[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Mohammed himself was a murderer and pederast( have you any evidnece for this? ). It is a cornerstone of the religion. Those that claim it isn’t are ill-informed or liars.[/quote]
much like alexander the great( if we switch out pederast with gay ), does that mean
that this is the cornerstone of greec culture?
ps. I know alexander was originally from macedonia, but he is part of the greec culture.[/quote]
Alexander the Great didn’t command his followers to follow in his foot steps. Mo’ did.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Oh, and those “terrorist attacks” wouldn’t be happening if those “coalitions” weren’t there.[/quote]
Bullshit, they kill infidels for virgins. As long as there are infidels there were be these ‘terrorist attacks.’[/quote]
This is true to some degree.
Obviously Western military presence in the Middle East has caused the ranks of fanatical organizations to swell–put simply, two American wars in the region is an al-Qaeda recruiter’s wet dream.
However, if you read the writings of Osama Bin Laden and other al-Qaeda figureheads, you get a disturbing picture of their ideology, which runs far deeper than simple thirst for revenge. There is a passage in one of Bin Laden’s essays in which he praises certain Western politicians for framing Islam as the enemy of America and Europe. According to him those politicians are exactly right–the choice for the infidel is Islam or the sword, and it will always be so regardless of changes in policy etc. How much of this is mere rhetoric is difficult to say, but it’s there for all to see.
[quote]pat wrote:
You didn’t answer my question. How would you handle it differently? I don’t want innocent lives to get lost and no they are not less important than anybody else, but how do you solve a problem like this?
[/quote]
First I’d get everyone to put down the sophmoric “Evildoer who hates freedom” nonsense and understand the issue as a complex combination of social, religious, political, psychological and cultural issues. Then, I’d admit that there is no way to “solve” the problem - there is no way to permanently rid the world of “terrorism”. If I could snap my fingers and make everyone who is considering a terroristic action drop dead, it still wouldn’t prevent more attacks in ten, twenty, or fifty years.
So I’d look at the conditions that lead to terrorism, in particular to the US being targeted.
Then, I’d look for ways to connect with Muslims who are equally against terrorism - hint, invading and occupying countries is a good way to turn them against us.
[/quote]
Well, there is no doubt they are evil. Diplomacy was tried first, under Clinton and Bush. All Asscrackistan had to do was turn over one guy, osama bin laden, to face trial and all of the war would have been avoided. But they stoned walled us and thumbed their noses.
So when the outreach program fails, as it did, what do you do next?
[quote]pat wrote:
You didn’t answer my question. How would you handle it differently? I don’t want innocent lives to get lost and no they are not less important than anybody else, but how do you solve a problem like this?
[/quote]
First I’d get everyone to put down the sophmoric “Evildoer who hates freedom” nonsense and understand the issue as a complex combination of social, religious, political, psychological and cultural issues. Then, I’d admit that there is no way to “solve” the problem - there is no way to permanently rid the world of “terrorism”. If I could snap my fingers and make everyone who is considering a terroristic action drop dead, it still wouldn’t prevent more attacks in ten, twenty, or fifty years.
So I’d look at the conditions that lead to terrorism, in particular to the US being targeted.
Then, I’d look for ways to connect with Muslims who are equally against terrorism - hint, invading and occupying countries is a good way to turn them against us.
[/quote]
Now keep in mind, when you explore diplomatic angles, that there are the people you are dealing with:
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Mohammed himself was a murderer and pederast( have you any evidnece for this? ). It is a cornerstone of the religion. Those that claim it isn’t are ill-informed or liars.[/quote]
much like alexander the great( if we switch out pederast with gay ), does that mean
that this is the cornerstone of greek culture?
[/quote]
I don’t know.
Do Greeks worship him as the ideal, and as a messenger from God? Are his words considered to be those of God? Do the Greeks believe that if you disagree with or criticize him, then you should be put to death? Have the Greeks fought wars and otherwise killed all over the world in his name, and do they continue to do this even now? Do his thinking and behavior inform pretty much every single last aspect of Greek culture?
Hmmmm. Your question is sure tough to answer… [/quote]
It was a retorical question to show the stupidity of big bananas post.
Big bananas`s claim that he was a pedophil I have ever heard of and would like to see some evidence for that.
yes he was a murderer, but so is every conquerer in the history of man, alex the great was perhaps a bad example, but lets take napoleon. Does the fact that napoleon was a murderer( conquerer ) make murder the cornerstone of republicanism. is that better for you.
