Terrorism-Your Views

[HarmNone]

Here is a topic in which you may discuss terrorism, its impact on our world, its causes, whose fault it is, whose fault it isn't, what can/should be done about it, and all manner of other terrorism related opinion.

[Atlanteax]

Alright, well, I'm going to copy and paste this part of a Stratfor article here.

It predicts (or states the obvious) in that British intelligence will now go all-out on the Arab Muslims (particularly the Clerics) in London (I believe that London had the highest concentration in Europe?). Before, it was somewhat hands-off, with the perspective that the clerics would not risk their stature and stay in London by supporting local militant activities. But now a response is expected of Tony Blair.

It also predicts that Europe is more likely to discrimate against Arab Muslims (and probably be even more chilly to Turkey) to the extent of probably adapting the Netherlands' version of a closed-border-to-foreigners policy.

Meanwhile, I wonder (and anticipate) that the planned Aid to Africa likely will suffer as the G-8 instead spends more resources on "the War against Terrorism" especially in relation to the above two paragraphs.

.

Back home, Britain's hardly inconsequential domestic intelligence services will be cranking into high gear, penetrating into and exploiting existing contacts throughout the "Londonistan" community. London houses one of the world's largest concentrations of Muslims, primarily of Pakistani descent, outside of the Muslim world. MI5, Britain's security service, long has taken a light hand in dealing with Londonistan, largely because most of its more-enthusiastic anti-Western personalities have no real connections or influence in the wider Muslim world. Expect that level of attention to change -- and dramatically -- in the days to come.

But the July 7 attacks will change more than simply London's relationship with its more problematic populations. Britain is not only the chair of the G-8, whose summit was just getting going in Scotland when the attacks occurred, but also holds the EU presidency for the next six months. London's agenda has just changed -- and radically.

Before, Britain sought to destroy the French vision of Europe, which idealized the role the Continent could play in furthering French power. Now, much like in the aftermath of the Sept. 11 attacks against the United States, it will be all about security and immigration. Ironically, despite all the problems that the European Union has had of late, the European Union's 25 member states already are in broad agreement on these topics.

The only question remaining is: How strict will the Europeans be in making life difficult for the non-Europeans among them? Britain traditionally has had Europe's most liberal immigration policy. Now it is likely to lead the charge for sealing borders.

[4a6c1]

My views on this:

I believe everyone deserves to express their opinion no matter how offensive it is. Morals are a point of view.

Criminal expression of opinions is never good however because the end result is never someone listening to you.

[Gan]

Terrorism is cowardice. Have the balls to meet me on the field of battle if you feel that you need to do violence to me in order to disagree with what I am or what I represent. But because terrorists choose to go after women, children, and unarmed - unknowing citizens in public places, they are cowards and they cheapen everything that they stand for.

They do not deserve the death of warriors, but that of cowards. Val Hallah shall not receive them, Paradise and the 72 virgins will be denied them. Angles will weep for their fate. One can only hope that the farthest depths of hell will be reserved for those who perform acts as low as these. For that is barely worthy of their souls.

[Hassassin]

I think President Bush, and Tony Blair... Should air a statement to all "Holy warriors" of the Middle East. Saying, but maybe not in these words, this: "You believe you're waging a holy war, by killing innocents, by attacking those who have never done anything to you. If you want a holy war, and you believe God is on your side, gather your forces and meet us in Battle, one battle. Bring every terrorist, holy warrior, muslim who wants to fight the "Crusaders", etc. We'll have a showdown and see just whose side God is really on."

[longshot]

The Netherlands rules.

During one of the negotiation periods on Turkey joining the EU, someone put a burka on a very famous statute.

More countries should adopt this policy.

Islam should not be allowed a foothold in any country. This is not just an arab thing. The religion is a truly a global movement to suppress the freedoms and lifestyle of the non believers of Islam by using immigration and their liberal institutions against them.

It is the ideology of the weak, poor, and uneducated. Life is cheapened by withholding education to the point that a gigantic force of bodies awaits to be used as bombs.

I don't want a history lesson, either. If you haven't produced anything other than carbombs in 500 years, your culture sucks. End of story.

This is the second chapter of what will be Europe's very long, and very losing battle with Islam. Let us not forget Spain. Already half of France's prison population is Muslim. They might actually do something after a Fatwah is issued to burn down the Louve. It will be Eurabia soon, and I doubt anyone there has the balls to do anything about it.

Countries cannot simply pick at the festering wound bit by bit as it spreads. They need to amputate. If that means deporting some healthy, upstanding people... then too fucking bad.

I'm sure we can look back in history, and call it a dark time of intolerance, but if we do this, at least we will have a chance to write the history book...

I don't want to read the history of the world according to high Ahyatollah Ackbar Fuckbar. No thanks.

[Terminator X]

i think george bush fell off his bicycle too many times
i also think too many people think terrorists are middle-aged emaciated medium complexioned arabs with turbans and flies buzzing round them while they ride their camels through claywalled cities, talk with a fucked up voice pitch with stereotypical pronounciation on their 'ch's

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Terminator X]

[Xcalibur]

France is also VERY close to Maroc and Algérie and so on.

The war is just started and they get, contrary to us, more powerful each times they succeed, and they get, contrary to us, more powerful each tiem they failled.

We lack the manpower, we lack the devotion and our civilized attitude forbid us to be racist.

We're fucked, and they know it.

World Trade Center was a symbol and they destroyed it.

If we need the Statue of Liberty to be put to ashes to react, then, do it and let's stop those animals.

p.s. No one can be treated as a human when they treat their own as objects.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by HarmNone]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Xcalibur
If we need the Statue of Liberty to be put to ashes to react, then, do it and let's stop those animals.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by HarmNone]

Wait a minute... now you're trying to bandwagon the US to your rally???

Perhaps you need your symbol of liberty torched, we're (America) already motivated to kick some ass and are doing it inspite of the liberal socialist views of our northern neighbors [Xcalibur's country or residence] not to mention inspite the views of the pacifist population here, if Canada were such the international PLAYER that you say it is, then the terrorists might have struck there first (God forbid). As it stands, quit jumping on the coat tails of the country that you're so quick to denegrate bonehead.

:flamed:

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Ganalon]

[Itachi]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Terrorism is cowardice. Have the balls to meet me on the field of battle if you feel that you need to do violence to me in order to disagree with what I am or what I represent. But because terrorists choose to go after women, children, and unarmed - unknowing citizens in public places, they are cowards and they cheapen everything that they stand for.

They do not deserve the death of warriors, but that of cowards. Val Hallah shall not receive them, Paradise and the 72 virgins will be denied them. Angles will weep for their fate. One can only hope that the farthest depths of hell will be reserved for those who perform acts as low as these. For that is barely worthy of their souls.

Well that's a pretty hyprocritical American response. Think back.... how did you win the revolutionary war against someone over powered and outnumbered? Wait a minute... did you apply guerilla tactics and methods that the enemy deemed cowardice at the time? Yes you did. Is it effective? Yes it is. Don't go crying about how the terrorists are handling the war. America did the same thing when it was in a relatively similar position.

[Michaelous]

all the uninformed muslums that claim peace make me sick.

talk is cheap, there source of belief speaks for itself (the koran)

these are just a few of the many verses in their book that is the cause.



"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christian and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful" (Sarat At-Taubah 9:5).



"...I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire" (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14).



"O ye who believe (Muslims) take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them (Surat Al-Maidah 5:51).

"And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly wealth)" (Surat Al-Imran 3:157).

"Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him" (Surat At-Taubah 9:111).

How is a women gonna speak on t.v. about wanting peace love and harmony when the bases of her belief is hate?

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Michaelous]

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Michaelous]

[Edited on 8-7-05 by Miss X]

[Itachi]

Take a look at your own bible.

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by Michaelous
Also, despite the notion that I think they all need to die, they should also paradoxically be alive so that I, the player of Michaelous, can be sick at them for not properly understanding concepts which plague my teenage mind.

Although I will not actually undergo fits of projectile vomiting, I believe that my prosthetic opinion is correct and posting such on a message board gives me a strange feeling of sublimation that I deem as satisfactory.

Here is an excerpt I misleadingly feel that I was actually sophisticated enough to copy and paste from a third party site I googled after getting told off by a white boy impersonating a Muslim in a chat room.

"Kill the Mushrikun (polytheists, Christian and non-Muslims), wherever you find them, and capture them and besiege them, and lie in wait for them in each and every ambush. But, if they repent and perform As-salat (public prayer with Muslims) and give Zakat (Islamic alms), then leave their way free. Allah is oft-forgiving, most merciful" (Sarat At-Taubah 9:5).



"...I will cast terror into the hearts of those who have disbelieved, so strike them over the necks and smite over all their fingers and toes. This is because they defied and disobeyed Allah and His Messenger (Muhammad). And whoever defies and disobeys Allah and His Messenger, them verily, Allah is Severe in punishment. This is (the torment), so taste it; and surely, for the disbelievers is the torment of the Fire" (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12-14).



"O ye who believe (Muslims) take not the Jews or the Christians for your friends and protectors. They are but friends and protectors to each other. And he among you that turns to them (for friendship) is of them (Surat Al-Maidah 5:51).

"And if you are killed or die in the Way of Allah, forgiveness and mercy from Allah are far better than all that they amass (of worldly wealth)" (Surat Al-Imran 3:157).

"Verily, Allah has purchased of the believers their lives and their properties for (the price) that theirs shall be the Paradise. They fight in Allah's cause, so they kill (others) and are killed. It is a promise in truth which is binding on Him" (Surat At-Taubah 9:111).

I just watched video footage of a woman in Florida commenting on recent shark attacks. I saw some sand and I made the primitive association that she was an Arab. I am sad.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Michaelous]

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Michaelous]

dayum, ya sound way to smart a be hatin!

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Terminator X]

[Edited on 8-7-05 by Miss X]

[Michaelous]

Originally posted by Terminator X
dayum, ya sound way to smart a be hatin!

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Terminator X]


well looks like the ebonix class seems to be workin out great for you. Now do me a favor and dont involve yourself in any more conversations with me, And next time you choose a sig make sure it isnt copyrighted by a high school car club website. and if all else fails go fuckyourself. BIIAAAATCH!!! wahahahaha

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Michaelous]

[Terminator X]

fine, fine!
now if yall excuse me i got some anti-infidel koran to read fo REAL!

[Asha]

Stick to comics.

[Drew]

Originally posted by Drayal
Stick to comics.

The three panel type in your local newspaper.

[Warriorbird]

Nah. Straight Family Circus. All day, all night.

[Mistomeer]

Originally posted by Itachi
Take a look at your own bible.

Find the Bible verse that says to kill all non-believers.

[Xcalibur]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Xcalibur
If we need the Statue of Liberty to be put to ashes to react, then, do it and let's stop those animals.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by HarmNone]

Wait a minute... now you're trying to bandwagon the US to your rally???

Perhaps you need your symbol of liberty torched, we're (America) already motivated to kick some ass and are doing it inspite of the liberal socialist views of our northern neighbors [Xcalibur's country or residence] not to mention inspite the views of the pacifist population here, if Canada were such the international PLAYER that you say it is, then the terrorists might have struck there first (God forbid). As it stands, quit jumping on the coat tails of the country that you're so quick to denegrate bonehead.

:flamed:

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Ganalon]

America VS the world (rebels at least), we won't stand a chance.

The world, the entire world, need to wake up and realize that 2 TOTALY different religions and beliefs CANNOT live together.

They are envious, evil people.

THEY are wrong and they know it as everytimes one of them get the chance to get a better life, they seize it and become a religious hypocrite person.

[Slider]

Anyone else read the story that Time magazine put out in their July 4th edition? It's called "Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber". It is an interveiw with a 20 year old Iraqi who is waiting to be used as a suicide bomber. Yup, you read that right...not only does this kid want to do this, he is EAGER to do it....and in his words "The most important thing is that he (Allah) should let me kill many Americans."

Pretty chilling stuff...how do you attempt to negotiate, or find common ground with someone who is willing to blow themselves up to further the goals of the Jihad..wich is of one Global Islamic State where there is, in his words again " No alchohol, no music, and no Western influence"?

Even the PLO at its worst in the late 70's used terrorism to attain a goal...to get Isreal to negotiate with them over Palastinian rights. These guys...they don't want to negotiate...they want us DEAD, they want our way of life DEAD, and they will cheerfully blow themselves up in order to attain that goal.

There is a huge difference between these guys and past terrorist groups, and I hate to say it, but until we realize that, until Bush and Blair and the rest of the world gets this through their heads that for these people, this is not a ploy, this is not a negotiating tool, this is not something that they will give up if we just just leave Iraq, these people are in it for the long haul...and mean it.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Slider]

[Warriorbird]

We need to focus on the oil.

[Warriorbird]

"Find the Bible verse that says to kill all non-believers."

Ever read the Old Testament? Sure it isn't all, but there's a whole lot of Baal worshippers getting whacked.

[Slider]

Read the fucking article WB...tell me where oil is mentioned one fucking time by this kid?! Get it straight, oil does not mean shit to this kid, the only thing that matters to him is killing YOU!

[Gan]

Originally posted by Itachi

Originally posted by Ganalon
Terrorism is cowardice. Have the balls to meet me on the field of battle if you feel that you need to do violence to me in order to disagree with what I am or what I represent. But because terrorists choose to go after women, children, and unarmed - unknowing citizens in public places, they are cowards and they cheapen everything that they stand for.

They do not deserve the death of warriors, but that of cowards. Val Hallah shall not receive them, Paradise and the 72 virgins will be denied them. Angles will weep for their fate. One can only hope that the farthest depths of hell will be reserved for those who perform acts as low as these. For that is barely worthy of their souls.

