Mini rant on "TERRORISM" --- (post Zero Dark Thirty)

[|BlackJesus|]

[center][img]http://i83.photobucket.com/albums/j318/Tredcrow/601115_804984018974_1198132117_n_zpsaf9cbb5a.jpg[/img][/center]

[size=5][color=#FF0000][b]TERRORISM:[/b][/color] the word that means nothing, yet justifies everything. But terrorism is the symptom, not the disease. There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber, both kill people for political reasons. Those who oppose us will increasingly speak to us in the language we speak to them -- violence. Terrorism as a phenomenon may never go away. But if it is to be contained, the first step is for America to acknowledge that the radicalized youth of the Third World will no longer tolerate living under circumstances that give them no hope for the future. We have to take concrete steps to stop supporting the causes of their often justifiable rage, or be prepared to suffer the consequences. To paraphrase Noam Chomsky, the easiest way to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it.[/size]

[|Elflocko|]

Co-sign...

[T-Dub]

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358578758' post='1209457']
[size=5]There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber[/size]
[/quote]

I've seen this stated before and I've gotta call "bullshit" on that. Yeah they both suck but suicide bombers attack mosques and restaurants and marketplaces. Not saying we never bomb those places, but we don't make a habit of intentionally setting out to see how many civilians we can kill.

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1358579244' post='1209459']
I've seen this stated before and I've gotta call "bullshit" on that.
[/quote]
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4][b][color=#000000]The "bullshit" that may exist on my statement, is that the Stealth bomber may actually be much [/color][color=#FF0000]worse[/color][color=#000000], kills far more people, and doesn't put the assailant at any physical risk themselves (possibly more cowardly). [/color][/b]

[b][color=#000000]A "terrorist" is often a guy with a bomb but without an Air Force to drop it from (in the eyes of many this is a legitimate way to blow the shit out of people, as opposed to say, strapping dynamite on yourself). [/color][/b][color=#000000] [/color]

[b][color=#000000]And many times a "suicide bomber" is not out to see how many people they can kill either. They often have actual objectives they are targeting ... embassies, consulates, check points, police stations, market places (under the guise that economic activity supports the occupier), Pentagons, Trade Centers etc. These are all targets that the U.S. often finds "legitimate" with an enemy as well ... with maybe the exception of market places, although we do target economic infrastructure. When the U.S. targets Saddam's palace and Jihadists target the White House --- the difference is that one is supposedly playing by the "rules" (using an army), and one isn't. But to the people who get killed in the cross fire or the attack, it doesn't really matter if it was "fair" or not, they are still dead (supposed noble intentions of the U.S. to avoid collateral damage aside).[/color][/b][/size][/font]

[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4][b][color=#000000]The amount of Afghan wedding parties that U.S. drones have [i]'accidentally'[/i] blown up, far exceeds any wedding parties I have ever heard of being blown up by suicide bombers or "terrorists". [/color][/b][/size][/font]

[T-Dub]

Have you ever heard of a stealth bomber targeting a bus full of pilgrims?

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1358579244' post='1209459']
we don't make a habit of intentionally setting out to see how many civilians we can kill.
[/quote]
[size=5][b]"Habit" or not, we are damn good at it ---> much better than the "terrorists" ...[/b][/size]


[center][url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHn6wgEbFA8"]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHn6wgEbFA8[/url][/center]

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358579887' post='1209460']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b][color=#000000]The "bullshit" that may exist on my statement, is that the Stealth bomber may actually be much [/color][color=#FF0000]worse[/color][color=#000000], kills far more people[/color][/b][/font]
[/quote]Pure numbers are your metric here? Not who, or for what reasons, but how many? You may argue against a war of attrition being worse on the macro level, but on the micro level surely you jest.


[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358579887' post='1209460']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b][color=#000000]And many times a "suicide bomber" is not out to see how many people they can kill either. [/color][/b][/font]
[/quote]And many times they are.


[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358579887' post='1209460']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b][color=#000000]market places (under the guise that economic activity supports the occupier)[/color][/b][/font]
[/quote]And this is justifiable?

