Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Palomar · 2005-07-14 09:51:55

As for a question of mine you seem to have dodged before: What about all those terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e. Western airplane hijackings by Islamic terrorists -- cold-blooded murders of civilian pilots, rapes of stewardesses, innocent passengers terrorized and sometimes murdered?
All this stuff didn't start in January 2001. The Islamic terrorists have been targeting Westerners for a very long time. But no, it's only because of Bush and Blair -- and just very recently. (Not).
?
We were supposed to continue turning the other cheek indefinitely?
I'm -not- referring to Iraq here. I'm referring to the problem of Islamofundie terrorism overall.

*Bill, maybe you've already answered this previously and I forgot?

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-14 10:03:00

As for a question of mine you seem to have dodged before: What about all those terrorist incidents in the 1970s and 1980s, i.e. Western airplane hijackings by Islamic terrorists -- cold-blooded murders of civilian pilots, rapes of stewardesses, innocent passengers terrorized and sometimes murdered?
All this stuff didn't start in January 2001. The Islamic terrorists have been targeting Westerners for a very long time. But no, it's only because of Bush and Blair -- and just very recently. (Not).
?
We were supposed to continue turning the other cheek indefinitely?
I'm -not- referring to Iraq here. I'm referring to the problem of Islamofundie terrorism overall.
*Bill, maybe you've already answered this previously and I forgot?
--Cindy

In my opinion, bin Laden launched 9/11 precisely because he was having trouble drumming up support for his agenda among ordinary Muslims. His objective was to provoke a US response that would anger ordinary Muslims thereby adding fertilizer and water to potential recruits.

I believe the current al Qaeda style movement began with the Islamic reaction to the Soviet invaiosn of Afghanistan when Jimmy Carter was President and when Ronald Reagan was President. The Wahabi sect that bin Laden is part of has existed in Saudi Arabia for decades if not centuries.

Saudis like bin Laden were rallied by clerics to go to Afghanistan and fight the evil atheistic Soviets. They won and started thinking about who to fight next. When Saddam invaded Kuwait, in 1990, bin Laden and his buddies offered to attack Saddam (who was a secular anti-Islamic leader) but the Saudis turned to George Bush instead, which infuriated bin Laden.

The underlying problem is how to get Islam into the 21st century which is not unlike the problem of how to get fundie Christians not to go ballistic over evolution.

= = =

Also, Israel. Islamic anger over Israel (whether legitimate anger or bull$hit anger) fuels terror. The major Islamic governments have been shameless in exploiting the Palestinians to deflect anger at their own tyrannies.

Al Qaeda has its roots in Eggypt, Pakistan and Saudi Arabia. Never in Iraq.

Edited By BWhite on 1121370396

BWhite · 2005-07-14 10:06:15

On "turning the other cheek"

=IF= we hit the terrorists accurately then to hit VERY HARD is 100% appropriate. If we miss, the collateral damage we inflict on innocents will allow terror to grow.

Our good intentions are 100% irrelevant. Being more careful than any military in history is 100% irrelevant. Results matter. Good intentions are meaningless.

Any excuse making for collateral damage empowers bin Laden.

Unfair? Absolutely. But it's true.

= = =

All terror has two audiences. Those attacked and those supposedly advocated.

To provoke the US into lashing out blindly is EXACTLY what bin Laden intends.

Edited By BWhite on 1121357341

Cobra Commander · 2005-07-14 10:25:23

Identifying potential terrorists isn't the issue. Every human being on the planet is a potential terrorist.
The problem is that when faced with full-on, out of the terrorist closet rocket launching bomb toting active terrorists we have a tendency to not hit them as hard or as quickly as is warranted.
Examples?
If this is true, why is it true?

I could drag out a few quotes of your own about just this issue. Being lazy I'm not inclined to, but we've talked before about the "wimpish" behavior of this Administration in situations such as the mess in Fallujah awhile back, constant vacillating and half-steps. We capture terrorists and send them to Cuba, where we give them a new Koran and Muslim-approved food. This isn't exactly instilling fear in the heart of the enemy.

