"rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer."
Wow, nice terminology, the use of the word "pussy". Also nice use of labels to try to make your argument SOUND rational and to put down any opposing view. Nice way to attempt preventing someone to exercise their right to freedom of speech without being criticized before saying a single word. Now to respond to your actual statement.
To use the exact same wording as you did (because supposedly, it's cooler and makes the argument sound oh so much better...supposedly), since when are you supposed to let several thousand people die as their ulcers eat out their stomach due to hunger that's not satiated and just go on as if nothing had happened? The same number if people, if not MANY more, die from hunger every day. EVERY DAY. And you're saying we need to go overseas and attack some people that had NOTHING TO DO with the towers falling, just because you were forced to view the death occurring on your local news station, as opposed to on your local street or a nearby city or a distant country where people aren't as lucky to have the convenience of fearing terrorists because they need to fear where their next meal will come from? Because people died from a terrorist attack, that's something to get angry about and try to fix, but when someone's dying a much more wretched and horrid death because nobody's willing to give them a piece of bread, that's something to completely ignore and even get angry about if they attempt to get that food (i.e. - insults on people who are on welfare "eating away the money from our pockets").
In short, you're basically trying to exemplify your point and ignore everything else out there. I'm sure many people would rather die from a terrorist attack than by starvation. I know I would. If you have enough compassion to mourn and avenge the death of a few thousand people who died from a terrorist attack on a building that only happened one day, you SHOULD have enough compassion to notice and attempt to aid in feeding starving, possibly homeless people, the same number or even higher of people who died on 9/11 dying EVERY DAY in this fashion.
As a closing note, though this is wrong of me to say because it's a major assumption, I hope you're not one of those people that try to get "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" banned because it reminds you of 9/11, ignoring the fact that the movie is so named because of the book, which was in turn created 50 YEARS before 9/11.
Slashdot Mirror
"rarely ever say this, but you are a pussy. Since when are you suppossed to let several thousand people die as two flaming towers collapse and just go on as if nothing had happened? You fight back. You kill every damned one of those sons of bitches. It really fuckin' irks me when the liberals here on slashdot have more hatred for Darl McBride than Osama bin Laden. At least Darl isn't a mass murderer."
Wow, nice terminology, the use of the word "pussy". Also nice use of labels to try to make your argument SOUND rational and to put down any opposing view. Nice way to attempt preventing someone to exercise their right to freedom of speech without being criticized before saying a single word. Now to respond to your actual statement.
To use the exact same wording as you did (because supposedly, it's cooler and makes the argument sound oh so much better...supposedly), since when are you supposed to let several thousand people die as their ulcers eat out their stomach due to hunger that's not satiated and just go on as if nothing had happened? The same number if people, if not MANY more, die from hunger every day. EVERY DAY. And you're saying we need to go overseas and attack some people that had NOTHING TO DO with the towers falling, just because you were forced to view the death occurring on your local news station, as opposed to on your local street or a nearby city or a distant country where people aren't as lucky to have the convenience of fearing terrorists because they need to fear where their next meal will come from? Because people died from a terrorist attack, that's something to get angry about and try to fix, but when someone's dying a much more wretched and horrid death because nobody's willing to give them a piece of bread, that's something to completely ignore and even get angry about if they attempt to get that food (i.e. - insults on people who are on welfare "eating away the money from our pockets").
In short, you're basically trying to exemplify your point and ignore everything else out there. I'm sure many people would rather die from a terrorist attack than by starvation. I know I would. If you have enough compassion to mourn and avenge the death of a few thousand people who died from a terrorist attack on a building that only happened one day, you SHOULD have enough compassion to notice and attempt to aid in feeding starving, possibly homeless people, the same number or even higher of people who died on 9/11 dying EVERY DAY in this fashion.
As a closing note, though this is wrong of me to say because it's a major assumption, I hope you're not one of those people that try to get "Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers" banned because it reminds you of 9/11, ignoring the fact that the movie is so named because of the book, which was in turn created 50 YEARS before 9/11.