The Orange Mane -  a Denver Broncos Fan Community  

Go Back   The Orange Mane - a Denver Broncos Fan Community > Jibba Jabba > War, Religion and Politics Thread
Register FAQ Members List Calendar Chat Room Mark Forums Read



Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 04-16-2013, 12:48 PM   #251
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Poor strawmen. You're really going after them.

Are all overseas actions ever undertaken by the United States completely moral and good?

Or will you fall into realpolitik, which is just a euphemism for moral relativism?
A supposed strawman but you can't explain how it is one.

I'm merely explaining standard left-wing philosophy which we're STILL seeing on this thread. Blame America first and if you're lucky others later on if at all.

Even on this page we have people insinuating that accidental civilian deaths after we experienced 9-11 is just reason for Muslims to hate our guts. Yet I'd bet my last dollar the same people wouldn't say that 9-11 isn't just reason for us Americans to hate Muslims.

Funny how that always turns out, isn't it?
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 12:48 PM   #252
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
It's what at least 2 of our liberal contigent here have been saying.

One of the root philosophies of left though is that we - the evil capitalist pig - have been instigating and raping the planet all over therefore anyone who attacks us in any way, shape or form is just being a morally-superior resister of our evil machinations. Furthermore, it's okay if they hate the collective of us because of accidental deaths by the military, but don't you naughty Americans dislike or distrust the collective of Muslims because of repeated terror attacks and 1,400 years of Islamic violence against infidels.

This is what the left call higher morality.

Isn't that lovely?
so tell us professor, why do islamists attack us?
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 12:50 PM   #253
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
so tell us professor, why do islamists attack us?
They hate us for our freedoms.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 12:52 PM   #254
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
so tell us professor, why do islamists attack us?
Answered in my post you just quoted.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 12:53 PM   #255
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
A supposed strawman but you can't explain how it is one.
You won't accept even the smallest criticism of American foreign policy without having a hissy fit and labeling folks as anti-American.

Why do you think America is so weak that everything done in its name overseas must be rationalized away?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 12:54 PM   #256
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
They hate us for our freedoms.
Apparently they hate everyone's freedoms considering they've been treating non-Muslims like asswipe for 1,400 years.

Why did Thomas Jefferson have to make a decision to stop paying tribute to them? Right - to keep them from attacking our ships, which they resumed the minute we stopped paying tribute.

Peaceful kin, peaceful.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 12:54 PM   #257
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
You won't accept even the smallest criticism of American foreign policy without having a hissy fit and labeling folks as anti-American.

Why do you think America is so weak that everything done in its name overseas must be rationalized away?
I don't accept one-sided criticism and moral double standards, and that's all the left has to offer, and YOU are no different.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 01:04 PM   #258
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
I don't accept one-sided criticism and moral double standards
Then how can you be writing your nonsense?

You're all about one-sided criticism and moral relativism.
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 01:06 PM   #259
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Then how can you be writing your nonsense?

You're all about one-sided criticism and moral relativism.
Your idea of moral relativism is to follow left-wing party line and present US foreign policy in one-sided hostile Marxist terms. That means dick to me.

What I do is discuss the one-sided moral criticism that the left have been pelting this country and Western civilization as a whole with. Nothing wrong with that in the least.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 01:13 PM   #260
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Answered in my post you just quoted.
chicken
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 01:24 PM   #261
nyuk nyuk
Guest
 

Posts: n/a
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Rigs11 View Post
chicken
The post wasn't discussing chickens. It explained itself. I shouldn't have to reiterate or rephrase in more simple language.
  Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 01:56 PM   #262
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk View Post
Your idea of moral relativism is to follow left-wing party line and present US foreign policy in one-sided hostile Marxist terms. That means dick to me.
Thanks for working in "Marxist". Not that we didn't know you're just a label-happy right-winger who thinks using "Marxist" or "Communist" or "communist" or "commie" or "socialist" means the argument is over.

Name me one thing the US has done overseas that was immoral from your point of view. Can you think of any, or can you rationalize it away, twisting black into white?