But what is the objective for being in Iraq in the first place?

Since I don't get invited to the Super-Secret Meetings (just the Hush-Hush Meetings) I can't say exactly. But it seems reasonable to conclude based on the way it was initially conveived and the acceleration toward democracy that the objective is to create a nominally democratic, partially Westernized Arab state in the heart of the MidEast for the purpose of destabalising other hostile regimes in the region. In that regard, it's actually working. Syria is slowly but surely caving, Iran is getting a little blustery but it's just that, even the Saudis are beginning to feel the internal pressure building.

On that most basic, long-term level, it's working.

Going forward in Iraq, well, will require increased commitment and a willingness to acknowledge to the other participants that significant mistakes were made.

The problem here is that some participants see "mistakes" where none exist. This Administration has made a ponderous list of errors but many of the alleged mistakes are primarily propaganda. It's a mess, but it's not FUBAR.

Frankly, I would support the appropriation of many billions of US taxpayer dollars to support real reconstruction of Iraqi infrastructure. But if we are to stay we need more soldiers.

Correction, we need more Iraqi security forces. More US troops would be counterproductive unless we have some big places to stomp. As it stands, most of the stomping needs to be done on a smaller scale than the US military is prepared for.

Soldiers are not cops.

So we need to get Iraqi forces up and running. There have been setbacks in that regard. It's one of the cases where we would have been better served by seizing control of the entire military structure from the get-go but we didn't, that ball's been dropped. As I and many others have said before, where do we go from here?

In short, we need to find ways to better recruit Iraqis, we need to provide them with training and equipment up to the task, and we need to let them fight for their own country instead of using them as auxilliaries.

Sending more US or foreign troops is not the answer unless we plan to kill a bunch of people, take over and colonize. American Mesopotamia.

Which I'm up for if you are, but that whole "strong Roman" thing requires a strong stomach and we're talking about American voters here.

Our good intentions are 100% irrelevant. Being more careful than any military in history is 100% irrelevant. Results matter. Good intentions are meaningless.

Reality matters as well. While I agree that bin Laden wanted a response, which he did not get through the '90s with ever-escalating attacks, his gamble hasn't paid off. There is no pan-Islamic unity against the US. As Jihads go this one is a joke. Afghanistan is recovering well and most of the population prefers the course they're on now. Most Iraqis are becoming increasingly hostile to the terrorists by all accounts I've received.

If we take action, people die. If we don't, people die.

To clarify again, neither I nor anyone else I can think of is advocating we blindly lash out. However, when we do incur civilian casualties all the wailing, second-guessing and self-flagellation that accompanies it helps no one but the terrorists themselves. Bringing us to this:

Any excuse making for collateral damage empowers bin Laden.

There's a difference between making excuses and accepting reality. What serves bin Laden most is collateral damage accompanied by our self-loathing over it.

Grypd · 2005-07-14 13:15:58

My one problem with the situation in Iraq is that it appears to be building to a very nasty civil war when the international forces leave. Sure we have the Iraqi security forces but im sure you will find they think of themselves as more Shi'te or Sunni or even Kurd than Iraqi. And even these groups have factions like the Marsh Arabs etc. Im sorry to say I really see Iraq as a patch work of ethnic groups who hate each other.

Then there are the influences of Iran and Saudi Arabia to add as well.

A Yugoslavia waiting to happen.

BWhite · 2005-07-14 13:21:47

My one problem with the situation in Iraq is that it appears to be building to a very nasty civil war when the international forces leave. Sure we have the Iraqi security forces but im sure you will find they think of themselves as more Shi'te or Sunni or even Kurd than Iraqi. And even these groups have factions like the Marsh Arabs etc. Im sorry to say I really see Iraq as a patch work of ethnic groups who hate each other.
Then there are the influences of Iran and Saudi Arabia to add as well.
A Yugoslavia waiting to happen.

Apparently this is why Saddam believed we would never overthrow his regime. Holding Iraq together as one nation is hard and who knew that reality better than Saddam himself?

Palomar · 2005-07-14 13:35:02

My one problem with the situation in Iraq is that it appears to be building to a very nasty civil war when the international forces leave. Sure we have the Iraqi security forces but im sure you will find they think of themselves as more Shi'te or Sunni or even Kurd than Iraqi. And even these groups have factions like the Marsh Arabs etc. Im sorry to say I really see Iraq as a patch work of ethnic groups who hate each other.
Then there are the influences of Iran and Saudi Arabia to add as well.
A Yugoslavia waiting to happen.

*It all seems pointless and inevitable, doesn't it?

What if Saddam Hussein had been funneling a lot of money to bin Laden and we brought him down ala (no pun intended) "smite the shepherd and the sheep will scatter"?

What if Bush played into bin Laden's hands?

If someone is determined to make trouble and push their agenda, and nothing stops them -- not even willful suicide -- well, how do you deal with people like that?

All these intercultural mistrusts and hatreds, everyone tucked away in their cocoons of "Rightness."

Then there's the multicultural hostility/reluctant tolerance even in the West which might be falling apart at the seams and which might explode.

The Islamic terrorists have been striking at us for a long time. Yeah, they use the Palestinians as their trump card; their red flag to wave around.

Too many sheeple, too many zealots with axes to grind, just enough manipulators and scoundrels in power.

Same old, same old. Sad.

Inevitability sure sucks.

--Cindy

Grypd · 2005-07-14 15:27:35

I disagree it is not pointless, nor can it not be resurected

There are large areas of Iraq that are peaceful and for the population the most safe they have felt in possibly a century.

This makes these people very very friendly to the people who have given them this and this is us. So when we leave do we abandom them of course we do not. We cannot morally allow there support for us to make them the victims of the more viscious anti western forces.

Palomar · 2005-07-14 16:04:41

*Yeah, I hope so. I just get into a major funk about all this stuff, sometimes.

Maybe time to ignore this thread for a while. But it's oh-so tempting to check it.

--Cindy

Echus_Chasma · 2005-07-14 16:58:55

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,162 … 78,00.html

The coordinated attacks by a car bomber and two men strapped with explosives on Thursday rocked the capital just one day after a horrific blast at a poor east Baghdad neighborhood that killed as many as 27 people, including a U.S. soldier and 18 youths who had swarmed around a U.S. Humvee to get candy and toys.

Palomar · 2005-07-14 19:45:44

Maybe time to ignore this thread for a while. But it's oh-so tempting to check it.

*...and keep talking.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050714/wl_ … dc]Support for bin Laden FALLS in Muslim countries

Also less support for suicide bombings. A ray of hope? Delusions of invincibility falling and the backlash isn't all that fun?

What surprised me was that support for suicide bombings is
up in Jordan. And Jordan's support of bin Laden is also up. :hm: I thought Jordan was one of the more progressive, U.S.-friendly Muslim nations. I wonder how Queen Noor (born and raised in the U.S.) feels about this? Is she turning a blind eye, rationalizing it? The current King's mother was an Englishwoman, IIRC.

Both in western countries and the Muslim world, respondents expressed fears about Islamic extremism.

Waking up and smelling the coffee, are they? Any form of religious extremism worries me (not just the Muslims).

-also-

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20050714/ts_ … ll_dc]Poll suggests drop in Bush's personal credibility

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-14 20:22:47

Again, HOW do we identify potential terrorists?
Identifying potential terrorists isn't the issue. Every human being on the planet is a potential terrorist.

Not revealing potential double agents is a start.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Muhammad_N … n]Muhammad Naeem Noor Khan

http://abcnews.go.com/WNT/LondonBlasts/ … e=1]London bombers tied to Pakistan

Officials tell ABC News the London bombers have been connected to an al Qaeda plot planned two years ago in the Pakistani city of Lahore.
The laptop computer of Naeem Noor Khan, a captured al Qaeda leader, contained plans for a coordinated series of attacks on the London subway system, as well as on financial buildings in both New York and Washington.
"There's absolutely no doubt he was part of an al Qaeda operation aimed at not only the United States but Great Britain," explained Alexis Debat, a former official in the French Defense Ministry who is now a senior terrorism consultant for ABC News.
At the time, authorities thought they had foiled the London subway plot by arresting more than a dozen young Britons of Pakistani descent last August in Luton, a city known for its ties to terrorism.
"For some time, the locus of terrorism in Britain has been around the Luton area and in some of the northern cities," said Michael Clark, professor of defense at King's College in London.
Security officials tell ABC News they have discovered links between the eldest of the London bombers, Mohammed Sadique Khan, 30, and the original group in Luton. Officials also believe it was not a coincidence the subway bombers all met at the Luton train station last week.
"It is very likely this group was activated last year after the other group was arrested," Debat said.

From an article http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/0809/dailyUpdate.html]in Christian Science Monitor:

MSNBC reported Monday that the early exposure of Khan not only ended the sting that Pakistani intelligence was conducting, but it also forced Britain's intelligence service to move faster than it wanted to last Tuesday to apprehend terror suspects in England that had been e-mailed by Khan. Five other suspects were able to escape before British authorities could arrest them. (The Associated Press reports Monday that 13 men were arrested in the original raid, but only nine are still being held.) Kevin Rosser, a security expert at the London-based consultancy Control Risks Group, said such a disclosure was "a risk that came with staging public alerts but that authorities were supposed to take special care not to ruin ongoing operations."

Edited By BWhite on 1121394395

DonPanic · 2005-07-15 07:42:03

What surprised me was that support for suicide bombings is
up in Jordan. And Jordan's support of bin Laden is also up. :hm: I thought Jordan was one of the more progressive, U.S.-friendly Muslim nations.

LO
I'm amazed by your ignorance of the region: a large minority of Jordan population is palestinian, with US support to Israel which steals each day pieces of palestinian territory, don't wait for them to love USA, others are mainly Sunnis, and tend to side with iraqi Sunnis which are at fight against US troops and hate USA too for having set that mess that have killed thousands of Sunnis, even if they are modern computers and portable phones owners willing for more democracy in their own country.
Other point, Jordan had cheap iraqi oil by agreement with Saddam and had a lot of business whith Iraq before the US assault, end of this brought more unemployment and poverty in Jordan.
And remember that what is occupyed territories nowadays and arab Jerusalem was Jordan before 1967.
Diplomatically, jordan leaders smile at US officials, the smiles are supposed to prevent Jordan from an israeli strike, deep inside they hate USA as much as the Syrians or other arab neighbours do. Were their eyes guns, you would be dead, as the close ally of the country that torn their country apart.

Palomar · 2005-07-15 08:07:54

What surprised me was that support for suicide bombings is
up in Jordan. And Jordan's support of bin Laden is also up. :hm: I thought Jordan was one of the more progressive, U.S.-friendly Muslim nations.
LO
I'm amazed by your ignorance of the region:

*Why?

I keep up with lots of science and astronomy stuff, have 11 to 12-hour work days, a husband and a home to take care of. My name isn't Condoleeza.

Last I knew (prior to the Iraq war and before the previous king's death), we were on relatively good terms. Or it seemed that way...my misinterpretation of the issues or did I hear some wrong "spin"? Queen Noor has attempted to draw the U.S. and Jordan closer together, the current king (her stepson, I know) seems very pro-Western. Guess I didn't look deeper...

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050715/ap_ … sk_why]Why terrorist activities in the nation which benefits you the most?

