Message 48/124
Date: 01-Oct-02 @ 10:53 PM -
RE: 60 Minutes does it again...
GT, it's not that i'm refuting the report -- that's irrelevant. i guess you've totally missed the point.
let's assume that [whoever] IS in fact funding 'terrorism' in some competing country. let's even say that the country's government topples as a result of [whoever]'s actions.
hell, let's even say that [whoever] is also building/has already built up a large nuclear arsenal.
the point, to me, is that it's the worst, most intollerable and dangerous form of stupidity for the US to claim that ANY of these actions are wrong or should be stoppped when the US itself has done the exact same things. just substitute [USA] in there and guess what... the statements are still valid/true.
yet another example of total bullshit: one of the candidates for the presidency (or prime minister or whatever) of germany had a staff member who compared the current political (and social) state/practises of the US to nazi germany. of course, the US ambassador and foreign minister etc. have a ing fit; but the points were valid.
there wasn't even a debate, it was like "how dare you call us nazis! we're the USA! the ing master race!" which is apparently the US way of refuting an argument. absolutely no counter-examples or attempt to justify _why_ exactly the comment was inappropriate... it was anti-US and that in itself IS apparently inappropriate.
see... you guys like to talk big about freedom of speech and privacy etc. but the chasm between theory and practise is ing mighty large.
i honestly beleive that if every living person in north america today simply ceased to exist, not only would the world/society be a better place but would have a MUCH better chance of actually improving with time and growing.
raigan
p.s: arguments based on god are also ing ridiculous. i really wish there was some kind of international court in which such disputes are arbitrated... i'd LOVE to see representatives for these violent religous factions defend their actions on the basis of god. or representatives for the US defend their actions on the basis of the supremacy of the US, for that matter.