Quote:
Originally Posted by nyuk nyuk
What I do is discuss the one-sided moral criticism that the left have been pelting this country and Western civilization as a whole with. Nothing wrong with that in the least.
You prefer one-side moral approval - what's good for America is good by definition. Right?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:03 PM   #263
Rigs11
Ring of Famer
 
Rigs11's Avatar
 

Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 8,343
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Thanks for working in "Marxist". Not that we didn't know you're just a label-happy right-winger who thinks using "Marxist" or "Communist" or "communist" or "commie" or "socialist" means the argument is over.

Name me one thing the US has done overseas that was immoral from your point of view. Can you think of any, or can you rationalize it away, twisting black into white?



You prefer one-side moral approval - what's good for America is good by definition. Right?
yuk yuk is just a rightwing parrot.

one of the worst things the US did was in Chile in 1973.
Rigs11 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:25 PM   #264
orinjkrush
...
 
orinjkrush's Avatar
 
Hey, no hurling on the shell, dude,

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: FrontRangeAbove8500ft
Posts: 5,102

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ben Garland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
Let's find out who's behind this before making the assumption it was some foreigner who may have had a legit passport and visa.
agree. this episode is far from being properly investigated, if it ever will be.

nonetheless. my point is still valid. stop "them" at the borders or else we will be perpetually trying to stop them in front of our homes.

without effective borders, the Patriot Act will increasingly weigh on us and our children and our children's children. unless you believe domestic terrorists far outnumber foreign terrorists.

not politically correct. but historically correct.
orinjkrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:32 PM   #265
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orinjkrush View Post
agree. this episode is far from being properly investigated, if it ever will be.

nonetheless. my point is still valid. stop "them" at the borders or else we will be perpetually trying to stop them in front of our homes.

without effective borders, the Patriot Act will increasingly weigh on us and our children and our children's children. unless you believe domestic terrorists far outnumber foreign terrorists.

not politically correct. but historically correct.
And what do you know about investigations? That's right absolutely nothing.
As I have stated,no one knows yet,this could be domestic,this could be foreign. We don't know yet. Obviously you've made a decision on who it was.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:36 PM   #266
orinjkrush
...
 
orinjkrush's Avatar
 
Hey, no hurling on the shell, dude,

Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: FrontRangeAbove8500ft
Posts: 5,102

Adopt-a-Bronco:
Ben Garland
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
And what do you know about investigations? That's right absolutely nothing.
As I have stated,no one knows yet,this could be domestic,this could be foreign. We don't know yet. Obviously you've made a decision on who it was.
No, I said this episode is yet to be resolved.

But, I said the principle of having to defend some places is better than everyplace.

And you clearly don't know squat either. Opinion Master.
orinjkrush is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:37 PM   #267
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
They hate us .
Fixed it for you.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:43 PM   #268
W*GS
Ring of Famer
 
W*GS's Avatar
 

Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Earth
Posts: 20,413
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cutthemdown View Post
Fixed it for you.
Just to be ornery and mean, eh?
W*GS is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:44 PM   #269
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,395

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orinjkrush View Post
agree. this episode is far from being properly investigated, if it ever will be.

nonetheless. my point is still valid. stop "them" at the borders or else we will be perpetually trying to stop them in front of our homes.

without effective borders, the Patriot Act will increasingly weigh on us and our children and our children's children. unless you believe domestic terrorists far outnumber foreign terrorists.

not politically correct. but historically correct.

Yes but while we are still doing body cavity searches on Grandma at the airport we are working on giving 'trusted' status for Saudi travelers. Secretary Janet Napolitano reached an agreement in January with a top Saudi official to begin work on granting Global Entry status to Saudi Arabian citizens, allowing “pre-approved, low-risk travelers” to pass through customs more quickly in the United States at major U.S. airports.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ers-89448.html
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:44 PM   #270
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by orinjkrush View Post
No, I said this episode is yet to be resolved.

But, I said the principle of having to defend some places is better than everyplace.

And you clearly don't know squat either. Opinion Master.
We're all opinion masters on here.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 03:46 PM   #271
peacepipe
Ring of Famer
 
New to the Forum

Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 6,629

Adopt-a-Bronco:
None
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Pony Boy View Post
Yes but while we are still doing body cavity searches on Grandma at the airport we are working on giving 'trusted' status for Saudi travelers. Secretary Janet Napolitano reached an agreement in January with a top Saudi official to begin work on granting Global Entry status to Saudi Arabian citizens, allowing “pre-approved, low-risk travelers” to pass through customs more quickly in the United States at major U.S. airports.

http://www.politico.com/story/2013/0...ers-89448.html
What does this have to do with the price of tea in china.
peacepipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 04:05 PM   #272
mhgaffney
Ring of Famer
 

Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 10,612
Default

Yeah it's terrible.

