Then he and the rest of the so-called "embarassed" Muslims need to speak out and condemn all of these attacks. They need to be vigiliant within their own communities and weed out the radicals among them.

They haven't done this. Sure, a few have, but not nearly enough.

If the Muslims started to cry out and speak out against these attacks, that would surely be a good start. But it's not happening.

I don't know a solution to stop the threat but Im sure mass Genocide won't do much other then piss off more people.

So then I would assume that you were against the nuclear bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

That was a war between two nations.

Hey, the bombings of Hirsoshima and Nagasaki showed the Japanese one thing. DONT FUCK WITH US, and I'm pretty damn sure that they never did again. So, do the same thing to them, chances are they (the turban toters) dont believe we will do it. But once, and if, we do they will probably realize that we could wipe them out.

Ahh... then what if the US formally declares war on nations that harbor terrorists?

How about after the US nukes the middle east The US government gives all the brown people patches to sow on their sleeves and lock them up in their own fenced off sections of cities. Then once they convince the american white people that everything that goes wrong in their life is to blame on the Terrorist(ie. Anyone with brown skin or looks like they could come the the middle east) they can ship the terrorist off the camps where they can be shoved into ovens(cheaper so that the government can spend more on military instead of a Health Care system or something else the people need ) to be killed.

I think you should switch to the axis side every once in a while when you play mohaa RD, you would fit right in with them.

Very enlightning Opeth. Maybe it will take for Canada to get hit before you get it.

i could see internment, and like i have said 100 times on these forum. all hell will break loose when some arab american commits a home invasion and sets up his web cam and takes the head off a white suburban american family. think it wont happen? walmart has EVERYTHING to do it.(LOL) so will placing arab muslim american in internment camps (for protective custody) a bad thing? will you have dinner with your muslim co-worker alone after that? if the muslim world was SOOOO concerned about clearing their religion, then why dont they handle this themselves? why dont they hand over the dangerous muslim clerics? what you dont think they know who they are? your kidding me right?
i have to say one thing that was totally postive about all this, it brought america together. black and white have united (damn even the blacks and jews in nyc) to fight the common good. (ironic) which is why we have been asskickers here in america for a long time. we have always been united. (well vietnam wasnt a war...just remember that) oh and the talk about us nuking japan...that was done to save hundreds of thousands of american lives. now with nukes being sold as much as unregistered guns in america, would nuking the tora bora region (taliban hide out area...if that isnt it) a bad thing? what about chemical weapons? see what really gets me going is that people like you cry over this shit. almost like these people that say oh its not his fault its society that made them this way....well great....fuck'em.... they did the crime and now they pay. tim Mc Veigh may have had help from what terrorist org? hello...anyone there???

OH and real 7-7-05 london england 2 sister from tennesse were injured in the blast....arabs? muslims? hummm when the terrorists behead an american on our soil put your family (wife and kids) between them and the rest of the population...see what happens...

oh and i like the oven idea.... alive so we dont have to waste ammo...
just be real happy that i dont run the country.

For sheer length, that's an impressive list Real, but again, I ask you so what?

I'm pretty sure everybody in this forum realizes that terrorism is a modern invention of the militant Islamists. So what, how does that justify arbitrarily locking up all the arab-AERICANS on the grounds that they didn't voice their opposition to YOUR satisfaction? Who are you to set the standards, and since when did good arab-americans become beholden to citizen RealDeal's standards of 'patriotism'?

You see, I mentioned Timothy McVeigh as an example of insanity, but if you paid attention to my arguments, you would have seen the ridiculousness of your own positions. And you sidestepped the question entire question, as if the US can only have 1 enemy at a time (that being arabs). Shall I be more specific? Shall I provide a long list of militia activities in the US, actively campaigning against the government? If we can lock up all the arabs, then surely we can lock up the whites too. Only seems fair in the protection of the US. Let's lock em all up Real. Let's nuke everything.

After 9/11, it doesn't make sense why a group of AMERICANS, as an ethnic block, should have to coordinate themselves and demonstrate their loyalty just because You can't accept the fact that they are as American as you and I. You're not above anyone else here.

Frosty hits it right on the head.

nice job.

so then define american?

