C.Biscuit97 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 What makes you think Zimmerman started a fight? Um, because he called 911 and was told to not pursue the suspect. If some fat guy was following me, you better believe I would be ready to protect myself. He created a situation that didn't need to happen; got his ass kicked by a teenager half his size, and then shot an unarmed kid. How people defend this guy is beyond me. And I could give 2 craps what his race was. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Um, because he called 911 and was told to not pursue the suspect. If some fat guy was following me, you better believe I would be ready to protect myself. He created a situation that didn't need to happen; got his ass kicked by a teenager half his size, and then shot an unarmed kid. How people defend this guy is beyond me. And I could give 2 craps what his race was. i knew this was a horrible analogy. it was just a hypothetical guys.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C.Biscuit97 Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 i knew this was a horrible analogy. it was just a hypothetical guys.. Sorry and didn't mean to go off. To get back on target. Whatever the guy who barely graduated high school with ceramics and co-hosted Loveline says, I agree with. And I'm a daily listen but if you seriously form your opinions based on what he, Ted Nugent, or any "celebrity" says, you should punch yourself in the face. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 anyone interested in this topic should read robert pape... sam harris is good too Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Um, because he called 911 and was told to not pursue the suspect. If some fat guy was following me, you better believe I would be ready to protect myself. He created a situation that didn't need to happen; got his ass kicked by a teenager half his size, and then shot an unarmed kid. How people defend this guy is beyond me. And I could give 2 craps what his race was. You either have inside information that the rest of us don't have or you are ignorant of the situation. There is a lengthy thread at PPP dealing with this. Virtually all the people that felt the way you do have at least changed their minds and/or are taking a "wait and see" approach. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Um, because he called 911 and was told to not pursue the suspect. If some fat guy was following me, you better believe I would be ready to protect myself. He created a situation that didn't need to happen; got his ass kicked by a teenager half his size, and then shot an unarmed kid. How people defend this guy is beyond me. And I could give 2 craps what his race was. Projecting much? Go to the Trayvon thread. There's ample evidence that Martin initiated the physical contact. Both miscalculated, and Martin lost a bigger bet. ill stop you right there respectfully. egypt was occupied by an american backed dictator for over 30 years. mubarak. this was what the whole arab spring was about...the saudi royal family is a despotic regime backed by the US also. as far as targeting civilians, most of these people who have been occupied and tortured have little means in military power. believe me, if hezbollah had a legit air force and military, they would rather use that. from what i know, some of this is religious, and the other part is viewed as collateral damage. also, civilians are not always targeted, the marines in lebanon, and the attack on the USS COLE. for example, when civilians are targeted in israel, the palestinian people view this as collateral damage. the same would be true if canada invaded the US in 1948 and kicked people out of their homes in montana and the dakotas. the canadians living there would be targeted. its ironic because israel claiming self defense is similar to germany claiming self defense after they invaded poland or france. you cant punch someone and then claim self defense... not to segway, but this is what the whole zimmerman case rests on. can you start a fight and then claim self defense. obviously you cant... so there is an issue of collateral damage in suicide bombing where the people targeted are either overtly occupying territory or they are systematically targeted because organizations like hezbollah choose terrorism for political reasons, ie this is easier than working through traditional military warfare... i would argue fire bombing cities in japan or europe in ww2 is no different than 911. in fact, it was worse in ww2, millions of civilians were bombed, for being in occupied territory. what is so strange is you are looking at the ugly blowback against american foreign policy and saying " look how mean and violent they are ". again, the question is why? if you want to stop terrorism, than stop participating in it. robert pape has some great work on this issue. here-http://danieldrezner.com/research/guest/Pape1.pdf its more important to ask if the reaction is justified, ie who started what, not so much asking are different tactics of reaction too violent... you are paying attention to the strategy and not so much the reasons behind why that strategy is in place... not to be funny, but remember the movie red dawn. lol if this really happened, of course you would engage in terrorism against the soviets. How about offering a coherent response instead of a random ramble that doesn't address the topics? But I'm sure you know that the only reason the guy in Egypt ruled for 30 years is because Al Qeda founders killed his predecessor and he was justified in promoting the dictatorship. It's overly convenient to blame the USA for radicalization of Mid East, while in reality they needed nobody's help to do it. The radicals were violent well before US invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq. Yet, we're supposed to accept a theory that not only is the US the root cause of world evil, but that a US military and business pullback from overseas will usher