Generation Terrorists » Forum
Sign up   |   Start new thread   |   Lost password?   |   Edit profile   |   Member List   |   myGT   |   Blog
Keyword
From
To
 

Mr. Horowitz, tells it like it is.
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 08:44:44 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
 
http://www.frontpagemag.com/Articles/ReadArticle.asp?ID=19188


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:19:23 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  (2) The Downing Street memo invoked by Mr. Swanson is a joke to everyone but the anti-American and conspiracy-minded left, people whose pathological hatred of Bush is so fierce it has disabled their ability to reason. The real question posed by Bush’s statement about 9/11 is this: Are we safer since 9/11 because we have taken the war to the enemy camp? Obviously we are. There is no one, not even Mr. Swanson, who would have bet on 9/12/2001 that we would not be attacked on our soil for four years. The only reason we haven’t been attacked obviously (since we have no borders and cannot protect ourselves) is because the White House has taken the battle to the enemy camp. In the course of the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan the American military has decimated the al-Qaeda leadership, disrupted its infrastructure, destroyed most of its leadership and rendered Osama bin Laden as good as dead. Since 9/11 Osama bin Laden’s most fearsome act of terror has been to send a video tape to Al-Jazeera, cribbed from the writings of Michael Moore.


I like the way he throws Iraq in with the war on Afghanistan.

And the way when the other guys says 'You haven't even shown anything Cindy has said', Horowitz proceeds to not do that.


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:19:59 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>And the way when the other guys says 'You haven't even shown anything Cindy has said', Horowitz proceeds to not do that.

Sorry, that's not a quote, it's paraphrasing.


 
addi Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:22:35 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  interesting read, hif.

I think the only thing Sheehan is guilty of is bringing the need for this war to the forefront. She lost her son, and as a mother wants to know from the man directly responsible for the loss of his life some justification for that tragic loss. I think there's an arguement to be made that the media is guilty of using her, but to accuse her of treason is quite ludicrous to me.

What so many Bush supporters fail to see is the real distincion between questioning this war, and supporting our troops. I see nothing hypocritical about demonstrating against this war and at the same time being 100% in support of our troops over there. There's a prevalent belief amoung pro war people that if you question this war, then you are being unpatriotic (the same thing happened back in the '60's here). To blindly follow a presidents policies without questioning them (when so much is at stake) is what is really unpatriotic.

Americans that protest in support of this war should be able to do so without having their patriotism called into question.
Americans that protest to denounce this war should be able to do so without being called traitors.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:35:08 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Americans that protest in support of this war should be able to do so without having their patriotism called into question.
>Americans that protest to denounce this war should be able to do so without being called traitors.

Didn't Mr. Horowitz say exactly that ?
Did you not read it all ?


 
addi Posted: Sun Aug 21 09:49:21 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  "Just to be clear: although Cindy Sheehan’s campaign is a campaign of hate directed against her own country in time of war, although it is filled with unconscionable lies and slanders against her own countrymen – not to mention, by implication, her own son – it does not in my view constitute legally actionable treason."

Wow...so she's cleared of legally actionable treason by Mr. Horowitz. How magmaninous of him!
He continues:

"Is its intent – defeat of America on the field of battle, designation of her own country as the enemy of humanity – treasonous? It is."

So by "intent" she is a traitor according to him. So leagally we can't prosicute the traitorous bitch, but we can publically announce to the world that by intent she's a traitor.

Yeah...i read the drivle coming out of this morons mouth.


 
Zacq Posted: Sun Aug 21 16:29:03 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>Yeah...i read the drivle coming out of this morons mouth.

Bad move until you want to hear how '(insert the name) has more education and credentials than you'll ever have!' and his complete bio.

I think the problem with Horowitz's point is the lack (or complete absence) of real examples. He loses what he's trying to say when, by generalizing, he gives the appearance of grouping this person's comments with that of every protestor.

Then the two begin debating about syntax of other stuff.


 
Posted: Sun Aug 21 19:17:31 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  Zacq said:
>addi said:
>>Yeah...i read the drivle coming out of this morons mouth.
>
>Bad move until you want to hear how '(insert the name) has more education and credentials than you'll ever have!' and his complete bio.

Hard to believe he was once a champion of the New Left in the 60s.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 20:44:05 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  CriminalSaint said:
>
>Hard to believe he was once a champion of the New Left in the 60s.
>
Yeah, until he sobered up.


 
ifihadahif Posted: Sun Aug 21 20:54:12 2005 Post | Quote in Reply  
  addi said:
>"Just to be clear: although Cindy Sheehan’s campaign is a campaign of hate directed against her own country in time of war, although it is filled with unconscionable lies and slanders against her own countrymen – not to mention, by implication, her own son – it does not in my view constitute legally actionable treason."
>
>Wow...so she's cleared of legally actionable treason by Mr. Horowitz. How magmaninous of him!
>He continues:
>
> "Is its intent – defeat of America on the field of battle, designation of her own country as the enemy of humanity – treasonous? It is."
>
>So by "intent" she is a traitor according to him. So leagally we can't prosicute the traitorous bitch, but we can publically announce to the world that by intent she's a traitor.
>
>Yeah...i read the drivle coming out of this morons mouth.
>
You must have missed this part:

There are critics of the war who argue that not every alternative was tried. This is a reasonable, respectful (though in my view mistaken) position. There are critics who are concerned that the war is a distraction from the war on terror. In my view they are mistaken, but I respect them. There are critics who think the war is increasing the threat of terror or is unwinnable. I disagree with these views, but I respect them. You and Cindy Sheehan, on the other hand, are not arguing that while the United States may have had good motives, it did not have enough patience, or was strategically unwise. You are arguing that George W. Bush is a monster and that the United States is a terrorist regime and that American “rulers” (puppets of American corporations) are out to steal Iraqi oil and that the Jews are responsible for the war on terror. You are not critics of the war. You are in a different class of adversary all together: disloyal, repugnant, and a threat to our peace.




 



[ Reply to this thread ] [ Start new thread ]