Paul Johnson wrote:
> On Thursday 24 August 2006 22:08, Steve Lamb wrote:
> You know, if Iraq invaded us, and called us terrorists for defending
> ourselves, you'd be pretty pissed off, too. The UN isn't so shortsighted as
> to say you aren't allowed to ream an occupying force a new one.
However one would hope we'd hit military targets...
> Remember: Flying commercial jets into occupied buildings == Terrorism.
> Carbomb in a cafe == terrorism. Defending your country against an occupying
> force with whatever you can improvise =! terrorism.
...and not public meeting places like the terrorists in Iraq do. Paul,
have you listen to the news where a good portion of the bombs set off in
recent months have been in public areas against civilian targets? Guess not.
>> That clause was fought for and eventually put in place to appease the very
>> same member states you claim the UN believe is nutty and doesn't listen to.
> You can't blame someone for wanting to defend themselves.
Unless they're Isreal, right? No, I don't blame people for defending
themselves. But I can say that hitting military targets is far preferable to
civilian targets. And before we talk about Lebenon's civilian casualties
let's remember that it was Hezballah that was targetting Isreal's civilians
first (not that you'd know it listening to most media sources) and that
Hezballah was intentionally firing from and hiding in Lebenon's civilians.
> Is it any coincidence that happens to be the two decades dominated by Reagan
> and his neo-conservative legacy on the Republican Party?
Nope. Could be longer. I'm betting it is. Just that I can't verify it
by personal experience.
> I mean, that party
> was doing great for a long time, too. How does one go from Abe Lincoln to
> impeaching a president over being a little too sexually ambitious?
We went over this, Paul. The impeachment was for lying under oath (a
crime) during an investigation into his conduct which broke a sexual
harassment law *he signed*. Follow the chain there. If he hadn't lied, no
problem. If he hadn't signed the law and then broke it, no problem.
> How does
> the party of small government end up outspending in three presidents more
> than all other presidents before them combined, without facing anything as
> earthshattering as the Great Depression, a major world war, or anything more
> major than the terrorist equivalent of a suckerpunch?
Got me there. Still trying to figure that one out and is about the only
valid criticism you've voiced so far.
> Part of freedom of the press is access to media.
Uh, how did freedom of the press turn into freedom of speech?
> Blogs and email doesn't cut
> it, my friend. Countries that score better on freedom of speech don't tend
> to have more than a dozen companies competing for national mass media.
And yet blogs have caused 3 major media scandals to me exposed in the past
5 years. Pallywood, Dan Rather's "false but accurate" and Fauxtography. They
are providing an excellent check against the media.
--
Steve C. Lamb | But who decides what they dream?
PGP Key: 8B6E99C5 | And dream I do...
-------------------------------+---------------------------------------------
Attachment:
signature.asc
Description: OpenPGP digital signature