Newspeak

[LiberalNation]

What do ya think. This makes sense to me.

The Complete Newspeak Dictionary from George Orwell's 1984 (http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/)

Cowardly Act - The president called the 9-11 attacks cowardly. Let's take a quick look at the definition of 'Cowardly'.

cowardly \Cow"ard*ly\, a. 1. Wanting courage; basely or weakly timid or fearful; pusillanimous; spiritless.
"The cowardly rascals that ran from the battle." --Shak.
2. Proceeding from fear of danger or other consequences
Source: Webster's Revised Unabridged Dictionary, © 1996, 1998 MICRA, Inc.

When somebody plants a bomb, then proceeds to put as much distance between himself and that bomb as possible, it is permissible to call that person a 'coward'. (Although the term that I would most likely use is 'smart') However, you cannot - if you wish to use the English language correctly - say the same of a suicide bomber. It takes a lot of balls to do what these guys did. You may call this attack a lot of things, but taking control of an 'enemy' plane and smashing it into a skyscraper -- sacrificing your own life to defend your ideas -- can not under any circumstances be considered 'cowardly'. Fanatical?... yes. Suicidal?... Yes. Horrendous?... yes. Cowardly?... No way. Our enemies may be a lot of things, but cowards they are not.

Attack on Freedom - People that use this phrasing are probably simply regurgitating the words used in some of America's previous wars. When Nazi Germany attacked a country, the subjugated people lost many of their freedoms. When the U.S. joined WWII, we did so to prevent the same thing from happening to us. Had the Nazi’s conquered all of Europe, they would have undoubtedly turned their attention towards us, and the freedoms we cherished would have been threatened. So, when you are describing WWII, it is correct to say that we were 'Defending our freedom'.

In this war, it is America that is the occupying force. We are the ones with troops stationed oversees, and it is the Muslims which are fighting for their 'freedom' - freedom to practice their religion without interference from the outside world. So if anybody is attacking anybody's 'freedom' it is us. The attack on the World Trade Center was an attack on American Capitalism and Multi-Nationalism. These are the ideas were are defending. We Americans need to understand that and stop pretending to be so god-damned 'holier-than-thou'.

America is not under threat of invasion. The Arabs are not trying to conquer our land - they only want to remove our influence from their land. But unfortunately, our way of life - the high standard of living we all enjoy - rests entirely on the flow of oil from the Middle East. It is imperative that this oil continues to flow. And to make sure that it does, it is necessary for the U.S. to keep troops stationed in this highly volatile area in order to maintain order... or at least try to maintain order. But of course, our presence in the Middle East upsets some Arabs -- Just as the US was upset when the Soviets wanted to put a few missiles down in Cuba. Just as we would be upset at the Canadians if they allowed Iraq to build a base on North America.

Oil is why America must maintain a presence in the Middle East. Although this presence is not without its costs, the alternatives would end up costing more in the long term. It is imperative that America continues to collect oil from their lands, no matter how much they whine about it. And to me, whether the Arabs live on top of that land or not is irrelevant. But unfortunately, genocide is probably not one of the options on the table.

In any case, the recent attack - in and of itself - was not an attack on our freedom. We are not under any threat on invasion (unless you consider immigration by Arabs to be the same thing as invasion). The only group that can attack our freedoms is our own government. And you can expect scores of new security regulations to be precipitated by these attacks. Our government wants to do everything it can to 'prevent this from happening again' - which will most likely result in laws that erode our constitution rights. But even so, the attacks themselves were not an attack on 'Freedom'.

You can call these attacks many things. An attack on human life?... yes. An attack on America's way of life?... Yes. An attack on America's symbols (capitalism, Military Strength, and a failed attack on our leadership)?... Yes. An attack on Freedom?... Not necessarily. Sure... if we didn't have oil we would loose our ability support the high standard of living we have now, but that is not the same as loosing of constitutionally guaranteed freedoms. Whether or not this attack succeeds in destroying our Freedom is entirely up to us - and our politicians.

But our politicians aren't interested in keeping us free, they only want to keep us safe.

[LiberalNation]

Few more

Terrorist Attack - As opposed to what other kind of attack? A peaceful, friendly attack? It is safe to say that anybody in the process of being bombed succumbs to a certain degree of terror. I'm sure the Iraqis felt some serious terror when US bombs were falling on them for weeks on end. These recent attacks on the east coast may have killed thousands of people, but American bombs have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs over the last decades - So what do we call those attacks that have killed at least 10 times as many? Why, we call it 'peacekeeping', of course.

This phrasing is a perfect example of the natural tendency to see our side as the 'Good Guys', and the other side as the embodiment of evil. Now, don't get me wrong - I support our side. I just want to make sure everybody else that supports our side understands exactly what are side is. This is not, as president Bush claimed, a battle between 'Good and evil'. This is a battle between Islamic Nationalist on one side, and the Capitalist that want access to the resources of the Islamic nations on the other side. You may call it 'evil' to kill thousands of innocent civilians, but just remember that America killed as more Arabs during Desert storm than 20 World Trade Center attacks combined. And there is no way to claim that every single Arab we buried in the desert was guilty of some crime. America has committed just as many 'evil' acts, if not more, than Usama bin Laden.

If we do go to war, it will have nothing to do with 'Freedom and Democracy' -- We will be going to war over Oil -- and America's right to protect that oil by having troops stationed around the world. This is why America has troops in the Middle East. And this is why a lot of Arabs don't like us -- and why they feel they must fight against us.

It is imperative, for the well-being of America, that we protect our interest. I just wish our leaders would have the balls to stand up and tell it like it is instead of lying to the American people. It's no wonder that most Americans have no idea what the word 'Freedom' really means. The only freedom being defended here is the freedom of the American Military to occupy land in 100+ countries. I have a high level of respect for the term 'Freedom', and I hate to see it misused.

So don't misunderstand what I am saying. I don't have any problem with America occupying all these nations. I just wish we would admit to what we're doing, and stop acting so damned surprised when the people we are subjugating try to fight back.

Iraqi Terrorists-All terrorists are generally fighting against some sort of occupation. Irish Terrorists want the U.K. out of Ireland ... Palestinian Terrorists want the Jews out of their land ... and Islamic Terrorists want the US out of the Middle East. Generally, the thing that qualifies these "resistance fighters" for the "terrorist" moniker is that, instead of focusing their "resistance" against government forces, they attack the general population (The people who actually live in the occupied lands, or the citizens of the occupying force's home country).

But recently, our government has been using the word "terrorist" to describe those Iraqis who are attacking the American military. Since when are resistance fighters called terrorist? The word Terrorist is often misleading enough, but I'm fairly certain that under no circumstances is it permissible to use it when describing attacks on occupational forces.

I suppose the motivation behind this linguistic stretch is to somehow tie Iraq with Al-queda -- the terrorist who were actually responsible for 9-11. The odd thing is that we know that almost all the hijackers on September 11th came from Saudi Arabia. Knowing that it was a bunch of Saudi fundamentalists who attacked the U.S., many sensible people are wondering...

Why did we retaliate against Iraq.

And perhaps a better question is, why we have remained allies with the country which actually spawned the terrorists ... Saudi Arabia??

All this is even more confusing when you consider the fact that Al-Quada and Saddam are enemies. (Al-Quada wants an Islamic state, but Saddam is a secular leader) In fact, in 1990 bin Laden offered to use his “army” to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.

[Dilloduck]

Few more

Terrorist Attack - As opposed to what other kind of attack? A peaceful, friendly attack? It is safe to say that anybody in the process of being bombed succumbs to a certain degree of terror. I'm sure the Iraqis felt some serious terror when US bombs were falling on them for weeks on end. These recent attacks on the east coast may have killed thousands of people, but American bombs have killed hundreds of thousands of Arabs over the last decades - So what do we call those attacks that have killed at least 10 times as many? Why, we call it 'peacekeeping', of course.

This phrasing is a perfect example of the natural tendency to see our side as the 'Good Guys', and the other side as the embodiment of evil. Now, don't get me wrong - I support our side. I just want to make sure everybody else that supports our side understands exactly what are side is. This is not, as president Bush claimed, a battle between 'Good and evil'. This is a battle between Islamic Nationalist on one side, and the Capitalist that want access to the resources of the Islamic nations on the other side. You may call it 'evil' to kill thousands of innocent civilians, but just remember that America killed as more Arabs during Desert storm than 20 World Trade Center attacks combined. And there is no way to claim that every single Arab we buried in the desert was guilty of some crime. America has committed just as many 'evil' acts, if not more, than Usama bin Laden.

If we do go to war, it will have nothing to do with 'Freedom and Democracy' -- We will be going to war over Oil -- and America's right to protect that oil by having troops stationed around the world. This is why America has troops in the Middle East. And this is why a lot of Arabs don't like us -- and why they feel they must fight against us.

It is imperative, for the well-being of America, that we protect our interest. I just wish our leaders would have the balls to stand up and tell it like it is instead of lying to the American people. It's no wonder that most Americans have no idea what the word 'Freedom' really means. The only freedom being defended here is the freedom of the American Military to occupy land in 100+ countries. I have a high level of respect for the term 'Freedom', and I hate to see it misused.

So don't misunderstand what I am saying. I don't have any problem with America occupying all these nations. I just wish we would admit to what we're doing, and stop acting so damned surprised when the people we are subjugating try to fight back.

Iraqi Terrorists-All terrorists are generally fighting against some sort of occupation. Irish Terrorists want the U.K. out of Ireland ... Palestinian Terrorists want the Jews out of their land ... and Islamic Terrorists want the US out of the Middle East. Generally, the thing that qualifies these "resistance fighters" for the "terrorist" moniker is that, instead of focusing their "resistance" against government forces, they attack the general population (The people who actually live in the occupied lands, or the citizens of the occupying force's home country).

But recently, our government has been using the word "terrorist" to describe those Iraqis who are attacking the American military. Since when are resistance fighters called terrorist? The word Terrorist is often misleading enough, but I'm fairly certain that under no circumstances is it permissible to use it when describing attacks on occupational forces.

I suppose the motivation behind this linguistic stretch is to somehow tie Iraq with Al-queda -- the terrorist who were actually responsible for 9-11. The odd thing is that we know that almost all the hijackers on September 11th came from Saudi Arabia. Knowing that it was a bunch of Saudi fundamentalists who attacked the U.S., many sensible people are wondering...

Why did we retaliate against Iraq.

And perhaps a better question is, why we have remained allies with the country which actually spawned the terrorists ... Saudi Arabia??

All this is even more confusing when you consider the fact that Al-Quada and Saddam are enemies. (Al-Quada wants an Islamic state, but Saddam is a secular leader) In fact, in 1990 bin Laden offered to use his “army” to liberate Kuwait from Iraqi occupation.


I guess you would have no idea how many times we've has to go over this crap. Wanna pick your favorite and go with it?

[LiberalNation]

My favorite, calling them cowardly.

[Dilloduck]

My favorite, calling them cowardly.

What is so brave about leaving a crappy world to meet a mess of virgins? What is so brave about killing unarmed people on an airplane? What is so brave about killing yourself and taking as many people with you as you can? People who have no chance of striking back or trying to stop you?

[LiberalNation]

What is so cowardly about how they fight?

[Dilloduck]

What is so cowardly about how they fight?

They don't have to live with the shame of LOSING.

[LiberalNation]

Yes they do. They could be stopped, their bombs could fail to explode or only explode somewhat injuring them but not much else.

[Dilloduck]

Yes they do. They could be stopped, their bombs could fail to explode or only explode somewhat injuring them but not much else.

ya---fat chance

[jimnyc]

My favorite, calling them cowardly.

I say cowardly, because they chose to attack innocent civilians instead of those they feel they have a problem with. No different than a sucker punch, IMO, and that's cowardly too.

[LiberalNation]

They are no more cowardly then our bombers and tank drivers.

[Dilloduck]

They are no more cowardly then our bombers and tank drivers.

Bullshit-----they're sneaky scum attacking women, children and unarmed people minding thier own business----ON PURPOSE !!!!!

[LiberalNation]

You think we don't attack places we know woman and children will be on purpose because we consider our "enemy" to be among them or the building we are attacking is importent to enemy.

[Dilloduck]

You think we don't attack places we know woman and children will be on purpose because we consider our "enemy" to be among them or the building we are attacking is importent to enemy.

If these scum were so bad ass why didn't they kick the shit out of thier Saudi government.

[LiberalNation]

Ask them.

[Dilloduck]

Ask them.

Ask them--ask OBL----:clap: WOW impressive.

[LiberalNation]

Well you expect me to know the terrorist inner thoughts. I don't and there for can't answer your questions.

but I would assume since the Saudi government give them no interference and supports some of their efforts they would have less of a reason to attack them.

[Dilloduck]

Well you expect me to know the terrorist inner thoughts. I don't and there for can't answer your questions.

but I would assume since the Saudi government give them no interference and supports some of their efforts they would have less of a reason to attack them.

You LOVE opinions---all the sudden you can't come up with one ?????

What do you mean "gave them no interference"---They invited the US military to COME there !

[CockySOB]

My favorite, calling them cowardly.

If they consider themselves to be soldiers or warriors, their target should have been military targets first and foremost. As a second choice, they could have attacked civilian installations in the ME, repelling the "invaders" as it were. But middle easterner nationals attacking civilian targets on US soil is criminal, and I consider that cowardly.

[5stringJeff]

If they consider themselves to be soldiers or warriors, their target should have been military targets first and foremost. As a second choice, they could have attacked civilian installations in the ME, repelling the "invaders" as it were. But middle easterner nationals attacking civilian targets on US soil is criminal, and I consider that cowardly.

This is exactly what I was gonna post.

LN, under Just War Theory, innocent civilians are not to be targeted. The terrorists intentionally targeted innocent civilians, which is what makes their attack so horrible. Like CockySOB said, if they wanted to fight the US powers that they felt were oppressing their way of life (a dubious claim in itself), they should have attacked those American soldiers, or other American soldiers.

[Hobbit]

And here I was, about to go start another thread with pretty much the same topic, only I was going to go with the terms "less fortunate," "imputed income," "income distribution," "government dollars," "working class," "windfall profits," and all those other terms meant to get you to stop thinking of money as being the earned property of individuals, as well as covering a couple of my old favorites, "neo-con" and "hate speech."

Eh, I'm going to do it anyway...when I feel like it.

[CSM]

They are no more cowardly then our bombers and tank drivers.

way way out of line!

[Hagbard Celine]

way way out of line!

Eh, only because we are all biased in support of our own side. I see what he's saying. The media uses improper wording to describe people and things just because it sounds good. Of course Bush called the 911 hijackers "cowardly." He was rallying the nation in a time of crisis. I think anyone who chooses violence is a coward--and a stupid coward at that. We don't have the most complex brain in the animal kingdom so that we can regress into gorillas everytime we get angry. But I agree that it does take courage to be a suicide bomber. I'd be scared sh*tless to have a bomb strapped to my chest. And so would most of you guys I imagine.

[Abbey Marie]

I cannot believe what I am reading about defining cowardice. What is amazing is that the OP is so far gone that she is trying to find a way to put a good spin on what those murdering Isalmofascist pigs did to us on 9-11.

There really needs to be some kind of qualifying test before you are allowed to vote. I can think of two areas that need to be tested right off the bat:
1. An actual regard for your country and it's founding principles
2. The ability to separate ideological quackery from truth

[Hagbard Celine]

I cannot believe what I am reading about defining cowardice. What is amazing is that the OP is so far gone that she is trying to find a way to put a good spin on what those murdering Isalmofascist pigs did to us on 9-11.

There really needs to be some kind of qualifying test before you are allowed to vote. I can think of two areas that need to be tested right off the bat:
1. An actual regard for your country and it's founding principles
2. The ability to separate ideological quackery from truth

What's the "OP?"

[Abbey Marie]

What's the "OP?"

original poster

[jackass]

I dont understand why you people are arguing with a 17 yr old GIRL. Not a woman. A girl. She has hardly any life experience and probably has some feel good teacher filling her mind with garbage all day. Where the ignore user button anyway?!?

[Hobbit]

And here I was, about to go start another thread with pretty much the same topic, only I was going to go with the terms "less fortunate," "imputed income," "income distribution," "government dollars," "working class," "windfall profits," and all those other terms meant to get you to stop thinking of money as being the earned property of individuals, as well as covering a couple of my old favorites, "neo-con" and "hate speech."

Eh, I'm going to do it anyway...when I feel like it.

As promised.

http://www.debatepolicy.com/showthread.php?t=1174

[Gaffer]

You think we don't attack places we know woman and children will be on purpose because we consider our "enemy" to be among them or the building we are attacking is importent to enemy.

islam teaches these scumbags that killing is a good thing and to die while killing is the greatest of honors and will get you straight to heaven. This is not bravery, its ignorance and stupity all rolled into one.

These same guys use women and children to hide behind because they KNOW we will not bomb them if we can help it. This tactic has been used by hamas and hizbollah for years. Listened to an interview with a terrorist once and you could hear the kids playing in the background. They were there to keep the Israeli planes from attacking him. Real brave isn't he? That's why when you hear there was an attack on some high level terrorist there were x number of women and children killed. They are an important part of his body guard.

I agree, calling them cowardly is not a correct expression. Stupid ignorant fools would be more appropreate. Murders is even more so.

[avatar4321]

You think we don't attack places we know woman and children will be on purpose because we consider our "enemy" to be among them or the building we are attacking is importent to enemy.

This my friend is exactly why our enemies are cowardly. They hide behind women and children. And then the try to convince naive people it is the Americans fault that their women and children were killed while those cowards used them as human shields.

[LiberalNation]

What is amazing is that the OP is so far gone that she is trying to find a way to put a good spin on what those murdering Isalmofascist pigs did to us on 9-11.
Not trying to put a good spin on it at all. Just saying someone who believs something so strongly they are willing to blow them selves up for it is no coward.

[Dilloduck]

Not trying to put a good spin on it at all. Just saying someone who believs something so strongly they are willing to blow them selves up for it is no coward.

I think your trying to put a Western motivation onto an Islamic behavior in other to make terrorists look courageous. Apples and oranges. They see death nd suicide differently.

[avatar4321]

Not trying to put a good spin on it at all. Just saying someone who believs something so strongly they are willing to blow them selves up for it is no coward.

Dying for a cause is easy. Living for the cause is what's tough.

[LiberalNation]

Apples and oranges. They see death nd suicide differently.
Maybe so but all humans have a self preservation instinct. A coward would not be able to overcome that in my mind.

[darin]

Maybe so but all humans have a self preservation instinct. A coward would not be able to overcome that in my mind.

Just admit it. Okay? You worship Terrorists. You WANT them to kill us, so you feel better, politically.

Hateful person.

[LiberalNation]

Bullshit dmp.

[darin]

Bullshit dmp.

But they are so BRAVE and POWERFUL and COMMITTED!! Anybody who hides among, or targets noncombatants is a coward. (note the period)

[Hobbit]

Maybe so but all humans have a self preservation instinct. A coward would not be able to overcome that in my mind.

Suicides are cowards. Look at the record. The fact is that they're so unwilling to face the downsides of life that they would rather die, but they're still very afraid of death, so it takes them a while. Every suicidal tries to find a painless, convenient way out. Nobody shoots themselves right between the eyes or in the heart, no matter how effective. It's always in the mouth or the side of the head, where they can't see the gun. Every suicidal ALWAYS removes his/her glasses or contact lenses, if they have them, before committing suicide.

Suicide is the ultimate act of cowardice, as it tells the world that you can't handle life, something that billions of other people do every day.

As for suicide bombers, they and their leaders are deathly afraid of our military. They know that the average American GI is far more skilled and better equipped than their soldiers. As such, they typically avoid fighting the military directly and instead target unarmed, innocent civilians in an effort to break OUR will. If that happens, the military will have to leave without a proper fight.

[LiberalNation]

As for suicide bombers, they and their leaders are deathly afraid of our military. They know that the average American GI is far more skilled and better equipped than their soldiers. As such, they typically avoid fighting the military directly and instead target unarmed, innocent civilians in an effort to break OUR will. If that happens, the military will have to leave without a proper fight.

In the 9-11 attacks the terrorists goal was to attack America, so they attacked things that are very visible symbols of America. The largest 2 buildings in world, our pentagon, tried for the Whitehouse. That was their goal not a military victory but to make a statement and the targets they chose were far more appropriate for that task than military targets would have been.

[5stringJeff]

In the 9-11 attacks the terrorists goal was to attack America, so they attacked things that are very visible symbols of America. The largest 2 buildings in world, our pentagon, tried for the Whitehouse. That was their goal not a military victory but to make a statement and the targets they chose were far more appropriate for that task than military targets would have been.

That is what makes them terrorists - the fact that they avoided targeting soldiers and instead targeted civilian targets (the WTC) or targeted a military target (the Pentagon) with a plane full of innocent civilians. That is what makes their methodology so despicable.

[darin]

In the 9-11 attacks the terrorists goal was to attack America, so they attacked things that are very visible symbols of America. The largest 2 buildings in world, our pentagon, tried for the Whitehouse. That was their goal not a military victory but to make a statement and the targets they chose were far more appropriate for that task than military targets would have been.


Need a cigarette? The way you praise them for their courage makes me believe you've got them up on your walls - Instead of Justin Timberlake, you have posters of Habib The Suicide Bomber.

:(

[avatar4321]

Martyrs are courageous. Suicidal lunatics are not martyrs nor can they be as far as im concerned. Because martyrs dont seek death. They just seek to do whats right and are killed for it.

[LiberalNation]

That is what makes them terrorists - the fact that they avoided targeting soldiers and instead targeted civilian targets (the WTC) or targeted a military target (the Pentagon) with a plane full of innocent civilians. That is what makes their methodology so despicable.

Not deny that, not saying what they did wasn't dispicable, just saying I don't think the people who carried it out were cowards.

[LiberalNation]

Need a cigarette? The way you praise them for their courage makes me believe you've got them up on your walls - Instead of Justin Timberlake, you have posters of Habib The Suicide Bomber.

again, have not praised them for courage just said they weren't cowards. Maybe you can't tell the differences through those tented glasses your wearing.

and I don't have any posters on my wall, well except for that one Hillary
Clinton. (jk)

[darin]

again, have not praised them for courage just said they weren't cowards. Maybe you can't tell the differences through those tented glasses your wearing.
(jk)

?

http://www.ra.ethz.ch/sabbatical2002/agee-street/tented-house_2_big.jpg


And what about My Wearing? What is my wearing?

You praise anyone who'd do anything to make GWB look bad in the minds of ninnies.

[LiberalNation]

You knew what I meant.

and no I don't but i'm not going to walk lock step with him and right wingers either.

[darin]

You knew what I meant.

and no I don't but i'm not going to walk lock step with him and right wingers either.

You dissent for the sake of dissent - NOT Because you believe in anything. That's childish.

[LiberalNation]

Oh I have beliefs that's why I refuse to walk in lock step with others even if they happen to be more popular than my own. You sure do like twisting words don't ya dmp.

[darin]

Oh I have beliefs that's why I refuse to walk in lock step with others even if they happen to be more popular than my own. You sure do like twisting words don't ya dmp.

You pick beliefs SIMPLY because they are 'different' - NOT because they make sense. You are a child in that respect. It's to be expected, I suppose - but honestly, your little 'rebellion' is transparent.

Twisting words? If you mean 'using people's words against them' and 'forming opinions about the strength of people's character based on those words' then....yes.

[LiberalNation]

Man are you a mind reader or something. You know all my beliefs and what's behind them from a few posts. Amazing but try again. It isn't just rebellion that leads me to some of the views I hold.

[Abbey Marie]

I think your trying to put a Western motivation onto an Islamic behavior in order to make terrorists look courageous. Apples and oranges. They see death and suicide differently.

Excellent point, Dillo. :thumb:

[The ClayTaurus]

Maybe so but all humans have a self preservation instinct. A coward would not be able to overcome that in my mind.Suicide in any form is cowardly.

About the only way you'd get me to agree with you that suicide bombers aren't cowardly is that they're too brainwashed to mentally function on their own.

The organizers of suicide bombers are the ultimate in cowards. OBL is one of the biggest pussies this world has known.

[darin]

Man are you a mind reader or something. You know all my beliefs and what's behind them from a few posts. Amazing but try again. It isn't just rebellion that leads me to some of the views I hold.


It's EASY with you - that's all. :) Doesn't take special powers to see through you.