Well that's a pretty hyprocritical American response. Think back.... how did you win the revolutionary war against someone over powered and outnumbered? Wait a minute... did you apply guerilla tactics and methods that the enemy deemed cowardice at the time? Yes you did. Is it effective? Yes it is. Don't go crying about how the terrorists are handling the war. America did the same thing when it was in a relatively similar position.

Bad analagy. We didnt send fanatics into crowded public places with bombs strapped to their chests to kill women, children, and unarmed combatants. Sure we shot at their officers (which was against the british form of war). But we took the fight to the soldiers.

This in no way compares to the tactics that terrorists use today. I find your logic idiotic at best. Find another defense to their actions since you're bent on calling me hypocritical.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird
"Find the Bible verse that says to kill all non-believers."

Ever read the Old Testament? Sure it isn't all, but there's a whole lot of Baal worshippers getting whacked.

For most Christians the law of the Old Testament (law of Moses) was replaced with the New Testament (Law of Christ). And the teachings of Christ are more pacifist in that it teaches you to turn the other cheek to those who wish to do violence with you. Judgement will be that of God and punishment will be that of God. Not that of man. Which is a fundamental difference between the Bible and the Koran, one of many I might add.

There is no such revision of ideals in the Koran that I'm aware of. Just alot of hate and kill ideaology.

I agree with Slider's interpretation of the fanatics (Islamist/Muslim/whatever they want to call themselves) in that they are bent on the complete eradication of any non-believer/infidel by any means necessary.

If thats the case then we should just carpet bomb every Islamist state (innocents be damned since they're bent on killing ours) and just call this a continuation of the Crusaides of the 15th Century. We could make alot of glass in that region from all that sand. And once the radioactivity cools down we can always drill through it if we still need the oil. But that would just make us more like them. So we'll just have to continue to cut out these fanatics with a knife instead of just removing the whole infected limb.

Frustrating...

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Ganalon]

[Warriorbird]

Yet, most of those Christians try to apply Old Testament ideals as well.

[Gan]

Unfortunately no religion is perfect.

Originally posted by Slider
Anyone else read the story that Time magazine put out in their July 4th edition? It's called "Inside the Mind of an Iraqi Suicide Bomber". It is an interveiw with a 20 year old Iraqi who is waiting to be used as a suicide bomber. Yup, you read that right...not only does this kid want to do this, he is EAGER to do it....and in his words "The most important thing is that he (Allah) should let me kill many Americans."

Pretty chilling stuff...how do you attempt to negotiate, or find common ground with someone who is willing to blow themselves up to further the goals of the Jihad..wich is of one Global Islamic State where there is, in his words again " No alchohol, no music, and no Western influence"?
We kill them. either a bullet between the eyes or let them rot in a prison. But death is the only way to remove the threat.


There is a huge difference between these guys and past terrorist groups, and I hate to say it, but until we realize that, until Bush and Blair and the rest of the world gets this through their heads that for these people, this is not a ploy, this is not a negotiating tool, this is not something that they will give up if we just just leave Iraq, these people are in it for the long haul...and mean it.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Slider]

I believe the Bush and Blair understand this. What needs to happen is that the public start to understand and accept this. As you can see by the way many posteres here act, that is somthing that will also take a lot of time.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave

We kill them. either a bullet between the eyes or let them rot in a prison. But death is the only way to remove the threat.

Funny, he seems to feel the same way.

There are more of us and our methods are far more effective. :)
I read the article about the guy, and all it did was make me hate his kind even more.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Dave

We kill them. either a bullet between the eyes or let them rot in a prison. But death is the only way to remove the threat.

Funny, he seems to feel the same way.


The big difference is that we're willing to co-exist. They arent. They're the ones bringing explosives onto mass transit lines. They're the ones flying airplanes into skyscrapers.... ad infinitum.

Christians are happy to let God perform judgement. These types of muslims are taking the matter into their own hands.

Which would you prefer? I for one dont intend on turning another cheek which makes me a hypocrit, albiet a living one.

[Killer Kitten]

Just made a big post, then realized I was probably straying way off topic.

Too bad, I was almost eloquent for once.

I don't think that slaughtering an entire people is the road we really want to take here, is it? I mean, nobody is REALLY advocating a thing like that, are they?

What kind of a people would we be if we built tomorrow's world on such an act of genocide.

I realize that an act like this is certainly an 'easy answer', but it is utterly immoral. We have to find a way that all of us can co-exist. To wipe out an entire people is not an option.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Killer Kitten]

[Warriorbird]

Yeah. It reminds me of how I used to love Tom Clancy, conservative that he is (my gripe with him later had little to do with idealogy, but more because his main character rose too far... I don't want to read action fiction about a President).

After a particularly horrific terrorist attack in one of these books, Jack Ryan stops the Democratic president from nuking Iran, because 100,000 people weren't responsible for the attack, one was.

People seem to have shifted. There used to be a rationality, even to conservatives, that seems to be lacking these days. I don't know whether to blame it on neocons, domination theology, or what.

[ieva]

I feel as though the "war on terrorism" is completely mismanaged and poorly planned. Furthermore, even the label - "Terrorism" - is counter-productive and disgustingly unprofessional. Label respondsible sects as Terrorists truly does not aide in creating any sort of peace-relations. Furthermore, it leaves this war entirely too open-ended. Any group of people are subject to being labeled a "terrorist" and acted upon. The general populations knowledge in foreign affairs is extremely limited, leaving the entire movement of this war in a few high-ranking government official's hands.
We are at the brink of World War Three, fighting in Guerrilla warfare. Who deems who our enemies are? Where will the next attack come from? Is there a solution or end to this war?
Really, the entire thing scares me - we live in a crazy world this day. I find the entire situation to just be one big glob of shit.

[Hassassin]

Originally posted by Itachi

Originally posted by Ganalon
Terrorism is cowardice. Have the balls to meet me on the field of battle if you feel that you need to do violence to me in order to disagree with what I am or what I represent. But because terrorists choose to go after women, children, and unarmed - unknowing citizens in public places, they are cowards and they cheapen everything that they stand for.

They do not deserve the death of warriors, but that of cowards. Val Hallah shall not receive them, Paradise and the 72 virgins will be denied them. Angles will weep for their fate. One can only hope that the farthest depths of hell will be reserved for those who perform acts as low as these. For that is barely worthy of their souls.

Well that's a pretty hyprocritical American response. Think back.... how did you win the revolutionary war against someone over powered and outnumbered? Wait a minute... did you apply guerilla tactics and methods that the enemy deemed cowardice at the time? Yes you did. Is it effective? Yes it is. Don't go crying about how the terrorists are handling the war. America did the same thing when it was in a relatively similar position.

Time out, you're an idiot for even daring to compare the founding fathers and revolutionary soldiers to fucking terrorists. The Revolution was about freedom from oppression and tyranny. You name one time where a revolutionary soldier just started killing innocent British civilians. Get a fucking clue. Terrorists are not using guerilla tactics. They're using fuckball coward moves, and hurting innocent people.

[Hassassin]

Oh, and by the way Terrorism and the agenda of those who perpetrate(sp) it is that OF oppression. Two completely opposite things.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Warriorbird

People seem to have shifted. There used to be a rationality, even to conservatives, that seems to be lacking these days. I don't know whether to blame it on neocons, domination theology, or what.

Blame it on the people who sit back an do nothing but complain instead of fixing the problem before it grows large enough to bite you in the ass.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Ganalon
Blame it on the people who sit back an do nothing but complain instead of fixing the problem before it grows large enough to bite you in the ass. America is doing something. The UK is doing something.

The problem has been there for years. The terrorists have gotten better at being more effective in their destruction. Terrorism is nothing new, but the new methods and ways of destruction are obviously what gives these zealots the upper hand. Surprise attacks, faceless enemies, gurella warfare, destroying ones own people... real easy to combat. :rolleyes:

[Warriorbird]

"Blame it on the people who sit back and do nothing."

I'm not sure. I heard a rather interesting take on it this morning. It suggested that we needed to move back to being the sort of force we once were in the region, merely having aircraft carriers in place rather than ground troops... that we needed to focus on oil rather than democracy, because it was the only decent reason to be in that godforsaken area.

You can't just nuke an entire region into believing differently. Some of these people have had sectarian fighting that has lasted thousands of years. It is sort've like the Soviets being in Afghanistan. It gained them nothing.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Hassassin

Time out, you're an idiot for even daring to compare the founding fathers and revolutionary soldiers to fucking terrorists. The Revolution was about freedom from oppression and tyranny. You name one time where a revolutionary soldier just started killing innocent British civilians. Get a fucking clue. Terrorists are not using guerilla tactics. They're using fuckball coward moves, and hurting innocent people.

Well, i'm sure the Uk at the time saw the actions of the relatively small number of rebels in the beginning as nothing more than terrorists.

Boston tea party anyone? Yeah, that Tea was just waiting to unleash its wrath upon the unsuspecting populace.

The accepted norm in warfare at that time was to meet, line up and fire your muskets in mass volleys and continue till one side broke. We didn't do that.

We would have been slaughtered if we did so we didn't. We did fight major engagements later, and some in totally conventional manners for the time, but it would be completely understandable for the Brits to have seen us as nothing more than terrorists early on.

And the US revolution was about money.

[fiendwish]

Point a finger? Heh, it's us, every single one of us. It's the human condition. Humans are bloodthirsty and like to win. It's how we got this far.

[Itachi]

Originally posted by Hassassin

Originally posted by Itachi

Originally posted by Ganalon
Terrorism is cowardice. Have the balls to meet me on the field of battle if you feel that you need to do violence to me in order to disagree with what I am or what I represent. But because terrorists choose to go after women, children, and unarmed - unknowing citizens in public places, they are cowards and they cheapen everything that they stand for.

They do not deserve the death of warriors, but that of cowards. Val Hallah shall not receive them, Paradise and the 72 virgins will be denied them. Angles will weep for their fate. One can only hope that the farthest depths of hell will be reserved for those who perform acts as low as these. For that is barely worthy of their souls.

Well that's a pretty hyprocritical American response. Think back.... how did you win the revolutionary war against someone over powered and outnumbered? Wait a minute... did you apply guerilla tactics and methods that the enemy deemed cowardice at the time? Yes you did. Is it effective? Yes it is. Don't go crying about how the terrorists are handling the war. America did the same thing when it was in a relatively similar position.

Time out, you're an idiot for even daring to compare the founding fathers and revolutionary soldiers to fucking terrorists. The Revolution was about freedom from oppression and tyranny. You name one time where a revolutionary soldier just started killing innocent British civilians. Get a fucking clue. Terrorists are not using guerilla tactics. They're using fuckball coward moves, and hurting innocent people.

Americans are killing innocent people too.

[Hassassin]

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Hassassin

Time out, you're an idiot for even daring to compare the founding fathers and revolutionary soldiers to fucking terrorists. The Revolution was about freedom from oppression and tyranny. You name one time where a revolutionary soldier just started killing innocent British civilians. Get a fucking clue. Terrorists are not using guerilla tactics. They're using fuckball coward moves, and hurting innocent people.

Well, i'm sure the Uk at the time saw the actions of the relatively small number of rebels in the beginning as nothing more than terrorists.

Boston tea party anyone? Yeah, that Tea was just waiting to unleash its wrath upon the unsuspecting populace.

The accepted norm in warfare at that time was to meet, line up and fire your muskets in mass volleys and continue till one side broke. We didn't do that.

We would have been slaughtered if we did so we didn't. We did fight major engagements later, and some in totally conventional manners for the time, but it would be completely understandable for the Brits to have seen us as nothing more than terrorists early on.

And the US revolution was about money.

When it comes down to it, everything is about money in one way. However, it is still freedom from oppression when it comes down to it. As far as military tactics... The British were just plain stupid. Of course we're gonna go guerilla... That is nothing like terrorism though. My point also was mostly that early revolutionaries were not murdering innocent non-combatants. Terrorists are murdering innocent people who have nothing to do with them. End of story. Terrorists do not have anything in common with American revolutionaries and to compare the two is just plain dumb. Sorry.

[Warriorbird]

A better analogy would be India rebelling against British control, pre-Gandhi.

Not commenting on the justness or injustness of either cause, mind.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Warriorbird]

[Gan]

What gets me is that we have a handful of radical people using Islam and the Koran as an excuse to kill innocent people, an excuse to shed blood and in their delusion call it a war. They denegrate and kill those who have beliefs contrary to their views. They incite others through radical teachings or with money given to their families in order to carry out these 'raids' against unarmed men, women, and children. And all in the name of Islam, Allah, and the Koran.

Where are the others who believe in Islam, who worship it, do they all think that way? I do not think so, I hope not, and yet they do not rail against those who are representing them on the world stage. If this is truly the will of the religion of Islam - to kill or subjugate all those who are considered infidels - then how is the world to react? Do we lock those who intend on strict adherance on in island? Do we let them roam free and unfettered to do their will at will? Or do we crush it out of existence? What do you do with a rabid dog who refuses to back down, refuses to coexist and is bent on your destruction?

I know what I'd do.

I'm waiting to see the rest of the Muslim community stand up and say to the world community that this is not how they live, not how they worship. Unfortunately their silence is affirmation, for now.

[Forged]

Re: all the murdering and all the crap in the Old Testament, for the most part, it was God doing the killing, not the people. People need to understand that it is God's judgement, not their own.

You don't see a lot of Jesus-rampages do you?

[Forged]

Originally posted by Ganalon
What gets me is that we have a handful of radical people using Islam and the Koran as an excuse to kill innocent people, an excuse to shed blood and in their delusion call it a war. They denegrate and kill those who have beliefs contrary to their views. They incite others through radical teachings or with money given to their families in order to carry out these 'raids' against unarmed men, women, and children. And all in the name of Islam, Allah, and the Koran.

