I'm sure everyone's heard about the Pope's quoted comments about mohammid. How the only thing the muslim extremests have brought to the table was violence. Guess how the muslim extremests reacted. By burning churches. Does that not proove the Pope's point.
I think that muslim extremests and terrorist of the like are nothing but a bunch of pussys. Fight like a man and quit hiding. We as Americans are the most generous of people. We've given more money and resources to third-world countries than the entire International community put together. Everybody wants to talk shit on the U.S. until they need our help.
The United States is not it's own ethnicticity...we are every ethnicticity. From muslin to italian to french to spanish, it is like a miniature world. If you want to attack america then go ahead, but remember, we are you.
| ahaug wrote: |
I'm sure everyone's heard about the Pope's quoted comments about mohammid. How the only thing the muslim extremests have brought to the table was violence. Guess how the muslim extremests reacted. By burning churches. Does that not proove the Pope's point.
I think that muslim extremests and terrorist of the like are nothing but a bunch of pussys. Fight like a man and quit hiding. We as Americans are the most generous of people. We've given more money and resources to third-world countries than the entire International community put together. Everybody wants to talk **** on the U.S. until they need our help.
The United States is not it's own ethnicticity...we are every ethnicticity. From muslin to italian to french to spanish, it is like a miniature world. If you want to attack america then go ahead, but remember, we are you. |
Please remember that America has started wars with 2 muslim countries in the past 5 years. Sure, all ethnicities are represented in america, but are they all respected and treated as equals to the white, christian community?
Also america have falsely blamed Osama Bin Laden for the terror acts of 11th sep.
(dont belive me? - check out this, and THEN decide what to think) | ahaug wrote: |
| We as Americans are the most generous of people. We've given more money and resources to third-world countries than the entire International community put together. |
of-course ... also killing people and threat to bomb attack if not support US for war, as did in pakistan. U didn't see what ur country make IRAQ ?? Have u noticed how many people is dieing everyday in IRAQ ?? I know u people always feel proud of this. B'coz Americans are the most generous of people !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!His point is, that hating America is simply hating the whole world. There were muslims who died on 9/11 and there are surely muslims fighting in the US army in Iraq.
As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die.
I wonder if presedent Bush was a muslim, but had the exact same policies and made the exact same decisions, would they still hate him?
| ocalhoun wrote: |
I wonder if presedent Bush was a muslim, but had the exact same policies and made the exact same decisions, would they still hate him? |
He wouldnt have been made president *duh*...
But yea...I'm not gonna make myself an expert on muslims, however they fight each other quite a lot, so I'm pretty certain that if he started bombing their countries, they would without a doubt hate him anyway... | ocalhoun wrote: |
| His point is, that hating America is simply hating the whole world. There were muslims who died on 9/11 and there are surely muslims fighting in the US army in Iraq. |
How dare they fight an invading army. They obviously haven't read the rules.
| Quote: |
As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die. |
We have no choice ? So to get the bad guy you simply have to kill the innocents in the way then ? OK..that sounds like a plan. An immoral, illegal and despicable plan, but certainly a plan.
If your mother or sister were held hostage by an armed robber I suppose the same would apply. Shoot through the woman - you have to, in order to kill the bad guy.
If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...
If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm...
In the words of James Bond (Connery was the *only* Bond)...
Shurely shome mishtake....
| Quote: |
I wonder if presedent Bush was a muslim, but had the exact same policies and made the exact same decisions, would they still hate him? |
Well...in the case of Al Qaeda, yes they would. They are opposed to the muslim House of Saud who rule Saudi. The worst thing that Osama can say about anyone is the phrase he used against them...' | Quote: |
| They are bad muslims'. |
It's not just the muslims who hate Bush (and Blair). I imagine anyone who has had family and friends killed or maimed over the last few years is not too kindly disposed to either of them. I don't think I would be joining their fan clubs if I were an Iraqi.
ChrisHe didn't say kill the civiliams to get to the terrorists, he said you have to go through them. Meaning you can't just bomb the the terrorist's cells cause they're are in the middle of civilian terrortory. You have to send ground troops. You think any other country exercises the extreme caution we do around civilian areas...no, they would bomb the shit out of us and not care who they hurt in the way. If you think we kill civilians to get to terrorists then there would be no Al-Quada, no Taliban, or any other extreme group. But we don't...that's why this war in Iraq is taking so long and that's why the war on terror will take forever, because they are cowards and hide behind innocent people.
| ahaug wrote: |
| He didn't say kill the civiliams to get to the terrorists, he said you have to go through them. Meaning you can't just bomb the the terrorist's cells cause they're are in the middle of civilian terrortory. You have to send ground troops. You think any other country exercises the extreme caution we do around civilian areas...no, they would bomb the **** out of us and not care who they hurt in the way. If you think we kill civilians to get to terrorists then there would be no Al-Quada, no Taliban, or any other extreme group. But we don't...that's why this war in Iraq is taking so long and that's why the war on terror will take forever, because they are cowards and hide behind innocent people. |
So on the one hand they blow themselves up and on the other they are cowards. That does not seem consistent.
As for the statement about going through civilians, I think that if you read the whole thing then the meaning is quite clear and it is, put simple, if civilians are iin the way and they get killed then so be it - we have no choice.
This is the passage in question..I quote :
| Quote: |
| As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die. |
So I repeat my previous point. If a kidnapper had a relative of yours at gunpoint then would you consider it acceptible to get the guy at all costs (OK - trying if possible not to kill the relative, but if there is no other option then doing so) ? Most people would not regard that as a defensible course of action - there would be an outcry, in fact.
So this is another case of double standards. Because the civilians are not 'ours' then they are expendible in the war against the terrorists. We would not and do not accept that stance for outselves but it is 'necessary' and there is 'no choice' when it is the other guy.
Chris.I support the logic of Bikerman. Ya, it's really worse to attack extremists while they hide in civilians. Terrorists are always terrorists .. no matter whether he is muslim or other religion ... u should fight against them but with keeping safe civilians. If you kill a single civilian to fight against terrorists, it' will be un-fare to that civilian. What's his fault ? Noting ... do we imagine a single persons death also brigns death to how many people related to him ?
| ahamed wrote: |
| Terrorists are always terrorists .. no matter whether he is muslim or other religion ... u should fight against them but with keeping safe civilians. |
Hm...whats your definition of a terrorist?
"Someone who attacks civilian targets, rather than military"?
