house in 2 or 3 minutes. Is that cop that answered my call... THE GOVERNMENT? Every day THE GOVERNMENT is on my front porch delivering my mail. MY GOVERNMENT supplies water and sewer services on my street... Should I shoot at them because they are reading the water meter on my house??? They are THE GOVERNMENT... and by your view, they are to be feared and hated.
There is enough pain, death, fear and hatred in this world with out inventing a whole set of evils in THE GOVERNMENT.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
You misunderstood... I was referring to YOU. If YOU want to do something about the killings,
bring a lawsuit or propose legislation to prevent such occurrences in the future. Blowing up a building does nothing... except to kill more innocents.
McVeigh was pissed about Waco... so he created another tragedy. Did it solve anything? Of course not.
When I see a cop in my neighborhood, I'm glad that they are showing a presence here. When I needed a cop, I called and one was at my house in 2 or 3 minutes. Is that cop that answered my call... THE GOVERNMENT? Every day THE GOVERNMENT is on my front porch delivering my mail. MY GOVERNMENT supplies water and sewer services on my street... Should I shoot at them because they are reading the water meter on my house??? They are THE GOVERNMENT... and by your view, they are to be feared and hated.
There is enough pain, death, fear and hatred in this world with out inventing a whole set of evils in THE GOVERNMENT.
The government creates the evil by it's actions.
If a cop kills your kid who was committing no crime, are you going to say, it's ok.
No, you would likely hate him.
This same feeling of hate is born by every innocent drop of blood shed.
The problem is killing the innocent.
The problem isn't terrorism.
Terrorism is the byproduct of the actions that cause it to be born.
You can't blame fires that you start.
I'm afraid cause and effect are lost on you.
You just can't imagine the US government causing a terrorist to be born.
Quoted from Box A Rox MY GOVERNMENT supplies water and sewer services on my street... Should I shoot at them because they are reading the water meter on my house??? They are THE GOVERNMENT... and by your view, they are to be feared and hated.
Not my view. You asked me for an explanation.
I tried to explain causality and why terrorists exist.
You again try to make it appear to be my views of the government.
You are trying to argue a point that I don't defend or condone.
From either side.
Just you do.
I merely stated why I believe terrorists exist. I base the observation on actual words of the terrorists.
They want revenge.
Will someone kill a mailman when no one is looking?
Maybe, if someone he knows or loves was killed by someone associated with the mailman.
It happens every day.
Should it be happening? No.
I explained the cause, but you don't desire to stop the cause.
You want me to file a lawsuit, that's brilliant.
You should want the killings to stop; thereby stopping the cause of terrorism.
You can't continue to fight a war on terror, with terror as the weapon of choice, expecting anything less than increased terrorism as a result.
Admitting guilty actions and working to stop these actions is all a person can do.
Denial and continuation makes for a very dismal future.
Not my view. You asked me for an explanation. I tried to explain causality and why terrorists exist. You again try to make it appear to be my views of the government. You are trying to argue a point that I don't defend or condone. From either side. Just you do. I merely stated why I believe terrorists exist. I base the observation on actual words of the terrorists. They want revenge. Will someone kill a mailman when no one is looking? Maybe, if someone he knows or loves was killed by someone associated with the mailman. It happens every day. Should it be happening? No. I explained the cause, but you don't desire to stop the cause. You want me to file a lawsuit, that's brilliant. You should want the killings to stop; thereby stopping the cause of terrorism. You can't continue to fight a war on terror, with terror as the weapon of choice, expecting anything less than increased terrorism as a result. Admitting guilty actions and working to stop these actions is all a person can do. Denial and continuation makes for a very dismal future.
"Here are your words: *They want revenge. *Will someone kill a mailman when no one is looking? *Maybe, if someone he knows or loves was killed by someone associated with the mailman."
I understand revenge. If the mailman killed my child I might take revenge on the mailman. but The actions you post about are taking revenge on the milkman at anger for the mailman. It makes no sense!
~ My govt sent troops to Iraq... so I'll blow up a school bus tomorrow... because I'm pissed. ~ Obama didn't shut down Gitmo like he promised to do, so I'll poison the water supply of a city. ~ My taxes are too high,(even though they are lower now than in 40 year) and I am oppressed by my govt taxing me... so I'll set off a bomb at a sporting event...
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I understand revenge. If the mailman killed my child I might take revenge on the mailman. but The actions you post about are taking revenge on the milkman at anger for the mailman. It makes no sense!
Revenge on the US milkman at anger for the US mailman.
I never suggested that they seek revenge by killing totally unrelated persons.
Reno torched Waco, McViegh torched a Federal Building.
You keep adding totally unrelated things to the discussion.
A milkman and a government worker.
Come on.
A US drone kills a Pakistani family.
Will the survivor care if he takes his revenge out on Americans on a school bus or a military base?
Perhaps you have a better explanation of how a terrorist is born?
