Originally posted by The Wanderer:
sorry if i extrapolated beyond what you wrote Gonzo, oh great one of wisdom and intellect
I have a reason to suspect you are being dreadfully sarcastic and you are referring to me, rather than Gonzo. If this is not true, I apologize ahead of time. If you are being sarcastic and referring to me, allow me to proverbially beat some sense into you.
Reread:
Originally posted by Melon:
Well, Dubya did state that "he will not make a distinction over terrorism and nations that harbor terrorism."
In investigating the money laundering trail in the stock market, the U.S. is stuck at Switzerland, whose banks refuse to release information regarding any financial transactions.
Does this mean that Switzerland is harboring terrorism by refusing to cooperate? Should Dubya come in with his proverbial mechanical bull and smash the Swiss into submission?
You know my answer to this. I'm just trying to provoke a response out of people here.
No mention of race relations. In fact, it didn't cross my mind. I was thinking more along the lines that the U.S. won't bomb countries seen as "Western allies." You can, I guess, interpret that to mean white people. I can't help if Europe is white.
Originally posted by DoctorGonzo:
The Swiss are white. We don't bomb white people.
(if you think I'm racist for saying that, then you are missing the point entirely)
The contentious "race card." I, obviously, didn't write it.
Originally posted by 80sU2isBest:
what exactly IS your point?
A question is made in reference to DoctorGonzo's post.
Originally posted by melon: [emphasis added]
I believe his point is that the U.S. is more reluctant to bomb white nations over non-white nations.
Since Afghanistan is Arab, rather than white, the logic would be that it would be much easier for the U.S. to hate them and blow the shit out of them.
Since Switzerland is white, the logic would be that the U.S. would be far more open to dialogue, rather than bombing them.
This is
not my belief. I've heard this racial excuse before, so I thought I'd try and interpret it for 80sU2isBest. I probably, in hindsight, should have either ignored it or rewrote it. But what's done is done. Synopsis: this entire post is an attempt to interpret what DoctorGonzo wrote on a theoretical basis, and does not reflect my opinions.
However, this is where it gets complicated. 80sU2isBest did understand this distinction I wrote above, and wrote a post thanking me for helping--
but it's gone, likely because it was written on the day of the forum server switch, where all the posts that day were consigned into oblivion.
I do not take unfounded accusations lightly, and if necessary, I will proverbially pound everyone into the ground--and I don't discriminate by race here either.
Melon
------------------
"He had lived through an age when men and women with energy and ruthlessness but without much ability or persistence excelled. And even though most of them had gone under, their ignorance had confused Roy, making him wonder whether the things he had striven to learn, and thought of as 'culture,' were irrelevant. Everything was supposed to be the same: commercials, Beethoven's late quartets, pop records, shopfronts, Freud, multi-coloured hair. Greatness, comparison, value, depth: gone, gone, gone. Anything could give some pleasure; he saw that. But not everything provided the sustenance of a deeper understanding." - Hanif Kureishi, Love in a Blue Time