Good lord. WTF are you talking about? MY standards? I offered, as a suggestion to the Arab community that they should come out and condemn the attacks. That's all. They don't have to do anything they don't want to. However, if they're allegedly SOOOO concerned about it, you would think they would speak out against it. It's a fact that most Muslims are silent when it comes to terrorism, yet it's these same Muslims that don't want to be associated with it. Muslim leaders should come out and speak out against the radicals... it is their religion that will be marred and doomed forever, if it's not too late already.

For example, I am a Roman Catholic. If some Cardinals began organizing terror attacks on the basis that God wants us to rid the world of non-catholics, you can be damn sure that I and others would speak out loud and let people know that we do not support that type of behavior.

That's what the terrorists tell us right? They kill in the name of Allah and that their interpretation of the Koran is that it is good to kill the so-called infidels (US- You and me). That when they die they will go to heaven and be surrounded by virgins.

If a group of catholics came out with that same interpretation of the bible, rest assured the good catholics would speak out against it.


As far as internment goes, it doesn't mean lock up all the Arabs and throw away the key. The idea of internment is not to lock up all of the Arabs for the rest of their life. Do some research on it and come back to me. The idea is that when we are threatened, we lock up those of from the same background as those threaten us which enables us to try and get some control over the situation and weed out those that have "less than desirable" intentions.

We are still threatened. We are told here in NY that it's not a matter of IF we get attacked, it's a matter of WHEN. So yeah, I'd rather not sit back until we get attacked again. If there's anything we can do to prevent it, then I say let's do it.

Currently, the US has no real "recipe" for dealing with terrorism of this nature. We currently stand in a mostly reactionary poise and are told that we WILL be hit again.

How can you stand this? We're supposed to sit here and wait to be attacked? Where are you from? Are you Muslim?

You can bring up all the militia examples you want. True, not all Muslims are terrorists but most terrorists are Muslims. If you can't face that fact than I don't know what to tell you.

They already have.



A fact? Or an assertion by RD.




Many leaders have condemned it.



Good, but again, this is all beside the point. Open support for or against something shouldn't be a litmus test as to whether you can enjoy your consitutional rights. If Muslims don't wanna come out against it publicly for whatever reason, that's their problem. As you said, it's their religion which gets marred. What's it to you?



Bravo RD. And is that another "fact" or an RD assertion?



Nobody said anything about keys or locking people up. Pay attention. We're not debating HOW to intern people, we're debating the merits of interning in the first place.



Sounds like fear running amok. We're afraid that something bad will happen, let's lash out and get some "control" over arbitrary peoplel, most of whom have nothing to do with terrorism. Pretty drastic solution just so you can feel 'secure.'




There's a difference between not sitting back and taking preventing/non-racist measures.



I agree, but we can't just go around and do ANYTHING. There are priorities and ideas to preserve. Killing every single person on the planet would make RD a pretty safe guy. Sound good to you? Some innoncents will suffer, but it's better than sitting back and being 'reactionary.'



No, we're supposed to kill terrorists without betraying the principles that make up who we are.

Yea RD. I'm posting from Palestine as we speak. Hold on a sec, my turban is faling off. Jesus. More racism. And you had the righteousness to reign in theGhost on Noobian's thread.



Most terrorists are also men. Let's go kill all the men! If you've ever taken a basic course in logic, you'd see how ludicrous your argument is here.

Follow me for a minute. Suppose we have a big circle, we'll call it group M for muslims, and it'll represent the Muslim population at large. And we have a little circle, a tiny fraction of the big circle, and we'll call it group T for terrorists. Now group T is a subset of group M (as you lucidly stated), which means that, graphically, group T can be placed withinn the boundaries of group M--that is, the tiny circle goes inside the big circle. Now, what you are saying is... let's destroy the big circle, a large entity of innocent people, just so we can get the itty bitty speck that resides within it. But let's not forget. Group M itself is part of much larger abstractions. Group M is involved in slightly more complex unions and whatnot with other groups. And so is group T. Killing people is serious business. By which arbitrary criteria are you going to judge who gets killed and who doesn't?

Your last post proves one thing. You are the type of person that is contributing in the ruination of this country. For any point that I made that you couldn't reply to, you ask if that's a fact or assertion. Then you continue on to call me racist. Hmmm.. let's see.. if 95% of the terrorist attacks in the world are carried out by Muslim men, it would make perfect sense to you to start investigating Japanese men for possible terrorism links.

