OT (or is it?): American Imperialism - Page 7

Strategia_In_Ultima · #1 February 16th, 2005, 05:01 PM

?

This isn't a restaurant! Visit the Won-Ton if you want eats and drinks, or start your own restaurant!

Renegade 13 · #2 February 17th, 2005, 12:29 AM

Quote:

StrategiaInUltima said:
So... you'd be fighting in WWIII. Just don't expect to survive.

Call me a ****ing idiot, but I still believe WWIII will be fought using, amongst other weapons, nukes. If worst come to worst, and we get WWIII, it will most likely involve China and N-Korea... both with nukes... on one camp, and the NATO on the other.

Global nuclear exchange.

(PM Sent to you)

If you were referring to sending me a PM, well it never arrived... If you weren't referring to me, sorry!

geoschmo · #3 February 12th, 2005, 05:16 PM

Quote:

StrategiaInUltima said:
Terrorism in the US is now impossible. Al Qaeda is practically beheaded and is without a firm base of operations. The US's internal and external security is so tight, that a large terrorist attack is virtually impossible.

Impossible? I wouldn't go that far? Ever heard of the Alfred P. Murrow Federal building in Oklahoma City? Terrorism doesn't require an active, and well funded organization. A highly motivated individual acting alone, or in a small independant cell can do a lot of damage. My point wasn't that terrorism can't hurt us. Ironically my chances as an individual beign killed by terrorists is, though infinitesimally small, are greater than the risk of being killed by the soviet union ever were, short of an all out nuclear exchange of course. But the terrorist capabilty to cause serious damage to America as a whole is much smaller. Even if the worst case scenario were to happen and they took out a major city with a nuke or something, we would survive as a nation.

dogscoff · #4 February 12th, 2005, 05:22 PM

I think the most effective act of terrorism you could commit against the USA would be to knock out the TV networks. It would be an almost impossbly big task, granted, but imagine the results. Quite apart from the trillion-dollar hole in the economy where all that advertising and spending used to be, the morale and societal imapcts would be massive.

Strategia_In_Ultima · #5 February 13th, 2005, 09:54 AM

'Tis OK. Excellent explanation

Strategia_In_Ultima · #6 February 12th, 2005, 05:33 PM

OK, OK, I withdraw my statement

I was wrong...

dogscoff · #7 February 12th, 2005, 06:26 PM

Quote:

OK, OK, I withdraw my statement I was wrong...

No need to withdraw your statement just because some ppl have a differnt opinion. Maybe you're right and everyone else is wrong. No-one really knows.

Strategia_In_Ultima · #8 February 12th, 2005, 06:34 PM

Large-scale (I won't say "Islamic" here because... well, I'll explain below) terrorism is largely impossible in the US. Terrorists ususally aren't that clear-headed.

The reason I wont type "Islamic" above is because that would be severe religious discrimination. I personally know several Muslims, and they're all very nice people, also firmly opposed to Al-Qaeda. In fact, most of the Islamic world (here at least) firmly opposes terrorism. And then why would I type "Islamic terrorism" when it's only a small part of the Islamic world that commits these atrocious acts?

Renegade 13 · #9 February 12th, 2005, 08:21 PM

Quote:

StrategiaInUltima said:
Large-scale (I won't say "Islamic" here because... well, I'll explain below) terrorism is largely impossible in the US. Terrorists ususally aren't that clear-headed.

The reason I wont type "Islamic" above is because that would be severe religious discrimination. I personally know several Muslims, and they're all very nice people, also firmly opposed to Al-Qaeda. In fact, most of the Islamic world (here at least) firmly opposes terrorism. And then why would I type "Islamic terrorism" when it's only a small part of the Islamic world that commits these atrocious acts?

When you talk about Ireland, and the fighting that goes on there, do you not say "the Catholics fighting the Protestants"? Is that also severe religious discrimination? I highly doubt that all Catholics and Protestants are fighting, no?

It is not severe religious discrimination to say "Islamic terrorists" because it is simply a distinguishing identifier. It is no worse than saying "that white serial killer". If you say "that white serial killer" are you discriminating against all white people? I think not. That's not discrimination, it's just an identifier, so people know what you're talking about.

AMF · #10 February 12th, 2005, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Renegade 13 said:
When you talk about Ireland, and the fighting that goes on there, do you not say "the Catholics fighting the Protestants"? Is that also severe religious discrimination? I highly doubt that all Catholics and Protestants are fighting, no?

It is not severe religious discrimination to say "Islamic terrorists" because it is simply a distinguishing identifier. It is no worse than saying "that white serial killer". If you say "that white serial killer" are you discriminating against all white people? I think not. That's not discrimination, it's just an identifier, so people know what you're talking about.

The difference lies in the word "the" - iEnglish, "the" identifies a specific noun (the white serial killer") whereas, if left off, applies to ALL of that class of subjects. Hence, I would think that, grammatically speaking, equating "the white serial killer" with "the islamic terrorists" is fine. But by saying "islamic terrorist" you are essentially saying ALL muslims are terorrists.