Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

dogma wrote:Huh.

What exactly is your point?

Is it that since the Civil War, as a percentage of GDP, Republicans get us involved in wars that are inexpensive (1% of GDP) while Democrats start expensive wars (>2% of GDP)?

biccat wrote:
What exactly is your point?

Is it that since the Civil War, as a percentage of GDP, Republicans get us involved in wars that are inexpensive (1% of GDP) while Democrats start expensive wars (>2% of GDP)?

First, party doesn't matter over that much time, everyone know's that (Democratic-Republicans are great, no?).

Second, the point is that the US doesn't smash terrorists by policy, and it took equivocation to even try and make a Conservative point.

Also that Fraz doesn't know what "terrorism" means, but everyone knew that before.

Frazzled wrote:

*Because it was the worst terrorist attack in the history of mankind, both in loss of life and financial impact.
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

This is relevant why?

Ah America.. such a strange country. A land of enormous diversity. The same nation that has the black panthers, has the Klu Klux clan. The nation with the biggest gay pride parades, has the biggest amount of homophobes, and for every person that is nauseatingly patriotic, you have a sensible person.

I just heard Bush give his speech after 9/11, and it made me want to vomit. America is THE BEST.

That speech alone must have assisted AQ recruitment more than anything Osama could have said.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.

Oh, this will be fun.

Frazzled wrote:
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

Huh.

Whatever you posted has pretty much NOTHING to do with my post. Good attempt to to try to sidestep the point for some reason and develop a strawman argument you'd like to fight about. , but as you say - who cares. I was responsding to the poster who proffered the US soil had not been attacked before.

And that's before asking the question "Who cares?"

As those events started major wars or thousands of troops being mobilized (Pancho Villa), I'd submit the USA did.

OK, Now that you've performed standard Dogma move #1: attempting to move the discussion into an unrelated field, I eagerly await standard Dogma move #2: arguing about the different definitions of words. Or will it be #3: arguing about how to argue?

Regardless, I merely corrected his misprerception of actual US history. As I care not a whit about yours, back to topic.

dogma wrote:First, party doesn't matter over that much time, everyone know's that (Democratic-Republicans are great, no?).

Sure it does. There are a lot of political similarities between early-19th century progressives (Wilson) and modern progressives (Obama).

Also, the Democratic-Republican party was disolved well before the Civil War, which was my starting point. But I'm sure you knew that.

dogma wrote:Second, the point is that the US doesn't smash terrorists by policy, and it took equivocation to even try and make a Conservative point.

Also that Fraz doesn't know what "terrorism" means, but everyone knew that before.

I don't see how the link you posted supports either of these conclusions.

mattyrm wrote:

Frazzled wrote:

*Because it was the worst terrorist attack in the history of mankind, both in loss of life and financial impact.
*The US has been attacked before. We didn't take kindly then either.
British in war of 1812.
Mexican advance in 1846, (followed shortly by a Mexican retreat. )
Pancho Villa in 1915-1916
Japanese attack on Pearl Harbor.

This is relevant why?

Ah America.. such a strange country. A land of enormous diversity. The same nation that has the black panthers, has the Klu Klux clan. The nation with the biggest gay pride parades, has the biggest amount of homophobes, and for every person that is nauseatingly patriotic, you have a sensible person.

I just heard Bush give his speech after 9/11, and it made me want to vomit. America is THE BEST.

That speech alone must have assisted AQ recruitment more than anything Osama could have said.

Ah now I see. I was responding to the "attack" not "terrorist attack."
Terrorist attacks against the US mainland are indeed more limited but have occurred previously.
*The first Tower attack under the Clinton administration.
*The Weathermen bombings (ask Obama's friend about that)
*Black Panther attacks of the same period.
*The vermin that are the Klan - 1865-1965.
*oklahoma bombing.
*Unabomber bombings
*Tylenol attacks.
*Pancho Villa.

This doesn't include the Indian wars of course.

How are the Black Panther incidents terrorist attacks? Wouldn't you classify the innumerable KKK incidents as terrorism then?

mattyrm wrote: I just heard Bush give his speech after 9/11, and it made me want to vomit. America is THE BEST.

We are the best. Live it, learn it, love it. Anyone who's eaten proper Amurican Pizza (HURR!) knows we're the best. Its not your fault you're British and have a cuisine that would make a Billy Goat puke.

