3 ms·

You forget what most people forget. It was the NSA (USA) that was attacked first. This is in response to that.

arcadeparade 13y ago
Such nonsense.
atmosx 13y ago
Sure, even naming the "NSA" is considered a "hostile behavior which might lead to a terrorist kamikazee-way attack in the remote future" so it's better to to kill everyone "pro-actively" to secure the "world-wide peace and prosperity". After all the NSA got famous for killing the most dangerous terrorist (or communist) of the 20's century Che-Guevarra. Weird thing, there are more trousers and posters around the world with Che's face than any USA figure. (GO figure...)
coldtea 13y ago
Attacked first? Yes, if you forget decades of attacks from their side, e.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh Because who cares about attacks on other countries, right?
mkr-hn 13y ago
They don't hate us for our freedoms. We need to keep that bit of propaganda from propagating, otherwise we're doomed to repeat the last 50 years.
- samstave 13y ago
  What I always ask: what freedoms? I can't think of really any activity I am not paying for. One can't even escape having any single piece of land without havig to annually pay a license to the government to keep it. So when we are told others hate our freedoms, I want to know specifically which ones those are. If they say "religion" I don't count that as one as I am not religious. If they say "speech" I'd like to point to "free speech zones" and other direct limitations. I can't think of anything that is truly 100% free.
  - mercurial 13y ago
    You have plenty of areas where you're not free to be irreligious. Or where criticising the regime will land you in jail. That said, the"hating our freedoms" line is definitely bull. People actually say that?
    - mkr-hn 13y ago
      It was one of the main talking points after 9/11.

Such nonsense.

Sure, even naming the "NSA" is considered a "hostile behavior which might lead to a terrorist kamikazee-way attack in the remote future" so it's better to to kill everyone "pro-actively" to secure the "world-wide peace and prosperity". After all the NSA got famous for killing the most dangerous terrorist (or communist) of the 20's century Che-Guevarra. Weird thing, there are more trousers and posters around the world with Che's face than any USA figure. (GO figure...)

coldtea 13y ago

Attacked first? Yes, if you forget decades of attacks from their side, e.g: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammad_Mosaddegh Because who cares about attacks on other countries, right?

mkr-hn 13y ago

They don't hate us for our freedoms. We need to keep that bit of propaganda from propagating, otherwise we're doomed to repeat the last 50 years.

samstave 13y ago
What I always ask: what freedoms? I can't think of really any activity I am not paying for. One can't even escape having any single piece of land without havig to annually pay a license to the government to keep it. So when we are told others hate our freedoms, I want to know specifically which ones those are. If they say "religion" I don't count that as one as I am not religious. If they say "speech" I'd like to point to "free speech zones" and other direct limitations. I can't think of anything that is truly 100% free.
- mercurial 13y ago
  You have plenty of areas where you're not free to be irreligious. Or where criticising the regime will land you in jail. That said, the"hating our freedoms" line is definitely bull. People actually say that?
  - mkr-hn 13y ago
    It was one of the main talking points after 9/11.