[|BlackJesus|]

[center][b]It takes some pretty powerful nationalism I guess to believe that the latter is more dangerous than the former ... ?[/b][/center]

[center][img]http://mikeely.files.wordpress.com/2009/02/b-2-spirit-stealth-bomber-dropping-mk82-bombs.jpg[/img] [IMG]http://i78.photobucket.com/albums/j116/zackgstroup/Simulated_inert_Suicide_vest_-_Type.jpg[/IMG][/center]

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358580595' post='1209463']
Pure numbers are your metric here? Not who, or for what reasons, but how many?

And many times they are.

And this is justifiable?
[/quote]
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][size=4][b][color=#000000]Numbers aren't always the metric ... but if you hold up your 3,000 innocent deaths on one day (9/11) as the paragon on ultimate suffering, while killing anywhere from 100,000-900,000 Iraqis (many innocent), it looks a little disingenuous. Especially when you are claiming to be the "good guys" ... What if there is just sides? Not good or bad, but A & B?[/color]

[color=#000000]And what is to say that we aren't many times either ... Dresden, Hiroshima (historically) -- Siege of Fallujah more recently etc. There is a rationale behind the Sherman March to the Sea concept of "Total War" to break the will of a nation, my argument would be however that if that is within bounds, then nearly everything the enemy tries also would be from an philosophical stand point. It just seems to silly to use killer drones and then claim to "be on base" all the other times. [/color]

[color=#000000]Who said anything about "justifiable" ... I would argue none of the killing is from a certain stand point ... I don't want to die from some Jihadist suicide vest any more than I want little Ahmed in Afghanistan to die from an aerial drone. Both of us deserve to live. What I am also arguing however, is that if we accidentally kill Ahmed on his way to school, then we shouldn’t be shocked when his older brother tries to use a car bomb at a U.S. soldier check point in revenge. There is a Frankenstein notion/cycle to a lot of this … creating your own “monsters” who then turn on you. [/color][/b][/size][/font][size=3][color=#000000] [/color][/size]

[T-Dub]

Danger? I thought we were talking about morality. That's an issue of intent, not blast radius.

[Nati Ice]

These are your statements.

[quote]
[color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif][size=5]There is no moral difference between a Stealth bomber and a suicide bomber, both kill people for political reasons.[/size][/font][/color]

[b][color=#000000]The "bullshit" that may exist on my statement, is that the Stealth bomber may actually be much [/color][color=#FF0000]worse[/color][color=#000000], kills far more people, and doesn't put the assailant at any physical risk themselves (possibly more cowardly).[/color][/b]
[/quote]

This is mine.
[quote][color=#282828][font=helvetica, arial, sans-serif]Pure numbers are your metric here? Not who, or for what reasons, but how many? You may argue against a war of attrition being worse on the macro level, but on the micro level surely you jest.[/font][/color][/quote]

And your retort is to deflect.


It doesn't take a genius to realize that a knife in the hands of the unstable is more dangerous than a rifle in the hands of the sane.

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='T-Dub' timestamp='1358581547' post='1209466']
Danger? I thought we were talking about morality. That's an issue of intent, not blast radius.
[/quote]
[b]Danger, damaging, costly in lives, more destructive etc. [/b]
[b]As for morality, once again, if I blow your head off, does it matter whether I was aiming for you or not?
If China occupied the U.S. tomorrow and accidentally killed your sister or brother while going after a "Christian terrorist of the U.S." would that mean all is forgiven? They didn't mean to afterall. Collateral damage. [/b]

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358581581' post='1209467']
And your retort is to deflect.

It doesn't take a genius to realize that a knife in the hands of the unstable is more dangerous than a rifle in the hands of the sane.
[/quote]
[b]I'm not deflecting, I'm adding context to your limited question.

