Mrebo

I'm with Warbler xD

But c'mon...the government is fairly indiscriminately monitoring telephone calls and emails in order to look for patterns. If the government knows that the terrorists are changing their tactics (and though it's only asserted, that those changes are evading that huge net), then the government knows because it's watching it in real time.

I read an article, forget where, that suggested that hiding such a program from the public is based on absurd and dangerous reasoning. He analogized it to a program where police put undercover officers on street corners. While it would be dangerous to divulge the identity or location or a particular officer...saying that there are undercover officers on some street corners throughout the city is a tactic that should be open to wide debate. And if the criminals know there are undercover agents on any street corner...yeah, they might change their tactics! But with such a wide net, unless they stay out of sight (ie all of them off the internets and phones) they won't evade detection.

We should be wary of what we don't know, of making broad assumptions, etc....but on its face, the government cries of betrayal and danger smack more of fear-mongering for its own sake and to keep the public in the dark about practices ripe for abuse.

I was thinking of Yoda. Specifically his words:

No. Not yet. One thing remains. Vader. You must confront Vader. Then, only then, a Jedi will you be. And confront him you will.

Does every Jedi face some right of passage? Or was that specific to Luke? At least it shows that having advanced Force abilities does not a Jedi make. Among the Jedi, it makes sense that some would take up the "knight" role. Some would certainly dedicate their arts to healing or whatever vocation they might take up. I'm wary of making it too categorical of formalistic. I'm content with there being JEDI and within that Jedi Knights. Beyond that, particular talents need not comprise a different sects. Taking on the "knight" role is an elevation in responsibility that I don't think exists in other possible roles.

KHAAAAAAAAAAAAAN!

Have returned from seeing it. A gift for myself. It was very good. I skimmed a couple pages of this thread. I agree with at least a couple things SilverWook said on those pages. I'm sure somebody else said something interesting too. Feel free to repeat it if you did.

I have mixed feelings. I may be leaning gay dune.

*sigh*

Too subtle?

Warbler said:

this is not just about national security, it is about justice.  Justice dictates that when you murder 3000 people, you must pay.

I don't know how you can say it not that important.  the man was responsible for the modern day version of the Pearl Harbor attack.

why does Bin Laden get such a pass from so many?

the man is responsible for multiple terrorist attacks including 911 and we are just supposed sit here and take it and not go after him.  That just doesn't seem right to me.

As someone else noted, bin Laden was the head of the responsible organization. After the bombing of Pearl Harbor, Emperor Hirohito wasn't a target, and continued to be Emperor until he died in 1989. And I don't think he should have been a target "for justice."

It has nothing to do with "giving a pass." Certainly not as Hirohito was "given a pass." In bin Laden's case, it's about whether he was a really important target from a military/security/strategic standpoint and had to be taken out. Yet I've already said, I'm glad he is no more. I'm similarly glad Saddam Hussein is no more. And as I also said, I think the argument that bin Laden is more a martyr through death is greatly overblown.

I know we're supposed to be unconditional cheerleaders with nary an intellectual argument to be found when it comes to the death of bin Laden. Sorry.

Mrebo said:

One the reasons 911 happened, was because of our weak response to the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Cole attack, and the embassy bombings.   Call our response to 911 what you will, but it certainly wasn't weak.   

While we might have been able to head off 9/11 or kept al Qaeda busy away from the US, 9/11 didn't happen because we didn't react more strongly.

I said it was one of the reasons.

I'm still not convinced.

Why we need to be on guard against a dangerous ideology, lest history repeats itself. In hindsight, historians will identify many deficiencies in our current culture regarding the danger of Islam, even if it doesn't come down to another holocaust.

IT'S BRITISH HUMOUR, THAT'S WHY YOU DON'T GET IT...oh wait, nevermind.

Backwards and a post?!

Bingowings said:

Bin Laden should have been put on trial and if found guilty locked up somewhere with a view of the Manhattan skyline.

Everyday he would be reminded that 9/11 accomplished nothing.

Instead he is a Bin Laden shaped beacon for everyone with an axe to grind against America and her allies.