Where are the others who believe in Islam, who worship it, do they all think that way? I do not think so, I hope not, and yet they do not rail against those who are representing them on the world stage. If this is truly the will of the religion of Islam - to kill or subjugate all those who are considered infidels - then how is the world to react? Do we lock those who intend on strict adherance on in island? Do we let them roam free and unfettered to do their will at will? Or do we crush it out of existence? What do you do with a rabid dog who refuses to back down, refuses to coexist and is bent on your destruction?

I know what I'd do.

I'm waiting to see the rest of the Muslim community stand up and say to the world community that this is not how they live, not how they worship. Unfortunately their silence is affirmation, for now.

Since when have they been silent? You just don't hear about it in the media. Many, many Muslim leaders have come out denouncing this garbage.

[Gan]

:lol:

Yea, who'd think the media would post news like that when they have other sensationalist conspiracies to push.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Forged

Since when have they been silent? You just don't hear about it in the media. Many, many Muslim leaders have come out denouncing this garbage.

This is true. Although most are in the western world.

Spain and England have had more than a few come forward and denounce such terroristic acts. It was reported during the spanish bombing and already has been reported in the UK.

To say they have not come forward is incorrect. It's just easier tooverlook them amidt the photos of blown up busses and such.

[Slider]

Got to disagree with you on this Ganalon, it is not that they agree, not at all. In fact, I would say that by far most of them wish that these nutjobs would win themselves a Darwin Award RSN.

They are every bit as afraid of them as we are. No, scratch that, they have a lot more to fear from them than we do. Its far easier for them to get killed by these nutjobs than it is for us here in the US or Britain. Sure, they might be able to hit us here, and both 9/11 and 7/7 prove they can.

However. think about how much easier it is for them to do the same thing in the countries that they are already operating in. Like Iraq, or Afghanistan. They are already in place, they know exactly how to blend in to the local population, and if anyone speaks out against them, particularly the leaders of the religion they claim to follow, how fast do you think these terrorists would condemn the ones that denounce them as "traitors to the faith" and kill them? Probably in a pretty grisly manner so as to make an example of what happens to those who do not keep their mouths shut.

Look at how the Taliban operated in Afghanistan when it was in power, or even before it came into power. They oppressed the very people that follow the same faith as they do, because their fellow Muslims weren't as fanatical and as hard core about it as they where. There where people killed over there by the Taliban for listening to music! Women beaten publicly for not showing proper "modesty"...i.e. they didn't look down when a man walked by, or worse yet, dared to make eye contact with him.

They have very good reasons to fear these terrorists Ganalon

[Gan]

I'm glad I'm wrong about the Muslim community being silent on this matter. I just have not seen much in the form of action in the news.

Perhaps its a good thing that someone else not under their direct influence is doing something to try and stop these fanatics. Too bad not everyone sees their existence as much of a cancer as those who've been victims of their violence.

[Forged]

Originally posted by Ganalon
I'm glad I'm wrong about the Muslim community being silent on this matter. I just have not seen much in the form of action in the news.

Perhaps its a good thing that someone else not under their direct influence is doing something to try and stop these fanatics. Too bad not everyone sees their existence as much of a cancer as those who've been victims of their violence.

Well, it's just like you don't hear mainstream Christians in the news denouncing fanatical Christian activities. It works both ways.

[Gan]

Very true, and I'm equally glad that fanatical Christians arent strapping explosives to their chests either.

[Hassassin]

Originally posted by Ganalon
What gets me is that we have a handful of radical people using Islam and the Koran as an excuse to kill innocent people, an excuse to shed blood and in their delusion call it a war. They denegrate and kill those who have beliefs contrary to their views. They incite others through radical teachings or with money given to their families in order to carry out these 'raids' against unarmed men, women, and children. And all in the name of Islam, Allah, and the Koran.

Where are the others who believe in Islam, who worship it, do they all think that way? I do not think so, I hope not, and yet they do not rail against those who are representing them on the world stage. If this is truly the will of the religion of Islam - to kill or subjugate all those who are considered infidels - then how is the world to react? Do we lock those who intend on strict adherance on in island? Do we let them roam free and unfettered to do their will at will? Or do we crush it out of existence? What do you do with a rabid dog who refuses to back down, refuses to coexist and is bent on your destruction?

I know what I'd do.

I'm waiting to see the rest of the Muslim community stand up and say to the world community that this is not how they live, not how they worship. Unfortunately their silence is affirmation, for now.

You will never see it. There might be a few muslims who have come out and said they are against what their brethren are doing. HOWEVER, if you've ever read the Koran (Shit, just read the verses Michaelous posted), then you would know that Islam is fundamentally a religion of war, and conversion by force. Anyone (even Muslims) who do not agree with it's fundamental teachings are considered apostates. Comparing Christianity to Islam is stupid, because you're looking at what -people- have done, rather than the teaching. Look at the two religions from a fundamental standpoint. Christianity preaches peace, and tolerance (Read the New Testament, which sort've 'overrides' the Old one). Even since Islam's beginning, Muhammed, "God's prophet", did nothing but murder people and attack towns, and wage war, to further his religion.

Now you can go up and bring the crusades, bring up the inquisition, bring up every other fucked up thing that a Christian has done. My point is, look at the central figures, the ones who started it all. Jesus and Muhammed. Muhammed killed many people. Jesus did not kill any.

Islam is a fucked up religion, that has been ridiculous and problematic since the beginning. Jesus performed miracles. Muhammed simply had a vision of Gabriel in a cave (Which is more than likely bullshit), then started murdering people who didnt agree with him.

I'm not a nazi, I'm not a racist. I am, in fact, arab myself. I have lived in that part of the world and seen first hand. To be honest, the only thing we can do is terminate this religion. End it. It has been a problem since the beginning, and always will be a problem. People are free to believe what they want, however when that belief manifests itself in death, suffering, and pain for other people. It needs to be stopped for good.

[DeV]

Hassassin, I'm curious. Do you align yourself with a particular religion right now?

[Hassassin]

No, I do not. I've studied many religions extensively though, and for a time I was forced to be muslim when I was younger. I am more of what you call a deist (Like Benjamin Franklin). I believe that there is a God, or a greater power, force, whatever you want to call it. However, no human can truly grasp the concept of it. I don't believe this God acts in our daily lives, or cares about the mundane things, but he is what created everything, the laws which govern creation, and keeps creation moving.

[Warriorbird]

You don't just wipe out a major world religion, root and branch.

[theotherjohn]

Originally posted by Hassassin
and for a time I was forced to be muslim when I was younger.

I cant understand why if forced to be a Muslim you would use an arabic word hash eater or follow of Al- Hassan that some consider part of the etymology for the english word assassin

[Skirmisher]

Well, you know.....you can't make an omlette....




without killing a billion or so people.

Don't be so darned picky.

[Warriorbird]

He got his totally sweet Rolls from his father.

[Jolena]

I think the most profoundly sad and yet ironic thing in this whole mess is that, as someone else posted before--perhaps Ganalon, Im not sure-- the terrorists are counting on America and UK to not discriminate and try to snuff out the entire religion because it is against our nature to do so. We would much rather try to work things out and let everyone co-exist. It's the foundation of what Americans have worked from since our founding fathers set forth the constitution. They (terrorists) will use that against us in as many ways as they possibly can in order to continue to rain terror over our people.

There is definately not a simple or easy solution to this problem.

[Hassassin]

TOJ... Hassassin also means user of Hashish. We won't go into that though.

[Michaelous]

Muslums have one common goal and terrorism wont stop until it is achieved that is, for the world to become muslum. This means



b. We will all become muslum

c. Do nothing and die

As far as bush goes hes a moron for attacking iraq which has little to do with the threat of terrorists as a whole. And i think the american public is choosing option c. and letting bush drive the country into shits. As you can see 9-11 they do have the power to do mass damage. If bush wouldve spent the time and effort trying to capture osama rather then attacking iraq we would have achieved some victory in return for the soldiers lives rather then turning a country into complete chaos just for bush to get rich off of stealing oil. And if your thinking bush did good cause saddam was a bad ruler? Think again, cause in fact saddam treated christians with respect and only trusted christians to be his closest advisors. And in fact osama never even liked saddam , and has been quoted calling him a "secularist" and "infidel" prior to 9-11. And personnally I belive thats why he was targetted cause of bush's close business ties with the bin-ladin family. he figured it would be a good business step as well as he could make the american public fall for it.

P.S. its the end of the world!

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Michaelous]

[Edited on 8-7-05 by Miss X]

[Hassassin]

Bush is not a moron for attacking Iraq. It's all about selling. He just sold the war the wrong way. Iraq needed to be dealt with. Saddam needed to be dealt with. Have you ever read the Art of War, by Sun Tzu? One of the principles in war is to engage your enemy on foreign soil to distract them from attacking your homeland. Now any terrorists and would-be terrorists are pouring over Iraq's borders to engage the "Crusaders". They are coming to us, and better that it be in Iraq, than on United States soil.

If Iraq was to become a self sustaining free democratic government it would be unlike anything else in the Middle East, and hopefully it would become a beacon to the rest of the region and other countries populations will begin to overthrow and re-establish existing governments that oppress the people to follow Iraq's example. As you can see, this has already begun to happen in Lebanon and Egypt. A free democratic society in the Middle East would be better for it's people, and better for the rest of the people of the world. It may be a long road, but if we stay the course then it will be worth it. If we succeed in this, History will look back on the United States as triumphant over all those who have tried to fix the Middle East and failed. It is a vital region for oil, that is true, that is why it is imperative that such a place with such vital resources be entrusted to a free thinking people rather than left to the minds of totalitarianism or radical Islamists.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Hassassin]

[Michaelous]

Originally posted by Hassassin
Bush is not a moron for attacking Iraq. It's all about selling. He just sold the war the wrong way. Iraq needed to be dealt with. Saddam needed to be dealt with.



Originally posted by Hassassin
If Iraq was to become a self sustaining free democratic government it would be unlike anything else in the Middle East, and hopefully it would become a beacon to the rest of the region and other countries populations will begin to overthrow and re-establish existing governments that oppress the people to follow Iraq's example. As you can see, this has already begun to happen in Lebanon and Egypt. A free democratic society in the Middle East would be better for it's people, and better for the rest of the people of the world.
[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Hassassin]


but the war here is not on saddam its on terrorism! The enemy was never saddam. the only reason why saddam was even mentioned in the first place was cause of business for oil, thats why operation desert storm took place back when bush's dad was in office, and now his son is just finishing his dirty work and using 9-11 as an excuse at the cost of innocent american soldiers lives. I wouldnt be surprised if the bin laden family had it all planned out with the bush's from the beginning. 9-11 , Then invading iraq and who knows what else he has planned right before he leaves office.


And as far as free democratic government goes. That doesnt matter, cause some of the most terrorist infested countires are just that democratic middle eastern countries. Any intelligence expert will tell you egypt, syria, jordan , lebnan who try to govern in a more western style and encourage tourism. Are the greatest threats in producing wouldbe bombers and or more terrorists. and have millions of wannabe suicide bombers ready to strike at will.

[Hassassin]

Originally posted by Michaelous

Originally posted by Hassassin
Bush is not a moron for attacking Iraq. It's all about selling. He just sold the war the wrong way. Iraq needed to be dealt with. Saddam needed to be dealt with.



Originally posted by Hassassin
If Iraq was to become a self sustaining free democratic government it would be unlike anything else in the Middle East, and hopefully it would become a beacon to the rest of the region and other countries populations will begin to overthrow and re-establish existing governments that oppress the people to follow Iraq's example. As you can see, this has already begun to happen in Lebanon and Egypt. A free democratic society in the Middle East would be better for it's people, and better for the rest of the people of the world.
[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Hassassin]


but the war here is not on saddam its on terrorism! The enemy was never saddam. the only reason why saddam was even mentioned in the first place was cause of business for oil, thats why operation desert storm took place back when bush's dad was in office, and now his son is just finishing his dirty work and using 9-11 as an excuse at the cost of innocent american soldiers lives. I wouldnt be surprised if the bin laden family had it all planned out with the bush's from the beginning. 9-11 , Then invading iraq and who knows what else he has planned right before he leaves office.


And as far as free democratic government goes. That doesnt matter, cause some of the most terrorist infested countires are just that democratic middle eastern countries. Any intelligence expert will tell you egypt, syria, jordan , lebnan who try to govern in a more western style and encourage tourism. Are the greatest threats in producing wouldbe bombers and or more terrorists. and have millions of wannabe suicide bombers ready to strike at will.

I think you're wrong my friend. Most terrorists seem to be coming from Iran and Saudi Arabia. And Western-style is still not free democracy like we have here in the States. I've lived in two of those countries you've mentioned. I would know.

Saddam IS an enemy. He murders hundreds of people mercilessly. Why don't you tell Kuwait, which he attacked that he's not an enemy. It is true that he is fucking US interests, and he may not be a terrorist, but he is a horrible human being DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the oppression of millions. Someone needed to stop him. I believe as human beings it is our moral obligation to help people who cannot help themselves, for the betterment of us as a whole. Things in Iraq might not be great right now, but if we can establish what we are trying to. It will bring a better future for many many generations to come. Possibly forever. That is worth it. That is worth American Soldiers' lives. They know this, and that is why they VOLUNTEERED to fight. We have a volunteer army, and while I mourn the loss of any american life over this conflict. It is necessary.

I'm tired of all these conspiracy theories, and this and that. I believe George W. Bush is a good man with a Christian heart and he feels a moral obligation to help people. I like his resolve, even while facing hard times. He stays the course. Americans live a great life, I have lived on both ends. Americans are free, their lives prosper, and oppurtunity is everywhere in America. I came to this country with nothing, and now I am well off. Only in America would this have happened.

[Michaelous]

Originally posted by Hassassin
Saddam IS an enemy. He murders hundreds of people mercilessly. Why don't you tell Kuwait, which he attacked that he's not an enemy. It is true that he is fucking US interests, and he may not be a terrorist, but he is a horrible human being DIRECTLY responsible for the deaths of hundreds of thousands and the oppression of millions. Someone needed to stop him. I believe as human beings it is our moral obligation to help people who cannot help themselves, for the betterment of us as a whole.


Man you have no idea how many fucked up rulers there are in the world? Theres more merciless killing rulers and dictators other then suddam in the world, and we do nothing, we dont even hear of them until they become part of our history classes. Why? because nothing good will come from it and the thought of helping people in need is not good enough for us to do anything. yet with saddam sitting on a diamond mine of oil all the sudden we want to help these innocent and oppressed people? i dont think so.

[Hassassin]

I have no idea how many fucked up rulers there are in the world? Michaelous, I have LIVED in an oppressed muslim country. I know firsthand, I've had relatvies murdered by corrupt government officials. Have you? You're from Los Angeles (Where I'm from now). Come on now, you of all people should not be telling me what I do and don't know. The Oil is a big deal, I never said it wasn't. Simply put, oil is a necessity of the world so why let a corrupt dictator who murders people for pleasure sit on top of the vastest reserves of it? Would you entrust your precious things to a madman? I think not. Also, have you seen the prices in oil drop since the war in Iraq? No. So it's not really about oil. It's about doing the fucking right thing. 3 Objectives which are equally as good in mind make Iraq necessary.

1. Taking Saddam the butcherer and murderer out of power, giving the Iraqi people a free and sovereign nation which is democratic, providing an example to all other nations in the Middle East

2. Drawing the would-be terrorists to Iraq to engage Americans, rather than fight them on OUR soil.

3. Taking the most precious natural resource out of the hands of a madman, making the situation better for everyone (Money goes to the Iraqi people, for the oil)

[longshot]

Originally posted by Dave
There are more of us and our methods are far more effective. :)


There are 275 million Americans. There are well over a billion muslims. There are more of them.

We're more effective? It costs them nothing to create a human bomb. Pennies. They grow up on UN food aid and hate. A "charity" throws the family a couple of bucks for giving up one for "the cause".

How much do our missles cost? How much does it cost to fit people with robot arms at Walter Reed? How much does it cost for the twenty extra retards at the airport to stick their finger in people's shoes and people's asses?

How much money is now allocated to Homeland Security? How much does the extra security at our installations abroad cost?

Effective? I hope you're kidding. They are far more effective.

Thanks for yet again yelling "ru-hah" on this. Just what we needed.

You've proven time and time again that you are incapable of rational thought and logical thinking. It's just appaling how fucking clueless you are.

It's a good thing that you have to do little more than follow orders.

[Artha]

It costs a couple hundred to make a suicide bomb.

[Hulkein]

I agree with much of what Hassassin has said.

He actually sums up my feelings on Iraq and Bush almost exactly how I would.

Nice posts.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Hassassin

If Iraq was to become a self sustaining free democratic government it would be unlike anything else in the Middle East, and hopefully it would become a beacon to the rest of the region and other countries populations will begin to overthrow and re-establish existing governments that oppress the people to follow Iraq's example. As you can see, this has already begun to happen in Lebanon and Egypt. A free democratic society in the Middle East would be better for it's people, and better for the rest of the people of the world. It may be a long road, but if we stay the course then it will be worth it. If we succeed in this, History will look back on the United States as triumphant over all those who have tried to fix the Middle East and failed. It is a vital region for oil, that is true, that is why it is imperative that such a place with such vital resources be entrusted to a free thinking people rather than left to the minds of totalitarianism or radical Islamists.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Hassassin]

I'd rather switch to an alternative for oil, and make the desert a gigantic shaving mirror for the space station.

Just me though.

[longshot]

Originally posted by Artha
It costs a couple hundred to make a suicide bomb.

Thanks for clearing that up.

Nobody understood what a meant when I said pennies when comparing costs. They might have been stupid, and taken the comparision literally.

They might even be really fucking dumb and make a one line post just to clear up any possible confusion.

Thanks.

I'm so glad you're here. What would I do if you didn't point out the insignificant actual cost of some bombs?

Gold Star for you!

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by longshot]

[Warriorbird]

Shiite Democracy. We've seen what that elects.

[Itachi]

I don't think there is anything radical about them. They are some of the few followers of their religion who "actually believe." I say actually because think about it, most Americans, although there are a few exceptions don't REALLY believe. They just like to think they do. I mean seriously it might not be what you want to hear but put it in perspective. Do you really think if you were weighing the cost of your one human life as opposed to ETERNAL SALVATION I think I would be doing a little more than occasionaly going to church one day of the week and pretty much doing whatever the fuck I wanted to the rest of the time. Seems a little ignorant to me. All the 'terrorists' are doing is doing what their religion tells them to. I'm not a terrorist but I dont think they are extreme. It might be radical to you but I think its just real belief in their teachings. They are doing everything in their lifetime to try and secure their salvation whereas most of the people in America just think they are.

I know this was poorly constructed but I hope you kind of get what im saying.

[Delirium]

There are 275 million Americans. There are well over a billion muslims. There are more of them.

That is if ALL muslims wanted to kill americans with suicide bombs. Thats a hefty over generalization if i ever heard one. I think even that 10% of them are that extreme would be an exaggeration. So IMO yes we do outnumber the extreme radicals.

[Itachi]

It is an extreme privilege to become a suicide bomber in their culture. Most of them are on waiting lists to start the training to just become one. There is no scarcity of them waiting and willing to give up their lives to kill Americans.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Hulkein
I agree with much of what Hassassin has said.

He actually sums up my feelings on Iraq and Bush almost exactly how I would.

Nice posts.

Agreed. Nice posts Hassassin, thanks for contributing your perspective to this topic.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Itachi
It is an extreme privilege to become a suicide bomber in their culture. Most of them are on waiting lists to start the training to just become one. There is no scarcity of them waiting and willing to give up their lives to kill Americans.

Which is why some Americans, myself included when I'm mad, think the following.



Originally posted by longshot

I'd rather switch to an alternative for oil, and make the desert a gigantic shaving mirror for the space station.

Just me though.


We did it to Japan and now they're our best friends. Nothing like a good solid kick in the ass to pull that burr out.

[HarmNone]

Just as there are different interpretations of the bible in the various Christian religions, there are different interpretations of the Quran in various Islamic sects. Let's not paint with too broad a brush.

[Hassassin]

There is only so many ways you can interpret an act of violence or aggression in any language. We are talking about fundamentals. Growing up in two muslim countries I had got to learn different forms of Islam. You are correct, muslims are like Christians in the fact that they have many different sects (Baptists, Seventh Day Adventists, Catholics, Lutherans), and also like Christianity, all of Islams sects believe in the same fundamentals. (Like Christianity believes in basic things, like the trinity, jesus is gods son, etc). So I can tell you, fundamentally, Islam is a religion of war, and conversion or death in all its forms. I understand that you are very tolerant, HarmNone, as am I, however violence and Islam go together like shoes and socks.

[HarmNone]

I, too, grew up in Islamic countries. I have known Muslims who are peaceful, and I have known Muslims who are not. Strangely enough, I can say the same thing about Christian folks I have known.

[Warriorbird]

"We did it to Japan and now they're our best friends. Nothing like a good solid kick in the ass to pull that burr out. "

Except that wasn't really a religious war.

[longshot]

Originally posted by HarmNone
Just as there are different interpretations of the bible in the various Christian religions, there are different interpretations of the Quran in various Islamic sects. Let's not paint with too broad a brush.

Tell that to the people who died in London yesterday.

[HarmNone]

Longshot, I was in Iran when the Shi-ites hit the fan, okay? I'm not talking out of my hat. I am just as horrified by what happened in London as anyone; however, I cannot, in good conscience, blame an entire religion for the actions of those within it who are fanatical. To do so is folly, in my opinion.

Let me just add this: I was teargassed, shot at, and cursed. I was also treated kindly and offered shelter, should it be needed...all by Iranians. I do not blame the entire country for the bad things I experienced. I do, however, remember fondly those who were kind.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by HarmNone]

[Michaelous]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I am just as horrified by what happened in London as anyone; however, I cannot, in good conscience, blame an entire religion for the actions of those within it who are fanatical. To do so is folly, in my opinion.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by HarmNone]

What if the people who werent fanatical, were actually the fanatical ones in not doing the murders? then would you blame the entire religion or would there still be good people in it too? because thats the case here.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Michaelous]

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Michaelous]

[Gan]

Michaelous - at first you had some interesting thoughts regarding terrorism and one of its major participants (Muslim extremists). Now you've backslid off the cliff of common sense.

The delimma of when extremists turn from idealogical to violent terrorists.

Basically we've got a book thats full of violent thoughts and intent that delegates the duty of judgement to its followers instead of relegating that solely to God/Allah. Now this book is being interpreted by some pretty crazy people who are pulling sections out and following them literally by the numbers. Who's fault is it so far? The book? The clerics who are interpreting the book's message and using it to push their own agendas of dominance through violence? Or the people who allow themselves to be led blindly by these clerics?

Well, we cant get rid of the book, even though it seems to be the root of the problem. Do we get rid of the blind followers? If what has been said is true, there are people standing in line to replace them if we do.

That leaves the clerics... I think this is where the problem lies. But how do you get rid of all those radical clerics and at the same time, prevent more from popping up in their place? If you kill them you turn them into martyrs. If you leave them alone, the problem will just escalate, meaning the violence will just escalate.

Here's an idea... lets discredit them in the eyes of their own followers so that they become outcasts with no followers. Perhaps we can achieve that by educating the people that they are trying so hard to keep ignorant.

If an anchor of safety and freedom can be established in the middle of the region where these clerics operate then perhaps we can give the blind followers a taste of what the other side of civilization is like. Then with eyes wide open the very ones who are targeted and recruited by these clerics can now, perhaps generations later even, decide for themselves if strapping on 30 pounds of explosives is truly the path to paradise.

And if the blind followers refuse to open their eyes and even redouble their previous efforts of violence then we could always just kick the tires and light the fires on a few LG-118A Peacekeepers targeted on the future site of Muhammads International Glass Factory...

I guess the people involved deserve every attempt available to quit being abnormal and start being normal by today's global standards. What happens when it becomes obvious that they hell-bent in remaining the same. How many chances do they deserve?

[HarmNone]

I have personally seen moderate Muslims shame and disgrace mullahs who tried to incite others to violence in the workplace. Believe me, there were far more of the former than the latter.

I have experienced kindness and friendship from Muslims, both male and female. I have dined in their homes, played with their children, and shared their sorrows and their joys. I have joined them on outings in the desert.

What we learned from one another was that we are all people. We may not believe the same in all respects, but we are human beings. There are those amongst us who bring us shame, and those amongst us who fill us with pride. There are those who love and those who hate. I refuse to condemn those whom I learned to love and respect because of the actions of those for whom no respect is deserved, just because they happen to share a religion.

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by Hassassin
Bush is not a moron for attacking Iraq. It's all about selling. He just sold the war the wrong way. Iraq needed to be dealt with. Saddam needed to be dealt with. Have you ever read the Art of War, by Sun Tzu? One of the principles in war is to engage your enemy on foreign soil to distract them from attacking your homeland. Now any terrorists and would-be terrorists are pouring over Iraq's borders to engage the "Crusaders". They are coming to us, and better that it be in Iraq, than on United States soil.

If Iraq was to become a self sustaining free democratic government it would be unlike anything else in the Middle East, and hopefully it would become a beacon to the rest of the region and other countries populations will begin to overthrow and re-establish existing governments that oppress the people to follow Iraq's example. As you can see, this has already begun to happen in Lebanon and Egypt. A free democratic society in the Middle East would be better for it's people, and better for the rest of the people of the world. It may be a long road, but if we stay the course then it will be worth it. If we succeed in this, History will look back on the United States as triumphant over all those who have tried to fix the Middle East and failed. It is a vital region for oil, that is true, that is why it is imperative that such a place with such vital resources be entrusted to a free thinking people rather than left to the minds of totalitarianism or radical Islamists.

[Edited on 7-8-2005 by Hassassin]

that shit is maaad dumb
a beacon of light? you fucking with me , right?
if every country that needed to have dat proverbial light shown to them , and did just so in da fashion the u.s.a has by the murdering of it's own soldiers (not to mention it's exponent in numbers of dead iraqis) cuz we wanted to shine light and shit, we'd have a negative world population
what you said about war being economic is true & smart , being brainwashed fo what not reason into thinking dat its actually 'ok' is not

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Terminator X]

[Gan]

Originally posted by Terminator X
that shit is maaad dumb
a beacon of light? you fucking with me , right?
if every country that needed to have dat proverbial light shown to them , and did just so in da fashion the u.s.a has by the murdering of it's own soldiers (not to mention it's exponent in numbers of dead iraqis) cuz we wanted to shine light and shit, we'd have a negative world population
what you said about war being economic is true & smart , being brainwashed fo what not reason into thinking dat its actually 'ok' is not

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Terminator X]

The only shit that is maaad dumb is your fake ghetto accent... well, that and your statement about the US murdering its own soldiers. Perhaps you're just trying to be humorous and just painfully failing.

Show your sources that the US is murdering its own soldiers, or are you just throwing that out there like wannabe gang signs.

Hassassin is right on track, which is quite the opposite of where you're coming from bro. But thanks for participating anyway. :lol:

[Terminator X]

troops arent being murdered , every soldier who died did so of natural age.... moron
the collective number of troops murdered on a lie perpetrated by the piece of shit we called our president is just a *bit* bigger than those killed by hussein ,
the children we r trying to save are seeing their parents throats slit by uncle sam , what the fuck do you think is going to be the response when we the most powerful nation in the world is a backwards one, huh?
the 'terrorists' or rebels or whatever we call them now are so problematic , let them wipe each other out
our president should be serving life terms for every good american life lost perpetrated by his lie

[Terminator X]

Originally posted by Ganalon

Originally posted by Terminator X
that shit is maaad dumb
a beacon of light? you fucking with me , right?
if every country that needed to have dat proverbial light shown to them , and did just so in da fashion the u.s.a has by the murdering of it's own soldiers (not to mention it's exponent in numbers of dead iraqis) cuz we wanted to shine light and shit, we'd have a negative world population
what you said about war being economic is true & smart , being brainwashed fo what not reason into thinking dat its actually 'ok' is not

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Terminator X]

The only shit that is maaad dumb is your fake ghetto accent... well, that and your statement about the US murdering its own soldiers. Perhaps you're just trying to be humorous and just painfully failing.

Show your sources that the US is murdering its own soldiers, or are you just throwing that out there like wannabe gang signs.

Hassassin is right on track, which is quite the opposite of where you're coming from bro. But thanks for participating anyway. :lol:
if you actually interepreted this literally, meaning dat government beurocrats with grey suits and pink ties paratroop into da middle of baghdad with hand cannons (which would actually be nice, for a change) u better check yoself.
if i offer an incentive to someone thirsty enough to get their ass killed i essentially am killing them,
in our 'great' american law you and yo mans rob a store an he gets laid out, you go to jail for a murder
america has as much involvement for its own death's in iraq as da iraqis do

Originally posted by longshot

Originally posted by Dave
There are more of us and our methods are far more effective. :)


There are 275 million Americans. There are well over a billion muslims. There are more of them.

We're more effective? It costs them nothing to create a human bomb. Pennies. They grow up on UN food aid and hate. A "charity" throws the family a couple of bucks for giving up one for "the cause".
The number of people willing to blow themselves up for the "cause" is small longshot.


How much do our missles cost? How much does it cost to fit people with robot arms at Walter Reed? How much does it cost for the twenty extra retards at the airport to stick their finger in people's shoes and people's asses?

How much do we save for every future 9/11 we stop?


You've proven time and time again that you are incapable of rational thought and logical thinking. It's just appaling how fucking clueless you are.
yet they have not carried out an attack on U.S. soil since 9/11. 4 years almost.

[Gan]

Originally posted by Terminator X
troops arent being murdered , every soldier who died did so of natural age.... moron
the collective number of troops murdered on a lie perpetrated by the piece of shit we called our president is just a *bit* bigger than those killed by hussein ,
the children we r trying to save are seeing their parents throats slit by uncle sam , what the fuck do you think is going to be the response when we the most powerful nation in the world is a backwards one, huh?
the 'terrorists' or rebels or whatever we call them now are so problematic , let them wipe each other out
our president should be serving life terms for every good american life lost perpetrated by his lie

My God... reading this at 2AM had the same effect as if the barometric pressure in my house dropped 50 degrees.

I'll refrain from responding further until he starts spittin facts instead of rhetoric.

[Terminator X]

so its not a fact that this sadistic shitfuck named george bush has lied to us invaded a country on these false allegations and its also not a fact that collectively more people've been murdered following orders by said dumbass with our illegal incursion than ever under hussein????
:ohshit:
it must be a liberal conspiracy, we're not actually in iraq! :rolleyes:

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Hassassin
I'm tired of all these conspiracy theories, and this and that. I believe George W. Bush is a good man with a Christian heart and he feels a moral obligation to help people. I like his resolve, even while facing hard times. He stays the course.

Perhaps I'm a cynic or perhaps a realist, but I doubt Saddam's human rights violations and the desire to "free" Iraq were a significant factor in the administration's decision to go to war.

It is quite clear, looking at historical evidence, that the U.S. is willing to tolerate any kind of regime. There is but one requirement that will for the U.S. to look the other way on an undemocratic regime: Loyalty. Just look at Saddam/U.S. relations in the 80's. The U.S. allied with Saddam against Iran because Iran was perceived as a threat (read: disturbing U.S. hegemony) at the time. Saddam was the same ruler back then as he was during the 90's and 2000's. His people were just as oppressed in the 80's as they were in the 90's All that changed was Saddam's position relative to U.S. interests.

Arguably, worse human rights violations perpetrated by worse rulers than Saddam have been occurring in Africa for decades, yet the U.S. has taken little observable action there. Why? There's no oil there. Oil got Bush into Iraq. The "moral obligation" just helps him and the other warmongers sleep at night.

I also don't get why people applaud Bush's resolve. The worst consequences of his decisions that he endures are negative opinion polls and gentle ribbing from politicians. It's the millions of other people, the ones that live with death and destruction resulting from his actions, whose resolve we should applaud. It's easy to "stay the course" when you're playing golf on your Texas ranch and all your loved ones are safe doing talk shows and magazine shoots.

[Terminator X]

:clap:

[Warriorbird]

Iran shows us just how successful Shiite "democracies" are. Their new president is such a beacon of light that he was the voice for the embassy hostage takers.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Warriorbird]

Originally posted by Farquar
Arguably, worse human rights violations perpetrated by worse rulers than Saddam have been occurring in Africa for decades, yet the U.S. has taken little observable action there. Why? There's no oil there. Oil got Bush into Iraq. The "moral obligation" just helps him and the other warmongers sleep at night.
See this is where you are wrong. Oil was not the major factor, if that was the case and we forget the years of the embargo, our main goal there would be to protect the wells and pipe lines. It is more about Iraq's strategic significance than its oil. Location, location, location. Iraq is prime real estate to completely fuck up the middle east, and everything it stands for currently. Its the perfect location to win the war on terror though attrition alone. Once it has its shit together it is only a matter of time until other countries follow. We are already seeing the ripples of democracy though the middle east but bias and your types personal hate that you harbor for the current administration wont let you understand the truth.

[peam]

Reading that shit straight out of an Army-issued pamphlet, Dave?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by peam]

I dont see why that comment even needed to be made. That is my view on the situation. I have siad that on the boards since before we invaded Iraq . It is nothing new, and me being in the army has nothing to do with it.

[peam]

Sorry, anyone who can use 'ripple of democracy' and 'Middle East' in the same sentence with a straight face makes me giggle.

Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all the changes that are taking place in those countries, they all would have happend without the war on terror being brought to their back doors right?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by peam
Sorry, anyone who can use 'ripple of democracy' and 'Middle East' in the same sentence with a straight face makes me giggle.

Curious here... Is that because you feel they're incapable of ever having a peaceful democracy, or do you just think that they don't ever want equal representation for everyone?

I'm trying to figure out which one would be worse for them.

[Slider]

No, it's cause the Republicans are the ones doing it....if Clinton had done the very same thing back in 1998 that Bush did in his first term, every one of you fuckers would be here telling us how great he was, and what a profound impact he had on the world for bringing democracy to the middle east. And not a fucking one of you would be accusing him of lying to do it, or doing it for the oil, or whatever other stupid fucked up shit you come up with this week to say why you hate Bush.

[Jolena]

So..let me get this straight, you think that people hate Bush simply because of his political party affiliation and not because of his past and present actions?

I don't hate Bush, although I do not agree with many many of his policies and especially not his actions in continuing our presence in Iraq. However it is not due to what political party he chose to become a part of. If Clinton had done the things that Bush is doing now, and has done over the last few years, I would have expressed my displeasure there too.

I realize that all governments lie to their people, I also realize that the current administration is no exception. I do not however think that there is any justification that Bush can come up with to satisfy me as to why he has our troops over there dying and facing the horrors of war over a lie. I have said this a dozen or so times on these boards I'm sure, and I will repeat it. I support our troops. I admire the courage and ability of those young men and women fighting and dying for their country and their President. I do NOT however support the war in Iraq. There is a difference.

Slider, you cant go telling people like it is. They will flip out cause you're right. Hush with the true speak, and get back in line and play the game with them

[Jolena]

Makes me sad sometimes that you are in the position you are in in our military Dave. Your personality just makes me cringe more often then not.

Originally posted by Jolena
So..let me get this straight, you think that people hate Bush simply because of his political party affiliation and not because of his past and present actions?

I don't hate Bush, although I do not agree with many many of his policies and especially not his actions in continuing our presence in Iraq. However it is not due to what political party he chose to become a part of. If Clinton had done the things that Bush is doing now, and has done over the last few years, I would have expressed my displeasure there too.

I realize that all governments lie to their people, I also realize that the current administration is no exception. I do not however think that there is any justification that Bush can come up with to satisfy me as to why he has our troops over there dying and facing the horrors of war over a lie. I have said this a dozen or so times on these boards I'm sure, and I will repeat it. I support our troops. I admire the courage and ability of those young men and women fighting and dying for their country and their President. I do NOT however support the war in Iraq. There is a difference.

do you express you displeasure about all the armed conflicts Clinton got us into. All the random missiles he lobbed at various countries.

I don't get the whole support the troops but not the war thing. It is kind of odd to me that the troops overwhelmingly support the war, yet they are the ones fighting and dieing in it and seeing the results of it up close and in person, maybe they know something we dont.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

Originally posted by Jolena
Makes me sad sometimes that you are in the position you are in in our military Dave. Your personality just makes me cringe more often then not.
I am just more vocal about my politcal beliefs than others.

[peam]

Originally posted by Hulkein

Originally posted by peam
Sorry, anyone who can use 'ripple of democracy' and 'Middle East' in the same sentence with a straight face makes me giggle.

Curious here... Is that because you feel they're incapable of ever having a peaceful democracy, or do you just think that they don't ever want equal representation for everyone?

I'm trying to figure out which one would be worse for them.

Both.

I believe Islam renders the people of the Middle East incapable of ever supporting a viable peaceful democracy, due to the fact that hardline fundamentalists will always rise to the surface and gain a following. These are not people who want democracy.

The only way to build a democratic nation from scratch in the Middle East would be to rid the area, and surrounding countries, of all people who hold these beliefs. It would require genocide.

Equal representation for people within an Islamic democracy would be a joke.

Women will never see equal rights in a nation ruled by Islam, and any individual living within the country who followed another religion would be shunned as an infidel and stripped of rights, if not worse.

The Middle East is a shit hole best left to it's own doings.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by peam]

The same could be said and most likely was for women's rights in a christian society 200 years ago. Yet look how things have changed.


The Middle East is a shit hole best left to it's own doings.
In a perfect world that might work, but this one is not perfect so we have to find another way.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Jolena]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Jolena
So..let me get this straight, you think that people hate Bush simply because of his political party affiliation and not because of his past and present actions?

I don't hate Bush, although I do not agree with many many of his policies and especially not his actions in continuing our presence in Iraq. However it is not due to what political party he chose to become a part of. If Clinton had done the things that Bush is doing now, and has done over the last few years, I would have expressed my displeasure there too.

I realize that all governments lie to their people, I also realize that the current administration is no exception. I do not however think that there is any justification that Bush can come up with to satisfy me as to why he has our troops over there dying and facing the horrors of war over a lie. I have said this a dozen or so times on these boards I'm sure, and I will repeat it. I support our troops. I admire the courage and ability of those young men and women fighting and dying for their country and their President. I do NOT however support the war in Iraq. There is a difference.

do you express you displeasure about all the armed conflicts Clinton got us into. All the random missiles he lobbed at various countries.

I don't get the whole support the troops but not the war thing. It is kind of odd to me that the troops overwhelmingly support the war, yet they are the ones fighting and dieing in it and seeing the results of it up close and in person, maybe they know something we dont.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

Yes, I did express my displeasure when Clinton did things that put our people into jeapordy for reasons I didn't consider necessary. And I'm sorry that you don't 'get the support the troops but not the war' reasoning but you don't have to. What you do need to understand is that I don't condemn the soldiers out there fighting and doing what they must do in order to serve our country and our President.

Also you might be more vocal about your political beliefs and that's fine, but in the military, your political beliefs shouldn't play a part. You do as you're told, despite your personal beliefs. Which is why I am sad at times thinking of the position you hold since you are so outspoken and seem to be so fanatical about your beliefs. I can see that causing a problem for you in the future.

[peam]

Originally posted by Dave
The same could be said and most likely was for women's rights in a christian society 200 years ago. Yet look how things have changed.


You're also dealing with a Western civilization that has advanced significantly over the past 200 years. The same can not be said for Islam. Until the religion becomes progressive and recognizes the fact that the world has changed, it will not be a viable producer of equal rights.

Originally posted by Jolena


Yes, I did express my displeasure when Clinton did things that put our people into jeapordy for reasons I didn't consider necessary. And I'm sorry that you don't 'get the support the troops but not the war' reasoning but you don't have to. What you do need to understand is that I don't condemn the soldiers out there fighting and doing what they must do in order to serve our country and our President.

Also you might be more vocal about your political beliefs and that's fine, but in the military, your political beliefs shouldn't play a part. You do as you're told, despite your personal beliefs. Which is why I am sad at times thinking of the position you hold since you are so outspoken and seem to be so fanatical about your beliefs. I can see that causing a problem for you in the future.

I am free to be political in the military. Just not in a military capacity. I know what is required of me, and I follow the orders given, it would not have mattered if Bush was president or Kerry. I swore an oath, to defend the constitution and follow the orders of the officers appointed above me. i do my service and my duty, and find it rather insulting that you would think otherwise.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

Originally posted by peam

Originally posted by Dave
The same could be said and most likely was for women's rights in a christian society 200 years ago. Yet look how things have changed.


You're also dealing with a Western civilization that has advanced significantly over the past 200 years. The same can not be said for Islam. Until the religion becomes progressive and recognizes the fact that the world has changed, it will not be a viable producer of equal rights.

Well it needs to be given an opportunity to become progressive. Democracy is that opportunity, and it moves those in Islamic country's away from the rule of Islamic law, affording such an opportunity.

Think big picture not little window peam.

[DeV]

Originally posted by peam
Sorry, anyone who can use 'ripple of democracy' and 'Middle East' in the same sentence with a straight face makes me giggle. Heh, I was going to reply to that statement also. Ya beat me to it. I giggled a little as well.

[DeV]

Originally posted by Dave
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all the changes that are taking place in those countries, they all would have happend without the war on terror being brought to their back doors right?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave] Human rights violations and all.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
The same could be said and most likely was for women's rights in a christian society 200 years ago. Yet look how things have changed.

Christianity isn't a democracy.

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Dave
See this is where you are wrong. Oil was not the major factor, if that was the case and we forget the years of the embargo, our main goal there would be to protect the wells and pipe lines. It is more about Iraq's strategic significance than its oil. Location, location, location. Iraq is prime real estate to completely fuck up the middle east, and everything it stands for currently. Its the perfect location to win the war on terror though attrition alone. Once it has its shit together it is only a matter of time until other countries follow.

Why do you think we even care at all about the Middle East? Why do you think the U.S. cares if the Middle East "gets its shit together"? Why is Iraq's "strategic significance" even relevant? It all leads to oil, the blood of capitalism. North Korea actually HAS wmd's, they have oppressed people, and they have a fanatical, power drunk dictator. But the administration doesn't mind getting political with them, as American interests aren't immediately threatened there.

History has proven time and again that the civilized world doesn't give a shit about dark skinned people until their own wealth is at stake.


Originally posted by Dave
We are already seeing the ripples of democracy though the middle east but bias and your types personal hate that you harbor for the current administration wont let you understand the truth.

I love the democratic process.

I love an independent judiciary.

I love the rule of law.

I love checks and balances.

I'd love a president who didn't pander to the lowest christian denominator.

I love the separation of church and state, and why the U.S. is the longest continuously running democracy in the history of civilization because of it.

I love measured, appropriate military action for a clear, definitive, and efficient purpose.

In short, I love my country.

Hate has very little to do with it. You seem to mistake awareness for bias.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Farquar]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all the changes that are taking place in those countries, they all would have happend without the war on terror being brought to their back doors right?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave] Human rights violations and all.

What a better way to bring an end to it. Just think women can vote now in saudi Arabia.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Jolena
So..let me get this straight, you think that people hate Bush simply because of his political party affiliation and not because of his past and present actions?

In a word...yup.

I don't hate Bush, although I do not agree with many many of his policies and especially not his actions in continuing our presence in Iraq. However it is not due to what political party he chose to become a part of. If Clinton had done the things that Bush is doing now, and has done over the last few years, I would have expressed my displeasure there too.

I realize that all governments lie to their people, I also realize that the current administration is no exception. I do not however think that there is any justification that Bush can come up with to satisfy me as to why he has our troops over there dying and facing the horrors of war over a lie. I have said this a dozen or so times on these boards I'm sure, and I will repeat it. I support our troops. I admire the courage and ability of those young men and women fighting and dying for their country and their President. I do NOT however support the war in Iraq. There is a difference.



In a word...yup.


So you don't think that he should have, say, passed the Iraqi Liberation Act then? Remember that? That was when it became the official policy of the United States, passed by a overwhelming majority in the House, Unanimously in the
Senate, and signed into law by ol' Billy, that Saddam Hussain would be REMOVED from office, and brought before a court for human rights violations.

Did you also protest his actions and scream about how he "Lied" when he ordered Operation Desert Fox and bombed the shit out of over 75 suspected manufacturing sights for WMD in Iraq back in Dec of 1998? Did you cry foul when he stated at a press conference "Saddam Hussein must not be allowed to threaten his neighbors or the world with nuclear arms, poison gas or biological weapons," Clinton said. The Iraqi dictator has used these weapons against his neighbors and his own people, he said, and "left unchecked, Saddam Hussein will use these terrible weapons again."

Huh...no cries of foul, no screams about how he lied about the WMD, hell...not one fucking WMD was ever confirmed to have ever existed at any of those 75 sights. But hey, ol' Billy didn't lie....and what a great economy we had back then, eh?

OK. i'll tell you...no, better yet, go look it up yourself, that way you can't accuse me of being full of shit, ok? Go find out how long it took for the US to pull its troops out of Japan after WWII. Better yet, while your at it, look up what the goals of the occupation in Japan where after the surrender of Japan. Then come back here and tell me you don't see the parralels.

Originally posted by Farquar

Why do you think we even care at all about the Middle East? Why do you think the U.S. cares if the Middle East "gets its shit together"? Why is Iraq's "strategic significance" even relevant?
9/11

North Korea actually HAS wmd's, they have oppressed people, and they have a fanatical, power drunk dictator. But the administration doesn't mind getting political with them, as American interests aren't immediately threatened there.
You answered your own question there.



Originally posted by Dave
We are already seeing the ripples of democracy though the middle east but bias and your types personal hate that you harbor for the current administration wont let you understand the truth.

I love the democratic process.

I love an independent judiciary.

I love the rule of law.

I love checks and balances.

I'd love a president who didn't pander to the lowest christian denominator.

I love the separation of church and state, and why the U.S. is the longest continuously running democracy in the history of civilization because of it.

I love measured, appropriate military action for a clear, definitive, and efficient purpose.

In short, I love my country.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Farquar]

Then you should want the same things you love for everyone in the world, not just yourself, But then again you could be selfish.

[DeV]

Thousands of US military personel remain in Japan even today so I don't really understand the reasoning behind that statement.

[Edaarin]

I can't wait until the Crusades happen again. Good times.

lets not even get into the fact that um not only Christians are in the military or fighting the war. We have atheists, Jews, Muslims, buddhists, pagans, but it makes for a good quote or sound bite to say its the crusades all over again doesn't it Eddarin.

[Slider]

yes Dev we do have troops in Japan, and while we're at it, we have troops in Korea (last I checked, we had an entire army Corp here), and in Germany, and in a few dozen other spots around the world. What I am talking about is the actual occupation of Japan after they surrendered in WWII. Not about our having a base there. Look it up, do a search for MacArthur's role, and more specifically, what his goals where in post WWII Japan.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Slider]

[Edaarin]

Look at who's pushing the war.

Not too many Buddhists, I'll tell you that much.

Yet they were willing to join up and fight for it. Interesting isnt it Eddarin.

[Edaarin]

Maybe I'm not being clear enough in my language.

By who is pushing the war, I meant the people in charge of the war.

And if they're involved in a war, they are not in any way, shape or form truly Buddhist.

EDIT: And I don't see how you can keep misspelling my handle when it's right there on your screen. E-d-a-a-r-i-n.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Edaarin]

[Sean]

I thought they didn't know they would have to fight and all signed up for the GI Bill....

[Farquar]

Originally posted by Dave
Then you should want the same things you love for everyone in the world, not just yourself, But then again you could be selfish.

I do. Just like I want everyone in New York to have a six figure job and a nice home like me. But just because I won't destroy myself at a futile attempt to make it happen doesn't mean I'm selfish.

Edited to add:
9/11 huh? Refresh my memory as to how many Iraquis were on those planes...

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Farquar]

Ohh okay, so a REAL buddhist can not join the military.

[Edaarin]

Not one that fights in a war.

I don't pretend to know anything about the precepts/teachings of Christianity, so don't insult my intelligence by presuming to know what basic principles Buddhism teaches.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Edaarin
And if they're involved in a war, they are not in any way, shape or form truly Buddhist.


That is debatable. Religions evolve. Some fairly new American strains of Buddhism have evolved in the direction of practicality. Admitting into them among other things the defense of ones property and defense of patriotism.

Mahayana is not the only lifestyle these days. :P

Originally posted by Edaarin
Not one that fights in a war.

I don't pretend to know anything about the precepts/teachings of Christianity, so don't insult my intelligence by presuming to know what basic principles Buddhism teaches.

I find it interesting that you think you are better than those willing to be a part of the military.

[Edaarin]

I'm sorry, then it's no longer Buddhism.

Even if they stuck by every other one of the precepts of the Eight Fold Path aside from right action, you're twisting the very principles that the religion was founded on.

It would be like a Christian that's also a Satanist.

Then none of us are really religious, I would beg to venture you have gone against your faith before. I can freely admit I am not perfect in mine.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Dave
Lebanon, Saudi Arabia, all the changes that are taking place in those countries, they all would have happend without the war on terror being brought to their back doors right?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave] Human rights violations and all.

What a better way to bring an end to it. Just think women can vote now in saudi Arabia.

The vote for women has been a long time coming in Saudi Arabia, but it has been in process for much longer than you know, as have many other changes centered on freedom and equality for women in that society. It's a slow process, just as it was a slow process in our country all those years ago.

Over twenty years ago, a large, very active, and very vocal group of women shed their ubaiyas and jumped behind the wheels of their husbands' automobiles, driving openly all over the capitol city of Riyadh. Since women were not allowed to drive cars, it raised quite a stink, but it also got quite a bit of attention. Women still cannot drive, but they can vote. Looks like a partial win to me.

On a side note, women in Dubai can drive, as can women the UAE. A Saudi Arabian woman won a rally car race in Dubai not too awfully long ago.

Women can vote in Saudi Arabia, and vote and hold government office in Qatar, Bahrain and Oman.

Things, they are a changin' in the Middle East. Slowly, yes. Yet, we can research our own history to find correllation in that respect.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Edaarin
I'm sorry, then it's no longer Buddhism.

Even if they stuck by every other one of the precepts of the Eight Fold Path aside from right action, you're twisting the very principles that the religion was founded on.

It would be like a Christian that's also a Satanist.

Like I said. Its debatable. I believe religions evolve. Many disagree.

As it still stands, I can see a Shambala type fighting on the ideal that defense is necessary. Barely, but I'm sure it happens.

*Oh. And there is a such thing as Christian Satanists. Sophite Gnostics. :-X

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by JihnasSpirit]

[Edaarin]

Originally posted by Dave
I find it interesting that you think you are better than those willing to be a part of the military.

You really are a fucking idiot. Where did I say that?

If you meant I think I'm better than those claiming to be Buddhist in the military, then you have the amazing ability to put new meaning into others' posts. I said they aren't Buddhist, because they would be intentionally causing harm to other people. Unless you twist the meaning to the point that shooting/killing other humans is actually helping relieve suffering because they live in a horrible environment, which I don't think even you would claim.

If you think that I said that I'm better than you because you're in the military, you're sadly mistaken. I don't know you from Adam. From what you post, I'm inferring that I'm smarter than you and that you have the ego the size of Saturn. I'm not going to say I'm better than you, because I don't know who you are. Right now, your whole identity to me is four letters on a forum with people whom I will never meet in real life.

EDIT: Fixed the quoting.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Edaarin]

[Edaarin]

It CAN'T evolve to the point where one of the DEFINING PRINCIPLES of the religion is violated. It can't evolve to that point and still be called the same religion. If you purposefully kill, you're not a Buddhist. You may have been raised Buddhist, you may still adhere to some of the teachings, but you're not Buddhist.

I won't budge on that stance.

EDIT: And exactly what does being in the military have to do with being better than someone? If I were to say that I was better than Tijay, would it be worse than saying I was better than you?

You're in the military. It's a part of your life. BIG FUCKING DEAL, you made a choice. It doesn't mean that you're automatically better than civilians now. What exactly have you done to justify the amount of shit you talk?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Edaarin]

That is exactly what you are saying. Those in the military are not buddhists, making you better than them in your faith.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[DeV]

Originally posted by Edaarin
If you purposefully kill, you're not a Buddhist. That's what I've always been led to believe. Aren't they all about perserving life no matter what, or something along those lines?

[Edaarin]

Tell you what. You find one Buddhist in the military to post a convincing argument as to how killing people doesn't completely violate one of the most telling principles of the religion, and I'll back off.

If they truly believe it, then they damn well better have an argument to back it up.

You're not important enough for me to go out of my way like that.
sorry.

[Edaarin]

In other words, you expect people to go out of their way and research shit to prove a point, but you don't have the backbone to do it yourself. Gotcha.

In response to The "Go back and show me an example proving what you posted" Edine.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
That is exactly what you are saying. Those in the military are not buddhists, making you better than them in your faith.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

Dave, your problem is the whole "better than" part of this argument.

As has been said, sometimes some groups in a relgion may find their views evolving and changing.

Small evolutions can allow them to remain a part of that same religion and perhaps convince others to also follow that path.

What also can happen is that if the view change markedly, most importantly, views principle to that religion then you are no longer really following that religion anymore.

You may share many beliefs, but are not the same.

One is not nessecarily better or worse, they are merely different and to call them the same is incorrect.

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by DeV

Originally posted by Edaarin
If you purposefully kill, you're not a Buddhist. That's what I've always been led to believe. Aren't they all about perserving life no matter what, or something along those lines?

True. The primary ideals are of compassion and giving of oneself. To reach the nothingness of godliness through meditation and inaction.

But yes. All religions evolve. Buddhism will evolve or it will perish as a known faith. (My opinion) I believe the only way it has become so popular in America is by becoming modernized. Similar to how Christianity has.

[Slider]

gotta go with Edaarin on this one Dave...Buddhists do not kill. Buddhist monks won't even till the soil to farm for fear of killing an insect or worm. Of course...there is that whole Shao Lin thing...devout Buddhists who kick major ass...but there are always exceptions to the rule I guess...

Originally posted by Skirmisher

Originally posted by Dave
That is exactly what you are saying. Those in the military are not buddhists, making you better than them in your faith.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

Dave, your problem is the whole "better than" part of this argument.

As has been said, sometimes some groups in a relgion may find their views evolving and changing.

Small evolutions can allow them to remain a part of that same religion and perhaps convince others to also follow that path.

What also can happen is that if the view change markedly, most importantly, views principle to that religion then you are no longer really following that religion anymore.

You may share many beliefs, but are not the same.

One is not necessarily better or worse, they are merely different and to call them the same is incorrect.

No he is saying that they ARE NOT Buddhists. I do not think he has the right to decide that.

[Edaarin]

I also don't think people who eat beef can claim to be Hindu.

What's your point.

[HarmNone]

Any more, perhaps, than you have the right to proclaim that people who do not support this war are not patriotic, Dave?

Tell that to those that serve and claim are buddhist slider.

[Skirmisher]

If you decide Jesus wasnt the son of god, you are no longer christian either.

So what?

I think you are getting stuck up on the whole better than thing and trying to enter a game of semantics and in this particular case, a losing one.

Originally posted by HarmNone
Any more, perhaps, than you have the right to proclaim that people who do not support this war are not patriotic, Dave?

I have never said that Harmnone. :) Not nice to put words in my mouth.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
Tell that to those that serve and claim are buddhist slider.

I'll say it.

[Slider]

I am not disagreeing with their right to serve, and quite honestly, I've got about 12 more years military service under my belt than you do, so please, don't put words into my mouth either. I've been there and done that when you where in diapers. ok? I am also not saying that they cannot serve, or that they are not Buddhists. I am agreeing with Edaarin's post that THE primary tenent of the Buddhist faith is they do not kill. Period.

I think you might have missed what he said, and the point I am making.


And if they're involved in a war, they are not in any way, shape or form truly Buddhist.

That's what I disagree with and that's what I am talking about.

I know little of the buddhist faith, and don't claim to know much. I do find the I'm a "Buddhist and they are not" reasoning to be wrong.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Edaarin]

You know what? I apologize, I didn't intend to derail this thread so far.

I posted this in the 308,000 thread about 15 months ago. It still fits. Dave, I'm finished here. Clearly, you are the superior debator, and I'm going off to ride into the sunset never to return.

Originally posted by Edaarin
No, I refuse to accept that. I can't even count the number of times Edine has derailed threads with his refusal to let anything go, or accept that he might be wrong, especially regarding politics. He posts, and expects us to eat up whatever shit statistic he might come across without argument. If someone doesn't agree, he hounds them with post after post of "I have yet to see you prove me wrong," "Where did you prove me wrong," and so forth.

Your opinion, Edine, has 0 credibility with me. Where you find your articles, how you defend them, how you present your views. Mean nothing. I almost respect Ben's "enlightened" opinions on race more than your political views.

[Edited on 4-4-2004 by Edaarin]

Ahh, edaarin, to think you feel significant enough that your opinion of me really matters? I'm sorry, your not.
It is not your place to judge others on their faith. You will never hear me say to somebody well then YOUR NOT CHRISTIAN.

[Slider]

No, I didn't...I am agreeing with that point that he made. As I said, the primary tenent of the Buddhist religion is you don't kill....anything, not so much as swat a fucking fly.

Now, can they still strive to be Buddhist? Yup, damn straight. The entire point of the religion is to attain enlightenment after all, its a journey, the striving to become something more. Can they claim to be Buddhist, sure...why not. Whole lot of people claim to be religious, least ways on Sunday mornin'.

My Religion also has as its primary beleive "Do No Harm" as well. Don't always live up to that, but then theres the whole Rule of Three thing I gotta worry about if I don't, but hey, if Iwasn't willing to live with the consequences, I wouldn't have done what I did.

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
That's what I disagree with and that's what I am talking about.

I know little of the buddhist faith, and don't claim to know much. I do find the I'm a "Buddhist and they are not" reasoning to be wrong.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]


And I think that you think that is some incredible condemnation, and that isnt the case.

Not quite sure how we got this off track though.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
Ahh, edaarin, to think you feel significant enough that your opinion of me really matters? I'm sorry, your not.
It is not your place to judge others on their faith. You will never hear me say to somebody well then YOUR NOT CHRISTIAN.

Don't you judge the members of 'radical islam' based on their faith .. on a nearly daily basis? When did that become your place?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Tijay]

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
It is not your place to judge others on their faith. You will never hear me say to somebody well then YOUR NOT CHRISTIAN.

Hrm, I just gave an example when I would say that.

[Slider]

Heh, just goes to show how much us humans love to fight and argue over just about anything we feel passionatly enough about to be willing TO argue your point of veiw. Besides...can you imagine how flat out, BORED we would be if we all agreed on everything?!?!?!

[4a6c1]

Originally posted by Slider
Heh, just goes to show how much us humans love to fight and argue over just about anything we feel passionatly enough about to be willing TO argue your point of veiw. Besides...can you imagine how flat out, BORED we would be if we all agreed on everything?!?!?!

haha. ^what he said.

[Slider]

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Dave
Ahh, edaarin, to think you feel significant enough that your opinion of me really matters? I'm sorry, your not.
It is not your place to judge others on their faith. You will never hear me say to somebody well then YOUR NOT CHRISTIAN.

Don't you judge the members of 'radical islam' based on their faith .. on a nearly daily basis? When did that become your place?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Tijay]

The very day that they take up arms and try to deny me the right to practice my religion. They don't fuck with me, I'm fine with their beliefs, I think that there is a lot of good people out there that are Muslims, just as I think that there are good Christians, or good Buddhists, etc. But when you take up a gun, and tell me I HAVE to give up my religion in favor of yours? That is the day I will do everything in my power to protect MY rights.

[4a6c1]

My point is sorta that essentially people are flawed. This is how over the course of time religions change. Even those who feel the strain of their faith is most pure will change it with the perception others view them by. Buddhism is not only for the enlightened. And as are any other faithful people they are flawed.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by Slider

Now, can they still strive to be Buddhist? Yup, damn straight. The entire point of the religion is to attain enlightenment after all, its a journey, the striving to become something more. Can they claim to be Buddhist, sure...why not. Whole lot of people claim to be religious, least ways on Sunday mornin'.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

From what I understand a buddhist does not have to be enlightened to be a buddhist. If they are not yet perfect in their faith they are still Buddhist. So I can not see how this would make them less of a Buddhist than anyone else.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[4a6c1]

echo

:whistle:

Originally posted by Slider

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Dave
Ahh, edaarin, to think you feel significant enough that your opinion of me really matters? I'm sorry, your not.
It is not your place to judge others on their faith. You will never hear me say to somebody well then YOUR NOT CHRISTIAN.

Don't you judge the members of 'radical islam' based on their faith .. on a nearly daily basis? When did that become your place?

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Tijay]

The very day that they take up arms and try to deny me the right to practice my religion. They don't fuck with me, I'm fine with their beliefs, I think that there is a lot of good people out there that are Muslims, just as I think that there are good Christians, or good Buddhists, etc. But when you take up a gun, and tell me I HAVE to give up my religion in favor of yours? That is the day I will do everything in my power to protect MY rights. :yeahthat:

[Sean]

Originally posted by Slider
The very day that they take up arms and try to deny me the right to practice my religion. They don't fuck with me, I'm fine with their beliefs, I think that there is a lot of good people out there that are Muslims, just as I think that there are good Christians, or good Buddhists, etc. But when you take up a gun, and tell me I HAVE to give up my religion in favor of yours? That is the day I will do everything in my power to protect MY rights.

Thats a fairly dangerous arguement to take. Given that it's the same style arguement that Osama uses for why he attacks the US... The whole we can judge and attack them because they judged and attacked us first.

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by HarmNone
Any more, perhaps, than you have the right to proclaim that people who do not support this war are not patriotic, Dave?

I have never said that Harmnone. :) Not nice to put words in my mouth.

Ahem:

posted on 7-4-2005 at 12:41 Post ID: 393943

all in all, it takes a different type of person to join the military during a time of war. Sadly many of the younger people in today’s military do not have the balls to do what must be done. It is easy for people to sit here and say “if I supported the war I would join.” That goes back to the good old saying, “actions speak louder than words.” I call bullshit on that until I see it.

[Skirmisher]

I'll get the bactine.

[Jolena]

Which might be why he doesn't understand the postion of "I support our troops but not the war". :shrug:

[Slider]

Originally posted by Tijay

Originally posted by Slider
The very day that they take up arms and try to deny me the right to practice my religion. They don't fuck with me, I'm fine with their beliefs, I think that there is a lot of good people out there that are Muslims, just as I think that there are good Christians, or good Buddhists, etc. But when you take up a gun, and tell me I HAVE to give up my religion in favor of yours? That is the day I will do everything in my power to protect MY rights.

Thats a fairly dangerous arguement to take. Given that it's the same style arguement that Osama uses for why he attacks the US... The whole we can judge and attack them because they judged and attacked us first.

The difference is Tijay, I am not judging their FAITH. I am judging their ACTIONS. I will defend to my last breath the right of any man or woman to worship what they belief in, no matter what. So long as they respect the right of other people to do the very same thing.

There's an old saying that goes "My Freedom to wave my hands ends at the tip of the nose of my neighbor"

They can be as radical in their beliefs as they want to be, but the instant they say "You MUST follow MY religion to the exclusion of all others", and are willing to use force to destroy my way of life, they have given up any sympathy for them, or their "cause" that I might have had.

Here's another old saying for you:

If you find Truth, and follow it blindly, it becomes a Lie.

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by HarmNone
Any more, perhaps, than you have the right to proclaim that people who do not support this war are not patriotic, Dave?

I have never said that Harmnone. :) Not nice to put words in my mouth.

Ahem:

posted on 7-4-2005 at 12:41 Post ID: 393943

all in all, it takes a different type of person to join the military during a time of war. Sadly many of the younger people in today’s military do not have the balls to do what must be done. It is easy for people to sit here and say “if I supported the war I would join.” That goes back to the good old saying, “actions speak louder than words.” I call bullshit on that until I see it.

Nowhere did I say they were unpatriotic. I did say that it is easy for people to say if they support the war they would join, Much harder for them to do it. Remember there are some 300million people in the US, under 2million in military service.

Interesting interpretation, but nowhere near what you wanted it to mean.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Sean]

Find the topic.

Originally posted by Jolena
Im sure it was allowed because it was in response to the 'burn' that Dave received regarding his post about not having said something.

Now now lets make it clear, it was not a post about not having said something. It "was" not having said something.

[Jolena]

Everyone has their opinion. :grin:

Oninion, I know exactly what was said.

IT is easy for people to say things and not back them up
300 million people in the us
Under 1% of them in the military
Yet I have heard it over and over again "If I supported the war I would join" Its a load of bullshit.

But please if you could dissect my comment and show me how in your opinion I said, "people who do not support the war are unpatriotic."

[Hassassin]

In my opinion, this thread is a prime example of what is wrong with America today. We go from having an intelligent conversation, with real purpose, something constructive, to resorting to name calling. But what else should we expect? With such bipartisan politics, and much of the country divided into every which way where else could all issues go but downhill?

America, all of America, needs to stand together and understand that we are the most powerful country in the world, and that gives us a duty. I hate to quote a comic book, but uncle ben always said "With great power, comes great responsibility". Which is why I feel it is our responsibility to help those who are in need, to go out of our way to overthrow totalitarianism and oppression. That is why I feel what we are doing in Iraq is right, that is why I feel the war on terrorism is justified. If all Americans understood this simple principle, we wouldn't have massive protests, so much anti-war propaganda. We need to think outside the box, and realize that we're not just Americans, we are human beings, and if the human race wants to survive we need to stop those who would thwart progress of modern society. In my opinion, this war is just as right as world war 2. No one in the United States complained then, because that generation knew they had a responsibility to STOP Hitler, for the good of all mankind. We have that same responsibility now. We need to stop terrorism, and stop radical religions which hurt other people.

[Jolena]

Again, it's not that I don't think we should be helping other countries, it is because we were LIED to by our President as to why we are there. THAT is many people's issue.

[Hassassin]

I don't believe George W. Bush lied. Saddam had plenty of time to bury any WMDs in silos, deep beneath the vast Iraqi desert, or ship the weapons off to Iran or Syria. The bottom line is that Saddam -needed- to be dealt with. George W. Bush loves America more than any of us, that is why he took the highest level of service to his country. He only wants to see the right thing done, and to say the opposite is ridiculous. His family lives in the United States, his children's children children will be directly affected by decisions he has made, and he knows this. That is why I can assure you that he is doing what he feels is right.

[Jolena]

i've never argued that Bush doesn't feel what he's doing is right, or that he doesn't have decent intentions. What I will however argue with you on is that we were lied to. I grant you the right to not believe we were lied to, that's fine. But I have the same right to disagree. And I'm not alone, I assure you.

Either way, don't assume that because people don't agree with Bush on the reason he told Americans we are now fighting in Iraq over, that they don't support helping other countries and mankind in general.

[Sean]

Thats a pretty major skew of numbers. How many of those 300mil are above or below the age of enlistment.

enlistment age is between 17 and 35
so lets say 50million people to be EXTREAMLY conservative with the numbers. 4% then of the eligible population.
or even 25 million, then we have 8%
Then again that is enlistment age, Once you are in you can go into your 60's

so if we are going to play the numbers game lets remove the people over 35 years old from the numbers too, how many will that remove from the service number 500,000?
Even playing the numbers game Tijay, I win, you lose. :)

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
enlistment age is between 17 and 35
so lets say 50million people to be EXTREAMLY conservative with the numbers. 4% then of the eligible population.
or even 25 million, then we have 8%
Then again that is enlistment age, Once you are in you can go into your 60's

so if we are going to play the numbers game lets remove the people over 35 years old from the numbers too, how many will that remove from the service number 500,000?
Even playing the numbers game Tijay, I win, you lose. :)

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

Win or lose what?

In the numbers game. You attempted to discredit my post. Still playing the game you wanted to (and your motive was clear) My point is still made and valid. ergo I win.

[Hassassin]

[quote]Originally posted by Jolena
i've never argued that Bush doesn't feel what he's doing is right, or that he doesn't have decent intentions. What I will however argue with you on is that we were lied to. I grant you the right to not believe we were lied to, that's fine. But I have the same right to disagree. And I'm not alone, I assure you.

Jolena, I'm not saying you do not believe in helping mankind. I am saying that I don't feel we were lied to. We know Saddam has had WMDs in the past, we know that by him having had those that they could fall in the hands of the terrorists. Just because we haven't found them yet in Iraq, does NOT mean we were lied to. Iraq is a vast desert with MANY undiscovered silos. Not only that, but in the time before we said we were going to war from the time we actually invaded left plenty of time to smuggle any WMDs to Syria or Iran. We know Saddam has had WMDs, because he has used them on the Kurds.

Now, keeping that in mind, all Saddam has to do is give 1, just 1 of those bombs to a terrorist (who shares his hatred of the US), and that terrorist brings it in the US and detonates it in a major city. I guarantee you that thousands of people would die. Innocent people, and the death toll would go way over the 1700 soldiers that have died so far in the Iraq war. Except, the death toll would be that of innocent civilians, not people who VOLUNTEERED to fight.

[Hassassin]

Even Americas' founding father, George Washington is quoted as saying "The most effective means of keeping peace, is preparing for war".

[Nieninque]

Doesnt make it right

But it makes it necessary.

[HarmNone]

You can dance the semantics samba all you like, Dave. I'd say most people who read the post I quoted saw in it exactly what I saw.

There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, and nothing wrong with stating that opinion. The wrong comes in when you start putting others down for not sharing your opinion, or trying to tell them they don't know what they're talking about just because they happen not to agree with your viewpoint.

I really don't care what you saw.

I was the one who posted it. I know the reasoning behind it. And yeah, to put it bluntly I said Most Americans are pussies. How many of you wont drive though the ghetto, or lock your doors when you do. That type of person is really going to put their life on the line in a firefight.

[Nieninque]

Originally posted by Dave
But it makes it necessary.

You missed my point, although I concede I didnt make it clear.

I will try again


Originally posted by Hassassin
Even Americas' founding father, George Washington is quoted as saying "The most effective means of keeping peace, is preparing for war".

The fact that it was George Washington that said it does nothing to verify the statement as being correct.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
In the numbers game. You attempted to discredit my post. Still playing the game you wanted to (and your motive was clear) My point is still made and valid. ergo I win.

Your post was inaccurate, and while not exact I'd say your second post was closer to the mark. Your inital post included infants and people in retirement home as members of the population making your example much more drastic (<1% of 300mil vs 4% of 50mil). If you think you won something by all means continue to believe so but my post was for you to correct your spin which you did ;).

How many peaceful societies have survived?

[HarmNone]

Switzerland seems to be doing okay, last I looked.

Think about their history. First off they do have a military.
Second let us go back to a time as recent as ww2, though they did not commit much in the way of violence we both know what it is that they did do.
But nobody really pays attention to that because the Swiss are a "peaceful" people. Who stowed away Nazi assets, including those stolen from the massacred Jews. Oh yeah, they sold arms during the conflict as well, to the Nazi's. Great people the Swiss.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Artha]

I might be thinking of Sweden, but aren't all males of military age required to own automatic rifles and join the military for training in Switzerland? Basically meaning they can be neutral in the middle of the larger European powers because half of their population is a trained militia.

[HarmNone]

Yes, Artha. All Swiss men are required to receive military training and to own a weapon. Theirs is primarily a militia army. They have never involved themselves in war. As I understand it, their purpose is to protect their country in the event that they are invaded by hostile forces.

In recent history you mean Harmnone.

You understand what started this discussion right

"The most effective means of keeping peace, is preparing for war".

You just confirmed that.

[Hassassin]

Wait, so you mean... the Swiss believe that most effectual means of keeping the peace is preparing for war? How poetic.

It took her while to get to that point but she did.

[Miss X]

Originally posted by Dave
In recent history you mean Harmnone.

The Swiss have not been to war in over 500 years if I remember my history correctly.

[Edited on 9-7-05 by Miss X]

Recent history.
But they have played major roles in wars.

[HarmNone]

I certainly agree that the Swiss appear to believe that it's a good idea to be prepared against a possible invasion by hostile forces. They do not, however, leave their borders to engage in war.

That was not the topic though harmnone. Much like your attempt at twisting my words, what your saying has no relevance to what was already said.

[HarmNone]

Dave, I'm not about to continue this. Believe it or not, I'm not at all interested enough in your opinions to bother to "twist your words". You asked how many peaceful societies had survived. I named one. It ain't all about you.

its not a peaceful society, that's the problem.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Skirmisher]

Again, the problem arising is the need to define our terms.

By peaceful society are you meaning one that is pacifist in nature Dave, or perhaps one that has simply not been an aggresser set on conquering and expansion?

[HarmNone]

Yes, Dave. Please elaborate. What, in your view, is a peaceful society vs a warlike society? I'm sure we can all benefit from your profound thoughts on this issue.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by HarmNone]

I almost got the feeling you were trying to be condescending there Harmnone.

A society that sells arms to a "evil" power in the time of war is not a peaceful society.

There are no peaceful societies. Every last one is warlike in its principles, those that are not become food for those that are. A country where every single male in it is a soldier in a militia is far from peaceful.

[Jolena]

You didn't answer the question, Dave. They didn't ask you if you think there are any peaceful societies today or even your view on Sweden. They both asked you what YOUR personal definition is of a peaceful society.

I defined what one is not. I think from that its kind of obvious.
If one exists In my lifetime I will be sure to use it as an example though.



Edit: to avoide the snide remark that you're sure to follow this with jolena...

A peaceful society would have to be pacifist, if they were not they would always be preparing for violence.

[Edited on 7-9-2005 by Dave]

[Jolena]

Well it's not, so I'm asking you again to define in clear terms what you consider a peaceful society. If you would please. :)

check the edit :)

[Skirmisher]

Well, how would you classify Costa Rica for example?

[Jolena]

I did, you edited your post or at least it showed about 4 minutes after I posted mine. And no, my request was not snide. But thanks for caring so much! :bouncing:

[Skirmisher]

Or for that matter, how about our neighbors to the north, where does Canada fall in your definitions?

Strategically insignificant and covered under the U.S. in instances of invasion. (cant remember the exact name of the act, but way back when we said don't think about invading any country in the Americas which put an end to colonial expansion in the area)

I admittedly had to do some research on it, it does seem that their constitution states that they are not to have a military, so much like Japan, their forces are for self defence only.

Originally posted by Jolena
I did, you edited your post or at least it showed about 4 minutes after I posted mine. And no, my request was not snide. But thanks for caring so much! :bouncing:
Approximately two minutes, considering my post telling you to check the edit was two minutes after your request. But who's counting :)

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Dave
I almost got the feeling you were trying to be condescending there Harmnone.

A society that sells arms to a "evil" power in the time of war is not a peaceful society.

There are no peaceful societies. Every last one is warlike in its principles, those that are not become food for those that are. A country where every single male in it is a soldier in a militia is far from peaceful.

Did ya now? :)

We disagree in principle, Dave. I do not believe that all societies are warlike.

I am a peaceful person. I do not like war, as I see it to be a waste of valuable life, productivity, and resources. However, if some individual (or group of individuals) comes barreling into my home and threatens my family, those warlike people are infringing on my peaceful life. I will, in that case, use any means at my disposal to protect my family and my way of life. I do not see that as making me warlike. The invader is warlike. I am defending my peace.

You are welcome to see it differently.

Originally posted by Skirmisher
Or for that matter, how about our neighbors to the north, where does Canada fall in your definitions?

Canada has a military and uses it.
Where would these countries be without the protection of the United States Skirm?

[Jolena]

Originally posted by Dave

Originally posted by Jolena
I did, you edited your post or at least it showed about 4 minutes after I posted mine. And no, my request was not snide. But thanks for caring so much! :bouncing:
Approximately two minutes, considering my post telling you to check the edit was two minutes after your request. But who's counting :)

I was factoring in one minute while I posted my own response initially plus another minute for you to edit your own post and have it show up. ;)

[Skirmisher]

I believe you were referring to the Monroe Doctrine Dave.

I don't think even Germany would classify Canada as warlike though.

Originally posted by Skirmisher
I believe you were referring to the Monroe Doctrine Dave.
yes yes thats it.


I don't think even Germany would classify Canada as warlike though.
What other purpose is there to have a military except for war?

Originally posted by HarmNone

Originally posted by Dave
I almost got the feeling you were trying to be condescending there Harmnone.

A society that sells arms to a "evil" power in the time of war is not a peaceful society.

There are no peaceful societies. Every last one is warlike in its principles, those that are not become food for those that are. A country where every single male in it is a soldier in a militia is far from peaceful.

Did ya now? :)

We disagree in principle, Dave. I do not believe that all societies are warlike.

I am a peaceful person. I do not like war, as I see it to be a waste of valuable life, productivity, and resources. However, if some individual (or group of individuals) comes barreling into my home and threatens my family, those warlike people are infringing on my peaceful life. I will, in that case, use any means at my disposal to protect my family and my way of life. I do not see that as making me warlike. The invader is warlike. I am defending my peace.

You are welcome to see it differently.
But what affords you that luxery Harmnone. Not others who do not have a taste for war. Those that are willing to fight. Those that protect you everyday.

[Skirmisher]

I'm going to toss you a bone here Dave and suggest you at least consider changing your assertion however slightly.

Any country that is truly pacifist will most likely be swallowed up by another at some point in time.

Any country that does not take pains to do its best to be able to defend itself also will most likely suffer the same fate.

One does NOT however have to be warlike simply to do their best to ensure their safety.

Once again...your problem is with your terms....small changes can do so much.

It depends on how you look at the term Warlike more than anything.

Armed men walking the streets (police). Who use violence to quell civil disturbances, and keep order. Is in its own right warlike.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave

A society that sells arms to a "evil" power in the time of war is not a peaceful society.


How does this make them non peaceful as opposed to immoral?

[Skirmisher]

Originally posted by Dave
It depends on how you look at the term Warlike more than anything.

Armed men walking the streets (police). Who use violence to quell civil disturbances, and keep order. Is in its own right warlike.

This is exactly my point. I disagree with your definition.

Hence my urge for you to define the terms you are using.

Different words can have different connotations for everyone and so before engaging in such a debate an agreement must be reached on what is meant by warlike and other important terms or no one will get anywhere and all we do is waste time.

Warlike carries for many more than a small degree of negative implications.

I'm sure most police chiefs would take issue with your calling their officers warlike for example.

Sells arms. Weapons are not instruments of peace Tijay.

[Sean]

Originally posted by Dave
Sells arms. Weapons are not instruments of peace Tijay.

If you own a rifle and never use it. Does that make you a violent person?

[Hulkein]

Originally posted by HarmNone
I certainly agree that the Swiss appear to believe that it's a good idea to be prepared against a possible invasion by hostile forces. They do not, however, leave their borders to engage in war.

If everyone did that it'd be a perfect world.

Unfortunately, as Iraq had shown in the past by invading Kuwait, not everyone is Switzerland.

That means some countries need to leave their borders, even when doing the 'right' thing.

[Tsa`ah]

Like it or not, terrorism is the most effective voice in the world.

No other action can shake the most powerful nations in the world at their foundations with so few people.

9-11 is the best example in known history. With nothing more than a crude plan, some good old US based training, and box cutters, a handful of men were able to divide a nation, start a war(s), strip away the freedoms of their targets, make waves in the world economy, and most of all ... plant fear in the hearts of those that once felt secure.

They won ... it's that damned simple. No matter how many bombs we drop, no matter how high the bodies are piled, how many are imprisoned, governments toppled ... it doesn't matter. We were terrified then and we're doing everything we can, in a frenzy, to regain something that we'll never know again in our lifetime.

[Warriorbird]

"No, it's cause the Republicans are the ones doing it....if Clinton had done the very same thing back in 1998 that Bush did in his first term, every one of you fuckers would be here telling us how great he was, and what a profound impact he had on the world for bringing democracy to the middle east. And not a fucking one of you would be accusing him of lying to do it, or doing it for the oil, or whatever other stupid fucked up shit you come up with this week to say why you hate Bush. "

I thought Clinton bombing Sudan was ridiculous.

[Warriorbird]

I think our country most certainly needs a strong military. It is the applications of it that I feel free to strongly disagree with, because those are by a Commander in Chief, be it Democratic or Republican.

[Edited on 7-10-2005 by Warriorbird]

[HarmNone]

Originally posted by Dave
It depends on how you look at the term Warlike more than anything.

Armed men walking the streets (police). Who use violence to quell civil disturbances, and keep order. Is in its own right warlike.

I disagree. The warlike are those who bring about the civil disturbances. The police are there to keep the peace. If the warlike force the use of arms to dissuade them, that does not mean that those who protect the peace are warlike.

Originally posted by Tsa`ah
Like it or not, terrorism is the most effective voice in the world.

No other action can shake the most powerful nations in the world at their foundations with so few people.

9-11 is the best example in known history. With nothing more than a crude plan, some good old US based training, and box cutters, a handful of men were able to divide a nation, start a war(s), strip away the freedoms of their targets, make waves in the world economy, and most of all ... plant fear in the hearts of those that once felt secure.

They won ... it's that damned simple. No matter how many bombs we drop, no matter how high the bodies are piled, how many are imprisoned, governments toppled ... it doesn't matter. We were terrified then and we're doing everything we can, in a frenzy, to regain something that we'll never know again in our lifetime.
So true.