[Stryke 9]

Was during the Afghan thing, he ranted on about it for about five minutes, and then never mentioned it again- probably because someone marginally saner shut him up before he got his ass shot off like it should be.

And the news doesn't report much of anything these days. I live right almost in DC. **** goes on here of national significance that never gets reported, precisely because it reflects badly on Bush. There's damn little news left that isn't government propoganda- I don't know what happened, but it's scary as **** to see what gets glossed over.

[Falcon X]

OMFG... the Times and other news agencies are ****ing run by leftist people.  They do EVERYTHING they can to hurt Bush.

What get's glossed over chief?  Generalities are wonderful.

[Stryke 9]

How 'bout the big peace protests? Most of 'em don't even get back page coverage, and when they do the numbers are generally figured extremely low. How 'bout all the arrests, the cops shooting up blacks out here for no reason, and what amounts to "dissapearances" of a lot of the Muslims?

Yes, the news is so liberal, it's a wonder they can't stop talking about how great Bush is. Once again, case of a misleading name meant to distract from the **** that's really going on... stick a tag on it and you think you understand it, eh? Doesn't work that way, jefe. Naming something is a long jump from having a clue what it is, particularly in politics, where if a word gets used enough it can mean whatever the **** you want it to, and hence means nothing at all. Hell, look at "terrorist". Look at "commie" ten years ago. Buzzwords. They're worthless for really explaining anything.

[Falcon X]

Where have you been?  The protests were HUGE news.  They were on all the front pages not to mention the top stories on the major news networks.

What network do you watch that says how great he is?  Never heard it.  I think you're hatred of one man blinds you.  I support him in some areas but not all.  Being polarized is dangerous.

For no reason really?  Does it ever say they have a gun and threaten them?  You do realize those cops are REAL people.  You stereotype so quickly it is disturbing.  They go home and have to deal with shooting people. Only maniacs can shoot someone without having tramatic issues about it.  Anyone in the Army deals with it... shell shock and or "the shakes" as they're called.

Muslims dissapearing?  I have many muslim friends and they ain't going anywhere.  The only people dissappearing are people being be called up for the reserves.

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Naming something is a long jump from having a clue what it is, particularly in politics, where if a word gets used enough it can mean whatever the **** you want it to, and hence means nothing at all. Hell, look at "terrorist". Look at "commie" ten years ago. Buzzwords. They're worthless for really explaining anything.

Yeah calling someone who targets civilians PURPOSELY a terrorist is naming someone something without providence.  And calling someone a commie was a true statement if they were communist.  They called us evil capatalists.

[Stryke 9]

When everything everyone else says is either a lie or a misinterpretation, it must make absolutism easy, doesn't it? Enjoy your blinkered little planet.

[Falcon X]

No I never said that pal.  Look simmer down.  Have a calm discussion.  Flaming is not necessary.

I am one of the few that requires EVIDENCE... proof that something is real or true.  Hysteria is dangerous.  Reaction is dangerous.  People wanted to annhilate the middle east after 9/11... I wanted to find out who it was.. they did.  If Bush was like what you think he is... we would have leveled the middle east the day after.

[Stryke 9]

Fine. Prove that the protests didn't exist. 'Cos I saw 'em myself, and didn't hear **** about them.

[an0n]

You're both idiots.

Bush = Evil
Ashcroft = Evil
Kissinger = Evil
Ghandi = Good
Hitler = Used evil things to carry out his very accetpable goals (IE, world domination)
Blair = Bush's *****
Bender = Funny


The above is right in perpetuity throughout the universe for all time. Anyone claiming that the above is somehow wrong forfeits ownership of their immortal soul, which becomes the property of an0n-Enterprises™.

©2003, an0n

[an0n]

Oh and:

• Where's the evidence linking Al Qaeda to the towers?
• Where's the evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda?
• Where's the evidence showing Aghanistan was supporting Al Qaeda?
• Enron?
• Who was it that ordered thousands of troops to level Afghanistan without even knowing where it was?
• Where's the evidence that Iraq has WMD's?
• Anyone notice how the two jets headed for civillian targets made it, but the ones headed for the Whitehouse and Pentagon failed?

Yeah calling someone who targets civilians PURPOSELY a terrorist is naming someone something without providence

Funny. When America was giving them weapons they were Freedom Fighters. It's interesting how things change so quickly.

And at least Al Qaeda don't go blowing up Red Cross buildings.