I bet your the guy who thinks that racial profiling in this instance is wrong too. I'm sure to you it makes perfect sense for airport security to strip seach a 90 year old lady in a wheel chair right? We know what the enemy looks like, so why do pretend that we don't? Because it's not politically correct? PLEASE. This isn't the time to be politically correct.

Wake up and smell the roses.




Fear running amok? We're afraid something bad will happen? 9/11 was a wake up call. You're damn right I am afraid. These terrorists would love nothing more than to kill everyone in the U.S. and they don't hide this fact. They continually threaten the U.S. every chance they get. We're not supposed to be afraid? What then shall we do? Ahh yes, let's sit and wait to be killed. Awesome idea.




Yes there are. But it is times like these where we may need to re-evalutate some of our ideas and priorities.



Oh jeez... from California... That explains alot

What preventive measures would you suggest? You seem to disagree with most of my ideas, so let's hear yours.

What are some of your ideas and suggestions?

Nobody said not to be afraid. I said fear running AMOK--a phrase which means that we are letting our fears get the better of us, cloud our judgment, etc. As in, cold reason should dictate policy, not your fears.

So calling a racist a racist is... destructive? I don't know, you sidestepped that one again. You're pretty nimble.

Racial profiling and internment are two different things. It is well within the law to investigate suspicious people. Ninety year old Japanese ladies don't arouse suspicion, so I don't know why you suggested we go and search them. Terrorists are Muslim men around 20-30 years of age. Generally, the people we investigate will fall under that category. I see no problem with that. If that's racial profiling, then so be it. It's pragmatic.

Pragmatic is not interning the entire arab population or nuking entire regions of the world.

Real, you have a twisetd sense of "this country", and if I happen to be destructive to such an image, then I'm making this world a better place.

I'll be honest with you Real. I don't have the answers you are looking for. No great policy from me. You, on the other hand--it's like you look at this complex equation and you produce some solution that's so far out of this world it's laughable.

And all I'm doing is pointing this out.

Remember, we're discussing the merits of your solutions, not mine.

Does what I posted in this thread make me a racist in your mind?

Is it racism to identify who our enemy is and to try and combat it? Has this country gotten so politically correct that this thread offends certain people to the point where they need to call others racist?

Was President Truman a racist for dropping the nuclear bombs? Sure we were at war with Japan, but certainly not EVERY Japanese citizen agreed with the war, yet they were killed by the bombs. They were victims of the unfortunate thing called "collateral damage" -- yup, I said the "C" word. Enough to send shivers down the spine of any good Liberal. Yet, collateral damage is a fact of war. That's one reason that makes war so serious. If my loved ones were killed in Japan during the bombings would I be happy having their deaths termed "collateral damage" no I wouldn't, but that's what they would have been. That's what it's called when innocents are killed in war. Like it or not.


So you have no idea on how to deal with terrorism yet you call my ideas laughable. Okay.

Yes, making a distinction between two equally legal groups of citizens based on race and then segregating them is racist. Somehow, the fact that arab-americans are arabs means that their rights will be stripped from them.

I'm not offended by your racism. Be as racist as you want, nobody is going to stop you.

Once again, pay attention to my post. The bulk of this debate concerns American citizens, not foreign civilians who happen to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

Your ideas are laughable, and I have no qualms calling them such. Whether I have an answer of my own or not doesn't make your ideas any less laughable.

i am with RD on this one all the way... i think i may have stated this somewhere else but after 9/11 when they killed all of our innocent civilians and when we bombed iraq we killed innocent civilians but that's what happens when your in war...always remember we didn't start this thing we just need to finish it before they attack again

A little off the current topic but I wanted to reply

holden_caulfield
And flag burning, it seems that the only kind of people who get incited are people like you, who get so riled up when they see the US flag on fire that they want to change the constitution. What's the point in banning it? Why shouldn't it be covered by the first amendment? Who is being harmed?

