"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
As was pointed out in numerous posts, Islam, Christianity, Judiasm, etc have plenty of examples of violence, killing, slavery, etc... as well as compassion, self sacrifice, hope, and love.
it is the people that preach the hate (or compassion) that makes the faithful peaceful or not.
Abortion Clinic bombers which are probably just as diehard christians as are suicide bombers muslims, running into a pizza parlor. Equally deluded and equally evil.
It isn't the religion, it is the people that promote aspects of the religion, that promote (in)tolerance, that use religion as a vehicle to promote their goals. It is the culture that allows those views to grow.
In this case, Islam isn't to be crushed... The jackasses that say to be a good muslim you must blow up infadels to get your 72 virgins (or grapes) must be crushed. The socio-economic environment that gives people so little hope or compassion must be changed.
(here is where the hawk comes out, if in case you were expecting it)
If you have to blow up every terrorist hiding in a mosque, or imam inciting riots, or sheik funding terrorists, or depopulate entire communities harboring terrorists, or governments too weak to stand up to the terrorist groups, then so be it.
if you are asking "Who are we to decide what gov't/cultures get to stay" The only answer I can really provide is a comparison to Reese getting teargassed at a protest (riot) and what happened in Tienamen Square. One just chases away rioters and the other rolls tanks over people at a sit in.
__________________
Quote:
"Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost." -- John Quincy Adams
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. and To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I can really provide is a comparison to Reese getting teargassed at a protest (riot) and what happened in Tienamen Square. One just chases away rioters and the other rolls tanks over people at a sit in.
I must say that I'm a bit amazed by some of the comments, and the nonchalance with which some things were said :
Quote:
yeah and if you look at those countries they have ties to terrorists organizations.
this is the war on islamo fascists? is it not? wouldn't it make sense to go after the countries that assist these islamic terrorists?
First of all, where do you get this info ? You should be pretty sure of yourself before making such accusations. Even if some of these countries might have been related to terrorism, I wouldn't say that for all of them, with that much certainty. At least not with any hard evidence, and not just some crappy words from a reporter in desperate need for a storyline.
So, if I understand well, a country is supposed to be related to terrorism, so you just declare war and, heck, all the innocent lifes lost, well it's war casualties, we can live with that. Sure terrorists kill innocents too, but don't feel obliged to downgrade yourself to their level.
Quote:
It would ba a good plan as a way to calm down middle eastern terrorism.
Who are you to decide what needs to be done in these countries? Who are you to say to these people that they are wrong ?! (Again, I DO agree that there are some justified wars, but not ALL of them are, at least admit that!).
Quote:
The Middle East would be a better place without them.
Based on what ?! Why do you all think that these people are exactly like us. They have their beliefs, their way of living, their way of thinking and we should respect that. Of course, once they interfear with us, and attack us, that's another story.
Quote:
i know he may have wanted to go into iraq, which is understandable. (hussein was a monster!) and iran, n korea etc... but please these are horrible people, and whatever his motive, the outcome (if we win, which we usually do) will be good for the world.
Again, on what do you base your statement ? Don't you people get that you're being as radical as these islamofacists (as you call them, I too dislike the term!) ? You seem all so convinced that they are bad and they should be eliminated. And they (those you call islamofacists, in case you don't follow) think you're bad, and that you should be eliminated. See any similarities ?!
Quote:
and also BTW, you really think all thos nice Islamofacists will leave us alone if we "make nice" to them? WE HAVE TO WIPE THEM OUT AND I HOPE BUSH DOES MAKE WAR ON THEM!!
USfacist ? No further comment, I resent this post too much.
Sure terrorism is a problem. Even though I'm not american, I was deeply disturbed by the 9/11 event (which was one of the major terrorist hits I've ever seen). However I'm really amazed with the fanatism of great deal of the people I cross on the internet. First of all, even though something has to be done to try to fight this terrorism problem (didn't say resolve as you may have noticed, simply because I don't think there's no real way out), war isn't always the best way. Heck, forget the war, I'm actually now more disturbed by the fact that many are convinced that they are 100% right, and someone has to pay, whatever the price.