I don't believe bin Laden would have thought that at all. Bin Laden would have been more of a rallying cry for Islamists if alive. If would have exalted him to a far greater status. 9/11 may not have done what he wanted, but it sure did alot, and for that he may have been pleased.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

 I think Bush was right that bin Laden wasn't the that important a target

tell that to the friends and family members of the 3000 people he murdered(not to mention the friends and family member of people that died in other attacks like on the USS Cole).

Though Warbs has been driven out like snakes from Ireland, I'll respond. Sorry, Warbler, but this is a really really weak point. As St. Patrick CP3S (sort of?) alludes to, national security is not about personal feelings. Do you know how many Americans have lost love ones due to any number of world people we don't kill or even friendly with? I think it would be extremely pathetic to kill bin Laden to make families of the deceased somehow feel better. He was a legitimate target, but ultimately not that important. Killing him has not and will not end the military conflicts in the Middle East spawned by 9/11.

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

 I don't agree that bin Laden and Hitler are more inspirational now, however.

if anything, Bin Laden was more of an inspiration while he was alive.

I also think this is true.

One the reasons 911 happened, was because of our weak response to the World Trade Center bombing in 1993, the Cole attack, and the embassy bombings.   Call our response to 911 what you will, but it certainly wasn't weak.   

While we might have been able to head off 9/11 or kept al Qaeda busy away from the US, 9/11 didn't happen because we didn't react more strongly.

Hey, whatchya gonna do? People are also attracted to serial killers sitting in prison. There is a segment of the population with that kind of cult mentality. Not much you can do about some people viewing a bad person as a martyr once they're killed or imprisoned. I don't agree that bin Laden and Hitler are more inspirational now, however. The notion that we should have tried very hard not to kill either man is extraordinarily silly. I think Bush was right that bin Laden wasn't the that important a target, but I don't think he was made much of a martyr the way he died.

Apropos of very little, I despise the phrase "at least he died doing what he loved." I suppose bin Laden died doing what he loved (hiding).

Like Hitler.

Do you have that backwards?

Hey, it's me. said:

Mrebo said:

I don't understand those who make a display of themselves over an event that doesn't make a change in their lives. Whether it's the death of bin Laden or a win by your favorite sports team (especially when people riot). And I really don't understand you British sports nuts. At least the death of bin Laden was somewhat more substantial than a soccer/rugby/cricket match. While we're on the topic, what about British girls? The girls I saw out on a Saturday night in Bath was a little alarming. Of course, there are notably attractive women (Karen Gillan comes to mind). Maybe I was just unlucky.

Football in the UK is very much a working class/tribal sport. Most working class men have pretty stressful,drudge filled lives during the working week and going to see your local team come Saturday is a good way to let off a bit of steam. Love for the game, love for your team. Your going to get your idiots who go over the top with violence but that's just society I'm afraid. What was it about the girls you saw that alarmed you btw? We're they drunk? 

The girls fit all the worst stereotypes. Bulging out of too short skirts and tight tops. Mostly I'm facetiously taking shots at the UK :P

I don't understand those who make a display of themselves over an event that doesn't make a change in their lives. Whether it's the death of bin Laden or a win by your favorite sports team (especially when people riot). And I really don't understand you British sports nuts. At least the death of bin Laden was somewhat more substantial than a soccer/rugby/cricket match. While we're on the topic, what about British girls? The girls I saw out on a Saturday night in Bath was a little alarming. Of course, there are notably attractive women (Karen Gillan comes to mind). Maybe I was just unlucky.

For those of you who have Obi Wan as protagonist, what do you see as his character arc?

Thread 3001. After lots of desperate refreshing for new content, I'm making a new thread. I may be entering ender territory.

The guy sitting across from me looks like a young Dwight K. Schrute. Would that be considered a compliment?

