Exactly. Hatred requires no reason, especially when it's fundamentalist hatred like we are dealing with now.

Ok, so I am not Zoomba.  I will disagree in nuance.  They do require a reason, but they will make one up.

Now, back to being Zoomba!

Ok, so I am not Zoomba. I will disagree in nuance. They do require a reason, but they will make one up.

Sorry, I should have said does not require a valid reason. I don't entirely consider ones they cook up in their heads to be reasons, just personal justification for what they do. I see a difference between justification and reason in this case.

When the reason to hate can be anything, can just be made up from nothing, then no reason is actually really required, one just exists to justify what they do.

Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Friday, August 12, 2005Urgency is relative. I wonder if anyone pre-9/11 would have considered the need to attack Afghanistan 'urgent'. How many more years would have been before the UN allowed Hussein to rearm himself, with France and Russia poised to make a killing doing it? Look at how willing members of the suppsedly non-aligned UN were to make a quick buck by helping him starve his people?Excellent points, Baker. While I stand with those who question whether the Iraq war was justified, I also have to stop to realize that the same idiots who attack Bush no matter what he does would have hit him twice as hard had we not intervened and consequently been the victims of a large scale attack by a Hussein led regime.I don't think there were easy choices to have been made in these situations, at any rate.

exactly, notice PRIVATEgenes latest rant..about withdrawels of troops { it ain't gonna happen} not now anyways.. PRIVATE gene has been whining "bring the troops home" NOw he is whining "bush deserts troops and america" by bringing home troops.

to Zoomba and drguy:

In the beginning BIN laden claimed this was about us having troops in his holy land of saudi arabia, we have withdrawn troops so he changes his reasons.

terrorist much like the far left will continue to DEVOLVE and change as long as they get to hate the target of there choice.

Again you attack the victims, and not the agressors. At least you are consistent in that regard

the question was who's fault it would be if a chemical plant was attacked by terrorists after we removed our troops from iraq and afghanistan. obviously the terrorists who attacked the plant would be responsible for having done so.

if that's the point of the question, why bother answering?

that's why they call em terrorists.

i guess my mistake was considering WHY a chemical plant was chosen as a target. i compounded it by pointing out the fact (as demonstrated by at least two network tv news magazines and confirmed by a number of independent security professionals) that too many chemical plants are neglecting their responsibility to properly secure their facilities and nobody in the government is making an effort to compel them to do so. neglecting responsibility is an understatement that covers doing nothing to prevent unauthorized access thru unlocked gates or refusal to hire an adequate number of capable security guards.

any facility that carelessly makes large quantities of dangerous subtances easy to steal or detonate isn't an innocent victim but a dangerous hazard and that kinda negligence doesnt deserve sympathy.

any government that claims to be committed to homeland security but permits such dangerous foolishness to continue is putting us all at risk.

so go head on and congratulate yourselves on having chosen such a committed resolute warrior and give yourself an extra pat on the back for having recognized the fact that terrorists terrorize. hopefully you don't live nearly as close as i do to tanks fulla stuff that can take out a couple square miles of everything should they be exploited.

ya never let me down kingbee I have come to expect the worse from you and you never dissapoint.

if i'm the worst you're able to imagine or expect, you're living in candyland and you dont realize it.

I don't think there were easy choices to have been made in these situations, at any rate.

At least we were finally blessed with a president who was willing to make the choices, though, for good or ill. He did what what seemed right for the country, and not for his numbers.

any facility that carelessly makes large quantities of dangerous subtances easy to steal or detonate isn't an innocent victim but a dangerous hazard and that kinda negligence doesnt deserve sympathy.

Which again by that reasoning means that the victims of a car crash are the perpatrators of it.  For they did not take sufficient precautions to guard against it.  It is the SOS.

NO ONE can guard against every inevitability.  You guard against the most common and safeguard for that.  But that does not make you invunerable, and it never will.  So when terrorist do strike, the fingers come out and hindsight becomes 'should be' foresight.  Sorry, I still dont by it.  You are still blaming the victims for not being omnipotent.

Which again by that reasoning means that the victims of a car crash are the perpatrators of it

no it means if you leave your keys in your car and the engine running after you've been warned about kids stealing unattended cars...and you also leave a pistol on the seat, you've contributed to any resulting crime.

You are still blaming the victims for not being omnipotent.

not omnipotent nor omniscient (which is what you meant). i'm blaming em for being cheap and complacent and negligent. i'm blaming the government for not doing the least that could be expected and for complacency, stupidity & arrogance. and i'm blaming you for condoning it.

kingbee: you are one of the best here in eloquence, and argueing, if only you would use your powers for good instead of evil.

It's my fault... I'm sorry.

Who said we should leave Afghanistan? We should have fully commited to it after we invaded instead of pulling our troops out and invading Iraq, a country which, in case you haven't heard, had ABSOLUTELY NOTHING to do with 9/11.

Instead, the warlords and the Taliban are still in control of the majority of the country while Bin Laden (remember him?) is still free and making videos and serving as inspiration to all would-be terrorists. In the time he's been roaming free, FDR (a Leftie if there ever was one!) managed to defeat Adolf Hitler, Mussolini and (almost) the entire Japanese military. And Bush can't catch a 6'7" tall guy on a dialysis machine?

And over in Iraq, we've set them on the path to civil war.

All the Lefties want -- and what all Americans should want -- is a president who isn't the most incompetent president in our history.

All the Lefties want -- and what all Americans should want -- is a president who isn't the most incompetent president in our history.

That leaves out the entire leadership on the left then.