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by Stryke 9
Fine. Prove that the protests didn't exist. 'Cos I saw 'em myself, and didn't hear **** about them.

WTF?  I just said they did exist and there were major headlines.

[Falcon X]

Originally posted by an0n
Oh and:

• Where's the evidence linking Al Qaeda to the towers?
• Where's the evidence linking Iraq to Al Qaeda?
• Where's the evidence showing Aghanistan was supporting Al Qaeda?
• Enron?
• Who was it that ordered thousands of troops to level Afghanistan without even knowing where it was?
• Where's the evidence that Iraq has WMD's?
• Anyone notice how the two jets headed for civillian targets made it, but the ones headed for the Whitehouse and Pentagon failed?

Funny. When America was giving them weapons they were Freedom Fighters. It's interesting how things change so quickly.

And at least Al Qaeda don't go blowing up Red Cross buildings. [/B]

Seeing how they were targeting the military to free them... hmm therefore freedom fighters.

Did we do it on purpose?  No.  Bad things happen in war pal.  We MEAN to hit a target but collateral damage is ACCEPTABLE in international law.. terrorism isn't.  Major difference:  one targets something.. the other is an accident.

Al Qaeda?  They linked the people to them.

The Pentagon?  You stupid?  It hit the ****ing pentagon.  And did you notice how they were after the towers?  We were kinda aware **** was going on.

Oh yeah he didn't know where Afghanistan was... sure.  Just because he isn't as elloquent and the UN's ***** like clinton.

I can keep going if you want.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Falcon X
I can keep going if you want.

Please do.

I find you opinions intriguing and wish to learn more about you political ideals. Do you operate some form of newsletter which I could subscribe to? Or perhaps an informational pamphlet?

I would also like information on where I can purchase one of your spiffy brown uniforms. What sizes are available? How much do they typically cost? Must I supply/make my own armband or does it come free with the uniform?

[Falcon X]

Hahaha.  Name calling get's you nowhere and shows you don't have an argument.

Anyway... Shrike own this thread before it gets even more out of hand.  These people can't have a political debate without getting personal.

[phreak]

and according to godwin's law it looks like falcon wins

"As a Usenet discussion grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Nazis or Hitler approaches one." There is a tradition in many groups that, once this occurs, that thread is over, and whoever mentioned the Nazis has automatically lost whatever argument was in progress. Godwin's Law thus practically guarantees the existence of an upper bound on thread length in those groups. However there is also a widely- recognized codicil that any intentional triggering of Godwin's Law in order to invoke its thread-ending effects will be unsuccessful.

http://info.astrian.net/jargon/terms/g/Godwin_s_Law.html

[PeachE]

Originally posted by PhReAk
and according to godwin's law it looks like falcon wins
 

a-****ing-men

[Liberator]

Terrorists
An group that makes systematic use of terror, especially as a means of coercion.

On a fundamental level the terrorists of Al-Queda and other, similar groups seek the destruction of democracy and freedom on a planetary scale.  They seek to force all individuals to do as they say when they say it.

On a more personal note,

an0n, your less than utter disgust for Hitler, either as an individual or leader, shows that you have a low ethical character.  

To turn on a previous statement and compare Falcon X to a Nazi shows a lack of attention to your previous statments and leads me to beleive you only say things to provoke a reaction, and any future posts from you should be not be viewed as valuable toward the discussion.

[Stryke 9]

Actually, the terrorism charge has been used against everyone from drug dealers to peace protestors to Germany to Democrats. It doesn't wash in any of the aforementioned cases.

Never mind that terrorism is not so much a common as a routine part of total war- which is what we're fighting now, and what the US has been reveling in for decades. Tactics to demoralize and coerce the civilian populace are standard, and you'd be hard-pressed to win a war without them. In fact, you just plain wouldn't period. It's ugly, but its invariably necessary- ranting on and on about it doesn't make this any less true.

Liberator: You want a prize or something?







This isn't ****ing debate club, guys. I really oughta have stuffed a buncha you into lockers by now. There are no rules, nobody has to be ****ing relevant if they don't ****ing want to, and this is not an opportunity for you to show off your fine rhetorical talent. If you want to play debate club, **** off. This is serious real-world stuff.

[PeachE]

no one's denying the existance of government propaganda, at some level. but if you really expect me to believe that Bush owned Ted Turner, you're out of your ****ing mind...

[Stryke 9]

At any rate, apparently NPR did a report on new Act. That evidence enough for you, FalconX?