there are four things i ♥ right now.
1) submachine 2
2) yoga with rodney yee
3) homemade applesauce
4) yoga zone
6.17.2006
6.12.2006
the revolving door
so they killed the #1 most wanted man in iraq. some al-qaida guy and everyone was all happy that america had brought down a leader in the terrorist group. until the next day it was announced that al-qaida replaced abu musab al-zarqawi with someone else with i'm sure a similarly confusing name to pronounce.
my point is, won't it be rather difficult to fight a war on terror when this has escalated the number of people joining these kinds of groups? how are we, as a society, supposed to make the world a better, more peaceful place, when we use aggression?
the phrase "fight fire with fire" could be expanded on in what i feel to be an accurate analogy. i mean, fires do cancel each other out, only because one fire burns everything while another burns the rest until there's nothing left to burn and they go out. so fighting fire with fire only scorches everything until both fires are out. using this analogy, it's easier to understand that the only to effectively "win the war on terror" is if all potential terrorists are killed.
but can't anyone be a potential terrorist? so wouldn't everyone have to be killed in order for there to be on more terrorist strikes? think about the american terrorists. the unabomber and the oklahoma city bombings should all remind americans that terrorists are not one religion, not one race. they have the potential to be our math teachers, like ted kaczynski, or they can even be veterans, think tim mcveigh. even in this case, there were sketches of middle eastern men put out as the terrorists, when it was really good 'ol tim, a boy as white bread as they get. my point is, short of being jesus, any one has the potential for being a terrorist. so why fight fire with fire when that won't get anything done?
what's happened is that ameica has gotten so many groups mad at us, not just the french, to the point where the only country that really tolerates america is india. and that's just because that's where we outsource our jobs. the actions of the united states have seemed to have done more harm than bad and the people of these countries see it. what we as a country fail to see is that by acting the way we are, we're adding fuel to the anti-american fire that's starting to spread. the killing of known civilians in iraq by us marines was just one example of why the youth of these countries (the middle eastern region in general) have a reason to hate us and to join groups against america. what we've effectively done is create a revolving door. we kill one terrorist, another replaces him.
true, before america went into iraq a lot of people didn't like us. but do we really need to give them a reason to hate us? by acting the way we are, we've justified the sentiments of these groups, all the while adding to the number of people that sympathize with the country's plight.
it seems as if america's dug itself into a hole, and is trying to dig up in order to get out.
my point is, won't it be rather difficult to fight a war on terror when this has escalated the number of people joining these kinds of groups? how are we, as a society, supposed to make the world a better, more peaceful place, when we use aggression?
the phrase "fight fire with fire" could be expanded on in what i feel to be an accurate analogy. i mean, fires do cancel each other out, only because one fire burns everything while another burns the rest until there's nothing left to burn and they go out. so fighting fire with fire only scorches everything until both fires are out. using this analogy, it's easier to understand that the only to effectively "win the war on terror" is if all potential terrorists are killed.
but can't anyone be a potential terrorist? so wouldn't everyone have to be killed in order for there to be on more terrorist strikes? think about the american terrorists. the unabomber and the oklahoma city bombings should all remind americans that terrorists are not one religion, not one race. they have the potential to be our math teachers, like ted kaczynski, or they can even be veterans, think tim mcveigh. even in this case, there were sketches of middle eastern men put out as the terrorists, when it was really good 'ol tim, a boy as white bread as they get. my point is, short of being jesus, any one has the potential for being a terrorist. so why fight fire with fire when that won't get anything done?
what's happened is that ameica has gotten so many groups mad at us, not just the french, to the point where the only country that really tolerates america is india. and that's just because that's where we outsource our jobs. the actions of the united states have seemed to have done more harm than bad and the people of these countries see it. what we as a country fail to see is that by acting the way we are, we're adding fuel to the anti-american fire that's starting to spread. the killing of known civilians in iraq by us marines was just one example of why the youth of these countries (the middle eastern region in general) have a reason to hate us and to join groups against america. what we've effectively done is create a revolving door. we kill one terrorist, another replaces him.
true, before america went into iraq a lot of people didn't like us. but do we really need to give them a reason to hate us? by acting the way we are, we've justified the sentiments of these groups, all the while adding to the number of people that sympathize with the country's plight.
it seems as if america's dug itself into a hole, and is trying to dig up in order to get out.
6.08.2006
i love the shack
one of the greatest burger joints in hawaii was shut down because some idiot was taking money from the register. that place had great pupus and burgers. man, this is a downer....
6.01.2006
questions of the week
is it bad that i taught my nephew "booze"?
what about how i just want to use guys and discard them like old shirts?
is it worse that i tell guys this? and they don't mind?
why can't i tell people what i really think of them?
how lame is it to have a crush on a guy that plays with dinosaurs?
why did they cut the tootsie pop commerical so you don't see it all?
speaking of which, how come mr. turtle couldn't get to teh tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?
why would he be too old?
if the devil took over the snake's body in the garden of eden forcefully, why did god punish the snake when the snake probably didn't want to be possessed?
what is coleridge was right about the dice game in the rime of the ancient mariner?
is kubla khan a cry for a better sex life?
and why does being on birth control increase the risks of gallstones?
what about how i just want to use guys and discard them like old shirts?
is it worse that i tell guys this? and they don't mind?
why can't i tell people what i really think of them?
how lame is it to have a crush on a guy that plays with dinosaurs?
why did they cut the tootsie pop commerical so you don't see it all?
speaking of which, how come mr. turtle couldn't get to teh tootsie roll center of a tootsie pop?
why would he be too old?
if the devil took over the snake's body in the garden of eden forcefully, why did god punish the snake when the snake probably didn't want to be possessed?
what is coleridge was right about the dice game in the rime of the ancient mariner?
is kubla khan a cry for a better sex life?
and why does being on birth control increase the risks of gallstones?
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)