From an egalitarian stand point numbers do matter when loss of life is concerned. Moreover, what makes you think our side is "sane" while the other side is "unstable" ? What if they are both unstable? Does our team magically escape all the 'demons' of human nature when mixed with violence? What track record leads you to believe that the U.S. military as a whole (not on an individual level where people can be noble and well intentioned) is any more "responsible" with the ways and nature in which they kill, than any crazed Jihadist outfit? Violence is a tactic, politics by other means often times. How is it somehow noble for a guy to sit in a trailer in Arizona and blow the shit out of Afghanistan all day by remote control (killing who we believe to be bad guys), but insane and unstable for some Afghan to place explosives in a trunk and drive it towards a U.S. base? I don't want either to occur, nor the first in my name --- I'm consistent. You seem to be saying one is fine, and the other is evil. That is my issue. I would say it would even be more intellectually honest to say both are within bounds, and you just root for team A against B, without viewing B as "evil", they are using what's at their disposal. You can still want them to lose, without viewing yourself as morally superior. My initial argument however, is the way to lessen violence, is to understand the ways in which you may provoke or cause it. [/b]

[Nati Ice]

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358581477' post='1209465']
[font=arial,helvetica,sans-serif][b][color=#000000]Numbers aren't always the metric ... but if you hold up your 3,000 innocent deaths on one day (9/11) as the paragon on ultimate suffering, while killing anywhere from 100,000-900,000 Iraqis (many innocent), it looks a little disingenuous. Especially when you are claiming to be the "good guys" ... What if there is just sides? Not good or bad, but A & B?[/color][/b][/font]
[/quote]Your jump from 9/11 to OIF is telling, as always.

Who said there wasn't? Who said there was? You can certainly be upset at what you interpret as an over-reaction, but discarding the prompt and ignoring the continued actions of the instigator is not being truthful.

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358581477' post='1209465']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b][color=#000000]And what is to say that we aren't many times either ... Dresden, Hiroshima (historically) -- Siege of Fallujah more recently etc. There is a rationale behind the Sherman March to the Sea concept of "Total War" to break the will of a nation, my argument would be however that if that is within bounds, then nearly everything the enemy tries also would be from an philosophical stand point. It just seems to silly to use killer drones and then claim to "be on base" all the other times. [/color][/b][/font]
[/quote]Aren't what? Justifiable? The argument can and has been made. In context... Dresden was stupid. Hiroshima was necessary. Fallujah was necessary.

Who is making this "on base" argument? The only argument I've been party to is being against intentionally targeting civilians. And no, mimicking your enemies tactics is at times reprehensible, it is why the GWB admin failed us, re: torture.

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358581477' post='1209465']
[font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b][color=#000000]Who said anything about "justifiable" ... I would argue none of the killing is from a certain stand point ... I don't want to die from some Jihadist suicide vest any more than I want little Ahmed in Afghanistan to die from an aerial drone.[/color][/b][/font]
[/quote]There is no such thing as justifiable homicide in your world? A man points a gun at your friend, you have a gun, do you not shoot him? I do. Non-violence is admirable, but it is not a realistic solution at this point in time.

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358581477' post='1209465'][font=arial, helvetica, sans-serif][b][color=#000000]What I am also arguing however, is that if we accidentally kill Ahmed on his way to school, then we shouldn’t be shocked when his older brother tries to use a car bomb at a U.S. soldier check point in revenge. There is a Frankenstein notion/cycle to a lot of this … creating your own “monsters” who then turn on you. [/color][/b][/font]
[/quote]The leaders of this country and it's defense are well versed on the causes of terrorism. They are not astonished by this concept. Nor is any American with an IQ above 50.

This is obviously a vicious cycle, that is why the president's policy was to exit Iraq and to exit Afghanistan soon. If there is a solution to terrorism, it cannot be achieved over night and it will not be achieved without bloodshed.

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358583117' post='1209470']
Your jump from 9/11 to OIF is telling, as always.
[/quote]
[b]The original context of this thread was me viewing [i]Zero Dark Thirty[/i], hence 9/11 being the "start point" (i.e. the Bin Laden photo I use) ... and jumping to Iraq and Afghanistan (the death totals there are hard to discern, but also much much higher than 3,000). Plus, many Americans still wrongly believe that Iraq had something to do with 9/11 ... or even that Afghanistan did as a nation (they didn't), the 19 hijackers that directed the attack all died that day ... and there probably isn't more than 5 humans alive on earth that had anything to do with the planning either (if that, could be 0).[/b]