To refer to a previous post, if Hussein was an evil man or not, despised or not by his people, that doesn't give ANY right, to ANY other country to invade so as to remove him, at least not before trying other means. And actually even if they fail, still, I think it's a very delicate issue. Only if there was a more general agreement by number of countries, only then would an invasion be justified.
Imagine that a country thinks that US is badly lead, or is a mess, or I don't know what else, and decides to invade you to force its way of living, would you appreciate ? Guess you won't be able to answer honestly, because such a thing is (today) impossible.
I'm intrigued by the passionate way some people support these attacks, and how much hate they seem to hold against some nations (don't tell me that islamofacists is aimed to a restricted group of persons, when in the same sentence you talk about war on whole COUNTRIES). I wonder why it is so. I hope that I'll be able in the near future to pass by the US and live there long enough to understand how can someone come to this way of thinking.
Btw, if you're tempted to personnaly attack me because you dislike what I say , well don't, no need to. Try to be more constructive ;). (and reese I'm not refering to you, you seem to be the only one I agree with...)
Location: Right here in the middle of "Fly-Over Country"
Posts: 383
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
I'm afraid I have to disagree with some of you on the use of the term Islamofacsist. The only time I have ever heard that term used, it was, in fact, used toward a specific group. Some have argued that it is being used to describe all of those people who are of the Islamic faith. And, I'm sorry, but that just isn't the case.
I fail to see how some can take offense to this. The word itself is not derogatory. But is, in fact, a description of the mindset of a finite group or government.
Also, it does not have anything to do with a persons race. So to say that someone who uses this term is a racist is completely misguided and horribly mistaken.
The claim also can't be made that those who describe these terrorists as Islamofacsist's are bigoted. Because, if they were truly a bigot, then their views would apply to everyone of the Islamic faith. And from the discussion here, that is neither what has been said, nor has it even been implied. The discussion being had, has been made against those in the world who think it is OK to blow up women and children.... In other words, the terrorists.
Now, as to the issue of whether or not anyone has the “right” to tell another country (or ruthless dictator) that they must stop what they are doing, we do have that right. Even more, we have an obligation to do that very thing. As free nations of the world, it is our responsibility to promote freedom and protect innocent peoples from the oppression, and even death, from those governments or leaders who abuse them.
The United Nations itself is an example of this very thing. It can't be said in one sentence that no one has the right to tell a murdering dictator that he has to stop. And then, in the very next breath, have it be said that it should be left to the UN. The UN is, in fact, an organization that tells countries what it can or can’t do. So, I’m afraid, this argument really does not seem logical.
Nor has the case been made that any country should go in and completely annihilate an entire country because they may harbor a few terrorists. In fact, the discussion itself has been that the terrorists are the one’s who need to be dealt with. Not innocent people who happen to find themselves living in the same country as the terrorists. I think some have been making unfortunate inferences toward the comments being discussed.
I think we would all be better off if we read what is being said, and not make assumptions that are baseless. None of us are going to get anywhere if the discussion turns to flaming and unjustified name calling. In case some of you haven’t noticed, I have not been taking part much in a few of these threads. I prefer to have discussions with people on topics, and ideas. Not arguments (and I mean that in the non-productive sense, and not it's true, literal meaning). Unfortunately, some of the comments being made have been of little, or no substance. And, I just don’t see the need, or benefit in engaging in a pi**ing match. It is both pointless and useless to do so.
So, maybe we could all get back to having a discussion and an exchange of ideas. Even if we do disagree. Because, I, for one, have missed these types of exchanges.
[dismounts soapbox]
.
__________________
Quote:
"If you [America] become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
I must say that I'm a bit amazed by some of the comments, and the nonchalance with which some things were said :
First of all, where do you get this info ? You should be pretty sure of yourself before making such accusations. Even if some of these countries might have been related to terrorism, I wouldn't say that for all of them, with that much certainty. At least not with any hard evidence, and not just some crappy words from a reporter in desperate need for a storyline.
So, if I understand well, a country is supposed to be related to terrorism, so you just declare war and, heck, all the innocent lifes lost, well it's war casualties, we can live with that. Sure terrorists kill innocents too, but don't feel obliged to downgrade yourself to their level.
