Too much happiness = complacency, soon.
Yay for someone getting bombed very soon.
I mean okay big freaking whoop that he's been killed by US operatives. People only care about the attack because it happened to the US. We can blissfully turn a blind eye on the countless (at least 20,000, according to this table on wiki) civilian deaths while the US is "helping" fight terrorists, namely Taliban who didn't do anything wrong except make friends with people that also happened to attack the US. That's compared to the 3,000 involved in the Twin Towers incident. Can you imagine how pissed off Afghanistan must be? Nobody would freaking terrorise you if you didn't piss them off in the first place. Like, who the hell terrorises Switzerland? Switzerland just looks after its own shit, makes awesome knives for their army, and keep lots of money in their banks.
Take Libya for example. Why the HELL is the US there? I don't really get it. But from the media (probably propaganda-ified, since we're the US's bitch when it comes to stuff like this)
-Colonel Gadhafi is a dictator (I think communist?)
-US suddenly fired 10 cruiser missiles towards Libya to "help" with their civil war situation
-Something something.
Honestly, what the crap is happening in Libya? What the hell does the US want? Why can't it just not play God, spend less money on the military and more on quality of life, and let other countries solve their own problems?
Michael Leunig, from a SMH gallery
He's got the idea.
7 comments:
Because Gaddafi is less of a douchebag than the Libyan rebels. So far.
Because americans fight for their SUVs.
America is there because there's oil. They don't actually give a flying feth about the people, they just want to stabilise oil supplies again.
and there you have it, the story of the world :S
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UEkuc8L8uf8
<-- yeah this
i feel like this post has been made while you remain wilfully ignorant. there is a wealth of information (and opinions, of differing kinds) out there about the situation in libya, and to blame your own lack of knowledge on the media is not an excuse.
though there are plenty of reasons to doubt the US and their actions in the ten years since 9/11, a lot of this post comes off as mindlessly regurgitating anti-US rhetoric. i don't disagree with the heart of the opinions presented in this, per se, but there is no moral black and white to these situations, and you seem to have only considered one extremely narrow view.
if you're going to refute me by presenting the numerous facets to this argument that do exist (many of which i may not know of or understand), then please do so. but it's better not to present any political views as absolute truths, especially if you don't understand the extent of the situation. because as someone who feels substantially more educated about the situation in libya, if not the afghan war, you've come off as overwhelmingly ignorant.
look: i can't profess to being 100% knowledgeable in these issues, and your blog, your life, i don't have to read, etc. but if your intention is to appear intelligent through a post making sweeping judgements on international affairs, then. i can tell you the opposite has been achieved. if you do know a lot more about these situations than you've stated in this post and feel equipped to make these judgements, then i'd love to know more.
i'm sorry if i've been disrespectful and honestly, my intention isn't to offend.
anon above: i hope that this isn't the only side of the argument you've seen or read.
Firstly, as you appeared as anon, I instantly cannot take you as seriously as much as a person who puts their name behind their words.
Now to the real shit. I'm glad you spent half an essay worth flaming how little I know about the Libya situation. As, of course, you are intelligent and maybe saw it before anyone else. For anyone else who thinks I know shitloads about libya, here are some clues that state I don't
- "I dont get it"
- I only managed to put together 2 points about the whole deal. In an observant persons eye, that is, indeed, a narrow view (Y). Pat on the back
- "Honestly, what the crap is happening in Libya?"
- "What the hell does the US want?"
- "Why can't it just not play God, spend less money on the military and more on quality of life, and let other countries solve their own problems?"
Ending with three (3!) open ended questions! Wowee! Though yes the last ones assumptious but it can still be answered. Let's add that you didn't answer any of them, you just asserted you could if I didn't understand so little [logic needs clarification]
When I reply to an anon, I reply to all the assholes of the Internet. If you're going to make a meaningful comment and expect a meaningful reply, then back it up with your own rep.
Good day
Not the same anon but, imo the reason for an anonymous post is so that their post can be treated equally, and responded to without bias.
My bias against anon is a more negative bias than I could ever place on a person with a name.
Except maybe Bin Laden coming back from the grave to post on this. Lol judged.
Post a Comment