Frazzled wrote:
Whatever you posted has pretty much NOTHING to do with my post.

That the US has been attacked, and subsequently defended itself? Yeah, that's nice, and isn't the point. How the US defended itself given the attack is the point, and my point was that proportionality seems to have been abandoned even given the seemingly "hard" mentalities of the past.

Frazzled wrote:
Good attempt to to try to sidestep the point for some reason and develop a strawman argument you'd like to fight about. , but as you say - who cares. I was responsding to the poster who proffered the US soil had not been attacked before.

Didn't sidestep, or present a strawman. Its funny too, because you lead with the word "whatever" which makes me believe you're obfuscating.

Frazzled wrote:
As those events started major wars or thousands of troops being mobilized (Pancho Villa), I'd submit the USA did.

Major? 1812? Really?

Frazzled wrote:
OK, Now that you've performed standard Dogma move #1: attempting to move the discussion into an unrelated field, I eagerly await standard Dogma move #2: arguing about the different definitions of words. Or will it be #3: arguing about how to argue?

Regardless, I merely corrected his misprerception of actual US history. As I care not a whit about yours, back to topic.

So what you're saying is that you can't deal with dissent. I knew this, but its nice to illustrate every so often.

Melissia wrote:How are the Black Panther incidents terrorist attacks? Wouldn't you classify the innumerable KKK incidents as terrorism then?

Er. read again. I did. They are pretty much the definition of terrorists to me.

I'd also add in John Brown, and the whole Bleeding Kansas scene as the a nice run of mid 1800s terrorism across a wide spectrum. Amazingly, this was in Kansas. Who gives a about...Kansas? Even people from Kansas hate Kansas.

In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.

biccat wrote:
Sure it does. There are a lot of political similarities between early-19th century progressives (Wilson) and modern progressives (Obama).

Sure, and there are a lot of commonalities between Wilson and GWII (and Reagan).

biccat wrote:
Also, the Democratic-Republican party was disolved well before the Civil War, which was my starting point. But I'm sure you knew that.

And I wasn't talking about economics, I was talking about why party doesn't matter.

biccat wrote:
I don't see how the link you posted supports either of these conclusions.

My point: The US will defend itself, but the "defense" against 9/11 was excessive.

Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.

OK. The Christians who burn homosexual churches, and hang homosexuals should indeed be treated as terrorists. We're on the same page here, although I'd change that from Christians to any organized group.

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.

OK. The Christians who burn homosexual churches, and hang homosexuals should indeed be treated as terrorists. We're on the same page here, although I'd change that from Christians to any organized group.

Oh no, the terrorizing is far more than merely the arson and the murders. In fact, for many people (not everyone of course, given that it's open for interpretation), the bible itself is essentially intended to as a book supporting terrorism towards homosexuals.

Frazzled wrote:We're on the same page here, although I'd change that from Christians to any organized group.

And what does "terrorize" mean?

Technically, it means "create and maintain a state of extreme fear and distress in (someone)" in this particualr case. Which is why I found it odd he's trying to use this definition because it's really overbroad for what we're talking about.

Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.

Why, what actual attacks on homosexuals have American Christians done? What makes those attacks terrorist attacks?

CptJake wrote:

Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.

Why, what actual attacks on homosexuals have American Christians done? What makes those attacks terrorist attacks?

Let's see... countless assaults on homosexuals, especially but not exclusively teenaged males. Rapes, especially on lesbians (see "corrective rape"). Murders, including particularly gruesome and humiliating ones. The constant preaching of hate and intolerance (just like the Islamic extremists preaching of the same against the western world and Israel). Arson against churches that are friendly to homosexuality. Nevermind the never-ending barrage of emotional and social assaults which have no direct violence but do just as much damage.

A better question is what kind of attacks HAVEN'T been done, the only real answer is "there haven't been any large scale attacks", qualified with a "yet" at the end, because someone's going to do that eventually-- it's inevitable given how much hatred is preached. All of this adds up to create an atmosphere of terror in many locations for homosexuals.

The American LGBT community live in fear of Christian brutality?

Medium of Death wrote:The American LGBT community live in fear of Christian brutality?