Feeling torn between Britain and Pakistan. Admission that Britain gives them much more freedom, yet there's this lingering attachment to Pakistan (which isn't good enough apparently, by their own standards, to move back to). So they hurt the nation which gives them the most.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-15 08:25:28

What surprised me was that support for suicide bombings is
up in Jordan. And Jordan's support of bin Laden is also up. :hm: I thought Jordan was one of the more progressive, U.S.-friendly Muslim nations.
LO
I'm amazed by your ignorance of the region:
*Why?
I keep up with lots of science and astronomy stuff, have 11 to 12-hour work days, a husband and a home to take care of. My name isn't Condoleeza.
Last I knew (prior to the Iraq war and before the previous king's death), we were on relatively good terms. Or it seemed that way...my misinterpretation of the issues or did I hear some wrong "spin"? Queen Noor has attempted to draw the U.S. and Jordan closer together, the current king (her stepson, I know) seems very pro-Western. Guess I didn't look deeper...
http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20050715/ap_ … sk_why]Why terrorist activities in the nation which benefits you the most?

Watching the stars don't give any knowledge on the average jordaneer's brain

*Why?

Because of this question ???
Shows that your quite unable to think the arab point of view.

Queen Noor has attempted to draw the U.S. and Jordan closer together

She is as even less representative of the jordan population as Condy is of the average US citizens, they are part of "the elite".

Anyways, when people hate you that deep, even the good you try to do to them is seen as an humiliation. As a result, they hate you even more.

My girlfriend's son visited Jordan, Syria and Lebanon last year, as a froggy, he was warmly welcome by peoples, he saw how deep was the population anger at USA, even among those who had the means to eat in a MacDonald.

Don't misurderstand me, trying to think the arab point of view doesn't mean to support it in anyway, I just think that some of your posts and mainly Cobra's show that if you had some power to act in middle-east, this would lead to total disasters.

Palomar · 2005-07-15 09:01:08

*Trying to understand some minds...

Well, what about http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dylan_Klebold]these two fellows? Born and raised in the U.S.A. I'm relating this back to the British bombers of Pakistani ethnicity.

There are lots of people who have had very unhappy childhoods, experience different sorts of very real abuse at the hands of others, may endure some unfair sort of social stigma, etc...yet most people don't strap bombs to themselves nor run into densely crowded buildings with assault rifles to murder and maim strangers.

--Cindy

P.S.:

My girlfriend's son visited Jordan, Syria and Lebanon last year, as a froggy, he was warmly welcome by peoples, he saw how deep was the population anger at USA, even among those who had the means to eat in a MacDonald.

I'm glad your girlfriend's son was warmly received.

However, most things are relative. If those nations felt greatly benefited by the U.S., the people in them would likely have asked your girlfriend's son why France "has a problem with" the United States.

DonPanic · 2005-07-15 09:35:18

*Trying to understand some minds...
I'm relating this back to the British bombers of Pakistani ethnicity.

Well, at least for one of them, parents went to praise 5 times a day at the mosque, extreme religiousity may have been a favourable ground for islamoterrorism, even if the parents were peacefull ones. Didn't american religious antiabortionnisists killed abortion doctors ?

P.S.:
My girlfriend's son visited Jordan, Syria and Lebanon last year, as a froggy, he was warmly welcome by peoples, he saw how deep was the population anger at USA, even among those who had the means to eat in a MacDonald.
I'm glad your girlfriend's son was warmly received.

However, most things are relative. If those nations felt greatly benefited by the U.S., the people in them would likely have asked your girlfriend's son why France "has a problem with" the United States.

Alas, the feeling of populace has often few relationship with the good done to it , in France, vast majority of people was really pleased and very thankful to USA for freeing France from the german occupation, while little part of the populace remembered only that allies' bombings over french towns during France liberation fights made more destructions and civilian victims than the german attack.
You may do good, even make the sacrifice of your own children for someone and get no grate for it.