Laws regarding the flag was left up to the states. 48 states had laws prohibiting the desecration of our national symbol. In 1968 the 1st federal law was also passed.
The reason people are seeking a constitutional amendment is because that is the only way to over turn the 1989 Supreme Court 5/4 split decision classifying the ACT of Flag Burning as a type of speech and thus protected by the 1st amendment.
I will ask you the same question I ask everybody when this subject comes up.
Is burning a flag speech?
My answer would be no. Pretty simple I think.
There is no other action someone can do and claim it as protected under free speech so why this one thing. The freedoms protected by the Constitution are not absolute, nor where they meant to be, ie.. libel, slander, perjury, etc....
The Court was wrong to override the Texas law in the 1998.
What most people don't know about the law as it relates to flag burning is the underlying purpose was to restrict whats called "breach of peace"
I'm sure most people have heard the example of you can't falsely yell fire in a crowed theater. The underling reason behind that example is crying fire in a crowded theater would be a "breach of peace".
The only reason behind a person burning a flag would be to incite the people around him, which is probably the intention of the person doing it in the 1st place.
There is no reasonable expression of ideas from someone burning a flag which is whats the 1st amendment is about, it's simply an act done to incite.

Here is another example, if you want to condone burning the flag as a protected form of expression, what would you consider someones actions if they defaced the Washington Monument. If someone can deface one symbol of America as a form of protected expression why not the other?

Now for the real reason why this court ruling was beyond stupid.
The case was Texas vs. Johnson
Johnson was involved in a protest at the 1984 Dallas RNC.
Throughout the day, he and other protesters gave speeches, handed out pamphlets expressing their views protesting policies of the Reagan administration.
No one questioned his right to do this.
Then they marched to city hall where he douses a flag with kerosene and lights it on fire.
Out of the 100+ protesters he was the only one arrested. He wasn't arrested for what he said only for violating the law regarding desecrating the flag.
Johnson claimed the act was speech the court didn't agree and found him guilty.
Next the case is moved to the appeals court where his conviction is upheld.
Then finally it comes before the Supreme Court where they on a split decision classify his act as a form of protected expression.

If thats not insane here's one better.
Guess where he got the flag that he burned. He stole it from a building during the march to city hall.

holden you asked the question who is being harmed by someone burning the flag.
I guess the answer would be different for different people but for me the answer is easy.
Me
I consider it a offensive act of vandalism to a symbol of something I hold near and dear.

Speech CAN be equated to actions. Sign language = speech. So why can't other symbolic actions be understood as an expression of one's opinion? I understand the breach of peace, and I had your fire example in mind, but that's a far cry thinking that burning a flag will incite rioters. Usually people are already rioting before they light up. *shrug. In any case, the people who get incited are the people who want to beat the shit out of those who are doing the burning. And in that case, the flag is no longer the issue.

In any case, you mentioned that you find it offensive. Well, I find it offensive too. I find lots of things offensive. When people give other people the finger ("fuck you!"), that's pretty damn offensive, so why don't we ban that too? We can't just ban things because we don't like them.

Your example of defacing the Washington Monument is completely different. Anyone who defaces the Washington Monument would be charged with the destruction of public property--i.e. breaking shit that doesn't belong to them. They wouldn't be charged with "destroying a national symbol." If, however, someone bought their own flag, or hell, fashioned their own flag out of felt and then burned it... that's their own private property and they can do as they wish with it whether it offends you or not.

You mentioned something about people vandalizing something you hold dear to your heart. Well, someone can't vandalize something that they own. They can't legally vandalize their own house. They can fuck it up, but hey, that's their business, whether you like it or not, whether it offends you or not.

That's just how I look at things.

Holden, your such a fucktard, you know that? If you think burning the AMERICAN FLAG in the U.S. should be legal, then you have a very very disturbed view. Hey, if you got the right to burn this country's flag on US soil, then I also have the right to kick your ass.

Hey, who wants to come with me up to washington to burn a Iraqi or Saudi Flag in protest?

You wouldn't be able to because that would hurt our killers feelings. You'd go to jail so fast you wouldn't know what the fuck happened.

And that, my friend, is whats screwin this country over. What we need is another Revolution, we really do. And when it does break out, Holden, youll be the first one i look for.

Umm. No. But you're welcome to try.



Anyone?



No, I'm pretty sure you'd be able to without fear of any jail time. Don't know where you grew up or who taught you about the legal system, but you've been misinformed. If you can burn a US flag, I'm pretty sure you can burn an Iraq flag. Think about it.



Yeah! Power to the people! Hey when you're old enough to drive, come on over and look for me!

I just love how you capitalized "Revolution" too. Ahahahaha. Not just any revolution--THE "R"evolution.

That's just hilarious I don't know why.

Way to skirt around my points Typical.

Flag burning- I think that burning the flag should be illegal. It does not symbolize protest, but anarchy. If someone wants to use the flag in protest, then they should either wave a dirty flag or make a big display of washing one. That shows that they think the country is doing something wrong, or "dirty," and needs to be cleansed.