[LiberalNation]

All righty then. :bs1:

[Abbey Marie]

It's EASY with you - that's all. :) Doesn't take special powers to see through you.

Based on what you've posted, D's right about that. ;)

[The ClayTaurus]

I think anyone who chooses violence is a coward--and a stupid coward at that. We don't have the most complex brain in the animal kingdom so that we can regress into gorillas everytime we get angry.Is violence necessitated by self-defence cowardly?
But I agree that it does take courage to be a suicide bomber. I'd be scared sh*tless to have a bomb strapped to my chest. And so would most of you guys I imagine.That is not bravery. You are confused. Doing something that is scary does not imply a lack of cowardice.

[LiberalNation]

Based on what you've posted, D's right about that. ;)

So which views do I hold just for the sake of being rebellious.

[avatar4321]

Man are you a mind reader or something. You know all my beliefs and what's behind them from a few posts. Amazing but try again. It isn't just rebellion that leads me to some of the views I hold.

So what exactly are your beliefs. if you spelled them out there would be less confusion of them by some people.

[LiberalNation]

All of them, I could give you an overview I guess.

As soon as my shows over, I'm just getting on during commercials now.

[Grumplestillskin]

It's EASY with you - that's all. :) Doesn't take special powers to see through you.

You're pretty transparent yourself...and you've got a few years on her...:thanks:

[darin]

You're pretty transparent yourself...and you've got a few years on her...:thanks:

It's funny - you say that, but you know nothing about me. :) What you call 'transparency' is actually you just being 'the worst at reading people, of anyone I've met online." AND...you've got a few years on me.

[Grumplestillskin]

It's funny - you say that, but you know nothing about me. :) What you call 'transparency' is actually you just being 'the worst at reading people, of anyone I've met online." AND...you've got a few years on me.

I know a tonne about you. I can read you like a book...:afro: And you're right, I have got a few years on you...:alcoholic:

[darin]

I know a tonne about you. I can read you like a book...:afro: And you're right, I have got a few years on you...:alcoholic:

The last two replies you put in this thread boil-down to school-yard rants of "No...YOU ARE!"

:cuckoo: :cuckoo:

[avatar4321]

I know a tonne about you. I can read you like a book...:afro: And you're right, I have got a few years on you...:alcoholic:

why are you proud of having a few alcoholic years on you?:confused:

[CockySOB]

Maybe so but all humans have a self preservation instinct. A coward would not be able to overcome that in my mind.

All humans are also susceptible to despair, which makes the idea of dying for one's god and a better life all the more appealing.

[LiberalNation]

Here's some more. Not all of these are against conservatives, most are against liberals if ya read the site.

http://www.newspeakdictionary.com/

Attack / Retaliation - When our allies suffer a loss of life/property at the hands of an enemy, it is called a cold-blooded attack. When our enemies suffer a loss of life/property at the hands of an ally, it is called retaliation.

And when that enemy retaliates for the attack it just suffered, it is again referred to as a cold-blooded attack -- never as retaliation. No matter how often this cycle continues, our side is always said to be retaliating to the other side's attack.

This effect is most apparent in the Israeli / Palestinian war. The Palestinians will launch a surprise attack, and Israel will retaliate. The Palestinians will launch another surprise attack, and Israel will retaliate again. The Palestinians launch yet another surprise attack, and Israel... well, you get the idea.

When the events are explained in explained in this manner, one might get the impression that Israel is the victim of Palestinian aggression -- That Israelis desire nothing but peace and Palestinians desire nothing but war. Of course, it is impossible to say for sure 'who started it'. After all, this land had been changing hands continuously for the last 2500 years. However -- As far as I can tell, this latest conflict began back in the 1940's when Anglo-American and Jewish terrorist forces (Irgon and Stern) forced the Palestinians off their land in order to pave the way for the creation of a Jewish state.

Of course Israel wants peace now -- They are the ones with the land! Demanding peace after forcibly taking another person's land is like winning a large sum of money on the first hand of poker and then refusing to play another game. The Palestinians want their land back -- and Israel is trying to claim the moral high ground by denying them a chance to win it back.