Palomar · 2005-07-15 10:01:03

Alas, the feeling of populace has often few relationship with the good done to it , in France, vast majority of people was really pleased an very thankful to USA for freeing France from german occupation, while little part of the populace remembered only that allies' bombings over french towns during France liberation fights made more destructions and civilian victims than the german attack. You can do good, even make the sacrifice of your children for someone and get no grate for it.

*Is that similar to the Dresden, Germany situation? People there bitter against America because of so many civilian casualties during Allied bombing?

If so, then it's another problem within a problem. Innocent civilians caught in the cross-fire both ways. Their leaders started it, someone else comes in and finishes it.

Either they'll be the victims of the original perpetrator (Hitler and his brutes) or they'll be victims of their liberators. The difference is Hitler intended to hurt them. What harm came via the liberators was unfortunate and unintended. They can't see the difference?

Damned if you do, damned if you don't?

That sort of mentality makes it difficult for everyone and seems to boil it down to:

1. Aggressor/Perpetrator goes unchallenged and wins.
2. Potential liberators stay at home and mind their own business (and be damned for apathy).
3. Potential liberators step in, unfortunate civilian casualties are sustained while putting down the Aggressor (and be damned for interfering and causing civilian casualties).

Is my interpretation generally correct or mostly flawed? If generally correct...well then, I don't know what else to say.

Didn't american religious antiabortionnisists killed abortion doctors ?

*Yep. And I did mention yesterday that religious crackpots of any persuasion worry me.

However, the main point is: If you don't like your adopted country MOVE OUT. Those guys thought Pakistan was so much more wonderful and terrific than Britain? They should have packed their bags and moved to Pakistan. That goes for anyone -- anywhere, regardless of ethnicity, race, whatever.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-15 10:31:29

*Is that similar to the Dresden, Germany situation? People there bitter against America because of so many civilian casualties during Allied bombing?

Not at all, bombings over french towns had really strategic purposes, killing 50000, as sad as it had been, this was the price for freedom, while phosphore bombings over german towns, killing half a million, were supposed to break the population will to resist.
Stupid calculation, who wouln't try to retaliate and fight more eagerly ? did Blitz over London broke the Brits ?
But in France, people said they'd better be bombed by the British than by the US Air force, less collateral damages.
Killed by Brits less painful than by US

If so, then it's another problem within a problem. Innocent civilians caught in the cross-fire both ways. Their leaders started it, someone else comes in and finishes it.
Either they'll be the victims of the original perpetrator (Hitler and his brutes) or they'll be victims of their liberators. The difference is Hitler intended to hurt them. What harm came via the liberators was unfortunate and unintended. They can't see the difference?
Damned if you do, damned if you don't?
That sort of mentality makes it difficult for everyone and seems to boil it down to:
1. Aggressor/Perpetrator goes unchallenged and wins.
2. Potential liberators stay at home and mind their own business (and be damned for apathy).
3. Potential liberators step in, unfortunate civilian casualties are sustained while putting down the Aggressor (and be damned for interfering and causing civilian casualties).
Is my interpretation generally correct or mostly flawed? If generally correct...well then, I don't know what else to say.
However, the main point is: If you don't like your adopted country MOVE OUT. Those guys thought Pakistan was so much more wonderful and terrific than Britain? They should have packed their bags and moved to Pakistan. That goes for anyone -- anywhere, regardless of ethnicity, race, whatever.

And when terrorists are born in the country ?
Those don't feel as regular citizens "home" and seen as strangers in their originated country, then to be recognized as "real" pakistanis and muslims, they are ready to be the heroes of the worst causes.
In Pakistan, the formers authorities did support any terrorist that would allow to act without uniforms against the hereditary ennemy, India, which occupied Kashmir and had splitted Pakistan from Bangladesh. These terrorists went out of control, as well as talibans in Afghanistan.

Palomar · 2005-07-15 11:00:42

And when terrorists are born in the country ?

*Whether born in a nation or adopted the nation as one's own: If you don't like it, don't feel accepted, believe there is a better place to live -- leave. Instead of killing and maiming fellow countrymen strangers...