[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358583117' post='1209470']
Who said there wasn't? Who said there was? You can certainly be upset at what you interpret as an over-reaction, but discarding the prompt and ignoring the continued actions of the instigator is not being truthful.
[/quote]
[b]Once again, the view from [i]Zero Dark Thirty[/i], is that you have a good side (ours), and a bad side (theirs). When their guy in the film runs into a hotel lobby with an AK and guns down people it is rightfully presented as barbarity ... but when Navy Seals burst into a house and shoot the wife of Bin laden's aide, it's seen as almost funny, the one guy even talks about "smoking her" and "letting her bleed out". Did you see the film? [/b]



[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358583117' post='1209470']
Aren't what? Justifiable? The argument can and has been made. In context... Dresden was stupid. Hiroshima was necessary. Fallujah was necessary.
[/quote]
[b]I would argue Fallujah was counter-productive, and unnecessary. Hiroshima is debateable, the Rape of Nanking leaves me little sympathy for Japanese soldiers, but Hiroshima was entirely civilians. Imo, used more as a way to tell Stalin to stay out of Japan that it would be our beach head in Asia. But that's another topic. [/b]



[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358583117' post='1209470']
Who is making this "on base" argument? The only argument I've been party to is being against intentionally targeting civilians. And no, mimicking your enemies tactics is at times reprehensible, it is why the GWB admin failed us, re: torture.
[/quote]
[b]The U.S. media makes it all the time. In the film a car bomb against CIA agents is even presented as "terrorism" ... thus, is there any person who the enemy is allowed to kill without it being terrorism? Is all violence done by Al Qaeda automatically terrorism? Even attacks on U.S. soldiers? Was it "terrorism" when the same Jihadists did these attacks on Soviet tanks in the 1980's? Because Reagan praised them then! To me the term has become a catch all and synonym for "attacks against us the good guys". How is a non-state actor supposed to fend off an enemy army without "terrorism" ... we even consider guerrilla warfare terrorism ... should they ask to line up like the Red Coats and walk slowly towards one another? (rhetorical) [/b]



[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358583117' post='1209470']
There is no such thing as justifiable homicide in your world?
[/quote]
[b]No, I have lots of justifiable homicide reasons. I'm not a pacifist. I am not against killing people. My problem is I think most of the time we are killing the wrong people, and creating a situation where we get more of our own people killed and many more of theirs as well that didn't need to be --- in order to fuel a Military Industrial Complex that looks at human lives as throw away means of doing business. Like window repairmen that go around handing out stones, I think we have a system in place that creates it's own conflict and terrorists (through provocation) and thus business. [/b]



[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358583117' post='1209470']
The leaders of this country and it's defense are well versed on the causes of terrorism. They are not astonished by this concept. Nor is any American with an IQ above 50.
[/quote]
[b]At one point Bush didn't know that Iraq had Sunni and Shias ... and I think you overestimate how much our civilian leaders understand terrorism and our enemies. Most of our congress are ignorant of international issues related to the conflicts we face (they even have problems understanding functioning vaginas at this point). I also don't think your average American understands how CIA blowback creates more conflict in the long run, or realizes how the actions of the U.S. fuels terrorism around the world (CIA coups, backed despots in the Middle East etc). Hell, the average American can't even name 1 Supreme Court Justice or find Afghanistan on a map. [/b]



[quote name='Nati Ice' timestamp='1358583117' post='1209470']
If there is a solution to terrorism, it cannot be achieved over night and it will not be achieved without bloodshed.
[/quote]
[b]I never said it could be ... I'm ok with small scale raids against specific targets who have been shown to be direct threats ... that is a far cry though from having carte blanche reign over an entire nation with killer drones and giving 22 year old guys the ability to play war with remote controls from thousands of miles away by killing gathered groups of men we see in valleys with guns (sometimes they are doing celebratory wedding fire right before we blow them all up). This makes us less safe in the long run, it doesn't even make tactical sense imo. The only way it would make sense is if you wanted the threat of terrorism to continue and keep fanning the flames, which I would argue many companies and military contractors do ... for $. [/b]

[Nati Ice]

[b]From an egalitarian stand point numbers do matter when loss of life is concerned. Moreover, what makes you think our side is "sane" while the other side is "unstable" ? What if they are both unstable? [/b]

War was declared against "our side" by an international terrorism group (AQ) that intentionally targeted our national interests and innocent civilians, as well as civilians from other countries. The nation largely tolerated this until the attacks of 9/11. Following this provocation we responded, violently. I believe this makes AQ the aggressors, ergo unstable.

