Terrorist... - Page 4

MustGoFaster · 07-08-2005

I am not a religious person. I haven’t put a whole bunch of though into it, but here’s a question. Do other animals go to church/pray? Maybe they do, maybe they don’t. Just another question to think about.

As for what happened in London, it is a tragedy, and just another reason to try and find all these guys that do this stuff and put them in jail.

LightningGSX · 07-08-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by MustGoFaster

As for what happened in London, it is a tragedy, and just another reason to try and find all these guys that do this stuff and put them in jail.

Jail? The punishment should fit the crime

Onefast99gsx · 07-09-2005

Jail- is for people that habitually drunk drive or commit misdemeanor crimes. The magnitude of the London incident-- Well...do i even need to say what needs to happen to those responsible? Tell you what- if Wisconsin had a referendum to instate the death penalty, i'd be the first one to the the poll booths.

MustGoFaster · 07-09-2005

I was going to say kill, but it didn't seem right. We should probably torture them, say drop them in some shark infested water? Or would that be mean to the sharks?

Jakey · 07-29-2005

Well with the anti-terror operations going on recently and now this morning in London, hopefully they'll continue to catch more of these f*ckers.

npaulseth · 07-29-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by LightningGSX

Steven Weinberg -
“With or without religion, you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.”

That's a fantastic quote.

LightningGSX · 07-31-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by sleepy2lazy

I can understand you to some points CDeutsch, but in truth, two of those countries could have developed on its own. Cannot turn back time to change it and nor can we predict it but, America left Japan / China in turmoil.
Europe / Russia / America invaded Japan far back in the days. Russia / Europe disregarded its investments in Japan due to the war of 1812. Napoleon's quest for power. America was the only one left in that, and it basically ruined the power structure and economy of Japan that has been stable for centuries before foreigners came in there.

In China, America supported the democratic group which destroyed China. Rise of Communist Mao took place. If only America woulda supported Mao. (IMO, Communist Mao in his early stages during China's civil war actually had the best form of government i have read about. The reason that i think he took over with an iron fist was due to Russia / America's interference, thus Mao shut off all connections with countries. W/O those two nations interfering, the country may have prospered. Germany after WWI was left in ruins. Korea with Nuclear Weapons? Now America is a bit afraid? Maybe Korea just wanted some Nukes for its own defense, kinda like, "You got guns? We got guns ! Back off our country and let us deal with it"

My memory has been shitty these last few weeks but, as I recall...
1.America in no way left Japan in turmoil.Germany was far from "left in ruins".The allied "rehabilitation of enemy sates" were for the most part very effective, and their actions are directly responsible for the the free prosperous places they are today.Maybe I forgot something, but I can't remember how exacly we left China in turmoil.
2.We did in fact ally the US and communist China during the Nixon administration.We sacrificed Taiwan as an independant state, but allied with China none the less, mostly on the threat(against both US and China) from the soviet union
3.No nation in the modern world needs nuclear weapons for defense purposes.North Korea wants/has nukes only because the dictator is a 4 foot pussy with an obvious "napoleon complex" and IMHO has some delusion of being some kind of a modern world conqueror.Even without nukes, NK is a very formidable enemy to many nations which would even consider invading it.Not that any nations had intention on doing so before NK decided to pursue nukes.
Misc thoughts...
The proliferation of terrorism is directly related to the media coverage of it.In the 50-60+ years of terrorist tactics, its sole purpose was/is to bring the worlds attention to the particular ideals of the group who commit the acts.The one and only surefire way to stop terrorist attacks is to stop the media coverage of it.Since this is not likely to happen, expect the violence to esculate, and definately don't expect an end.

LightningGSX · 07-31-2005

And to add to the proliferation of terrorism, Reagan and Clinton surely helped it on its way to the scale its at today.And its people like Bush, who don't squash entire military opertions because of televised violent acts/killings of americas, which won't end terrorism, but surely make the terrorists rethink the effectiveness of their tactics.

**JET** · 07-31-2005

I was doing more reading on North Korea. Their government farm system went down the shitter in the mid 90's. They rely on aid from other countries to feed their people. They are now only getting about 60% of the aid they need and people are eating seaweed and grass to stay alive! Why spend money on nukes when you can't even feed your own people?!? Frickin' commies don't make any sense!

dsm10sec · 07-31-2005

Since you guys are talking about terrorism, I thought I'd bring this to your attention.
http://www.livejournal.com/~prometheanquirk/
This is one of my friend's journals, he's the brainy type and loves politics. I urge every one of you to read his July 29th post. It is about The Patriot Act II/Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 and what happens if it gets passed. One of the new laws in it would be to ban all private gun sales. It also says you're guilty untill proven innocent... Read for yourself.

PS, if you want to read about the fun a paranoid, germaphobe's visit to the strip club held, read the July 25th post. (He only went because it was my b-day.)

LightningGSX · 08-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by dsm10sec

Since you guys are talking about terrorism, I thought I'd bring this to your attention.
http://www.livejournal.com/~prometheanquirk/
This is one of my friend's journals, he's the brainy type and loves politics. I urge every one of you to read his July 29th post. It is about The Patriot Act II/Domestic Security Enhancement Act of 2003 and what happens if it gets passed. One of the new laws in it would be to ban all private gun sales. It also says you're guilty untill proven innocent... Read for yourself.

PS, if you want to read about the fun a paranoid, germaphobe's visit to the strip club held, read the July 25th post. (He only went because it was my b-day.)

I didn't read your friends journal, but I see no part of the "Patriot Act II" that would ban private gun sales nor do I see any part that would consider a person guilty until proven innocent(not any more frequently than present at least), unless you're a criminal,terrorist, or someone that helps/supports either.For the average law abiding citizen, the act would have little, if any, effect.Sure some innocent people may be wrongly effected, but that's an every day occurence in our present legal system anyway.Also, I might add, this act is for the most part, a rough draft.

LightningGSX · 08-01-2005

Quote:

Originally Posted by JET

I was doing more reading on North Korea. Their government farm system went down the shitter in the mid 90's. They rely on aid from other countries to feed their people. They are now only getting about 60% of the aid they need and people are eating seaweed and grass to stay alive! Why spend money on nukes when you can't even feed your own people?!? Frickin' commies don't make any sense!

It's just the typical selfish, power hungry dictator scenario which history has seen many times.