Who are you to decide what needs to be done in these countries? Who are you to say to these people that they are wrong ?! (Again, I DO agree that there are some justified wars, but not ALL of them are, at least admit that!).
Based on what ?! Why do you all think that these people are exactly like us. They have their beliefs, their way of living, their way of thinking and we should respect that. Of course, once they interfear with us, and attack us, that's another story.
Again, on what do you base your statement ? Don't you people get that you're being as radical as these islamofacists (as you call them, I too dislike the term!) ? You seem all so convinced that they are bad and they should be eliminated. And they (those you call islamofacists, in case you don't follow) think you're bad, and that you should be eliminated. See any similarities ?!
USfacist ? No further comment, I resent this post too much.
Sure terrorism is a problem. Even though I'm not american, I was deeply disturbed by the 9/11 event (which was one of the major terrorist hits I've ever seen). However I'm really amazed with the fanatism of great deal of the people I cross on the internet. First of all, even though something has to be done to try to fight this terrorism problem (didn't say resolve as you may have noticed, simply because I don't think there's no real way out), war isn't always the best way. Heck, forget the war, I'm actually now more disturbed by the fact that many are convinced that they are 100% right, and someone has to pay, whatever the price.
To refer to a previous post, if Hussein was an evil man or not, despised or not by his people, that doesn't give ANY right, to ANY other country to invade so as to remove him, at least not before trying other means. And actually even if they fail, still, I think it's a very delicate issue. Only if there was a more general agreement by number of countries, only then would an invasion be justified.
Imagine that a country thinks that US is badly lead, or is a mess, or I don't know what else, and decides to invade you to force its way of living, would you appreciate ? Guess you won't be able to answer honestly, because such a thing is (today) impossible.
I'm intrigued by the passionate way some people support these attacks, and how much hate they seem to hold against some nations (don't tell me that islamofacists is aimed to a restricted group of persons, when in the same sentence you talk about war on whole COUNTRIES). I wonder why it is so. I hope that I'll be able in the near future to pass by the US and live there long enough to understand how can someone come to this way of thinking.
Btw, if you're tempted to personnaly attack me because you dislike what I say , well don't, no need to. Try to be more constructive ;). (and reese I'm not refering to you, you seem to be the only one I agree with...)
who was it..... i believe he was someone in al quadea, some terrorist organization.
anyways he said, we are not fighting you to recieve anything, we are fighting you to exterminate you.
they don't want to negotiate. isreal has negotiated and has given alot for peace, but it doesn't do any good and in the end more people die. how do you negotiate with someone who is willing to die to kill you?
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Now, as to the issue of whether or not anyone has the “right” to tell another country (or ruthless dictator) that they must stop what they are doing, we do have that right.
Actually, you don't. Who tells you, that your point of view is the right one. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you as far as dictatorships are concerned, but that doesn't change the fact that on what ground can we consider that WE are right and THEY are wrong ? From the moment there is no agreement of several parties (countries in that case), therefore the majority being a sufficient reason to go further, you don't have any right to interfere. Because if YOU do have that right, then they have it too and that's not something that we want, at least I don't.
Quote:
It can't be said in one sentence that no one has the right to tell a murdering dictator that he has to stop. And then, in the very next breath, have it be said that it should be left to the UN.
As I said before, when I say no one, I mean no single entity. In case of majority though, the situation differs. The problem with the UN however is that even though it can say to a dictator not to mistreat his people, there is no real (working) way to enforce this in case he doesn't co-operate.
And finaly, I think we are all well aware that the innocent people are not the one aimed in a war. However, if some country serves as a base to terrorists, who are the ones that will suffer the more after a war ? The 5% that were actually terrorists (completely random figure, well overrated in my opinion), or the 95% of the rest of the population ?
And if I offended someone with my previous comment, I apologize that wasn't my intention.
Actually, you don't. Who tells you, that your point of view is the right one. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you as far as dictatorships are concerned, but that doesn't change the fact that on what ground can we consider that WE are right and THEY are wrong ? From the moment there is no agreement of several parties (countries in that case), therefore the majority being a sufficient reason to go further, you don't have any right to interfere. Because if YOU do have that right, then they have it too and that's not something that we want, at least I don't.