That makes sence - terrorist try to fill their enemies in war with fear.
WRONG!
The only reason they attack civilian targets is because they dont have planes which can fly around the globe, drop a bomb which destoys a hangar and then fly back home.
They are less well of than us, therefor they are forced to use their only weapon to win the war, namely themselves. Give them WOMD (or long range misilies), and im sure they wouldnt bother with suicide attacks - they would fight like any other army - like america!
So the definition of a terrorist should be more like:
"Someone who wants to fight a country who has a much more advanced military than himself".
America is not the world. Even as an Australian, I can say that our culture, and in particular our attitudes are quite different from yours. Do you even know who Don Bradman, Andrew Ettinghausen, Bob Hawke or Weary Dunlop are? Can you tell me how many points you get for a behind in Aussie Rules, where VB is brewed, or what JJJ is? People around the world are not little Americans, and don't want to be.
| Quote: |
| We've given more money and resources to third-world countries than the entire International community put together. |
That's not true. In 2003, for example, the 22 wealthiest countries in the world $69 billion, of which the US gave around $16.3 billion. Per person (a better comparison, because it is a little unfair to expect that my country, Australia, with 20 million people would give as much as the US with some 295 million people) the US gives $51 per citizen, well behind most European countries - for example the UK gives $86 per person, Netherlands $203 per person, Norway $381, and France $96. Per GDP, the US rates last on the list of industrialized countries (although admittedly they do sometimes beat the Italians), giving 0.15% to aid. In comparison, Norway gives 0.92%, Denmark 0.84% and Belgium 0.6%. Even if you include private donations (including the large amounts of money that the US sends to developed countries like Israel) then the US still rates 15th in the world, not first. The largest private giver is actually Ireland with 0.22% of income. | Bikerman wrote: |
How dare they fight an invading army. They obviously haven't read the rules.
|
Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: |
As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die. |
We have no choice ? So to get the bad guy you simply have to kill the innocents in the way then ? OK..that sounds like a plan. An immoral, illegal and despicable plan, but certainly a plan.
|
Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
| Bikerman wrote: |
If your mother or sister were held hostage by an armed robber I suppose the same would apply. Shoot through the woman - you have to, in order to kill the bad guy.
|
To keep 'the bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.'
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...
|
Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm... |
They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.
| Bikerman wrote: |
In the words of James Bond (Connery was the *only* Bond)...
Shurely shome mishtake....
|
Yes, I do see some mistakes.
| Bikerman wrote: |
... I don't think I would be joining their fan clubs if I were an Iraqi.
|
That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that? | ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
How dare they fight an invading army. They obviously haven't read the rules.
|
Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started.
|
How could they? America has a thousand times more troops and weapons, so the only LOGICAL (yes, terorists are logical too) choice was to wait for an opportunity to deal damage to america.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: |
As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die. |
We have no choice ? So to get the bad guy you simply have to kill the innocents in the way then ? OK..that sounds like a plan. An immoral, illegal and despicable plan, but certainly a plan.
|
Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
|
Have you ever heard the expression "Turn the other cheek" - because america are more powerful and wealthy than people from "terrrrrrst" countries, they should have the extra capacity for taking the first step towards peace - not the first step towards revenge and bloody war.
You quote is ridiculous...do you seriously think killing a person because you feel jealous is an ok thing to do? Illegal? HELL YEA - there where no WOMD. Osama DIDNT order 9/11 (watch loose change if you dont believe me). also the theoretic world police (NATO) didnt give a green-light for the war in iraq.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
If your mother or sister were held hostage by an armed robber I suppose the same would apply. Shoot through the woman - you have to, in order to kill the bad guy.
|
To keep 'the bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.'
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...
|
Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?
|
People killed in 11. sep: 2,973
People killed in iraq and afghanistan: 43,387 to 48,174
...I think i proved my point.
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm... |
They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.
| Bikerman wrote: |
In the words of James Bond (Connery was the *only* Bond)...
Shurely shome mishtake....
|
Yes, I do see some mistakes.
|
When spelling mistakes become your only argument, you might aswel throw in the towel.
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
... I don't think I would be joining their fan clubs if I were an Iraqi.
|
That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that? |
Thats not what terrorist want. They want a world where they are treated like us, and have the same opportunities in life, as us. They are not stupid! - they dont kill themselves for "no good reason" | ocalhoun wrote: |
Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started. |
Ahh...I didn't realise there was a time limit.
| Quote: |
As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die. |
How many such attacks have the Iraqis launched on the US ?
The 9/11 attack was largely Saudi-arabians (which country you still count as an ally) and nothing at all to do with Iraq. The idea that the US is attacking terrorists in Iraq was carefully manufactured before the war but was seen through immediately and is not treated seriously by any commentators I can thing of.
| Quote: |
Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
|
That's the point really. There was no job to do in Iraq regarding terrorism since it was not a sponsor of terrorists and had no problems itself with terrorism, other than that of their ruler. Immoral it surely is, although it depends on your own moral code. Illegal it also is, according to most experts on international law, since the only justification for invading a sovereign state is self-defence.
More immoral than the terrorists ? It IS terrorism so I don't understand the question.
| Quote: |
| To keep the 'bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.' |
You'll have to forgive me but I'm afraid I don't believe you.
I also doubt Asimov ever intended that phrase as anything other than ironic, since I know his work pretty well and he was certainly intelligent enough to know that it is a false dichotomy
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...
|
Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?
|
Do the math youself. Number of civilians killed by the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq ? 50,000 would seem a reasonable figure.
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm... |
They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.
|
They never attacked the US before the invasion. By international agreement a person fighting an invader in their own country is NOT a terrorist. The word should be used correctly in this context - ie to describe the UK/US forces.
| Quote: |
That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that? |
Terrified ? Me ? Of whom ? The US is the only one scaring me at the moment. I have expressed my opinions as clearly as I wanted to and am certainly not to terrified to call things as I see them - I wonder why you might think I was ?
Regards
ChrisToday Bush is praising Kazakhstan.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/5393574.stm
Since Kazakhstan became independant they have never had an election which met international standards. For example, in the 2005 presidential 'elections', two leading opposition candidates were murdered shortly before the poll:
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/asia-pacific/4712674.stm
They have harsh censorship laws, and opposition parties are regularly harrassed, if they are allowed to meet at all, since the government passed many restrictions on the freedom of assembly, they ban opposition parties such as the 'Democratic Choice of Kazakhstan' and the media is state run. See for example:
http://hrw.org/english/docs/2005/10/12/kazakh11853.htm
Apparently this passes for a 'free nation' in Bush's eyes. He wants to turn a blind eye to the fact that they recently forcibly returned prodemocracy demonstrators to Uzbekistan (where pro-democracy demonstrators were massacred).
