so if Bush violated the law...

[Please visit our sponsor:]

Round Earth Pubs - Book: "Aikido Exercises for Teaching and Training"

[Hogan]

Neil -

Have you bought your ticket !?!?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8699776/

[Neil Mick]

Neil -

Have you bought your ticket !?!?

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/8699776/

Gosh, no: but thanks for the tip. It sounds pretty cool. :p

Still, I'm a little peeved at her playing in "Monster-in-Law:" it seems sort of a cop-out.

[Neil Mick]

N'ah.... I don't really care.

A troll thou wert, and a troll, thou shalt remain, it appears.

A pity. I had such high hopes for some sort of virtual dialectic forum-evolution, to manifest. *sigh*

[makuchg]

Greg - there is a right and there is a wrong. Doesn't really matter how / why the terrorists think it's ok to kill women and children and innocents ON PURPOSE, thinking it will make a point and think it is in the name of some god. We do understand them - they kill in the name of god and want to establish an islamic dream land; that's all - ain't gonna' happen...

That's just the point John, the terrorists don't consider our citizens "innocents." They consider them collateral damage.

Recently an Islamic Cleric (extremist at that) made comments almost authorizing the killing of children:

http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/78424.html

"As long as the Iraqi did not deliberately kill women and children, and they were killed in the crossfire, that would be okay."


See if they target buildings, people killed in the buildings, or on buses, or on trains, or on planes don't matter. As long as the woman or child wasn't the primary target its okay.

While this is an obviously ridiculous concept, it is one being preached (and obviously heeded) in England.

[makuchg]

Take a guess.... and your answer will speak volumes about you....

I'm not getting into a silly guessing game like this. If you'd like to have a serious conversation, let me know.

[Hogan]

A troll thou wert, and a troll, thou shalt remain, it appears.

A pity. I had such high hopes for some sort of virtual dialectic forum-evolution, to manifest. *sigh*

Very sad - I knew you would not be able to stop from 'flaming'.....

Give it a rest, dude.

[Hogan]

That's just the point John, the terrorists don't consider our citizens "innocents." They consider them collateral damage.

Recently an Islamic Cleric (extremist at that) made comments almost authorizing the killing of children:

http://www.terroranalysis.com/story/78424.html



See if they target buildings, people killed in the buildings, or on buses, or on trains, or on planes don't matter. As long as the woman or child wasn't the primary target its okay.

While this is an obviously ridiculous concept, it is one being preached (and obviously heeded) in England.


Collateral damage is just that - damage resulting from targeting SOMETHING ELSE. If I bomb a bldg that housed military soldiers and equipment, and the civilians nearby die, THAT is collateral damage. If I bypass the bldg and bomb the civilians directly, that is terrorism and NOT collateral damage.

And if some nut 'authorizes' killing children, then it is incumbant upon EVERYONE to stop him or his followers, not just say, "Oh, we must undertand where he is coming from".

[Neil Mick]

Take a guess.... and your answer will speak volumes about you....

I'm not getting into a silly guessing game like this. If you'd like to have a serious conversation, let me know.

and

Very sad - I knew you would not be able to stop from 'flaming'.....

Give it a rest, dude.

Well, I apologize if you think that this constitutes a flame. Certainly, I won't repeat it, ad nauseum.

But, really, John: if a troll is defined as someone who sees no value in reasoned debate and is only finds value posting insults: then what else would you call the point of your posting?

And, I am not saying this to intend insult.

[Hogan]

and



Well, I apologize if you think that this constitutes a flame. Certainly, I won't repeat it, ad nauseum.

But, really, John: if a troll is defined as someone who sees no value in reasoned debate and is only finds value posting insults: then what else would you call the point of your posting?

And, I am not saying this to intend insult.


Where have I insulted since our 'truce' ?

[Neil Mick]

Where have I insulted since our 'truce' ?

No, you haven't. But, never mind: this is getting too semantical.

Let's move on.