On the one hand we have fools that say we should make no attempt to seek retribution against the terrorists. I don't agree with their position. On the other hand we have fools that say that if someone doesn't want to inflict harm on another person, no matter how horrible their crimes, they are pro-terrorist. I don't agree with their position either.
This "you're either with us or against us" stuff is just shallow one dimensional crap being served to the idiot masses to make sure everybody walks in step with whatever the Industrial Military Complex and its Corporate Media lap dogs decide to do.
Er, it's usually called the Military Industrial Complex.
The people who designed and manufactured our high tech weapons (hint: they work for 'corporations') and the brave men who will use them will soon protect you and your ilk (Jane Fonda, Susan Sontag, assorted British congenital anti-Americans) against the threat of a second and third wave by the WTC murderers.
But don't bother to acknowledge your debt to them. We know your type and out-of-character behavior --admission of error -- will not wash. But I suggest you stop pretending you 'really' are on our side; it is an act and it is unconvincing.
"Military Industrial Complex"? I haven't heard that term used regularly since Klinton was marching in Moscow. Peace,love, kumbaya etc. comrade.
"Well, I'm very pro-peace and I'm also very much in favor of attacking the terrorists. Nothing in this world is black and white."
Not true. Many things are, in fact "black and white" while some things aren't. We could together come up with an agreeable list of the things that are indeed "black and white." But to say that nothing is "black-and white" is simply a reflexive embrace of all forms of moral relativism.
I hope you meant to say it how I did. I'll give you the benefit of the doubt on that, because I do believe your intentions are sincere.
"On the one hand we have fools that say we should make no attempt to seek retribution against the terrorists. I don't agree with their position."
Then you do agree with the vast majority of those here, and likely, most agruments lie in semantics.
Peace is not a course of action. It is the desirable result of many processes. One can be "pro-peace," as almost everone is, but as a doctrine, or even a statement of preference, it is meaningless when war has been declared. Because it offers no course of action to achieve it.
"On the other hand we have fools that say that if someone doesn't want to inflict harm on another person, no matter how horrible their crimes, they are pro-terrorist. I don't agree with their position either."
You need to keep in mind the last line of my post, #39. A conservative might label you "pro-terrorist" if your course of action, not necessarily the intent of that action, results in furthering the terrorists' goals. I doubt that the "peace protestors" are "pro-terrorist" in the sense that they would have themselves committed the same horrible crimes that the terrorsits did. And I doubt you'd find anyone on Free Republic who would make the case that they would.
This "you're either with us or against us" stuff is just shallow one dimensional crap being served to the idiot masses..."President Bush used that phrase specifically to address those nations who were harboring terrorsists, and correctly so. Individuals in the United States who use it against other citizens do engage in a bit of exaggeration.
More accurately, one could say, "You're either for retalliation, or you make the terrorists' task easier." That is undeniable.
"...to make sure everybody walks in step with whatever the Industrial Military Complex and its Corporate Media lap dogs decide to do. "
I wish you hadn't said this, as I found your posts truly honest, and wanting to be as reasonable of possible. When I read statements like this, peppered with trite liberal shibboleths, it reminds me of what I used to believe in myself, and how I was terribly mistaken, and used.