[b]Does our team magically escape all the 'demons' of human nature when mixed with violence? [/b]

No, of course not.

[b]What track record leads you to believe that the U.S. military as a whole (not on an individual level where people can be noble and well intentioned) is any more "responsible" with the ways and nature in which they kill, than any crazed Jihadist outfit? [/b]

The entirety of history of war with US involvement has shown that we are not perfect. But, what it does show is that as a rule, the US is infinitely more careful when it comes to choosing targets and having a burden of proof than AQ has been.

[b]Violence is a tactic, politics by other means often times. How is it somehow noble for a guy to sit in a trailer in Arizona and blow the shit out of Afghanistan all day by remote control (killing who we believe to be bad guys), but insane and unstable for some Afghan to place explosives in a trunk and drive it towards a U.S. base?[/b]

Where did I state that drone usage was noble or otherwise?

[b]I don't want either to occur, nor the first in my name --- I'm consistent. [/b]

This is noble.

[b]You seem to be saying one is fine, and the other is evil. That is my issue.[/b]

The strategic targeting of terrorists, their networks, their supporters, et al. is something that I am fine with. The intentional targeting of marketplaces, mosques, schools, hospitals, and ethnic hang outs and gathering places is something that I am not.

[b]I would say it would even be more intellectually honest to say both are within bounds, and you just root for team A against B, without viewing B as "evil", they are using what's at their disposal. [/b]

No, it would not. There is merit, whether or not you'd like to admit it, in not intentionally targeting civilians.

[b]You can still want them to lose, without viewing yourself as morally superior. [/b][b]My initial argument however, is the way to lessen violence, is to understand the ways in which you may provoke or cause it. [/b]

Understanding what is a provocation is not the issue. The problem lies within socio-economic conditions, religion, and tribal/ethic cultures and influences found within these areas. Simply becoming passive is not a realistic solution. Lessening potential collateral damage is.

[Nati Ice]

[b]The U.S. media makes it all the time. In the film a car bomb against CIA agents is even presented as "terrorism" ... thus, is there any person who the enemy is allowed to kill without it being terrorism? Is all violence done by Al Qaeda automatically terrorism? Even attacks on U.S. soldiers? Was it "terrorism" when the same Jihadists did these attacks on Soviet tanks in the 1980's? Because Reagan praised them then! To me the term has become a catch all and synonym for "attacks against us the good guys". How is a non-state actor supposed to fend off an enemy army without "terrorism" ... we even consider guerrilla warfare terrorism ... should they ask to line up like the Red Coats and walk slowly towards one another? (rhetorical) [/b]

Our media is lazy, and has failed us. Also, terrorism is a cover-all term nowadays. I mostly agree.



[b]No, I have lots of justifiable homicide reasons. I'm not a pacifist. I am not against killing people. My problem is I think most of the time we are killing the wrong people, and creating a situation where we get more of our own people killed and many more of theirs as well that didn't need to be --- in order to fuel a Military Industrial Complex that looks at human lives as throw away means of doing business. Like window repairmen that go around handing out stones, I think we have a system in place that creates it's own conflict and terrorists (through provocation) and thus business. [/b]
I wouldn't disagree in saying that often times, as a nation, we commit ourselves to an action without a realistic end state. Then, not wanting to leave the area unstable, mission creep sets in and our battles turn from fighting what can best be called terrorists to fighting insurgents. There is merit to saying we are too quick to react, but it is also damn near impossible to predict how the future will turn out. Yes, manufacturers and privateers have crept their way to forefront. The MIC is obviously a real concern at this point in time. However, with new atypical and nontraditional wars being fought on multiple fronts, it should come as not surprise to see a rise in our militarism.