an age of peace and prosperity in the world. Idiot may be too soft of a word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim in Anchorage Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Projecting much? Go to the Trayvon thread. There's ample evidence that Martin initiated the physical contact. Both miscalculated, and Martin lost a bigger bet. How about offering a coherent response instead of a random ramble that doesn't address the topics? But I'm sure you know that the only reason the guy in Egypt ruled for 30 years is because Al Qeda founders killed his predecessor and he was justified in promoting the dictatorship. It's overly convenient to blame the USA for radicalization of Mid East, while in reality they needed nobody's help to do it. The radicals were violent well before US invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq. Yet, we're supposed to accept a theory that not only is the US the root cause of world evil, but that a US military and business pullback from overseas will usher an age of peace and prosperity in the world. Idiot may be too soft of a word. Nice, but you're wasting your time. The sea biscuits and and MDP's of the world will alway's blame the CIA for the lose of the garden of Eden, because we give them fabulous amounts of money for oil they never realized had any value. That put US puppets in power, and ended the Utopia that was the pre Western middle east. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 Projecting much? Go to the Trayvon thread. There's ample evidence that Martin initiated the physical contact. Both miscalculated, and Martin lost a bigger bet. How about offering a coherent response instead of a random ramble that doesn't address the topics? But I'm sure you know that the only reason the guy in Egypt ruled for 30 years is because Al Qeda founders killed his predecessor and he was justified in promoting the dictatorship. It's overly convenient to blame the USA for radicalization of Mid East, while in reality they needed nobody's help to do it. The radicals were violent well before US invasions of Afghanistan & Iraq. Yet, we're supposed to accept a theory that not only is the US the root cause of world evil, but that a US military and business pullback from overseas will usher an age of peace and prosperity in the world. Idiot may be too soft of a word. so mubarak runs a totalitarian regime, backed by the US, secret police and all, and islamic groups want to kill him... ok, your point? if a dictator took over in the US, would you want to kill him? or maybe make his life uncomfortable? i never said if the US stopped imperial adventures, the world would be peaceful. i am simply saying our actions have been immoral and hypocritical. Nice, but you're wasting your time. The sea biscuits and and MDP's of the world will alway's blame the CIA for the lose of the garden of Eden, because we give them fabulous amounts of money for oil they never realized had any value. That put US puppets in power, and ended the Utopia that was the pre Western middle east. again, i never said we would have a utopia if america never existed. im simply calling out bs.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DC Tom Posted May 10, 2012 Share Posted May 10, 2012 i never said if the US stopped imperial adventures, the world would be peaceful. i am simply saying our actions have been immoral and hypocritical. There's a word for that. It's called "international relations". Show me a country that ISN'T hypocritical and immoral w/r/t its neighbors. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 There's a word for that. It's called "international relations". Show me a country that ISN'T hypocritical and immoral w/r/t its neighbors. Of course, but thats not an argument for acting immoral. if it were, than any nation could do whatever horrible act and simply say others are doing it. i understand being practical, again, we dont live in a perfect world, but for gods sake, putting a mad man in power like saddam and then telling him to invade iran is beyond horrible. its megalomaniacal/pathological... millions of people were murdered for cheap oil... really? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 There's a word for that. It's called "international relations". That's two words, Dexter. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Of course, but thats not an argument for acting immoral. if it were, than any nation could do whatever horrible act and simply say others are doing it. i understand being practical, again, we dont live in a perfect world, but for gods sake, putting a mad man in power like saddam and then telling him to invade iran is beyond horrible. its megalomaniacal/pathological... millions of people were murdered for cheap oil... really? Immoral & hypocritical by whose standards? It's basically simple, either play along with the US or not, and reap the commensurate reward. From a global geopolitical & economic standpoint, US has been the most forthright nation among peers. And if you insist on bringing morality into play, then over its history, the US has been a far greater source of good sprinkled with polka dots of evil. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) Immoral & hypocritical by whose standards? It's basically simple, either play along with the US or not, and reap the commensurate reward. From a global geopolitical & economic standpoint, US has been the most forthright nation among peers. And if you insist on bringing morality into play, then over its history, the US has been a far greater source of good sprinkled with polka dots of evil. again, some food with a little **** is still ****. im calling it out. besides, thats utterly false. the US govt is responsible for the murder of millions upon millions. iran iraq saudi arabia yemen egypt palestine south africa apartheid all latin and south america east timor/indonesia vietnam cambodia neoliberalism - the list is about a thousand pages of US atrocities... if robert hare was giving a psychological profile for our foreign policy im pretty sure he would reveal hannibal lecter. read up on the contras and what they did to women and children. i have no problem calling reagan a mass murderer. you know why? because its true. wiki-A Human Rights Watch report found that the Contras were guilty of targeting health care clinics and health care workers for assassination; kidnapping civilians; torturing and executing civilians, including children, who were captured in combat; raping women; indiscriminately attacking civilians and civilian homes; seizing civilian property; and burning civilian houses in captured towns.