We are doing the same thing to innocents in many countries. Their lives don't count here. No one cares unless Americans are targeted.
MHG


Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Boston & Cowardice & America the Blind

by Barry Lando

As I write this, we still don’t know who was responsible for the horrific bombing attack in Boston. Perhaps it will turn out to be the work of home grown rightwing nuts; perhaps it’s the act of foreign terrorists. But, whatever the source, what strikes me is the number of times the barbaric assault is being denounced as “cowardly”

As in Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis’s warning that “This cowardly act will not be taken in stride.”

Indeed, “Cowardly” is the epithet being used by political figures across the United States; it was used by an editorial writer in Kansas City Star and a spokesman for the United Maryland Muslim Council in Baltimore.

“Cowardly” is the term being used in messages of support from abroad, from the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of Italy.

After all, what could be more cowardly than for some unknown, unseen, unannounced killer to blow apart and maim innocent men women and children, without any risk to himself.

But, if that be the definition of cowardice, what could be more cowardly, than the now cliché image of the button-down CIA officer agent driving to work in Las Vegas to assume his shift at the controls of a drone circling high over some dusty village on the other side of the world?

How different are the images produced by such attacks—shattered bodies, dismembered limbs, severed arteries, frantic aid givers and terrified survivors—how different from the moving images of the tragedy in Boston now being broadcast and rebroadcast on TV stations around the globe?

With those scenes in mind, I would ask you to read a portion of a blog on Drone Wars I posted a few weeks ago, citing the fact that over the past few years, U.S. drones have made mincemeat out of an estimated 3000 to 4000 people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. At least 200 of them were children.

“The figures are very rough because no one--certainly not the U.S. government--is releasing an accurate count. The London based Center for Investigative reporting, which attempts to track the drone strikes, has been able to identify by name only a few hundred of the actual victims. Who knows what their political affiliations really were? Or even less, what considerations—legal and otherwise—went into justifying their demise?

“It’s a terrifying situation.” Jennifer Gibson told me. She’s an American lawyer in London with Reprieve, an organization taking on the “drone war” issue. “There are villages in Pakistan,” she says “that have drones flying over them 24 hours a day. Sometimes they’ll stay for weeks. But my clients and people there have no way of knowing if they are being targeted. Or what kind of behavior is likely to get them killed.

“They don’t know if the person riding beside them in a car or walking with them in the marketplace may be a target. It’s terrorizing entire communities. Even after an attack, there is no acknowledging by the U.S. government, no response at all, absolutely no accountability. And the vast majority of casualties don’t even have names attached to them.”

“Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards. He suggested that some strikes may even constitute “war crimes”.

“But, few Americans seem to carry about U.N. rapporteurs. It’s only when Americans are potential targets for those drones, that Congress and the media get stirred up.

“And they’re probably right. A recent poll taken by Farleigh Dickinson University’s Public Mind, found that by a two to one margin (48% to 24%) American voters say they think it’s illegal for the U.S. government to target its own citizens abroad with drone strikes.

“But, when it comes to using drones to carry out attacks abroad “on people and other targets deemed a threat to the U.S.” voters were in favor of a margin of six-to-one [75% to 13%].
mhgaffney is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 04:10 PM   #273
Pony Boy
"Whoa Nellie"
 
Pony Boy's Avatar
 
Omaha !!!

Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 7,395

Adopt-a-Bronco:
mellon head
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by peacepipe View Post
What does this have to do with the price of tea in china.
Well pisspipe other than of the 19 hijackers of the American planes on 9/11, 15 were from Saudi Arabia and now Big Sis wants to grant Saudi Arabia trusted travel status probably nothing.
Pony Boy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 04:43 PM   #274
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by W*GS View Post
Just to be ornery and mean, eh?
Mostly because our theory of expanding capitalism and democracy collides with their philosophy of spreading islamic govt and sharia law. They don't hate us because we love freedom, they hate us because we try and get the world to think like we do. They are trying to get the world to think like they do. Those two differing ideas clash and create this.