The war- "Embarassed" Muslims have been speaking out. In Evansville, my hometown, IMMEDIATELY after the 9/11 attacks there were several newscasts and interviews with the imam of the local mosque speaking out against the attacks. The Islamic center opened its doors to the entire community and encouraged them to come and check out what was going on there. Heck, the imam even gave me an interview for a research paper I was writing at the time about Osama bin Laden and Al Qaeda. If you recall, many people converted to Islam in America after the attacks. The logic there somewhat baffled me at first, but given all the active explaining of Islam by "embarassed" muslims, many found themselves drawn to that religion.

The only real problem with the racial profiling and internment in this case is that because Islam is a religion, the terrorists aren't necessarily arab. You could have white terrorists, or more likely than that you could have black terrorists (that's not a prejudice on my part, it's just that a greater percentage of blacks are Islamic than whites). The terrorism isn't necessarily linked to a specific racial group. In fact, I'd bet that if we did move against arabs in general, we would find that attacks would be made from white, black, and asian muslims as well. Terrorists from all over the world. Nukes would not solve that problem either.

In my mind, there are three ways to stop terrorism. One is to kowtow to the terrorists' every demand. The second is to kill all terrorists (easier said than done). And the third is to restrict freedoms in order to catch them. Which one is right? I don't know, but I do know that the first is wrong, and that in order to achieve the second, a nuke would fail.

Actually Real, you are the one who is going off topic.

But to make things even clearer, collateral damage is fine, so long as collateral damage = foreign civilians. I tried to make that distinction between foreign civilians and AMERICAN CITIZENS, because, as I recall, we are talking about the latter, and then you bring up the former, trying to divert attention from the latter, and when I call you on it, you accuse me of sidestepping. Tricky.

However, I suppose you wanted to talk about Hiroshima and Nagasaki (didn't you?). And I guess, if I get creative, I can see where you're coming from--an inordinate amount of civilian casualties in the name of war and national defense.

How should I put this... We dropped two massive bombs on enemy cities (enemy cities, ok. follow me, enemy cities), cities where lots of non-combatants lived, in order to save the lives of American soldiers. In WWII, bombs were stupid, in that they weren't guided, so we dropped a shitload of them on cities hoping to destroy war factories and the like. Of course, lots of enemy civilians (for lack of a better term) were killed.

It is tragic. But... follow me here... I don't object to it, because it's part of life and unavoidable. This so called "collateral damage" (what is this thing that he speaks of?) does indeed send shivers down my spend, not because I am a liberal (since when did liberals shiver at collateral damage--we waged the Vietnam war for chrissakes) but because as a compassionate human being, I understand and sympathize with the tragedies of this world. There's a difference. That being said, collateral damage, as I will quote myself here so the point is not lost



See there? That wasn't so bad. Now, moving back to Hiroshima and Nagasaki, which I



, moving back there, I will point out that the situation in WWII is different than the situation you and I have been discussing in this thread, because, as I've been pointing out, you and I are, for the most part, talking about the treatment of AMERICAN CIVILIANS (arab-americans), as opposed to ENEMY CIVILIANS (japanese civilians of wwii). How you have made the leap to substitute Arab-Americans (american civilians) for Japanese civilians of wwii (enemy civilians) is beyond me. I suppose you tried with the collateral damage option ("they're both collateral damage, man"), but that really doesn't work. Collateral damage is too broad, can be applied to anything (even you perhaps?) and it really doesn't support the argument.

You also mentioned that... I had retreated from your earlier "points" by questioning whether they were even valid facts or not, when, in fact, no retreat had taken place. The "point" I had been subtly making--over and over and over again (*shrug)--was that your assertions were not valid on the grounds that they were based on personal beliefs and observations. You had tried to pass them off as "facts" ("it's a fact that muslim americans blah blah blah), when, upon closer inspection, one must question where this asssertion came from. I sense a... "but it's obvious just look around you you damn liberal!" but I am not sure, and some illumination would be appreciated.

And for your sake, I'm not even going to bring up the RD special: "let's-nuke-the-middle-east-and-fuck-the-questions-after" plan. That's for a whole 'nother thread, and I'd prefer to stay out of it and watch Ghost lap it up while he plans his "R"evolution.