Why? Because US investors benefit from Kazakh oil wealth and oil pipelines. The US enjoys Kazakh support for it's two wars in the region - in Afghanistan and Iraq. It has nothing to do with human rights, democracy or anything else good or admirable. All you have to do in America's eyes to be a free nation is to support America's power and wealth. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: | | Bikerman wrote: |
How dare they fight an invading army. They obviously haven't read the rules.
|
Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started.
|
How could they? America has a thousand times more troops and weapons, so the only LOGICAL (yes, terorists are logical too) choice was to wait for an opportunity to deal damage to america.
|
That's the whole problem; are they defending their country? No. They're trying to damage America in any way they can. The real motive is revenge; they can't possibly expect any real lasting victory.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: |
As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die. |
We have no choice ? So to get the bad guy you simply have to kill the innocents in the way then ? OK..that sounds like a plan. An immoral, illegal and despicable plan, but certainly a plan.
|
Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
|
Have you ever heard the expression "Turn the other cheek" |
Oh, that's not hypocritical; the muslim extremists are very good at turning the other cheek, right?
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
- because america are more powerful and wealthy than people from "terrrrrrst" countries, they should have the extra capacity for taking the first step towards peace - not the first step towards revenge and bloody war. |
So now we have a double standard eh? Poor countries are entitled to revenge, but rich ones are not?
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
You quote is ridiculous...
|
Yes, I find it quite amusing myself | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
do you seriously think killing a person because you feel jealous is an ok thing to do?
|
Jealous? As you stated earlier, the US is far superior, what do we have to be jealous of, your peace and harmony?
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
Illegal? HELL YEA - there where no WOMD. Osama DIDNT order 9/11 (watch loose change if you dont believe me).
|
You can keep your liberal propaganda to yourself, thank you very much. Myself, I don't care if they're guilty of those particular crimes or not, but I'm sure they do have blood on their hands. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
also the theoretic world police (NATO) didnt give a green-light for the war in iraq. |
Does NATO rule the world? Since when does an independant nation have to ask permission to go to war?
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
If your mother or sister were held hostage by an armed robber I suppose the same would apply. Shoot through the woman - you have to, in order to kill the bad guy.
|
To keep 'the bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.'
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...
|
Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?
|
People killed in 11. sep: 2,973
People killed in iraq and afghanistan: 43,387 to 48,174
|
People that would have been killed by those 48,174 in Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 went unpunished: ?
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
...I think i proved my point.
|
Perhaps more civilians have died this way (though I'm by no means certain of that), but again, the USA is a nation. The government's job is to protect it's people, not the people of another nation. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm... |
They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.
| Bikerman wrote: |
In the words of James Bond (Connery was the *only* Bond)...
Shurely shome mishtake....
|
Yes, I do see some mistakes.
|
When spelling mistakes become your only argument, you might aswel throw in the towel.
|
I wasn't refering to spelling mistakes.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
... I don't think I would be joining their fan clubs if I were an Iraqi.
|
That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that? |
Thats not what terrorist want. They want a world where they are treated like us, and have the same opportunities in life, as us. They are not stupid! - they dont kill themselves for "no good reason" |
So that's what they want, eh? But wait, you said they aren't stupid, yet they're trying to be accepted by us and granted opportunities by us through attacking us? If they're so smart, how come they can't find a better way to that goal?
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Bikerman wrote: |
| ocalhoun wrote: |
Did I say they shoudn't fight back? No. But their time to fight back was when the war first started. |
Ahh...I didn't realise there was a time limit.
| Quote: |
As for America attacking muslim exremists, perhaps if those extremists (in general, not any specific ones) would stop attacking, they would stop being attacked (unlikely now that the war on terror is started).
As for killing civilians, if the terrorists hide behind civilians, then we have no choice but to go through the civilians to get to the terrorists. Should the terrorists come out and make a fair fight of it, very few more civilians would die. |
How many such attacks have the Iraqis launched on the US ?
The 9/11 attack was largely Saudi-arabians (which country you still count as an ally) and nothing at all to do with Iraq. The idea that the US is attacking terrorists in Iraq was carefully manufactured before the war but was seen through immediately and is not treated seriously by any commentators I can thing of. |
^You actually listen to the commentators? The media is liberal, the commentators are a branch of the media; of course they don't take the idea of the US attacking terrorists in Iraq seriously.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: |
Immoral? More immoral than what the terrorists do?
Illigal? Says who? Ever heard the quote 'there are no rules in love or war'
despicable? Perhaps; its a dirty job, but somebody's got to do it.
|
That's the point really. There was no job to do in Iraq regarding terrorism since it was not a sponsor of terrorists and had no problems itself with terrorism, other than that of their ruler. |
That's a pretty big qualification right there... | Bikerman wrote: |
Immoral it surely is, although it depends on your own moral code. Illegal it also is, according to most experts on international law, since the only justification for invading a sovereign state is self-defence.
|
International law is a farce to keep the weak nations in line. Suppose you got everyone to agree that the USA is a dangerous aggresor and should be stopped... Could the rest of the world put together expect victory? | Bikerman wrote: |
More immoral than the terrorists ? It IS terrorism so I don't understand the question. |
You backed yourself nicely into that trap: If what we're doing is terrorisim, then it is by definition exactly as moral as what the terrorists do. That puts us on equal moral grounds. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: | | To keep the 'bad guy' from taking more hostages later, yes. As Asimov puts it, 'never let your sense of morals keep you from doing what is right.' |
You'll have to forgive me but I'm afraid I don't believe you.
|
I forgive you. | Bikerman wrote: |
I also doubt Asimov ever intended that phrase as anything other than ironic, since I know his work pretty well and he was certainly intelligent enough to know that it is a false dichotomy
|
Not really, sometimes what is moral and what is right are two different things. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the bad guy kills civilians it is terrorism but if the US does then it is necessary. Hmm...
|
Yes, you see, either way civilians are going to die, but which way produces the fewest civilian deaths in the long run?
|
Do the math youself. Number of civilians killed by the US actions in Afghanistan and Iraq ? 50,000 would seem a reasonable figure.