Warbler said:

Mrebo said:

Bingowings said:

I like tea but was it worth that historical suffering and nearly two centuries of resentment?

fuck yeah,  I thank God that we told Elizbeth's great, great, great,  grandfather what he could do with his tea.   I don't want to have any king or queen.    I want to live in any country where the laws have to be signed and approved by an unelected leader and that got the job because his/her father/mother was the leader before him/her.   I don't want live in a country where the legislators that we elect have to swear loyalty to the king/queen before being allowed to be legislators.  I don't want to live in a country where laws not only have to be passed by the elected house, but also must be passed by an unelected house of elites(some probably picked by the King/Queen).    I don't want to live in a country where, before the elected leader takes office, he/she must bow down before king/queen  and get his/her permission first.   I don't want to live in a country where the king/queen has the authority to call said elected leader on the carpet(as Thatcher once was).   I don't want to live in a country where the government is said to belong to the king/queen, and not the people.   I don't want to live a in country where rights come from the queen/king and not from nature/God.   I don't want to live in country that has an imaginary constitution, instead of real constitution written down in black and white.  I don't want to live in a country that has an official religion and is headed by the king/queen.    I love the fact that the first words in our Constitution  say in large letters: WE THE PEOPLE.    We are not an empire, we are a republic, born out of the idea that all people were born equal with certain inalienable rights.     Have we done bad things that we should be ashamed of yes.  We should be ashamed about slavery and what we did to he native Americans,  we should be ashamed of how we for years treated(and in some cases still treat) nonwhites, women, non-christians, non-protestants, non-Europeans, those that don't speak English, homosexuals and others.   We are far from perfect and not lived up to our ideals.   Have we fought wars we shouldn't have?  probably.    We have and probably will in the future,  make mistakes and do wrong things and things that we should be ashamed of, we are human after all.   We have a lot of problems, but we are still a great nation.   What makes us great?  The American ideal that all people should be free, equal, have inalienable rights(including life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness),  that rights can not be taken away without due process, that we elect our leaders, that the government belongs to and works for the people and not the other way around.    This is what makes us great.  Our nation and the way it began, inspired and inspires  countless countries and people to strive for freedom and equality.    Because of how great of nation is, countless people from around the globe left their native country to come here, seeking freedom and equality.   some one on here said immigration is a bad thing.   Our country is built on immigration.   Everyone here came from somewhere else,  even the native Americans immigrated from Asia years and years and years ago.  This combination of people from everywhere makes us great.  The fact that in WWII we took on two very evil empires and defeated them and let them be  free, that makes us great.  There is no place like America  anywhere else.   I am very, very, proud to be an American and I thank God I was born here.    We are no empire and no soviet union.   All those that hate us can go to hell.

*gets off soap box* 

*giggles*

p.s. please don't stop sending us tea because of Warbler

I'm more concerned of him going in the other direction, playing lip service to Star Wars while not respecting the source material. It's perfectly fine if it "rhymes" - as long as it doesn't imitate and it is done well. There should be surprises that don't parallel the OT, but it should go without saying that Star Wars will be respected/honored/revered.

When I wake up in the morning, my hair looks something like Madine's hair.

Abrams, from the article, says "the key to moving forward on something like this is honoring but not revering what came before."

As those words are synonyms, I'm not sure what he's saying.

It was great not having a car to worry about in Chicago. And I love Chicago. That doesn't mean I think everyone should give up their cars and live there.

Having a car is also great. Even if you don't need it often, to be able to go for a drive and get out of a city on a whim is terrific.

If your box were moved, it would depend on your conception of rights. If we took the Yanomamo out of South America and deposited them in Scotland, there may be an unavoidable clash. I don't know how the Amish would fair in the UK either.

Bingowings said:

I like tea but was it worth that historical suffering and nearly two centuries of resentment?

Yes, especially for Earl Grey. Thanks to British imperialism you also have all kinds of yummy Indian food.

Bah! As an upstate New Yorker, I object. New York is quite expansive and not that densely populated outside of NYC. If you actually live in a place, a long-distance bus isn't of much use, and most communities don't have commuter buses. CP3S is right about communities not being "isolated." In up-upstate NY (the "North Country"), it is very sparsely populated - but still largely connected by highways.

It's not like people bounce around between NYC, Albany and Buffalo. It's a matter of driving 15 minutes to the grocery store in one direction, 30 minutes to the mall in another direction, work is 20 minutes to an hour away in another direction, and there are any number of errands along the way you need to make a quick stop for before continuing to your destination.

I grew up in a small town, while not "isolated," has no public transportation. Many a summer was spent riding bikes down the street, watching tv, waiting for the zombie apocalypse or anything to happen. Aside from a couple of convenience stores and library, there wasn't anywhere to go without driving. I'm not surprised Bingo's travels didn't go to the many communities like mine, since there is no economic rationale for trains and buses to go to them.