Actor 'James Woods' - Words of Wisdom

His statement is not racist, his statement is directed at a group of people who actually do want us dead. These people are taught by a religious system that the west, America specifically is bad, and the royal rulings foment this belief so as to take the heat off their ruling families.

In the long run it might very well take the obliteration of the enemy in order to make the west safe, but I'd rather not contemplate that. The only way around that at this time that I see is to submit to all their demands and become Muslim, do away with capitalism and the freemarket enterprise and throw democracy out the window in favor of strict theocratic rule, but I doubt we are going to do that. MAybe somewhere down the line things will change.
Maybe one of you flower-power children can come up with a viable alternative energy choice (but allow me to still hear that throaty American V-8 sound) and the Arabs can once again become irrelevant

and of course, not to defend one's nation from aggression is wrong.
And of course, being a spineless coward and letting your countrymen die is wrong
And, of course, murder is the taking of human life but not all taking of human life is murder.

[Edited on 20-9-2002 by Thomas Crowne]

your right is comments aren't racist, they are prejudice...and you make generalizations that make you appear prejudice as well. just as not all americans support war/murder (sorry sir, there is no difference, war is murder) of whole nations, not all arabs in these countries he refers to hate for all americans and want us dead.

your comments sicken me, as you well know, so there is no need to go over them line for line. i actually stopped reading after the word, "obliteration", i just had supper.

Here's more of a transcript (and point-counterpoint) from a news source:

www.zap2it.com...

The people in any country are ultimately accountable for the actions of their leaders. Just look at WWII. This is a sad fact of life, however if the Iraqi people wnated change then they would have deposed saddam. Just look at Iran, they overthrew the Shah despite his secret police and army.

Thomas there are lots of people I'd like to see dead, but it doesn't meen I have the capacity to do it nor does it mean they should bomb my city.

Iraq isn't going to invade the US.
all this "get them before they get us" clap trap is just part of the propaganda machine.

Originally posted by Lupe
Thomas there are lots of people I'd like to see dead, but it doesn't meen I have the capacity to do it nor does it mean they should bomb my city.

Iraq isn't going to invade the US.
all this "get them before they get us" clap trap is just part of the propaganda machine.

You are right Lupe, Iraq isn't going to invade the US, he doesn't have the capacity or the money.
Which is precisely why he has developed WMD's which he can deploy from afar and cause maximum casualties. Why should the US wait for these attacks, when they have knowlege of this. If a country cannot act to protect it's citizens then what good is it ? Please understand Lupe that the threat is out there and it is real.

yeah uh well actually I believe the U.S. or the U.N. have said they're not worried saddam is creating intercontinental nuclear missiles, even if he did I'm pretty sure americas nicely out of his range, they're worried about him blowing up neighboring states.

trust me, the U.S. isn't going to suffer a volly of nukes from saddam.

he simply doesn't have the capacity to build that sort of arsenal. in fact the U.S. would be pretty damned impressive if they built a ground based nuke that could take him out, they're simply not practical. thats why our nukes are deployed from the air or the sea when we're close enough to the target.

It wasn't too long ago our democrats were screaming that SDI is a waste of money, China can't reach us. Well, now that China can strike at least as far east as Mississippi, the screaming is more like a whimper.
Remember, there are different ways to deploy weapons, and when you are talking about someone who is tied to terrorism, the human delivery system is practical, and a great form of terrorism.

ICBM's are in fact accurate, but the NIMBY problem comes into effect, especially in a place like England. Who wants to live with a nuke in their back yard? The chance of technical difficulties combined with the knowledge that the enemy will want to taget it in a first strike can cause indigestion for the locals.

In another thread I did not say that it was Brits against Yanks.What I said was that the debate seemed to be between Brits and Yanks it's not just a question of semantics your interpretation changes what I was trying to say.
I don't know who James wood is but for a person who, it has been claimed, has a grounding in pollitics his veiws appear blinkered and bigotted.

"Remember, there are different ways to deploy weapons, and when you are talking about someone who is tied to terrorism, the human delivery system is practical, and a great form of terrorism."

er.....the U.S. is tied to terrorism.......Bush himself has ~ties~ with terrorism, in fact I'd go so far as to say that it could be implied that Bush is far more connected to Bin Ladan than saddam given that saddam is not and has never claimed to be an associate of Ossama whilst the Bush family are business associates of the in ladans regardless of their dissacociation with their son.

and no one seems to be rallying round to bomb washington because there are a few ties between them and Bush already has nukes!

this attempt to associate Saddam with Ossama is a simple washington white wash attempting to curry favour for a war by linking one protagonist with the other, lets not go making it out to be more than it is.

Lets wipe America off the Earth, because there were Americans supporting the IRA.

Did Mr Woods ever think about this when he made his statement?

If your only source of information is Fox News and CNN, then I can see how you would come to this conclusion. A high IQ doesn't stop someone from being ignorant.





[Edited on 20-9-2002 by Fantastic_Damage]

...if the fact that Woods is a Jew, and very publicly a Hollywood Jew, could have in any way influenced his opinions?
Would any Hollywood actor who was not a Jew, who had sympathies with the Arabs, have received any column inches?

if your about to rant a load of anti-semite bollox or if this is heading towards a valid point.

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage
Lets wipe America off the Earth, because there were Americans supporting the IRA.

Did Mr Woods ever think about this when he made his statement?

If your only source of information is Fox News and CNN, then I can see how you would come to this conclusion. A high IQ doesn't stop someone from being ignorant.

US individuals may have sponsored the IRA but he US government did not.If you can't distinguish the difference between state sponsored terrorism and individually sponsored terrorism, then you don't deserve to be speaking here. And by the way the FBI took down several sources of IRA funding when they had identified the source.

I think he would have got the collumn inches but no more acting parts.
I don't want to use the IRA as a whip to use on the americans.I think they know that it was wrong so I don't want to throw it in their face all the time.I'm sure they got enough of that post 9/11.

course you don't sponsor terrorism.
course not
cough~columbia~cough

Originally posted by Lupe
course you don't sponsor terrorism.
course not
cough~columbia~cough

What about Columbia ? Ever head of the FARC ? Where do u get your info, your comment didn't make any sense.

If you can't distinguish the difference between state sponsored terrorism and individually sponsored terrorism, then you don't deserve to be speaking here.

Ohh... sorry... I didn't realise that Saddam was voted in fairly and is acting with the will of his people...

Ohh... but hang on... HE ISN'T!

He is acting individually, there is no evidence linking him to terrorist groups anyway and if there was HE IS ACTING INDIVIUALLY!

If you don't understand then go and read up on oppresive dictatorships.

Originally posted by Fantastic_Damage

If you can't distinguish the difference between state sponsored terrorism and individually sponsored terrorism, then you don't deserve to be speaking here.

Ohh... sorry... I didn't realise that Saddam was voted in fairly and is acting with the will of his people...

Ohh... but hang on... HE ISN'T!

He is acting individually, there is no evidence linking him to terrorist groups anyway and if there was HE IS ACTING INDIVIUALLY!

If you don't understand then go and read up on oppresive dictatorships.

Lupe. state sponsored terrorism is terrorism committtd by a country's government using that country's resources. It doesn't matter that all of the people don't agree ( and I'm sure some would agree in Iraq !! ), but that doesn't matter because the countries government ( Saddam ) is committing the acts of terror !!!

Mr Woods in his wordly wisdom talks about bombing the hell out of an entire country just because the dictator supports terror...

Is this immoral? I think so... but then he's got an IQ of 180 so he must be right... silly me!

Oh and this high IQ also makes him immune to ignorance... silly me again!

Of course you are right... what was I thinking?