|
More like 48,000, but that's quibbling over details. The number of civilian deaths with a different course of action cannot be determined, so how can we know which number would be higher? Besides, as I said earlier, if the terrorists would stop attacking no more civilians would die, however, if the USA just pulled out and left, many more civilans would die in the countries' internal conflicts.
| Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: |
| Bikerman wrote: |
If the Iraqis plant bonbs and fire guns they are terrorists but the invading US troops are just trying to stop them attacking...hmmm... |
They don't show any signs of stopping on their own; who will stop them? The US pulling out wouldn't help, then they would just attack eachother untill one came out on top, then that one would attack the US.
|
They never attacked the US before the invasion. By international agreement a person fighting an invader in their own country is NOT a terrorist. The word should be used correctly in this context - ie to describe the UK/US forces.
|
If you'll notice, you are the one who called them terrorists in that particular exchange, while I didn't use that term. And besides, you already know that I don't care at all about 'international agreement' if I'm the only one in the world who's right, that won't change my mind. | Bikerman wrote: |
| Quote: |
That's exactly what the terrorists want. You're too terrified to express opinions freely. Do you really want to live like that? |
Terrified ? Me ?
|
No not you, LukeakaDanish. He was the one who was afraid to join a certain fan club. | Bikerman wrote: |
Of whom ? |
The terrorists.
*tries very hard not to indulge in personal flaming* | Bikerman wrote: |
The US is the only one scaring me at the moment. I have expressed my opinions as clearly as I wanted to and am certainly not to terrified to call things as I see them - I wonder why you might think I was ?
|
Again, you are not the one who has been kept from expressing an opinion, wether it is a desirable one or not, by fear. Apparently, you are still above that influence. You should just be glad that the USA has higher standards of freedom, or you would have legitimate reason to fear. | Quote: |
| That's the whole problem; are they defending their country? No. They're trying to damage America in any way they can. The real motive is revenge; they can't possibly expect any real lasting victory. |
Pfft...neither side is defending their country, but in war the goal is to hurt the other side, which is exactly what america do when they go on some revenge frenzy somewhere thousands of kilometers from america.
| Quote: |
| Oh, that's not hypocritical; the muslim extremists are very good at turning the other cheek, right? |
Wow - I actually thought americans where meant to be christians, not muslims :S
America are stronger - thats why they should be able to take the first steps.
| Quote: |
| So now we have a double standard eh? Poor countries are entitled to revenge, but rich ones are not? |
Yes - aas i said above - America are stronger - thats why they should be able to take the first steps.
| Quote: |
| Jealous? As you stated earlier, the US is far superior, what do we have to be jealous of, your peace and harmony? |
If you take my quote out of context, then it looks wrong, true. I was merely trying to prove that your "saying" was kinda stupid in the context you put it in. (And im not from the middle east - im from denmark, which is in europe in case you wondered)
| Quote: |
| You can keep your liberal propaganda to yourself, thank you very much. Myself, I don't care if they're guilty of those particular crimes or not, but I'm sure they do have blood on their hands. |
As my statistics from wikipedia in my above post proove, america have a LOT more blood on their hands than afghans and iraqees have put together
| Quote: |
| Does NATO rule the world? Since when does an independant nation have to ask permission to go to war? |
Did you notice that i put "theoretic" ?
The cold war shows that we need to communicate and agree on things if we dont want a nuclear war.
| Quote: |
| People that would have been killed by those 48,174 in Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 went unpunished: ? |
None - they wherent military casualties but just random civilians (and I sincerely hope your not the kind of person who thinks all muslims are terrorists)
| Quote: |
| Perhaps more civilians have died this way (though I'm by no means certain of that), but again, the USA is a nation. The government's job is to protect it's people, not the people of another nation. |
How do you protect your nation by flying to the other side of the world and killing almost fifty thousand civilians? The short answer is you dont - you make the rest mad at you (terrorists arent terorists for fun)
| Quote: |
| So that's what they want, eh? But wait, you said they aren't stupid, yet they're trying to be accepted by us and granted opportunities by us through attacking us? If they're so smart, how come they can't find a better way to that goal? |
Im not saying they are smart - they havent had the same education as most americans, but im gonna put the question to you: How would they achieve equality and respect for their race and religion?
I dont think thats a simple question. I dont think its a dilemma the poor part of the world can solve by themselves.
Why is vandalism done by the poor? Its not that complicated psychology - they're envious and want attention - those arent very moral goals, but its normal human psyche, so its essentially the fault of those more well of, for not solving the problems before they got out of hands.
I dont mean offence towards you or your views with anything you say, or indeed towards the american people or government style. Im just tryin to defend my argument that the wars america have been leading havent been propperly justifyed, and trying to ask america to take the first step in making the world a better and more peaceful place. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | That's the whole problem; are they defending their country? No. They're trying to damage America in any way they can. The real motive is revenge; they can't possibly expect any real lasting victory. |
Pfft...neither side is defending their country, but in war the goal is to hurt the other side, which is exactly what america do when they go on some revenge frenzy somewhere thousands of kilometers from america.
|
No, the goal in war is to defeat the other side, that's why civilized countries have such things as surrender.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | Oh, that's not hypocritical; the muslim extremists are very good at turning the other cheek, right? |
Wow - I actually thought americans where meant to be christians, not muslims :S |
And since when are all Americans christians? What basis do you have to hold a nation that welcomes all religions to the morals of any one of those religions, even if it is the most promenant? | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
America are stronger - thats why they should be able to take the first steps. |
They have, just not in the direction you'd like: they decided to have peace by the eradication of their enimies, not the placation of their ememies. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | So now we have a double standard eh? Poor countries are entitled to revenge, but rich ones are not? |
Yes - aas i said above - America are stronger - thats why they should be able to take the first steps. |
Oh, now that's fair. If the muslims want equality, why don't they start by applying equal moral standards to themselves? | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | Jealous? As you stated earlier, the US is far superior, what do we have to be jealous of, your peace and harmony? |
If you take my quote out of context, then it looks wrong, true. I was merely trying to prove that your "saying" was kinda stupid in the context you put it in. (And im not from the middle east - im from denmark, which is in europe in case you wondered) |
I know precisely where Denmark is, thank you.