[20] the report also included the cutting off of breasts... i want to let you know i was in the military, and i left when i realized how wrong i was. but this is my judgement, so believe what you want. i find it mildly ironic that conservatives distrust the state on economic issues, but then trust the state with foreign policy. again, cognitive dissonance. Edited May 11, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Are you saying that it was the US that killed millions of people in the countries that you listed? Just want to calibrate the idiot meter. (PS - you forgot to mention that 9/11 was an Israeli job and all Jews got a phone call on Monday night to stay home the next day) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 Are you saying that it was the US that killed millions of people in the countries that you listed? Just want to calibrate the idiot meter. (PS - you forgot to mention that 9/11 was an Israeli job and all Jews got a phone call on Monday night to stay home the next day) please stop the insults. and no, i dont believe 911 was an inside job. i said the US is responsible and in some cases directly involved. so yeah, cut the semantics Are you saying that it was the US that killed millions of people in the countries that you listed? Just want to calibrate the idiot meter. (PS - you forgot to mention that 9/11 was an Israeli job and all Jews got a phone call on Monday night to stay home the next day) who put the bathist party in power? the shah? mubarak? the contras? the batistas? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 please stop the insults. and no, i dont believe 911 was an inside job. i said the US is responsible and in some cases directly involved. so yeah, cut the semantics When you stop being an idiot, the insults will stop. How's this for a mental exercise, would more or less people have died had it not been for US involvement? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) When you stop being an idiot, the insults will stop. How's this for a mental exercise, would more or less people have died had it not been for US involvement? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Halabja_poison_gas_attack please stop the insults. we are having a discussion on hisotry and morality. there is no need for that. it just shows immaturity and a weak argument. i disagree with you but i never said you were an idiot. come on man... please specify a conflict? which war? what circumstance? if you want, we can discuss terrorism related to a specific issue. Edited May 11, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
3rdnlng Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 OK, I wasn't around when this guy was posting under his other name. Realistically, is there any reason for anyone to respond to his schit? I won't put him on "ignore" for at least a while. It could be fun to see what pBill's secret partner has to say. HAHAHAHA........................................ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 http://en.wikipedia....ison_gas_attack please stop the insults. we are having a discussion on hisotry and morality. there is no need for that. it just shows immaturity and a weak argument. i disagree with you but i never said you were an idiot. come on man... please specify a conflict? which war? what circumstance? if you want, we can discuss terrorism related to a specific issue. youtube.com/watch?v=_WVtpao0KSM So you're blaming Saddam's gas attack on the US? Why, because you saw a photo-op of Rumsfeld & Saddam in the '80s? And that is tantamount to US installing Baath party to power in 1960's in Iraq, even though the US was simultaneously installing their mortal enemy the Shah? That constitutes irrefutable proof in your book? And then you get mad when people call you an idiot? How about addressing the initial point that Mubarak put in totalitarian rules because Qeda founders killed his PREDECESSOR? He responded to their actions. How was the US responsible for the murder of an ally? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MARCELL DAREUS POWER Posted May 11, 2012 Share Posted May 11, 2012 (edited) So you're blaming Saddam's gas attack on the US? Why, because you saw a photo-op of Rumsfeld & Saddam in the '80s? And that is tantamount to US installing Baath party to power in 1960's in Iraq, even though the US was simultaneously installing their mortal enemy the Shah? That constitutes irrefutable proof in your book? And then you get mad when people call you an idiot? How about addressing the initial point that Mubarak put in totalitarian rules because Qeda founders killed his PREDECESSOR? He responded to their actions. How was the US responsible for the murder of an ally? no, the US is responsible because they put saddam in power and supported his mafia tactics. who said anything about a photo op? i dont understand what you are saying after that. iran had a revolution in 79, to overthrow our dictator the shah. we then told saddam to invade iran, Madeleine Albright admitted it. these are established facts, not opinion. the reason his predecessor was killed is because he too, sadat, was a supporter of US foreign policy( the treaty with israel), which was murdering millions for oil and murdering palestinians.... Edited May 11, 2012 by MARCELL DAREUS POWER Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts