do you want to win the war on terror?
-
TheCrabKing — 17 years ago(October 08, 2008 09:01 PM)
Do you want to win the war on crabboy? Yes or no? There's no sitting on the fence on this one jack, the crabboy is out there. This takes precedence over terrorism,drugs, and the economy. So what I need to know from you is, do you want to win the war on crab boy? Ugly times means ugly methods jack, there won't be a clean getaway on this one. But I'm sure you know that already. Would you carbomb a suspected employer of crab-boy? would you airstrike a church on the slightest whim that the crab might be taking precedence in there. This is where the fuel hits the fire jack, if you say no, you become my enemy. I'm sorry jack but thats the way it is. I will not have my children growing up wondering what that clip-clap in the corner is. I will not have them listening to his claw opening and closing on our personal freedom. They will eat beef and burgers, not beep plankton! Now, one last time, do you want to win the war on crab-boy?
King of the Crustacean nation -
alveolate — 17 years ago(January 28, 2009 09:41 AM)
precisely!
even if it's a "yes", the question still follows: HOW?
if one reduces a complex issue involving geopolitics, military strategy, historical conflicts, economics, ideology, etc etc to an overly simple "yes or no", it's basically forcing a quick answer for the sake of argument - no real solution is brought forth.
if it's a "yes", are you willing to do whatever it takes to win this war? that was the doubt on Roth's mind all along and Irving's immediate affirmative answer must have chilled her to the bone.
is the war on terror merely a battle of "who dares to die in the most horrifying ways for no certain reasons"? -
keithulhu — 16 years ago(May 13, 2009 08:09 PM)
Thank Christ almighty someone finally had the guts to bring up crabboy. I am sick of my gubment spending my tax duckies on so-called human so-called interest boondoggles. I want to see crabboy turning slowly on a spit. Thats WJWD, I really do believe that, amen, praise him.
Crabboy is the anti-anti-antichrist. (YOU do the math, jellyteeth. It means BAD, thats what it means.)
I'd drop a pyramid on my own gran-gran if I thought for a second that she might really be crabboy in disguise.
Thats patriotism there, fingerlips, and if you disagree then you are incorrect by default. You want proof? A) I am right; B) you disagree; Therefore X) You are incorrect by default.
Go buy a flag! Somebody who would probably hate you died for that flag you ingrate! Not the specific one you buy, it was probably made by Chinese terrorists, but its what it represents, jinglenuts!
Over and out! -
blacademic — 16 years ago(September 04, 2009 09:55 PM)
the crabboy threat is real and i'm not sure why the press is ignoring it as much as they do
i think Nightline had a 5 minute segment on crabboy last year and i heard Charlie Rose refernece crabboy on a couple of occassions but the media is essentially silent on this one
every hilljack in west virginia can set their sofa on fire in the middle of the street if they want, but Ricky and Julian aren't just gonna sit by while the crabboy threat is out there
it's not enough that this bugsnot is in the pockets of half of washington, but the resistance to a CFB playoff is the real kicker
i really hope we can stop it before it's to late and america joins the likes of thr greeks, romans, and hittites -
id_unplugged — 17 years ago(January 22, 2009 07:10 AM)
Can you think of any scenario, where you would ACTUALLY strap a dozen sticks of dynamite to your body and blow yourself up into tiny little pieces ?. I don't believe ANY American has the balls to do it today. Not even Timothy McVeigh, the all gung-ho super-patriot. He lit the fuse and ran with his precious patriot tail between his legs.
No Ranger, no G.I. -friggin- Joe, no Green Berets. They may love to go out and kill, but they are not about to willingly sacrifice their lives. No way, Jose!
But those guys over there, whose lands we have illegally occupied and whose resources we want to take home, cheap, even though they may not have a pot to pi** in, THEY surely have the balls and are doing it.
So who's the coward ?, who is the rascal ?, who is the thief ?, who is the liar ?, who is the criminal ?, who's the murderer ?. We are. Not them. 1.5 million Iraqis dead and counting.
Those folks are only doing, what you'd expect from any true patriot, who has been pushed against the wall. Trying his best to fight back the intruders. You can call them crazy (considering the odds), but they are certainly no cowards.
It's US presence and our blind subservience to the Zionists' cause that has pulled us into the fiery pit. We got plenty of warning from these guys, but we CHOSE to ignore them and now we have no one to blame but ourselves. -
garvint — 13 years ago(May 01, 2012 04:01 AM)
it is scary and obvious that is true.
In the UK here no politician will ever speak live in a debate over this. The last time was Tony Blair 10 days before going to war with Iraq.
I small group of women showed him up, of he made sure that in future no one will be allowed on camera to discuss the war crimes.
That was many many years ago.
I saw Baraka Obama's video campaign this morning, saying that he ended the war with Iraq. There are still many thousand of soliders there, in many military bases, with thousand more private business contractors working through American "interests" in the region. -
Hancockenstein — 13 years ago(June 11, 2012 11:48 PM)
why would we use those tactics? it's ineffective and we have superior firepower allowing us to live to fight another day. ignore the fact that killing hundreds of civilians to kill 1 or 2 enemies(typical low priority targets) is far less acceptable than us compared to terrorists, lack of balls have nothing to do with it, that's common sense.
i'm against the invasion but it's done already, i'm definately not going to feel sorry for terrorists willing to blow their own people up. they're not simply collateral damage, they are completely disregarded in the strategy of terrorist forces and they're definately not willing. -
ghigau — 16 years ago(September 07, 2009 03:50 PM)
You can have a war only against a sovereign that has the capability of capitulation. There is no war against terrorism, drugs, poverty, etc. None has a sovereign that can surrender. The question is rhetorical, and no one should be coerced into a simplistic answer.
-
mrgwashere — 16 years ago(September 09, 2009 04:25 PM)
Ghigau has one of the main points depicted in this movie. It wasn't about whether or not Irving's "plan" was right or wrong but rather how this plan would earn him a future presidency. How, whether right or wrong, he would manipulate the media into feeding it to Americans as the only way to insure a win and we would buy it (look at all the relatively intelligent people that buy the garbage on FOX "News"). His goal isn't ending the "war on terror" but rather to future his own political ambitions. The student was sharp enough to know "the score" but lacked enough outrage or conviction to take a meaningful stand. The professor was trying to make the student understand that acquiesce and capitulation is the real tragedy.
An incredible movie. However, since it asked us to think instead of being titillated by T&A, gun fights and car chases, it didn't do very well. Not only a shame but a frightening insight to us all. -
David_Bro — 16 years ago(December 26, 2009 09:39 PM)
So the movie was pretty one-sided then, huh?
The ones for the war were represented by those who were trying to futher themselves polically or were ignorant of the truth and those agaisnt the war where the true thinkers.
I guess if I was against the war, this ego stroking movie would be rather pleasant to watch -
smoko — 15 years ago(June 25, 2010 10:01 PM)
Blowing yourself up in a market full of innocent civilians on the off chance that you might kill a soldier or police officer is not true terrorism.
I think the relatives of those dead innocent civilians would disagree with you, as would I. -
svetiev_b — 16 years ago(July 17, 2009 01:36 PM)
What terrorists, nobody blew up the twin towers but the american government. Tell me what was the motive for the alleged terrorist attacks? Do you have an answer to that?
Isn't it clear by now that the way the american economy sustains it self is exclusively through war. Redford was wright with his analogy - America is THE modern day version of Rome. -
GraeShadowe — 16 years ago(July 24, 2009 04:28 PM)
OOOOoooooo-K.
Motive? How about a bunch of backwards, sun-stroked religious maniacs who are pissed at the rest of the world because they have not made the transition to the 21st Century.
Refusal to believe does not negate the truth. -
HHFan — 15 years ago(May 09, 2010 01:09 PM)
It is a stupid question, only believed to be of value by idiots and people trying to manipulate the idiots. "Terror" is a CONCEPT - not a specific enemy you can target.
Lets nuke the site from orbit - its the only way to be sure. -
bodryn — 13 years ago(August 17, 2012 11:10 AM)
Some thoughts it might be worth considering:
"The War on Terror" - It seems to me it would make even more sense to call it the "War on Bad People". That would simplify it for the people, especially for voters. To simplify it even more, you could require everybody to wear a button or other ID that clearly identifies them as to whether they are good people or bad people. At that point, you could design high tech cameras that would be able to identify good people from bad people, put those cameras on drones, and in just a short time, we'd be rid of all the bad people, no?
But of course, it could be said Hitler had a good idea because he thought Jews were the cause of most of the evil in the world. (Not to mention others.) But maybe he didn't think far enough, because, when it comes right down to it, it's very simple: to solve all the problems in the world, all you have to do is get rid of the people. Or not. -
iCode_v2 — 12 years ago(July 10, 2013 03:17 PM)
You can't "win" a war on terror by bombing countries because terror isn't confined to countries.
Standing up to the terrorists was a fine way to start.
When did "we" stand up exactly?
"We" gave them exactly what they wanted. Fear, paranoia, loss of freedom in the name of security.
We didn't stand up to anything.
We gave them exactly what they wanted; fear. -
mgm0106 — 17 years ago(October 15, 2008 07:47 AM)
I like everyone else wanted to win this "war" whatever that means anymore. Going after Osama Bin Laden was what I wanted, and if we killed the same Al-Queda cowards that attacked us on our own soil along the way, then so be it. But then the whole thing turned into a circus when we went into Iraq and even sent troops to Africa. We should have focused our resources on accomplishing the goal we had originally set. I think that at some point we are just playing into the hands of the terrorists when we send our troops over there and more of them have been killed than died in the towers and pentagon on 9/11. They (the terrorists) are getting what they wanted, the death of more Americans. And yes, they hide behind innocents like the Vietnamese and Somalis did because they don't care about those people and see it as a joke when we kill civilians accidentally instead the intended target. There comes a point when you have to be adult about this and realize that putting another tally in the win column for the U.S. isn't simply about just keeping troops over there to win a war. Our U.N. sanctioned time runs up at the end of this year, and we'll have to give the country back over to the Iraqis. So a simple yes/no scenario to the original question just isn't possible.
-
badmother — 17 years ago(October 22, 2008 07:56 PM)
one man's terrorist is another man's freedom fighter. i think that the american government and indeed my own british government love terrorism cause it gives them an excuse to invade middle eastern countries and steal oil. after 9/11 there were more police in manhattan than there were troops in afghanistan. bush himself said that they didn't look too hard for bin laden. how many of our troops and how many iraqi civillians have died in this war, all those lives just to hang some beardy dictator who could have easily been assasinated by a us sniper at any time. we already know that north korea have nuclear weapons and kim jong-il has had far more people murdered than saddam hussein ever did. but as far as i know there is no oil under korea so it would be a waste of money to "fight for freedom" over there. if i were a more decent person i'd probably join amnesty or the peace corps. but i love my dvd player and and my ps3 too much, so i'll drink myself to blissful ignorance and hope that hell isn't too hard on me. after all, i've never even met an iraqi let alone shot one without wondering why.