*Tries very, very hard to not indulge in personal flaming*
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | You can keep your liberal propaganda to yourself, thank you very much. Myself, I don't care if they're guilty of those particular crimes or not, but I'm sure they do have blood on their hands. |
As my statistics from wikipedia in my above post proove, america have a LOT more blood on their hands than afghans and iraqees have put together |
Perhaps, but I wouln't count on it. How many people is Saddam on trial for killing? Really, I forget. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | Does NATO rule the world? Since when does an independant nation have to ask permission to go to war? |
Did you notice that i put "theoretic" ?
The cold war shows that we need to communicate and agree on things if we dont want a nuclear war. |
And the Iraq war shows that that is only needed when there is strife between two nuclear powers; or has the Iraq war let to nuclear destruction without me noticing? | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | People that would have been killed by those 48,174 in Iraq and Afghanistan if 9/11 went unpunished: ? |
None - they wherent military casualties but just random civilians (and I sincerely hope your not the kind of person who thinks all muslims are terrorists) |
No not all muslims are terrorists, but I find it highly improbable that all of those 'civilians' actualy were innocent, seeing as how the enemy disguises themselves as civilians. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | Perhaps more civilians have died this way (though I'm by no means certain of that), but again, the USA is a nation. The government's job is to protect it's people, not the people of another nation. |
How do you protect your nation by flying to the other side of the world and killing almost fifty thousand civilians? |
You don't, you fly in and kill a few thousand terrorists hiding behind 50,000 civilians. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| The short answer is you dont - you make the rest mad at you (terrorists arent terorists for fun) |
You make them mad yes, but hopefully you make them scared too. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | So that's what they want, eh? But wait, you said they aren't stupid, yet they're trying to be accepted by us and granted opportunities by us through attacking us? If they're so smart, how come they can't find a better way to that goal? |
Im not saying they are smart - they havent had the same education as most americans, but im gonna put the question to you: How would they achieve equality and respect for their race and religion? |
Perhaps the same exact way all the other religions and ethnic groups have? Naw, that would be to simple, right? | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
I dont think thats a simple question. I dont think its a dilemma the poor part of the world can solve by themselves. |
So now we're talking about the whole of the world's poor are we? I don't notice any Africans killing senselessly in order to gain acceptance and equality (well, other than internal genocide, but that's for other reasons), yet there is certainly poverty there. Perhaps the Arabs could learn from them? | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
Why is vandalism done by the poor? Its not that complicated psychology - they're envious and want attention - those arent very moral goals, but its normal human psyche, so its essentially the fault of those more well of, for not solving the problems before they got out of hands. |
Another human tendancy: putting the blame on others. I can understand a theif forced by poverty to steal, but a vandal could be stopped by just a little application of morality with no harm to himself. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
I dont mean offence towards you or your views with anything you say, or indeed towards the american people or government style. |
Not even that crack about educating me about the geographical location of Denmark? | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Im just tryin to defend my argument that the wars america have been leading havent been propperly justifyed, |
Perhaps not, but that's the fault of bad intelligence and Iraqis not cooperating with weapons inspectors. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| and trying to ask america to take the first step in making the world a better and more peaceful place. |
We did that when we drove Hitler back to Germany, now its your turn. Go have Denmark end the conflict. | Quote: |
| No, the goal in war is to defeat the other side, that's why civilized countries have such things as surrender. |
By that america can take over pretty much any country because they have a stronger military - and the country isnt allowed to put up a struggle 
| Quote: |
| They have, just not in the direction you'd like: they decided to have peace by the eradication of their enimies, not the placation of their ememies. |
Hitting back just ISNT turning the other cheek - do you think it is?
America will never be able to kill their way into the hearts of the middle east, and therefor they will never win the war on terrorism.
If they dont try to make peace the war with the less well of countries will last forever. Thats why I ask for them to take the first steps.
| Quote: |
| Oh, now that's fair. If the muslims want equality, why don't they start by applying equal moral standards to themselves? |
The degree of equality present in america today (im talking sexual equality and capitalism) is only there because americans are educated people, and have learned to treat each other as equals some time in the late ninteenth century - if we try to get muslim countries out of the middle ages and into the modern times, then maybe they too will be able to realize that they need to treat their women propperly.
| Quote: |
I know precisely where Denmark is, thank you.
*Tries very, very hard to not indulge in personal flaming* |
I'm sorry that you where offended by that - it wasnt meant as a joke on americans IN ANY WAY, but was rather a sign of me knowing that denmark is a very small country, and therefor not neccesarily known by everyone (the message was for anybody else reading this topic aswel)
| Quote: |
| And the Iraq war shows that that is only needed when there is strife between two nuclear powers; or has the Iraq war let to nuclear destruction without me noticing? |
America still hasent found any WOMD to my knowledge - so iraq arent a nuclear power. Also my point was that the rich world should agree on what wars should be fought, just so that we dont have to get *mad* at each other (even against my intentions, you are very mad at me 
)
| Quote: |
| No not all muslims are terrorists, but I find it highly improbable that all of those 'civilians' actualy were innocent, seeing as how the enemy disguises themselves as civilians. |
Did you think that argument over propeprly?
Here's why I dont like it:
1: If its 'ok' to kill civilians just because they *might* be terrorists, then essentially America shouldnt bomb military targets with small precise misilies, they should just throw a thousand nuclear bombs on all countries in the world, as essentially, and person could be a terrorist.
2: If you shoot a terrorist diguised as a civilian, you will surely find out that he's a terrorist after you've killed him and therefor NOT count his death as a civilian death
3: Seen as there was probably at least one military casualty of 9/11, your argument essentially justifies terrorist from making these attacks (i still dont believe they did)
| Quote: |
| You don't, you fly in and kill a few thousand terrorists hiding behind 50,000 civilians. |
1: I dont believe terrorist where behind the 9/11 attacks.
I was again urge you to watch loose change, as linked in my above post - its NOT liberal in any way, its just a random person who wants some answers from his government. He presents some facts and then asks why - he doesnt jump to any conclusions, which arent COMPLETELY justified by undoubtable facts.