Of homophobic brutality regardless of its source, but hardline Christians tend to be the most common source.

In other countries it's hardline muslims, or other forms of extremists depending on the location.

CptJake wrote:

Melissia wrote:In that case, I'd like to label a surprising number of Christians as terrorists for how they treat homosexuals.

Why, what actual attacks on homosexuals have American Christians done? What makes those attacks terrorist attacks?

Oh come on, there is a reason that Europeans universally lol at Americans on this topic, there must be shed loads of individual incidents considering you guys have all kinds of fething wack job Christians running around. Scott Roeder is a good example of an American Christian murderous bastard, and ive read numerous stories similar regarding gay people for years. There was one on TV when I was over there about some fruit cake stabbing some gay guy to death because he was gay. Its just needless belligerence to ask for individual cases.

As I said, its the number one reason I left the RM, we are the biggest allies the US has and frankly I'm uncomfortable with the idea of invading anyone else if it turns out that we only went because some hick thinks that Jesus might have liked the idea.

I know this will be controversial, but I would argue that to homosexuals, terrorism is far more real than it is to the average American. Terrorism is something that the LGBT individuals and communities have to personally face every day, not just occasionally hear about it on the news.

It's like trying to talk to an Afghani or Israeli about terrorism when you've lived in Idaho or wherever your entire life without ever seeing any such violence or oppression first hand.

Melissia wrote:I know this will be controversial, but I would argue that to homosexuals, terrorism is far more real than it is to the average American. Terrorism is something that the LGBT individuals and communities have to personally face every day, not just occasionally hear about it on the news.

It's like trying to talk to an Afghani or Israeli about terrorism when you've lived in Idaho or wherever your entire life without ever seeing any such violence or oppression first hand.

A Kimber Ultra Carry helps that.

So there isn't an actual Christian organisation that physically targets gay people for acts of violence?

Medium of Death wrote:So there isn't an actual Christian organisation that physically targets gay people for acts of violence?

Does there need to be?

http://security.blogs.cnn.com/2011/09/07/the-lone-wolf-the-unknowable-face-of-terror/

Is he not a terrorist because he has no connections to terrorist groups?

Frazzled wrote:A Kimber Ultra Carry helps that.

Lulz. So, entirely off topic-- So we should have a government fund to purchase one of these for every homosexual? Hm. To try to make sure people can't game the system, make it only those whom are getting married and it gets confiscated if they divorce?

Heh.

He didn't have any tangible connection, but he was most likely influenced by (and not limited to!) Al Qaeda, Anwar al-Awlaki, etc.

I'm sure big Anwar was calling for more lone wolf attacks.

Also I'm getting away from the point.

Islam is not a Terrorist organisation, neither is Christianity.

Frazzled wrote:A Kimber Ultra Carry helps that.

Lulz. So, entirely off topic-- So we should have a government fund to purchase one of these for every homosexual? Hm. To try to make sure people can't game the system, make it only those whom are getting married and it gets confiscated if they divorce?

Heh.

Medium of Death: Just like a large number of homophobic hate crimes are inspired by the hateful preaching of many Christian religious authorities, yes?

Medium of Death wrote:Islam is not a Terrorist organisation, neither is Christianity.

Also ,noone claimed this paricular statement. what's your point?

From what I read in your posts I assumed you were heavily hinting at it.

Then again: I am not a clever man.

Just to jump back to 9/11 for a moment. There have been some really good retrospective programs on the attacks on TV over here recently.

There was an interesting one on yesterday were comedian Andrew Maxwell (funny Irish bloke) takes a bunch of conspiracy theorists on a road trip to the locations of the attacks and to meet people involved ,as well as various experts to try and debunk there beliefs.

It nicely captures the full spectrum of conspiracy theorists, from those who have doubts simply down to there own ignorance and lack of knowledge about the world, to those were the conspiracy has essentially become a religion substitute and belief is a matter of unbreakable faith no matter how much contradictory evidence there shown.

Its a nice watch but I found it infuriating at times as it gave me flashbacks to arguments I have had with conspiracy nutters over the years. Its like they all read from the same script just blindly following the herd.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/iplayer/episode/b014gpjx/9_11_Conspiracy_Road_Trip/

Its on Iplayer so non Uk peeps will need to do some internet voodoo to watch it