Major Terrorist Threat in UK-US discovered - Page 12

Motorboat Cruiser · 08-11-2006, 08:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by wendybeth

As far as sentimentally trying to understand the insurgent- I don't think there are many that want to link arms with them and sing 'Kumbaya', but sometimes in order to effect a cure it makes sense to discover the cause.

Indeed. We try to learn as much as we can about serial killers, not because we want to invite them to dinner, but because with more knowledge and understanding, maybe we can reduce the risk and save someone's life.

A better understanding of the enemy is never a bad thing, no matter how many conservatives try to paint it as some forgiving gesture.

scaeagles · 08-11-2006, 08:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

A better understanding of the enemy is never a bad thing, no matter how many conservatives try to paint it as some forgiving gesture.

I don't see it as a forgiving....I think we have a pretty good understanding of them already.

Motorboat Cruiser · 08-11-2006, 08:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

I don't see it as a forgiving....I think we have a pretty good understanding of them already.

Really? Did Cheney have a good understanding of them over a year ago when he said that the insurgency was in its last throes? Did we have a good understanding when we failed to send enough troops at the onset or failed to secure the weapons that were there?

No, I think there was room for improvement in our understanding, and still is.

Gemini Cricket · 08-11-2006, 08:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Motorboat Cruiser

A better understanding of the enemy is never a bad thing, no matter how many conservatives try to paint it as some forgiving gesture.

Knowledge is power.

Gemini Cricket · 08-11-2006, 08:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Something tells me that if that were the case there would be a lot less sentiment trying to understand the people that were doing it, and there would be fewer cries to give up and leave CA on their own.

If the government that bombed CA (in the middle of the night killing women and children in Sacramento) said that they had weapons of mass destruction and then found out there weren't any, people might be interested to get to the bottom of everything.

Also, if the strategy was suddenly changed to say that the gov't was liberating CA from the oppressive Swarzeneggar, then people would say, 'Well, what happened to Arnold's WMDs? Wasn't that the point of the war?' When there wasn't WMD, which many people knew there wasn't, then people world wide would question the government that seemed to be attacking CA for other reasons.

Eyebrows may also be raised if LA, SF and Sacto were still burning and the leader of the attacking government came out and said, 'All done. Nothing to see here. War's over.' Many would go, 'Uh, my loved ones are still fighting and dying in Inglewood and in Downtown SF... The war's over?'

Then years later, the war still continues with Northern Californians and SoCal residents possibly getting into a civil war over this... People in other countries might say, well they should leave them to sort this out because with that other gov't's help, things don't seem to be getting any better...

SacTown Chronic · 08-11-2006, 08:17 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

If the government that bombed CA (in the middle of the night killing women and children in Sacramento)

Hey! Careful with those bombs, pal.

scaeagles · 08-11-2006, 08:24 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gemini Cricket

If the government that bombed CA (in the middle of the night killing women and children in Sacramento) said that they had weapons of mass destruction and then found out there weren't any, people might be interested to get to the bottom of everything.

Except for the 500 or so older shells that were found that were supposedly destroyed....

We can play the hypothetical CA scenario all day, and all we do is end up rehashing the same arguments over and over with Sacramento and CA substituted for Baghdad and Iraq.

Gemini Cricket · 08-11-2006, 08:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

Except for the 500 or so older shells that were found that were supposedly destroyed....

Yet still not the smoking gun that would justify killing thousands of California civillians.

Quote:

Originally Posted by scaeagles

We can play the hypothetical CA scenario all day, and all we do is end up rehashing the same arguments over and over with Sacramento and CA substituted for Baghdad and Iraq.

Doy, that's the point. The media wants to show us what's going on in LA, SF and Sacto not show us the newest ride opening at Disneyland...