[b]At one point Bush didn't know that Iraq had Sunni and Shias ... and I think you overestimate how much our civilian leaders understand terrorism and our enemies. Most of our congress are ignorant of international issues related to the conflicts we face (they even have problems understanding functioning vaginas at this point). I also don't think your average American understands how CIA blowback creates more conflict in the long run, or realizes how the actions of the U.S. fuels terrorism around the world (CIA coups, backed despots in the Middle East etc). Hell, the average American can't even name 1 Supreme Court Justice or find Afghanistan on a map. [/b]
I was speaking more to this administration, as well as the military that has now grown up fighting in this landscape. i don't doubt that the average rep from BFE doesn't know the difference between a coptic and a kurd. Also, if you are capable of getting behind the facade, many citizens do understand these concepts a lot better than they get credit for.



[b]I never said it could be ... I'm ok with small scale raids against specific targets who have been shown to be direct threats ... that is a far cry though from having carte blanche reign over an entire nation with killer drones and giving 22 year old guys the ability to play war with remote controls from thousands of miles away by killing gathered groups of men we see in valleys with guns (sometimes they are doing celebratory wedding fire right before we blow them all up). This makes us less safe in the long run, it doesn't even make tactical sense imo. The only way it would make sense is if you wanted the threat of terrorism to continue and keep fanning the flames, which I would argue many companies and military contractors do ... for $. [/b]
The failures often see more light than the successes. I believe, quite frankly, that the numbers have been overblown. And yes, while drones do a ton to increase targeting effectiveness, it also gives rise to greater collateral damage and sloppiness. i do not blame this technology or its implementation for having any major effects upon recruiting. Major recruiting effects as a direct response to US actions have only come from abu ghraib, the invasion of iraq, and a lack of an end game, to my knowledge. Even then these reasons paled in comparison to the real reasons disaffected youths choose to join terrorist organizations. Now, if I could only remember where I found this really interesting article on the comparison between school shooters and terrorist recruits from a couple years ago...

[Jamie_B]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0


He's not wrong.

[Rumble In the Jungle]

To you we are terrorist, but to the world we are freedom fighters!

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='Rumble In the Jungle' timestamp='1358645377' post='1209598']
To you we are terrorist, but to the world we are freedom fighters!
[/quote]

ONE STEAKHOUSE AT A TIME! ONE FONDUE DRIZZLE AT A TIME! WE WILL KILL THE INFIDELS!!

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='Dalton4HOF' timestamp='1358645645' post='1209599']
ONE STEAKHOUSE AT A TIME! ONE FONDUE DRIZZLE AT A TIME! WE WILL KILL THE INFIDELS!!
[/quote]

[|BlackJesus|]

[quote name='Jamie_B' timestamp='1358603439' post='1209487']
[media]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AD7dnFDdwu0[/media]
He's not wrong.
[/quote]
[b]Ron Paul is the most honest US politican in modern times when it comes to foreign policy ... [/b]
[b]it's a shame his domestic Austrian economic policy is out of the gilded age, because he is dead on when it comes to diagnosing American imperialism. [/b]

[Jamie_B]

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358661693' post='1209622']
[b]Ron Paul is the most honest US politican in modern times when it comes to foreign policy ... [/b]
[b]it's a shame his domestic Austrian economic policy is out of the gilded age, because he is dead on when it comes to diagnosing American imperialism. [/b]
[/quote]


Agreed.

[CincyInDC]

[quote name='BlackJesus' timestamp='1358661693' post='1209622']
[b]...[/b][b] because he is dead on when it comes to diagnosing American imperialism. [/b]
[/quote]

Really? because I recall being told that terrorists hate us because of our freedom.

[-GoBengals-]

[quote name='CincyInDC' timestamp='1358677753' post='1209629']
Really? because I recall being told that terrorists hate us because of our freedom.
[/quote]

[img]http://ct.fra.bz/ol/fz/sw/i51/5/5/8/frabz-WE-SHOULD-SPEND-LESS-ON-OUR-MILITARY-IM-SORRY-I-CANT-HEAR-YOU-OV-63729f.jpg[/img]

[img]http://media.tumblr.com/tumblr_m720yfMVn51rr58wk.jpg[/img]

[img]http://nativesusa.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/05/merica-world-war-champs-dream-team-snapback-hat-front.jpg[/img]