Who do you hope wins?
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-16-2013, 04:45 PM   #275
cutthemdown
A verbis ad verbera
 
cutthemdown's Avatar
 
Zimm to HOF

Join Date: Mar 2006
Location: Long Beach
Posts: 35,584
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mhgaffney View Post
Yeah it's terrible.

We are doing the same thing to innocents in many countries. Their lives don't count here. No one cares unless Americans are targeted.
MHG


Tuesday, April 16, 2013

Boston & Cowardice & America the Blind

by Barry Lando

As I write this, we still don’t know who was responsible for the horrific bombing attack in Boston. Perhaps it will turn out to be the work of home grown rightwing nuts; perhaps it’s the act of foreign terrorists. But, whatever the source, what strikes me is the number of times the barbaric assault is being denounced as “cowardly”

As in Boston Police Commissioner Ed Davis’s warning that “This cowardly act will not be taken in stride.”

Indeed, “Cowardly” is the epithet being used by political figures across the United States; it was used by an editorial writer in Kansas City Star and a spokesman for the United Maryland Muslim Council in Baltimore.

“Cowardly” is the term being used in messages of support from abroad, from the Prime Minister of India to the Prime Minister of Italy.

After all, what could be more cowardly than for some unknown, unseen, unannounced killer to blow apart and maim innocent men women and children, without any risk to himself.

But, if that be the definition of cowardice, what could be more cowardly, than the now cliché image of the button-down CIA officer agent driving to work in Las Vegas to assume his shift at the controls of a drone circling high over some dusty village on the other side of the world?

How different are the images produced by such attacks—shattered bodies, dismembered limbs, severed arteries, frantic aid givers and terrified survivors—how different from the moving images of the tragedy in Boston now being broadcast and rebroadcast on TV stations around the globe?

With those scenes in mind, I would ask you to read a portion of a blog on Drone Wars I posted a few weeks ago, citing the fact that over the past few years, U.S. drones have made mincemeat out of an estimated 3000 to 4000 people in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Yemen, and Somalia. At least 200 of them were children.

“The figures are very rough because no one--certainly not the U.S. government--is releasing an accurate count. The London based Center for Investigative reporting, which attempts to track the drone strikes, has been able to identify by name only a few hundred of the actual victims. Who knows what their political affiliations really were? Or even less, what considerations—legal and otherwise—went into justifying their demise?

“It’s a terrifying situation.” Jennifer Gibson told me. She’s an American lawyer in London with Reprieve, an organization taking on the “drone war” issue. “There are villages in Pakistan,” she says “that have drones flying over them 24 hours a day. Sometimes they’ll stay for weeks. But my clients and people there have no way of knowing if they are being targeted. Or what kind of behavior is likely to get them killed.

“They don’t know if the person riding beside them in a car or walking with them in the marketplace may be a target. It’s terrorizing entire communities. Even after an attack, there is no acknowledging by the U.S. government, no response at all, absolutely no accountability. And the vast majority of casualties don’t even have names attached to them.”

“Christof Heyns, the UN special rapporteur on extrajudicial killings, summary or arbitrary executions, told a conference in Geneva that President Obama's attacks in Pakistan, Yemen and elsewhere, carried out by the CIA, would encourage other states to flout long-established human rights standards. He suggested that some strikes may even constitute “war crimes”.

“But, few Americans seem to carry about U.N. rapporteurs. It’s only when Americans are potential targets for those drones, that Congress and the media get stirred up.

“And they’re probably right. A recent poll taken by Farleigh Dickinson University’s Public Mind, found that by a two to one margin (48% to 24%) American voters say they think it’s illegal for the U.S. government to target its own citizens abroad with drone strikes.

“But, when it comes to using drones to carry out attacks abroad “on people and other targets deemed a threat to the U.S.” voters were in favor of a margin of six-to-one [75% to 13%].



The big difference is we are always targeting fighters or their leaders. Putting a bomb at the marathon is way difference. That would be more like America deciding to drone pilgrams traveling to Mecca to scare them and ruin their fun. That is if traveling to Mecca is fun. i sure hope this was done by foriegners though. Its going to suck if it was American on American.
cutthemdown is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools
Display Modes



Forum Jump


All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:49 PM.


Denver Broncos