To LUGNET HomepageTo LUGNET News HomepageTo LUGNET Guide Homepage
 Help on Searching
 
Post new message to lugnet.off-topic.debateOpen lugnet.off-topic.debate in your NNTP NewsreaderTo LUGNET News Traffic PageSign In (Members)
 Off-Topic / Debate / Search Results: worlds smallest political quiz
 Results 741 – 760 of 1284.
Search took 0.02 CPU seconds. 

Messages:  Full | Brief | Compact
Sort:  Prefer Newer | Prefer Older | Best Match

  Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
 
I have already disclosed my poor knowledge of the English language with emarrasing results, but yet I can't stay off this definition debate. The words terror and terrorism are obviously from the same root, but to me, they have different meanings. I (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  On the veracity of statistics in general
 
I was doing some Googletrolling with various search keywords, looking for some scholarly work on the accuracy of UN statistics. It's a relatively tough search... I ran across this tidbit: (URL) this is anecdotal of course, but there is a lot of (...) (23 years ago, 18-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
 
(...) Nope, it was definitely a thread. My post on the subject, which includes why I think it was both political and necessary, is here: (URL)Honestly, it sounds like you were making a rather "might-makes-right" (...) The most devastating war in ALL (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
 
(...) It tends to be obscure, but there was never a decision to drop Bomb 1, a pause, and then a decision to drop Bomb 2. The decision was made to drop two bombs. Were both bombs necessary? Maybe not - they may have eventually surrendered anyway (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
 
(...) Exactly correct-- my point was that I'm not sure I understand what ends you believe were intended. If the end was "to scare the Japanese" rather than "to have Japan surrender", then yes, I agree that the bombing may have been necessary. I just (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
 
(...) Yes, let's not blur the issue-- what part does being cowardly have in being a terrorist? Let's say they flew their own planes into our buildings. No longer a terrorist action? I don't think whether they/we were cowardly or not is really (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
 
(...) That's a gross overstatement, and a pretty glib generalization. influence, perhaps; but political *power* must be negotiated. And you don't think this happens in Britain? Please. You just don't talk about it quite the same way, in part because (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: "The Constitution is what the judges say it is"
 
(...) The problem with your system is the huge inequalities in your country. Political power is bought and sold like cheese at a cheesemongers. People keep guns to protect themselves from there *own* government. Your healthcare system is derided (...) (23 years ago, 16-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: Hiroshima-Was It Necessary?
 
(...) By that definition, *any* act taken in a military conflict is "terrorism." The major difference is that the civilians of Japan had no basis for an *expectation* of safety--especially when you consider what happened to Tokyo in March, and (...) (23 years ago, 17-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Standard of debate
 
Standard of debate I will be the first to admit that at times the standard of debate around here is very poor. My own personal dislike is subjectivity dressed up as objectivity. Others point out that the petty name calling is childish – I agree, but (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: More on Palestine
 
I really should stay out of this one, but I'm weak. I don't think that many of our wars have been against a group of people, but rather violent usurpers who somehow manage to gather dedicated supporters. If we could simply walk in and take out the (...) (23 years ago, 14-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) Which doesn't get you off the hook ;-) Here is my definition: "The enforcement of political goals through violence against unconcerned people is terrorism". Of course, with this definition, a violent attack targeting concerned people would (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.351)

  Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
 
(...) Guns are already more easily obtained through illegal channels in the US. Increasing the difficulty of obtaining a gun through legal channels will not stop any criminals from getting them. Why do people assume that just because something is (...) (23 years ago, 11-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.350)

  Re: Israel and Palestine
 
(...) Israel must renounce Zionism, which is a racist, fanatical, exclusionist and intolerant political belief that regards the Holy Land as exclusively the home of the Jews and Judaism, and deems that Christianity and Islam have no place there. (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.350)

  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) and a (...) and time (...) out at (...) minimizing the (...) applied (...) WTC as (...) Thanks, Tom. I agree that there's no single "catch-all" definition of terrorism. There's a bit of a discussion about it here (URL) quote from there: "The (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.350)

  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) Hmm, I'm not sure this is a workable definition. I think this is the general purpose of most military action (just about no military action expects to eliminate much more than a fraction of the enemy forces, what it seeks to do is eliminate (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.350)

  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) Some people would say that terrorism is the act of attacking civilians with the intention of reaching some kind of a (political) goal. During these discussions, the word terrorism is actually a problem. The problem is that the word is (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.350)

  Re: Violence created by presence of guns? (was: Gotta love Oracle...)
 
(...) While I don't have any knowledge of the laws of Canada and the UK, I'm pretty confident the rights enshrined in the US Constitution are not as well protected in Canada and the UK. (...) The right to bear arms is not the "almost single one (...) (23 years ago, 10-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.350)

  Re: More on Palestine
 
(...) Terrorism is the unlawful use of force or violence against persons or property to intimidate or coerce a government, the civilian population, or any segment thereof, in furtherance of political or social objectives. (FBI) I think this is good, (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.350)

  Re: Fatwah
 
(...) I was talking more about the linkage to events of 11th sept. The link is clear. (...) One would hope not. (...) Is so, that would be equall irrelevant (to me). (...) In the news yes. But this is not news. This is opinion from a political (...) (23 years ago, 9-Oct-01, to lugnet.off-topic.debate)
 

political
(score: 0.350)

More:  Next Page >>


©2005 LUGNET. All rights reserved. - hosted by steinbruch.info GbR