As I said before, when I say no one, I mean no single entity. In case of majority though, the situation differs. The problem with the UN however is that even though it can say to a dictator not to mistreat his people, there is no real (working) way to enforce this in case he doesn't co-operate.
And finaly, I think we are all well aware that the innocent people are not the one aimed in a war. However, if some country serves as a base to terrorists, who are the ones that will suffer the more after a war ? The 5% that were actually terrorists (completely random figure, well overrated in my opinion), or the 95% of the rest of the population ?
And if I offended someone with my previous comment, I apologize that wasn't my intention.
and who tells you that your point of view is right?
is it anyones rights? I don't know, but I do know that it is the responsibility of those who have the abilitiy, to destory evil. islamic terrorists are evil.
its just that simple.
__________________
__________________
In matters of style, swim with the current; in matters of principle, stand like a rock.
Location: Right here in the middle of "Fly-Over Country"
Posts: 383
Thanked 0 Times in 0 Posts
First, let me say that your reply was the type I was referring to in my previous statement. Thank you for that. I would much rather discuss something than argue about it.
Secondly, I don't think you said anything that would be viewed as offensive. Just because we may, or may not, agree, is not in itself offensive. So, there is no need to apologize to me. I wasn't the least bit offended.
Begin Edit
acp, I went back an read my earlier statements on assumptions, flaming, and name calling. I can see now how you may have come to the conclusion that I was directing those specifically toward you. That was not my intention. If I lead you to believe that, then you have my apologies. Those comments were not meant for you. End Edit
Originally Posted by acp
Actually, you don't. Who tells you, that your point of view is the right one. Don't get me wrong, I'm with you as far as dictatorships are concerned, but that doesn't change the fact that on what ground can we consider that WE are right and THEY are wrong ? From the moment there is no agreement of several parties (countries in that case), therefore the majority being a sufficient reason to go further, you don't have any right to interfere. Because if YOU do have that right, then they have it too and that's not something that we want, at least I don't.
Now, back to topic. As I mentioned previously, we do have the right to tell those who commit evil that they are wrong and must stop. Perhaps right isn't the best term. It really is more of a responsibility and an obligation to do so. And, by "we", I mean (as mentioned earlier) those nations of the world who value freedom, a democratic way of life, and who believe that all humans have basic rights. That does include America, but it also includes other countries. Such as the UK, France, and many, many others.
Originally Posted by acp
And finally, I think we are all well aware that the innocent people are not the one aimed in a war. However, if some country serves as a base to terrorists, who are the ones that will suffer the more after a war ? The 5% that were actually terrorists (completely random figure, well overrated in my opinion), or the 95% of the rest of the population ?
As I mentioned earlier, the discussion has been about those 5% (I don't know the actual percentage either. But yours sounds good to me :) ). The majority of people in this discussion, I believe, would agree that killing the other 95%, or even some of them is unacceptable. The ones who need to be dealt with are the terrorists themselves. And only them.
Take the war in Iraq for example. It was fought to stop only those who apposed. These being Saddam's army and his administration. Great care was taken to not hurt those innocent citizens of Iraq. The use of special forces and smart bombs helped to do just that. And now, those 95% are the ones who are governing themselves. They now have freedom and control of their own country. This war was not fought for conquest. This war (fought by a coalition I might add, not done unilaterally by the US as some may imply) was a rescue mission for the people of Iraq and also for the safety of the rest of the world.
The same goes for the conflict in Israel. Israel is not going in and "nuking" the place. Their fight is very precise and targeted toward Hezbollah (sp?).
The only one's in both these scenarios that are killing innocents are the terrorists. How can we say that their opinion matters? Should we have said that in World War II that we just don't agree with Hitler. And, since his opinion is that he is "right", then we should respect that opinion and just leave him be. We don't have the right to tell him he is wrong? I'm afraid I have to disagree with this concept with every fiber of my being. It is our duty to stand up for good.
Evil is evil. And it is up to the free to oppose it.
__________________
Quote:
"If you [America] become a burning light of justice and peace in the world, then really you will be true to what the founders of this country stood for."
To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
Follow Us
RSS Feed
Follow on Twitter
Facebook
YouTube
