archenemy

We aren't talking about DeC here, we are talking about Americans as a group.

I think that came as a shock to folks as well.

If someone wants to pick up my two large tarps from Olyclimber and use them for the Ski-in, they are welcome to.

At least the kid will have a chance at learning to read.

I accepted that early on when I decided Archie had gotten it on with Veronica. I've had better.

The Iran comment was part 'stone' because I could guess that it would piss you off, but that does not make it meaningless. Iran is a country where the notion of engaging in a holy war may be perfectly acceptable. Here, I would argue, it is not, or at least shouldn't be. I know that they see it as a holy war that is centuries, even millenia old. But that doesn't mean that our government should, or that it is at all in our interests to buy into the religious aspect of these crimes. I am just being touchy--I get that way about the whole patriotism issue. It's my bad for reacting that way--seems like its something I should examine within myself. I don't find engaging in war acceptable. Necessary under extreme circumstances, but never, never, never my first choice. And although I do see this war as being characterized by religious/social disagreement, I also see man other things that impact this conflict: oil, money, territory, soveignty, dick size, retribution, etc etc. But when I look at the whole picture, I can't help but think that the fundamental difference in our basic belief systems fuel this conflict more than anything else. I can't stand up and say that is how it is, but I certainly can say that is the explaination that makes the most sense to me and carries more weight than the other contributing factors.

I'm talking about your willingness to buy into the idea of a religious war. And mind you, I did not cast the first stone between you and I in this thread. So we're throwing stones rather than debating? No wonder I am having a hard time understanding you. While talking about my willingness to "buy into" a religious war, I am sure you are examining your own reasons for your refusal to see it as a religious war.

I don’t know who has made that argument, but certainly plenty of people from both the left and the right were highly critical of his administration for various failings related to possible blundering of opportunities to stop the attack, and for sitting on their thumbs and doing nothing about terrorism in the first 9 months of their reign. I think their critisms are valid.

I feel a little let down too.

WHAT THE FUCK ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT? You are slippery. You post that I "want" to have a religious war? This is how you view your fellow countrymen who discuss this topic? How you view me? This is how you conduct a discussion on what might be the most important topic/threat of our time? And you think a belief in God has nothing to do with our political, legal, social system? Get real.

I said they were not connected. i.e. McVeigh is not a part of a larger religious war (which, it should be clear by now, is how I view 9/11)

But I would argue that blowing up buildings is not the most important detail. I'd say the fact that people have been killed is. But again, you and I seem to be arguing different points.

I don't understand where you are going with this. You are arguing points I am not making nor do I agree with.

I got mine.

mmmmm margaritaville

I think so. JayB just explained it pretty well, of course. A peculiarity, to me, is the insistance of many here that Bush and his actions/policies promulgated 9/11, when he'd been in office, what, eight months, instead of what appears (again, to me) that it was a predictable progression from all the previous attacks on the U.S. of the previous twenty years. Yes, the foreplay made it pretty obvious that we were about to get fucked. Bush is just the asshole who said yes.

How is that an excuse for the United States to engage in a religious war? We should track the son's of b's down and make them answer for their crimes against humanity, and religion should have nothing to do with our side of the conflict, no matter what bullshit 'religious war' they are wishing for. I don't give a shit what their religious excuses are. The point of my use of the word "happen" was to suggest that they didn't necessarily have to be Muslims (gasp) to do what they did. Was Timothy McVeigh a Muslim? Timothy McVeigh was a kook. Correct me if I remember this wrong, but he was a fundamentalist type kook, wasn't he? No matter though--his story is not the same as 9/11 nor is it even connected. I never said that attacks are only caused by Muslims, so please throw that argument in the trash.

slut.

I just missed the puke bucket.

kill the infidels.

Yeah, that wasn't very well stated, was it? In a roundabout way I'm saying I get the feeling like the religious war thing has gone on forever. Although we may be the front runner in this confrontation lately (less than two hundred years obviously), we haven't been a big player in the overall history of their conflict. That is garbled, but do you get where I am heading with this?

Talking about coiting on the Interweb is strange.

Interesting. Certainly someone out there has done this! Next time I think of it, I'll pull my dry rope out and compare it to a regular one in a dip test. You got me curious.

Are you being oversensitive?

no shit!