kev313 Posted March 23, 2003 Share Posted March 23, 2003 Forrest, My picture of a young Tom Waits is insulted. P.S. Way to pick up the bait on that one. Put down the flag and the W. blow-up doll, go back and re-read my post. About as neutral as they come and supports YOUR right (and limitless ability) to be an ***. P.P.S. "Kiev." Boy that's clever. Am I a Communist? Is this about Communism?? Are we confusing our -ism's again??? Is this just another example of your blind nationalism? Forrest my dim-witted friend, I think you have more in common with fanatical terrorists than you think. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
forresthump2 Posted March 24, 2003 Author Share Posted March 24, 2003 "That was pretty crazy man. You know, though, I tend to agree with you. Those actions probably did take courage and if an American flew a plane into Saddam's house and killed him he would be a hero for sure. In other words, dying for the cause you believe in does take balls." Neutral??? Most Nuetral parties have logic and reason. LOL You're saying cowardly sneaking up on and killing unsuspecting innocent civilians is AS HERIOC as attacking a prepared Military leader in a heavily fortified location. Spin your way out of that. You just showed your true colors. You're an apologist for terrorism and a terrorist justifier. Or you're an Illogical Liberal that can't think it through your bias and messed up political idealism. I suspect the Latter. P.S., I was doing you a favor on Wait. I'm sure you're much uglier than that ogre. LOL Good talent though. ;-) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kev313 Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Forrest, As I went to great lengths to point out, I am neither supporting the actions of the terrorists nor equating the concept of "courage" (in THAT case) with "heroic" or even "virtuous." Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
hwatkins Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Interesting stuff in both this and the other thread. Just to chime in with my opinions: 1. Suicide murder is not courageous unless it serves to save the lives of others. Otherwise, it is a cowardly approach that resolves the participant from having to face the consequences of their actions and is most often couched in 'higher calling' terms - this serves to absolve the perpetriator (sic) from responsibility (e.g. - In service to Allah, for God and country, etc.). 2. From the other thread as well - with relation to the Eastern Europe incursion under Clinton some folks are trying to rewrite history. They were in the midst of ethnic cleansing. Before entering the frey several hundred thousands had been in forced labor and murdered to 'cleanse' the populace. Our actions stopped that from continuing. Maybe we should look for other such opportunities that have an immediate effect (several African countries come to mind). 3. I do tire of quotable factoid arguments. That is an evangelistic approach that attempts to rally the masses without asking them to think. It is an unfortunate reality that so many want others to develop their opinions and are willing to forego analysis to embrace a noble cause. This is a partisan talk show host approach. We have even made it clear through our listening/watching habits that we do not want thoughtful insight - shame on us.. 4. Regardless of your individual conviction - Our very honorable soldiers are in harms way. While we can contest the rightness of the battle we should hope for a timely solution. I am very self serving here - let's resolve with as little bloodshed as possible to keep soldiers alive. While I think this war isn't necessary, I believe we should finish our committment with success to the stated objectives. 5. We should be very leary of a new world as being envisioned by our leaders. Zealous addiction to 'our way of life' and a desire to deliver that to the world bears a strong resemblance to Jihad when backed with force. 6. Liberal media? I was on the road for 7 hours Friday and scanned the radio for the duration. From my experience the media I encountered was predominately conservative. I did notice that when ever many of the conservative opinions were questioned a rush to bash 'liberal media' was the common response. I was also very much disturbed by misinformation and parrot like repetition of inaccuracies. A simple reading of news reporting and listening to our military leaders pronouncements would have served to deliver the truth - it appears that the truth would have damaged an opinion, so it wasn't deemed necessary. Forresthump2 - thanks for getting me to think. It is the radical 'facts to fit my mission' approach that gets me going. The arguments sometimes dwindle to the equivalent of shouting obscenities and become very much a one on one debate designed to fortify our own position as the only alternative. Let's hope that approach (and yours) does not become our tactic with the rest of the world. Enjoy... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest Webmaster Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Forresthump2 has been banned, not for his political views as he may think, but for the simple fact that he cannot seem to post without personally attacking another forum member. This kind of behavior is completely unacceptable and only serves to hurt this community. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dblue Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Rock 'n Roll. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TheEAR Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Good points HWatkins Webmaster thank you very much,you do us all a favor here.Forrest must be scrambling another ISP and his third incarnation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj993 Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 Thanks Webmaster! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fish Posted March 24, 2003 Share Posted March 24, 2003 It would seem you need to ban more than forrest,including most who reply to being called names,by calling names.The only way I vote to ban anyone is if they call for terrorism to the American people,or any free/peaceloving/self ruling people.Klipsch certainly cannot promote terrorist violence propoganda. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj993 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 ---------------- On 3/24/2003 11:15:46 PM Fish wrote: It would seem you need to ban more than forrest,including most who reply to being called names,by calling names.The only way I vote to ban anyone is if they call for terrorism to the American people,or any free/peaceloving/self ruling people.Klipsch certainly cannot promote terrorist violence propoganda. ---------------- If your going to say that then why would you just not say I would vote to ban anyone that calls for terrorism period??? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybergeek Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 If your going to say that then why would you just not say I would vote to ban anyone that calls for terrorism period??? ---------------- However you try & spin the point, Kain does condone terrorism on innocent civilians. He may try to justify it, but it's a fact he has and does on this board in current and past posts. He also only feeds off you for information while only spitting in your face with his radical anti-western idealogy. And I agree with Fish. Two wrongs don't make a right. Forrest may be harsh, but he proved how sad this board has become of late. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RangerSix Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 I also agree that Forrest should not have been banned. If you can get past his blunt trauma style, he does make some valid points. He's also made me laugh on more than one occasion. There are many others on here just as insulting and condescending as Forrest ever was. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sj993 Posted March 25, 2003 Share Posted March 25, 2003 ---------------- On 3/25/2003 2:57:46 AM cybergeek wrote: If your going to say that then why would you just not say I would vote to ban anyone that calls for terrorism period??? ---------------- However you try & spin the point, Kain does condone terrorism on innocent civilians. He may try to justify it, but it's a fact he has and does on this board in current and past posts. He also only feeds off you for information while only spitting in your face with his radical anti-western idealogy. And I agree with Fish. Two wrongs don't make a right. Forrest may be harsh, but he proved how sad this board has become of late. ---------------- I did not ever mention Kain and/or his beliefs. I was referring to everyone, Kain included. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.