2: Well...when you attack Iraq or Afghanistan, where else can the Iraqee and Afghan people hide, than among their own people? Should they meet you in an open war they would obviously loose?
| Quote: |
| You make them mad yes, but hopefully you make them scared too. |
You forget that a person who is willing to take his own life for his beliefs CANT be scared
| Quote: |
| Perhaps the same exact way all the other religions and ethnic groups have? Naw, that would be to simple, right? |
How did they do it? (no rethoric implied whatsoever)
| Quote: |
| So now we're talking about the whole of the world's poor are we? I don't notice any Africans killing senselessly in order to gain acceptance and equality (well, other than internal genocide, but that's for other reasons), yet there is certainly poverty there. Perhaps the Arabs could learn from them? |
Ok...thats fair enough I guess - Arabs SHOULD try to behave more like africans (though egyptians did burn down the danish embacy in egypt, around christmas time)
| Quote: |
| Another human tendancy: putting the blame on others. I can understand a theif forced by poverty to steal, but a vandal could be stopped by just a little application of morality with no harm to himself. |
True, but then why are there vandals? - Because people are envious, jealous and attention seeking, and if your poor, this *may* result in you doing something which isnt moral. I'm not trying to justify it, I'm just saying that there is crime. It may seem pointless and stupid to educated and reasonably well of people like you and me (I'm making an assumption here, please correct me if im wrong), but its still there, so we can do nothing but try to fix it.
| Quote: |
| Not even that crack about educating me about the geographical location of Denmark? |
It wasnt meant as a joke, as i explained above, and i actually believe that your alowed to believe what you want, if its not racist. I also have many good american friends and believe that nobody should question the american government, for anything appart from the wars, as it is your choice - thats the essence of democracy 
| Quote: |
| Perhaps not, but that's the fault of bad intelligence and Iraqis not cooperating with weapons inspectors. |
How can you coopperate, if you dont have any Weapons of mass destructions to show? Also, if they actually had WOMD, they wouldnt want to show them - as america would definately have kicked their behinds...
If your intelligence isnt good enough to be certain, then i dont think you should start a war with another country.
| Quote: |
| We did that when we drove Hitler back to Germany, now its your turn. Go have Denmark end the conflict. |
If denmark had the power I'm 100% certain that there wouldn't have been a war on Iraq. Now that there has been a war, I dont know how to end it - thats up to USA.
and PLEASE dont bring up world war two - thats more than fourty years before i was born, and i hardly think that the american government, or indeed the american people are the same as then.
But thanks anyway | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | No, the goal in war is to defeat the other side, that's why civilized countries have such things as surrender. |
By that america can take over pretty much any country because they have a stronger military - and the country isnt allowed to put up a struggle
|
They are allowed, but it would be more sensible to surrender.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | They have, just not in the direction you'd like: they decided to have peace by the eradication of their enimies, not the placation of their ememies. |
Hitting back just ISNT turning the other cheek - do you think it is? |
No, I don't. Did I ever say America was going to turn the other cheek? Dispite the dominance of christianity turning the other cheek is not the American way. (mainly because of seperation of church and state) What was the impetus to join in WWII? In Europe: a U-boat sinks a cruise liner with Americans on board. In the pacific: Japan attacks US soil. Therefore, had turning the other cheek and ignoring potential threats been America's policy, Denmark would still be under the control of Nazi Germany today. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
America will never be able to kill their way into the hearts of the middle east, and therefor they will never win the war on terrorism.
|
Somehow I suspect we could never coax our way into their hearts either, besides by making the state religion of the USA Islam.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
If they dont try to make peace the war with the less well of countries will last forever. Thats why I ask for them to take the first steps.
|
Nothing lasts forever. At the current rate of attrition who will run out of fighters first? It may end up like vietnam, but sooner or later the war will end. For that matter the world will eventually end.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | Oh, now that's fair. If the muslims want equality, why don't they start by applying equal moral standards to themselves? |
The degree of equality present in america today (im talking sexual equality and capitalism) is only there because americans are educated people, and have learned to treat each other as equals some time in the late ninteenth century - if we try to get muslim countries out of the middle ages and into the modern times, then maybe they too will be able to realize that they need to treat their women propperly. |
I'm not referring to equal rights (although that would be a good improvement over there). I'm refering to the double standard. How can they be expected to be treated as equals if they do not treat others the same way?
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | I know precisely where Denmark is, thank you.
*Tries very, very hard to not indulge in personal flaming* |
I'm sorry that you where offended by that - it wasnt meant as a joke on americans IN ANY WAY, but was rather a sign of me knowing that denmark is a very small country, and therefor not neccesarily known by everyone (the message was for anybody else reading this topic aswel) |
Well, I suppose I might have overreacted to that, but it seemed to be a subtle slight to my intelligence.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | And the Iraq war shows that that is only needed when there is strife between two nuclear powers; or has the Iraq war let to nuclear destruction without me noticing? |
America still hasent found any WOMD to my knowledge - so iraq arent a nuclear power. Also my point was that the rich world should agree on what wars should be fought, just so that we dont have to get *mad* at each other (even against my intentions, you are very mad at me )
|
But what's the point of being a sovreign nation if you have to do what all the other nations tell you? That's moving dangerously close to global domination. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | No not all muslims are terrorists, but I find it highly improbable that all of those 'civilians' actualy were innocent, seeing as how the enemy disguises themselves as civilians. |
Did you think that argument over propeprly?
Here's why I dont like it:
1: If its 'ok' to kill civilians just because they *might* be terrorists, then essentially America shouldnt bomb military targets with small precise misilies, they should just throw a thousand nuclear bombs on all countries in the world, as essentially, and person could be a terrorist. |
No, that's not OK, but it is OK to kill terrorists that might be civilians. (Given the situation, in which there is no better choice.)
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
2: If you shoot a terrorist diguised as a civilian, you will surely find out that he's a terrorist after you've killed him and therefor NOT count his death as a civilian death |
Unless, of course you blow him to bits from the air, which is the prefered method. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
3: Seen as there was probably at least one military casualty of 9/11, your argument essentially justifies terrorist from making these attacks |
Possibly (through technicality). But I'd like to see you convince anyone that the world trade center was a military target. (The pentagon, on the other hand...) Which reminds me, how can you expect us to turn the other cheek when these people directly attacked the offices of the highest ranking military officers in the US forces? That's not a slap on the cheek, that's a knife in the back.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
(i still dont believe they did)
|
Oh, so 9/11 wasn't caused by terrorists? (Let me tell you a secret: you're right; those planes were taken over by the US government, not terrorists. It's all a big conspiracy! *sarcasm*) | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | You don't, you fly in and kill a few thousand terrorists hiding behind 50,000 civilians. |
1: I dont believe terrorist where behind the 9/11 attacks.
|
That is an amazing statement! Who was behind the 9/11 attacks if not terrorists? | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
I was again urge you to watch loose change, as linked in my above post - its NOT liberal in any way, its just a random person who wants some answers from his government. He presents some facts and then asks why - he doesnt jump to any conclusions, which arent COMPLETELY justified by undoubtable facts. |
Sure... and the facts he presents are chosen completely arbitrarily with no bias, right? And certainly nobody's response was left off if they had a good point that the makers didn't agree with, right?