Those don't feel as regular citizens "home" and seen as strangers in their originated country, then to be recognized as "real" pakistanis

Then they should have moved to Pakistan.

If I thought Nation X were better than the U.S. and had a big old grudge against the U.S., I'd leave and go to Nation X.

There's something very screwy in the minds of people who admit they have it better in Britain yet they pine away for Pakistan (though they'd never actually move there), so they inflict damage on the nation which gives them more freedom and more opportunities than Pakistan ever could. There's a word for it: Stupid.

--Cindy

DonPanic · 2005-07-15 11:03:28

There's something very screwy in the minds of people who admit they have it better in Britain yet they pine away for Pakistan (though they'd never actually move there), so they inflict damage on the nation which gives them more freedom and more opportunities than Pakistan ever could. There's a word for it: Stupid.

Were they not stupid, they wouldn't be terrorists

dicktice · 2005-07-15 11:32:52

University graduates are not stupid, by definition, but being indoctrinated throughout their lives by going regularly to "Church" (i.e. stopping to pray n-times a day under surveillance of propagandizing elders) apparently overcomes education to the contrary ... in young people promised a Martyr's reward in Paradise. I've heard the only defense against this "Cheapest but Smartest" of all weapons against democratic nations, is counter-proganda within Islam, to the effect that suicide-bombers haven't a hope in hell of attaining Paradise.

Palomar · 2005-07-15 11:46:07

University graduates are not stupid, by definition

*So only under-educated persons can be stupid?

Okay, how's this: They're educated fools.

Intelligence and wisdom aren't synonymous. [I've worked in the medical profession long enough to know that... ]

--Cindy

BWhite · 2005-07-15 11:54:27

University graduates are not stupid, by definition
*So only under-educated persons can be stupid?
Okay, how's this: They're educated fools.
Intelligence and wisdom aren't synonymous. [I've worked in the medical profession long enough to know that... ]
--Cindy

Blinded by anger. . .

Palomar · 2005-07-15 12:03:50

University graduates are not stupid, by definition
*So only under-educated persons can be stupid?
Okay, how's this: They're educated fools.
Intelligence and wisdom aren't synonymous. [I've worked in the medical profession long enough to know that... ]
--Cindy
Blinded by anger. . .

*Maybe they're just cultural empirialists.

--Cindy

P.S.: But I know what you're getting at. Why didn't we wring our hands over how ANGRY Timothy McVeigh might have been? Or Terry Nichols? Or is hand-wringing only for non-white, non-Christian terrorists? Can't stop all the anger in the world, nor the countless ways in which a person might become angry and later do something foolish. :-\ At what point do we get sick and tired of "oh their poor, poor hurt feelings" and start concerning ourselves more with their victims -and- means of protecting future potential victims?

New Mars Forums

Announcement

#226 2005-07-14 09:51:55

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#227 2005-07-14 10:03:00

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#228 2005-07-14 10:06:15

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#229 2005-07-14 10:25:23

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#230 2005-07-14 13:15:58

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#231 2005-07-14 13:21:47

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#232 2005-07-14 13:35:02

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#233 2005-07-14 15:27:35

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#234 2005-07-14 16:04:41

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#235 2005-07-14 16:58:55

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#236 2005-07-14 19:45:44

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#237 2005-07-14 20:22:47

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#238 2005-07-15 07:42:03

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#239 2005-07-15 08:07:54

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#240 2005-07-15 08:25:28

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#241 2005-07-15 09:01:08

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#242 2005-07-15 09:35:18

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#243 2005-07-15 10:01:03

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#244 2005-07-15 10:31:29

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#245 2005-07-15 11:00:42

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#246 2005-07-15 11:03:28

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#247 2005-07-15 11:32:52

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#248 2005-07-15 11:46:07

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#249 2005-07-15 11:54:27

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

#250 2005-07-15 12:03:50

Re: Political Potpourri VII - The Seventh Seal?

Board footer