Bust / Massive arrest by the state - When US police go on rampage and incarcerate large numbers of people during the "War on Drugs" it is considered a great victory ... When China arrest large numbers of people for trying to bring down the government, it is considered to be a barbaric act against basic human rights.

Campaign contribution / bribe - Is there any difference at all? In theory, a bribe is a guarantee that a political payoff will result on a specified action being taken by a politician. But a campaign contribution is not supposed to contain such a quid pro quo But why else would an organization give $500,000 to a political candidate, if the didn't expect something in return?

Civilian Casualties / Collateral damage - Other countries kill their own citizens... America only damages them.

Charity / Redistribution of wealth - When you offer food to people that are hungry, you are giving charity. When a government takes money from you in order to give it to people that aren't a whole hell of a lot poorer than you, it is called redistribution of wealth.

Dedicated / Fanatical - The US is "Dedicated" to keeping drugs out of America, while the citizens of Salem were "Fanatical" for their desire to keep witches out of Salem.

Educated / Brainwashed - US children are "Educated" about the evils of drugs, pollution, and race relations ... Soviet children were "Brainwashed" in Soviet doctrine.

Ethnic Cleansing / Population Transfer - The US forced thousands of Germans out of their homes after WWII. (The land was given to Poland for "war reparations") At the time, we called this "Population Transfer".

Freedom fighters / Terrorists - Freedom Fighters attack other governments to obtain "freedom". Terrorists attack the U.S. and our allies, in order to gain their freedom.

Invasion / Military Police Action / Peacekeeping - All of these words can be used to describe when one country puts troops in another land. The choice of which word to use depends entirely on which country is performing this action. When the USSR entered Afghanistan to support the existing government, it was called an invasion. When the US put troops in Vietnam, it was considered a "police action". The presence of U.N. troops in Bosnia is called "Peacekeeping".

Law and Order / Oppression - Every law has at its core a desire to force a person to behave a certain way, and is a form a oppression. The only factor that determines whether a law is "oppressive' is whether or not you agree with it -- and whether or not you believe that the law will effect you!

Prohibition / War on Drugs - You can find a detailed comparison here.

Realistic / Stereotypical - If a person believes that it is a bad idea to walk though the ghetto at night, they are simply being realistic. However, if they take the next step and say that the reason it's such a bad idea is because of the people that live in that neighborhood, they are accused of stereotyping.

Revolution / Civil War - When the colonies revolted against oppression from Britain, it was called a "revolution". When the south revolted against the oppression of Washington DC, it was called a civil war. I guess it all depends on who wins the war. If the government wins, it is a civil war. If the citizens win, it is a revolution.

Shell Shock / Combat Fatigue / Operational Exhaustion / Post-traumatic stress disorder - The comedian George Carlin once pointed out how the way we describe this condition has changed over the years. He pointed out how the wording has changed to completely remove any connection with the horrors of war from the name of the condition, even though it is the horrors of war which is the direct cause of the condition.

[Grumplestillskin]

The last two replies you put in this thread boil-down to school-yard rants of "No...YOU ARE!"

:cuckoo: :cuckoo:

Unlike your posts 47, 49 and 53 which border on trolling....:dance:

[LiberalNation]

So what exactly are your beliefs. if you spelled them out there would be less confusion of them by some people.

Lets see

pro-choice

Against a lot of gun control

Think we should end the Iraq war

Supported when it began on evidence and prediction given that later turned out to be wrong.

Anti-union some of the time.

For lower taxes

against nationalized healcare

for legalizing all drugs

pro gay marriage

Think basic genva should apply to all prisoners we hold

Pro-Israel

Anti-Hamas/Hezzbolla

Anti radical religion practicing anyone

Pro free speech in nearly all cases

Against affirmative action

ect.

[5stringJeff]

Lets see

pro-choice

Against a lot of gun control

Think we should end the Iraq war

Supported when it began on evidence and prediction given that later turned out to be wrong.

Anti-union some of the time.

For lower taxes

against nationalized healcare

for legalizing all drugs

pro gay marriage

Think basic genva should apply to all prisoners we hold

Pro-Israel

Anti-Hamas/Hezzbolla

Anti radical religion practicing anyone

Pro free speech in nearly all cases

Against affirmative action

ect.

You know, you really fit in with the Log Cabin Republicans more than anything else.