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
2: Well...when you attack Iraq or Afghanistan, where else can the Iraqee and Afghan people hide, than among their own people? Should they meet you in an open war they would obviously loose?
|
Rather than hide behind the civilians and cause them pain, yes they should come out and fight. If the odds are too terribly against them, they should surrender. The terrorists are as much behind those civilian deaths as America is, if for no other reason than the terrorists could have saved them all by surrendering. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | You make them mad yes, but hopefully you make them scared too. |
You forget that a person who is willing to take his own life for his beliefs CANT be scared |
They surely aren't all that fanatical, expecialy the leaders.
| Quote: |
| Perhaps the same exact way all the other religions and ethnic groups have? Naw, that would be to simple, right? |
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
How did they do it? (no rethoric implied whatsoever)
|
How the 'ell should I know, but they did it, and as far as I know, they didn't do it by threatening or killing those who disagreed with them. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | So now we're talking about the whole of the world's poor are we? I don't notice any Africans killing senselessly in order to gain acceptance and equality (well, other than internal genocide, but that's for other reasons), yet there is certainly poverty there. Perhaps the Arabs could learn from them? |
Ok...thats fair enough I guess - Arabs SHOULD try to behave more like africans (though egyptians did burn down the danish embacy in egypt, around christmas time) |
I suppose it wouldn't be polite to mention the fact that Egypt and many of the countries of that area of Africa are at least partialy under muslim influence... | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | Another human tendancy: putting the blame on others. I can understand a theif forced by poverty to steal, but a vandal could be stopped by just a little application of morality with no harm to himself. |
True, but then why are there vandals? - Because people are envious, jealous and attention seeking, and if your poor, this *may* result in you doing something which isnt moral. I'm not trying to justify it, I'm just saying that there is crime. It may seem pointless and stupid to educated and reasonably well of people like you and me (I'm making an assumption here, please correct me if im wrong), but its still there, so we can do nothing but try to fix it.
|
And we would fix it how?
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | Perhaps not, but that's the fault of bad intelligence and Iraqis not cooperating with weapons inspectors. |
How can you coopperate, if you dont have any Weapons of mass destructions to show? Also, if they actually had WOMD, they wouldnt want to show them - as america would definately have kicked their behinds...
|
Nothing that obvious, but they often delayed inspectors, which made people think that they may have been playing for time to move the weapons out. Iraq is a big place; if the weapons were buiried somewhere we might never find them. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
If your intelligence isnt good enough to be certain, then i dont think you should start a war with another country. |
Intelligence is never certain. If is was, we could fight the entire war without a single civilain casualty. | LukeakaDanish wrote: |
| Quote: | | We did that when we drove Hitler back to Germany, now its your turn. Go have Denmark end the conflict. |
If denmark had the power I'm 100% certain that there wouldn't have been a war on Iraq. Now that there has been a war, I dont know how to end it - thats up to USA. |
And we are ending it. Just not in the way or at the speed you would prefer. But since you've no better ideas on how to win (seems like nobody does), we'll just have to use the plan we've got, which is: 'kill all the terrorists'.
| LukeakaDanish wrote: |
and PLEASE dont bring up world war two - thats more than fourty years before i was born, and i hardly think that the american government, or indeed the american people are the same as then.
|
The government: yes, that was basicly the same. The people: Slightly more moral than now.
As for how long ago it was, do you think history dosn't matter? At the end of that war, the Jews were given back their homeland, which is one of the ongoing things that the muslims are outraged about.
As for it's pertinance, just think how things might be different had that war gone different... I wonder how someone like Hitler would have handled muslim exremists... | Quote: |
| They are allowed, but it would be more sensible to surrender. |
It would be VERY sencible.
Honour is one of the most important words in their comunities, so im not sure how well that would go down.
They should surrender though - the world would be a GREAT place if the weaker side always did - however we would probably have to rename the world america 
| Quote: |
| No, I don't. Did I ever say America was going to turn the other cheek? Dispite the dominance of christianity turning the other cheek is not the American way. (mainly because of seperation of church and state) What was the impetus to join in WWII? In Europe: a U-boat sinks a cruise liner with Americans on board. In the pacific: Japan attacks US soil. Therefore, had turning the other cheek and ignoring potential threats been America's policy, Denmark would still be under the control of Nazi Germany today. |
I still dont like you bringing up WWII - its far too long ago, and saddam was hardly going to end up a threat to the entire world if not bombed.
Ok - you do kindof have an argument here - of course "good men" must do something to stop "evil men", however I am still of the conviction that the middle-east must be helped out of its crisis rather than bombed out.
| Quote: |
| Somehow I suspect we could never coax our way into their hearts either, besides by making the state religion of the USA Islam. |
Given the wars which the US has had with these countries it will now be VERY difficult and take VERY long time, however I dont think it's impossible.
I also think it could have been prevented if america had chosen NOT to revenge 9/11 (which i still believe they caused themselves (you get the point ))
| Quote: |
| Nothing lasts forever. At the current rate of attrition who will run out of fighters first? It may end up like vietnam, but sooner or later the war will end. For that matter the world will eventually end. |
I, for one, hope that the world will last till it is devoured by the sun, or something like that eventually happens. Thats why i bother with this kind of argument - I hope to prevent the premature ending of the world.
Sure - there will eventually be peace in Iraq and Afghanistan, and in that sence america will have won the war, however before that happens a lot more people will get mad at america, which will mean more terrorist attacks and the circle will be complete - so in that sence I dont belive it will end - certainly not in my/your lifetime (unless the oil runs out or something ridiculous like that)
| Quote: |
| I'm not referring to equal rights (although that would be a good improvement over there). I'm refering to the double standard. How can they be expected to be treated as equals if they do not treat others the same way? |
As they are the less well of part of the "equation", were really the only ones who can ensure equal opportunities, respect etc.