When we get hit again I hope it's in your neck of the woods in C.A. Maybe then you'd see it from a different point of view. Maybe me living next to World Trade Center has clouded my views in some ways but those are my views nonetheless and I couldn't disagree more with your post.

you know what gets me is that you touch on alot of issues and have a spicy comment for everything that is said but every time you talk you dont have any DEPTH to what you say. you say that nuking the middle east is a bad thing. well what about areas that are heavly concentrated with enemy fighters? The mountian areas of afganastan which are only accessable 6 months out of the year. so the other 6 months they build up more combat ready troops and can resupply. now we cant touch them. a nuke or 2 would level the mountian....Hummmmm...sounds good!

now for your other thoughts holden, how come you can say to everyone here that their Ideas are wrong but yet you dont have any? you approve racial profiling but yet you dont agree with interment to weed out the good from the bad. (intresting enough, im not sure that would work either because the muslim community would hide who they are. now if we stop letting in every person that wants in and use racial profiling to our advantage that would slow any attack comming. but for the people that go to mosques that are funded by muslim extremeists and have anti-american and anti-israel activists in there mists, they deserve to be interned. anyone that was born in country that has these terrorist communitys...syria, iraq, afganistan, pakastan, lybia, eqypt, etc...

Now please tell me i am racist...please, please, please!!!!! Do i think that people should be bothered with investigating the arab doctor that spent 20 years here...no...now if he is sending money home...yes...certian people can be passed by because of a few diffrent reason. but we should be sorting these people out. honestly my biggest fear is that these groups will start funding our "militia's" and then we have a problem. we need to get these people on our side and use them like the minutemen campaign. that can free up alot of resources in our local gov. which will in turn lighten the load on the federal level. do i care if we take these people here and revoke there green cards and send some people that are americans to internment camps...no...arab americans do need to be investigated for terrorist links only. i am not for big goverment, not am i for programs like carnivore that the fbi has used..and changed its name to something more feasible. but i do believe we ahve to protect ourselves from becomming like israel.

Now I KNOW I'm wasting my time....

http://www.sparknotes.com/lit/catcher/terms/char_1.html

Interesting. I just popped into this post this morning.. and I think you are right RD... I am also a fine example of our "step up" on security in our airports.

I had a plane ticket ordered for me via the internet ... Ordered on a sunday . ticket issued for that tuesday.. My ticket was tagged as a threat to secuirty.. on the bottom right it had red lettering .........I was picked out of the thousands of people at O'Hare Airport as a threat and was pulled out and made to feel like dirt, and an embarassment for all to see.....I was searched.. taken thru the security several times.. and not one part of my person was not searched... my belongings... everything....



Now I am all for stricter security measures... but come on a 30 something mother of 3 going from the BIG CITY to the hills of Pennsylvania.

We are targeting the wrong people.. we are trying to be soo "politicial correct" and sooo country friendly that we left the terrorists from 9/11 come to Florida and train to fly our own airplanes..... live in our country ....... and then use that hospitality to attack us...

You know my son had to write a report about our country and what has been going on .. and interestingly enough he has been paying attention....

He said.. The example our country is showing that .. take two homes with children and parents.. and in that one home the children are getting ignored.. because their parents are paying too much attention to the neighbors kids.. and the ignored children are getting hurt from lack of time and consideration....

Just my thoughts.................

As for the flag burning part of the topic I consider part of the underlying problem of political correctness hampering the war on terror.
Rep. John Conyers {Dem}, who has been outspoken on his opposition to a flag burning admenment has recently intruduced a a resolution in the House that the Koran not be disrespected nor defiled. Another cheap attempt by a politician to get a little more air time with the controversy of koran handling at gitmo.

But I bet no one would look twice if a Bible were flushed or burned.... Not even Christians. It is a book for crying out loud. If the message is truly sacred, then who cares what happens to one copy of it? It's not like anyone can take away the message it contains by "defiling" the book.

Real i could've told you that. Holden Caulfied = naive child who doesnt want to grow up and open his eyes to the world around him. I did a Character Analysis Essay for english on him. OFF TOPIC** But Catcher In The Rye is a good book.

you know what...i have burned flags as a way to get rid of the old, torn tattered flag. i see no disrespect in wearing a flag on your pants or (as i seen with a few friends at a skynard concert) a couple screw wrapped in one. (thought that was kinda cool)... but when me and a few friends went into the flag store across town to buy a afganistan flag...(to burn) their first question was what are you going to do with it... so i told them....they refused to sell me one...and come to find out i could have been arrested for burning any flag...cant open burn in the city.....

one word- rolling papers....

in jail a few guys would use pages from the bible to roll weed and smokes... (for outside tampon paper works well, off topic i know) now no one would get mad in there, there is a big racial and religious devide. anyone been to jail knows that much.