Revenge on the US milkman at anger for the US mailman. I never suggested that they seek revenge by killing totally unrelated persons. Reno torched Waco, McViegh torched a Federal Building. You keep adding totally unrelated things to the discussion. A milkman and a government worker. Come on. A US drone kills a Pakistani family. Will the survivor care if he takes his revenge out on Americans on a school bus or a military base? Perhaps you have a better explanation of how a terrorist is born?
I never suggested that they seek revenge by killing totally unrelated persons Reno torched Waco, McViegh torched a Federal Building..
Had McVeigh torched JUST the building, I might agree with you. BUT HE DIDN'T torch just a BUILDING. He took the lives of 168 TOTALLY UNRELATED PERSONS.
He didn't take revenge on Janet Reno at all. She was hardly effected... but the thousands of people who lost loved ones in McVeigh's bombing were devastated.
You post about "ACTION AND REACTION"... McVeigh killed the milkman for the sins of the mailman. Ridiculous!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
I never suggested that they seek revenge by killing totally unrelated persons Reno torched Waco, McViegh torched a Federal Building..
Had McVeigh torched JUST the building, I might agree with you. BUT HE DIDN'T torch just a BUILDING. He took the lives of 168 TOTALLY UNRELATED PERSONS.
He didn't take revenge on Janet Reno at all. She was hardly effected... but the thousands of people who lost loved ones in McVeigh's bombing were devastated.
You post about "ACTION AND REACTION"... McVeigh killed the milkman for the sins of the mailman. Ridiculous!
A drone kills a 2 year old.
Not ridiculous?
I ask again, what do you think causes a terrorist to be created?
You continue to deny that they exist because of something that was done to them or someone they consider to be innocent.
A drone kills a 2 year old. Not ridiculous? I ask again, what do you think causes a terrorist to be created? You continue to deny that they exist because of something that was done to them or someone they consider to be innocent. Come on, just answer the question.
A major difference. The target of a drone is a combatant, not a civilian. He is a target because of his affiliation with a military action. If a 2 year old is standing outside of the building when a drone hits, the child's death is an accident, not an intended result. When McVeigh bombed he did so with the INTENT of killing that 2 year old.
Had McVeigh blown up an empty Federal building, or even a FBI building full of agents, the issue would be different. He didn't. He killed a totally unrelated group that had nothing at all to do with the Waco incident.
He killed the milkman for the crimes of the mailman.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
A major difference. The target of a drone is a combatant, not a civilian. He is a target because of his affiliation with a military action. If a 2 year old is standing outside of the building when a drone hits, the child's death is an accident, not an intended result. When McVeigh bombed he did so with the INTENT of killing that 2 year old.
Had McVeigh blown up an empty Federal building, or even a FBI building full of agents, the issue would be different. He didn't. He killed a totally unrelated group that had nothing at all to do with the Waco incident.
He killed the milkman for the crimes of the mailman.
So your belief is that terrorists just magically come into creation?
So your belief is that terrorists just magically come into creation? You support killing the innocent with a drone. You are the identical to McVeigh in his beliefs. Speak up, supporter of terrorism.
These are your words:
"I never suggested that they seek revenge by killing totally unrelated persons" You justify McVeigh killing "totally unrelated persons"!
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Had McVeigh blown up an empty Federal building, or even a FBI building full of agents, the issue would be different. He didn't. He killed a totally unrelated group that had nothing at all to do with the Waco incident.
Kinda like the U.S. military blowing up Afghanistan after 9/11 when the 19 hijackers were Saudi Arabian.
I never justified any death of anyone, idiot. Stop trying to force me into your made up world. Terrorism the the killing of the innocent along with the guilty. He stated that he learned it from the government at his sentencing. You support killing the innocent while going after those you feel deserve to die. You support terrorism just like McVeigh. You asked where a terrorist comes from and why they kill the innocent. I explain it to you, then you accuse me of defending killing the innocent. You have a severe mental blockage. You support terrorism. You deny that terrorists have a cause for their actions. A physical impossibility. Ok, your turn to say I'm defending terrorists again. You live in a fantasy world with good killing of the innocent and terroristic bad killing of the innocent. That's the extremist viewpoint of the Taliban. So once again I ask you, what causes terrorism?
What a disjointed post!
~First you post: "Stop trying to force me into your made up world." ~Followed by 6 lines, all starting with the word "YOU", that "try to force me into your made up world."
One way you can tell when you are winning a discussion is when the other person gives up on facts and persuasion and resorts to 'insults and name calling'. Note: ~ "idiot" ~ " a severe mental blockage"
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Social and political injustice: People choose terrorism when they are trying to right what they perceive to be a social or political or historical wrong—when they have been stripped of their land or rights, or denied these.
The belief that violence or its threat will be effective, and usher in change. Another way of saying this is: the belief that violent means justify the ends. Many terrorists in history said sincerely that they chose violence after long deliberation, because they felt they had no choice.
The modern conservative is engaged in one of man's oldest exercises in moral philosophy; that is, the search for a superior moral justification for selfishness. John Kenneth Galbraith
Logged