They can hardly be said to respect america, so i guess you have a point there, however, i still think america should be fighting for their respect, instead of fighting to get rid of those who dont respect america.
| Quote: |
| But what's the point of being a sovreign nation if you have to do what all the other nations tell you? That's moving dangerously close to global domination. |
I'm not saying you cant do what you want (Iraq war shows you can), I'm just scared of a nuclear war or something similar - what happens when china is as large a military and economic power as the US, and dont uphold the laws that america expect them to? WWIII? - thats why I call for a united rich part of the world - so that we can talk through conflicts and save lives.
| Quote: |
| No, that's not OK, but it is OK to kill terrorists that might be civilians. (Given the situation, in which there is no better choice.) |
Of course. I still think 48.000 seems a little careless though.
| Quote: |
| Unless, of course you blow him to bits from the air, which is the prefered method. |
If you blow him to pieces from the air, then you definately think he's a terrorist, and therefor he wouldnt be in the count for civilian death would he?
| Quote: |
| Possibly (through technicality). But I'd like to see you convince anyone that the world trade center was a military target. (The pentagon, on the other hand...) Which reminds me, how can you expect us to turn the other cheek when these people directly attacked the offices of the highest ranking military officers in the US forces? That's not a slap on the cheek, that's a knife in the back. |
We're never going to agree the slightest, as I dont *still* dont believe that terrorist started 9/11, however lets just say I do, for the sake of the argument:
Sure. Your right. They hit america right in its heart. Turning the other cheek to that CANT be expected. Remember how not NEARLY as many people where mad because of the afghan war? Thats because attacking afghanistan was justified.
Iraq on the other hand, was not as well justified, and america had definately used up their revenge tokens. Saddam was no more behind 9/11 that George Bush supports Hilter
| Quote: |
| That is an amazing statement! Who was behind the 9/11 attacks if not terrorists? |
From the facts I have seen, it seems most probable that the american government where behind it, but I would never claim to know - seen as the us gov. are being so secretive about many elements of what happended on 9/11.
| Quote: |
| Sure... and the facts he presents are chosen completely arbitrarily with no bias, right? And certainly nobody's response was left off if they had a good point that the makers didn't agree with, right? |
If something is disproved, I'm very certain it would instantly be removed from the movie. - It cant be biased seen as its not representing a view, but just a load of facts, which make the official explanation seem impossible - and I once again urge you to watch it - you dont have to belive ANYTHING the movie says - just like I read what George Bush says although I dont agree with it - staying informed is (as you know...) important to finding the *real* truth.
| Quote: |
| Rather than hide behind the civilians and cause them pain, yes they should come out and fight. If the odds are too terribly against them, they should surrender. The terrorists are as much behind those civilian deaths as America is, if for no other reason than the terrorists could have saved them all by surrendering. |
Hm...in a certain sence you are right however, as I said above, this would essentially make america the rules of the world - which I dont think you can expect anybody to put up with.
| Quote: |
| hey surely aren't all that fanatical, expecialy the leaders. |
Your right, however apparantly only a few people (aorund 50 or so) where ever involved with 9/11 - so it doesnt really take that many - and out of 1 Billion (that how many muslims there are approx. as far as i remember), finding 50 nutcases shouldnt be *that* difficult.
| Quote: |
| How the 'ell should I know, but they did it, and as far as I know, they didn't do it by threatening or killing those who disagreed with them. |
Good point, of course, however most other cultures didnt have to look at all the inequality of the world every day through the media. I'm not saying that justifies anything, but I am saying it could be a good reason.
| Quote: |
| I suppose it wouldn't be polite to mention the fact that Egypt and many of the countries of that area of Africa are at least partialy under muslim influence... |
Sorry about the rubbish example. You where - Africans are well behaved
| Quote: |
| And we would fix it how? |
If the poor people wherent poor they wouldnt commit crimes like vandalisms. I dont intend this to sound socialistic at all (I'm not a socialist incase you wondered) - the kind of sharing im talking about is just helping these countries become 20th century (I dont mean 21st century, no) or even 19th century, as right now many things in their society are closer to 14th century. (which incidently would explain them attacking other people because of their religion - we did that too!)
| Quote: |
| Nothing that obvious, but they often delayed inspectors, which made people think that they may have been playing for time to move the weapons out. Iraq is a big place; if the weapons were buiried somewhere we might never find them. |
Well...they managed to find Saddam, and I think he's smaller than even the smallest nuclear misile, and they practically dug him under the sand of a desert!
Ok...so you have a point - there may still turn out to be nuclear warheads somewhere - my responce to that is: How can we allow ANY countries to have nuclear misiles - they definately CANT be used to hit military targets. Why should even france be allowed them? or Britain? or Isreal? or USA?
(Denmark cant afford them )
| Quote: |
| And we are ending it. Just not in the way or at the speed you would prefer. But since you've no better ideas on how to win (seems like nobody does), we'll just have to use the plan we've got, which is: 'kill all the terrorists'. |
Hey - I never blamed america for not ending the wars fast enough - it cant really be helped can it?
I just hope "kill all the terrorists" doesnt start another war, because I truthfully killing a terrorist makes two other muslims terrorists - and by that logic there will be war forever.
| Quote: |
The government: yes, that was basicly the same. The people: Slightly more moral than now.
As for how long ago it was, do you think history dosn't matter? At the end of that war, the Jews were given back their homeland, which is one of the ongoing things that the muslims are outraged about.
As for it's pertinance, just think how things might be different had that war gone different... I wonder how someone like Hitler would have handled muslim exremists... |
Hm...it seems like the whole WWII thing has come up anyway...let me quote wiki agian then:
| Quote: |
Allies Total dead: 50,000,000
Axis Total dead: 12,000,000
|
My problem is that even if EVERY terrorist out there tried to fly a plane into a building, not that many people would die. - and the effect of joining WWII was to ending a war - the effect of starting a war with Iraq was - well starting a war
I dont have time to check back on this for the next day or so, but rest assured I will be back to continue this intriguing conversation, if you reply - Although I dont really feel that either of our views have changed to much since this started, I do still think its very interesting having this discussion.Let's clear something up.
When you show people pictures of different people and ask them to pic out the American, they almost unfailingly choose the picture of the white person. Don't matter what country that person pictured is really from.
How do I know?
I tested it.
So it doesn't matter what the liberals say. When people are hating Americans, they are really just hating Whitey.
The rest is just propoganda.
I love this game: Pick the tourists' country of origin. It's fun to play in foreign countries - preferably while sitting somewhere comfortable with a cool drink or some local food.
Generally I find shoes (and fashion in general) are the best way to tell apart different nationalities if you can't hear them. American tourists generally also travel in groups, and are often fatter than your average European tourist (although German