Well I guess this fun little trip to crazyland is winding down so I'll just wrap up my comments here, unless one of you guys (ghost?) posts something so provocative or insulting that I'll just HAVE to respond. Or not, we'll see.

lol. Say what you want, but Catcher in the Rye kicks ass. At least theGhost can recognize good literature.

I like Holden Caulfield for his naive idealism, his ironic bitterness, and the gusto with which he condemns the world. Hence the handle. Yeah, he has his flaws, and his blindness is a central theme, but that just adds to the greatness of the book. Well, that's the whole point really. Do I walk around with a red hunting cap? No. Well, only if I'm playing MOH. And even then it's to keep me warm.

You'll have to scroll down that link to find the red hunting cap bit. Sparknotes, by the way, kicks ass. But all you guys in school probably know that.

RD you have wasted your time--indeed you are still wasting your time--but unfortunately, that's all your own doing. I suppose we are too instransigent, and I suppose we can both be thankful that neither of us are in power. But I still have to deal with Bush, so I think you end up ahead there. *shrug. He'll be gone soon enough.

People, I am a liberal, not a democrat, and there's a subtle difference. Liberals possess a philosophy. Democrats are the people who (try to) implement that philosophy the best way they see fit. A lot of times they fuck up, and I coudln't agree with you guys more about PC crap and the Koran abuse. It's a fucking book!!! Same for the bible or even Catcher in the Rye. A fucking book. But if you could read only one of those two, go spend some time with Holden.

But if you read the bible, go with the King James. Pretty english.

Some dems go too far on certain issues. Doesn't mean I'm going with them (affirmative action, for instance). Religion. ugh.



Silver, I've pretty much ignored all your posts because, believe it or not, they are more outlandish than RealDeal's. But to completely ignore you wouldn't be nice so I'll just respond here. Nuclear bombs do not "level mountains." They don't even completely level dense cities residing in between mountain valleys (nagasaki). Are you aware of how much mass a mountain has? The rest of your claims will have to stand as they are (remember that arab clerk who disappeared on sept. 10?), for which I apologize to the rest of the community. I am drained. (Sorry, I don't know how to convey that thought with any more "depth").

Criticizing another's ideas doesn't mean I have to come up with one of my own. Surprisingly, a lot of people get really caught up over this. They say, "Hey, you're such a critic but you can't even do better!" Well, Plato had something to say about this in "The Republic." You know, that part which... currently eludes me. But it's there, you'll recognize it immediately when you read it.

It's not like I said, "Your idea is lame, I can do better," and then failed to deliver anything. No, I never promised anything, though I think that if I tried, I really could do better (I find your idea just that bad). Why can't people just accept that the merits of one man's ideas is independent of whether the critic has any ideas of his own?

It's like we're all gazing at this enormous and complex differential equation--mystified--when suddenly RealDeal and co., blurt out that the answer is... 24 degrees Celsius. But it can't be, and so I'm just telling you that you need to check your answer, maybe take a closer look at how you got there. I don't have the solution--but I know that you can't be right, because you're not even coming up with the right units.

That was an analogy. Obviously I'm not God-like, I don't "know" the right or wrong answer, but I feel strongly you are nowhere near it, and I think I was fair in telling you why.

I mean, nuking the Middle East? I give it an A for boldness.

Druid, I guess we'll leave flag burning up to the states.

FlashGirl, I don't know you, except by that longass thread you started. But airport security is a joke. And like I said, racial profiling, if done right, isn't such a bad thing. There, another departure from "liberalism." It sucks when they hassle you, make you take off your shoes. I lost my Giants cap because of that. Bastards. Fuckin' Giants...

Frosty--right on man, write on.

And Ghost, you get pretty fired up. I'm just suggesting that you go back and read every single one of your posts, then try to find out where you built your arguments. I don't think you did. Lots of ranting and emotion and unjustified claims. At least Real had syllogisms to work with.