Islam is a religion and the cornerstone of that religion is submission to god. pretty much the same as christianity. This does not change the fact that the arabs created a empire in 600-700 after christ, but it doesnt explain the faith of the average muslim guy or gal.
conclusion: his statement was pure ignorant hatred, something you expect from a nazi or someone equally dumb.
:D[/quote]
I take exception to your use of napoleon in association with the concept of a republic. Wasn’t he pretty much a dictator with a puppet government? Otherwise I get your point.[/quote]
yes he was a dictator, but he and france represented the idea of republicanism/liberalism in europa in the early 1800`s.
[quote]Gkhan wrote:
this article does not differenciate between those killed by US troops or those killed by the religious civil war in Iraq. It just says the US killed everybody when in reality muslim suicide bombers targeting civilians took a huge toll on the Iraq war bodycount.
How many Christians were slaughtered in the Middle East and Africa in the last 30 years? The author should do a follow up on the Christian Holocaust, or maybe this isn’t in his political agenda.
Plus the article does not list how many were killed in the Russian war in Afghanistan, the following period of civil war and brutality under the Taliban.
Hell, you could even add the muslims killed in the Bulkans if you were so politically inclined. I guess not.
How about also listing muslim on muslim violence in Algeria in the 1990’s, and in Pakistan in the 00’s?
So, if there is indeed a Muslim Holocaust going on, when is the start date? Which countries do we include? Only the ones the US is involved in? Because if it is a world wide Holocaust, a lot more countries and even the Muslims themselves have a whole lot of blood on their hands.[/quote]
You’re changing the subject and engaging in fallacious relativist reasoning.
The commentary is about the loss of innocent lives in Iraq and Afghanistan, not about lives lost elsewhere. Likewise, it’s not a commentary about Muslim on Muslim violence. That they happen to be Muslim lives is merely the reasoning why the author believes the American press has not paid much attention to those loss of lives. The foregoing is the topic; not loss of lives elsewhere or loss of Christian lives elsewhere.
[quote]Eli B wrote:
Does not seem to differentiate between deaths of fighters and civilians. Accidental death vs. murder. The Nazi holocaust was the systematic slaughter of civilians, not the by product of war.
Deaths as the result of sanctions seems to me to be an especially weak argument.
Do I really need to write that I do not intend to trivialize these deaths?
I would also like to see the methodology for collecting those numbers.
The Nazi’s kept meticulous records. That 6 million is not really in doubt. Something like 10 or 12 million not excluding other targeted groups?[/quote]
Are you offended by the comparison to a holocaust that rings closer to home for you? Or do you intend to raise the issue as a means to obfuscate the subject? Do you deny that innocent lives were lost? And how might economic sanctions that resulted in many deaths be a “weak argument”. State your claim.
[quote]Sifu wrote:
That article is a hysterical load of bullshit based upon wild estimates. Here’s something to compare those number to. Germany lost 5 million dead in ww2. There were bodies everywhere. We carpet bombed Germany for years and their army was in massive battles involving over a million men to kill that many. Yet somehow we have killed one and a half times as many people in Afghanistan and Iraq, with all the bodies neatly disposed of. This ridiculous article is not worth debating. [/quote]
You are yet another poster changing the subject and failing to make a claim.
If the estimates are “wild”, rebut them. What does the subject have to do with deaths in Germany? Again, it’s relativistic obfuscation. Discuss the topic! Were innocent lives lost in Iraq and Afghanistan and did the press under-report or not report and why? If it’s not worth “debating” why comment?
[quote]pat wrote:
This guy is a hack job…He quoted Noam Chomski for facts? That right their should tell you something. That and the fact that this nimrod only writes for the very far off-the-deep-end left, already makes it suspect.
Civilian casualties are bad, but there is no reason to badly exaggerate the claims, 7 million from sanctions and war? My ass. Placing the blame on the U.S. for the things that Saddam did is pretty ridiculous and low. Whether you agree with the war or not, to vindicate Saddam for the mass murders he inflicted on his own people and to blame the U.S. for it is garbage. But as long as some one writes it someone will believe it.
So what are the numbers?
Iraq: estimated between 100,091 and 109,359 including sectarian violence as well coalition efforts. http://www.iraqbodycount.org/
Can’t seem to find a total for Afghanistan, but here’s a snippet of recent deaths which have been higher than in past.