Real, when we get hit again, I hope it's in my neck of the woods too. That way I can use it to leverage my arguments and justify my racism!

Pretty ridiculous thing to say, if you think about it. Pretty punitive. A civilized way of saying it would be, "I hope you could understand things from my perspective as a NY citizen who witnessed 9/11 firstand." Sans the "I hope it happens in your backyard!" Now that would have been diplomatic and respectable.



Classy. But you're just telling it like you see it.

wow no shit...there is little that would level a mountian. but it would render it useless, and drive them out. which is the obj. at the current time and which has been discussed publicly... but im nuts right? funny how most people here agree and you dont.

oh and that clerk also had pics of his kids and family holding (i assume ak's). he was a little odd but i went to his store the day before and he left everything and never came back. according to the arab store on the other corner he went home. nice timing. personaly i think you like to hear your self speak. you are a shallow person.
btw i have a vested intrest in arab-americans....
i personally support various others that have called for you to be trolled, personally you just come here to stir shit and no matter what is said you like to go against the grain. i dont recall 1 good post from you. this being from a person that spends A LOT OF TIME here. you can go back to snorting coke now...

Let me play military commander for a minute... Here's how I would take them out in the mountains... first you take a few of THESE to clear any of the bastards who may be outside of their cave.... then take some of THESE to penetrate a bit deeper and then you finish it off with some of THESE, with nuclear warheads of course, to penetrate even deeper.

Hey, it's a start.

Of course, I'm not a real military commander, but I play one on TV

Silver

If you don't recall one good post from him, you are the idiot that I have always suspected you to be. People going against the grain is what made this great country. This point of this thread (i think) is for people to post their opinions.

You seriously play one on tv?

This just goes to show the lack of intelligence there! Kinda hard to prove a point DEAD!!!!

Its not racism, when they are trained for this their whole lives...It's insane...While our children are being taught manners, education, and are being trained for a working world, They are over their being trained to hate, racism, and blowing us up...This goes way beyond rasicm...Of course you're to blind to see that...
They are an army that has been trained to HATE! Race doesn't come in to play...Its just so happens they are muslim...

I am half Syrian and I agree nuke the B... Yes, there would be innocent lives taken, but what about all the innocent lives they have already taken and are still threatening to take more of them, including our schools, how much more innocent can you get...Sorry I don't want to be the one to get that phone call...So what do we sitting around and wait see how many more they kill...

Real, i'm with u all the way!!!

Hello Dolphin. You must be new here. Allow me to clear something up which I mentioned a few posts back, but which must have gotten lost in our spaghetti debate. I took the liberty of extracting some aforementioned ideas and presenting them here for you.

Perhaps racism is a term that is too charged. In fact, I think RD, in real life, is probably a swell guy no matter what race you are. In person that is.

But my complaint is against his racial bias against Arabs--american or otherwise. When you say.



The children you are referring to--our children--include a population of arabs who are American citizens, the same kind of citizens RD would like to intern. You mentioned that you yourself are part Syrian. I assume you are a citizen. When I pointed out that Arab-Americans like yourself are no different from "white" americans like RD, this was his response:



So right off the bat he has judged you and everyone of your background, regardless of your individual merits. And this is what he uses to justify the internment of American citizens who happen to be of the same ethinicity and religion as the terrorists. But they are not terrorists any more than you and I are criminals. Criminals of all races have committed crimes, but these crimes do not indict the entire race.

His comments about nuking the Middle East are not the "racist" comments in question. There we just disagree on what is effective and morally justified policy.

Was that really necessary?

Unfortunately if we use nuclear warfare in the Middle East then the entire world will collapse in a catastrophic economic downfall. We are so dependent on foreign oil, namely that from of all places...the Middle East, that without it the country could not function. What intelligent people we have on this discussion board... . By the way, Catcher in the Rye blows.

No, my justifcation for internment goes further than a bunch of muslims dancing and whooping it up that 3,000+ innocent people were killed.

The terrorists who struck on 9/11 were Muslim. They lived in this country for a while before 9/11. There are terrorists and cells living in this country right now. There are Muslims that live in this country that fund terrorism. So why not intern and sort them out? It's for everyone's protection.

Ok Rd, let me offer a hypothetical. What if--just what if--we catch a few American citizens who are neither Muslim nor Arab aiding and abetting terrorists? Does their race get the same broad treatment? What if they're white and have separate agendas but similar goals?