Bottom line, if something sounds fantastical, it probably is.[/quote]
Well, the Iraq count above ignores deaths from sanctions. But I ask you, does it make a difference if the number is 100k or 1m? What if those were American deaths? Would you still have an apparent dismissive attitude? What if it were 100k Christian deaths at the hands of Muslims in some modern conflict somewhere on the Globe? And it’s a bit circular to blame the deaths due to economic sanctions on Saddam - that argument opens a can of worms and there is plenty of blame to go around. The point is (I think), why aren’t these innocent casualties getting sufficient treatment in the American press?
And as a Christian, aren’t you concerned with the loss of any innocent life, let alone hundreds of thousands? You’re prepared to quibble about the exact number? Fine, the number is disputed, and you illustrated that sufficiently, but not conclusively. Does that really change the essential claim of the commentary?
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
The muslims really do kill each other, don’t they?[/quote]
Ja, let me know when they caught up to the Christians.
[/quote]
Don’t worry, nobody, and I mean nobody will ever catch up to the body count you little atheists put forth in the 20th century. That’s a record that will never be broken…[/quote]
By that logic, brown eyed people beat them all.
Or right handed people, those brutal bastards.
And dont get me started on those with reasonable eye sight, they beat the blind by an incredibly margin when it comes to vicious murder.
As a sidenote, state employees with dashing uniforms must be in the top three.
[/quote]
Logic apparently is a endangered species in PWI. I was taken to task for a few bad analogies in another thread that was nit picked mercilessly, while simply ignoring my plain point. From that point forward, having argued for a living for 20 years, I decided to step my game up from the stream-of-consciousness replies we all are prone to make, to those more reasoned arguments I might make while arguing a million dollar claim. And guess what I found out? PWI is a cesspool of fallacious and illogical arguments. I thought it was a bit more serious over here. I’m wrong. It still has the tenor of GAL and SAMA, but the subject matter is serious - ironically incongruous in light of the many here who fancy themselves intellectuals.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Oh, and those “terrorist attacks” wouldn’t be happening if those “coalitions” weren’t there.[/quote]
No, they’d probably happening here, Israel or in Europe. Lest you for get that they hate our guts for merely existing…Except when they need help or a no fly zone declared, then they are our best friends. After which they return to hating our guts.
And numbers do matter. No matter how you slice it, 100,000 is better than 1,000,000. In the case of Asscrackistan, I don’t see really where we had a choice. It was a case of kill or be killed such was their self proclaimed doctrine.[/quote]
Do they really hate us for existing? Or do they hate us for interfering in their affairs? Can you make a sound argument for their “hating us for existing”?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?
Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]
LOL @ the targeting of civilians being “collateral”.
“Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome”
[/quote]
There is no LOL here, be better than that!
On one side, you have a peoples that still throw rocks at tanks. On the other, a superpower that can bomb you from their control room without ever looking you in the eye. Terrorism is the commerce of their war because they lack the resources to fight us (and others) on our terms.
Issues of what constitutes a “military target” aside, there isn’t much difference between hi-jacking a plane and sending it into a building and firing a volley of cruise missiles at a City with both combatants and civilians.
They are both forms of war. Trying to apply “rules” to war, whether legal (by agreement) or moral, is meaningless.
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?
Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]
I would perhaps consider it if they didn’t make it perfectly clear that they intend to run our streets red with our blood so long as they live. And that only muslim collateral damage sad, but necessary. Please tell me you have heard this before? It cannot be news. These are based off of direct quotes. They’ve made it clear they don’t care who dies. See Yemen, Tanzania, Sudan, Nairobi, etc. More Africans died in those attacks than Americans.
9/11 was not the first attack. 1992, first WTC bombing, USS Cole, afore mentioned embassy bombings, 9/11, more embassy bombings, etc.
We let all of that ride until 9/11. How many more times were we going to allow attacks? 9/11 was part of a pattern.
You didn’t answer my question. How would you handle it differently? I don’t want innocent lives to get lost and no they are not less important than anybody else, but how do you solve a problem like this?
Further, there was plenty of cheering at the attacks and the deaths of Americans by those people. No, I am not surprise, but I am not offended either, I just know better than to book a vacation there…[/quote]
I have a question. What might our reaction be to an invasion on US soil? Might we utter news bites like “blood in their streets”? These are the rallying cries of the oppressed.
How do we solve the problem? What’s the alternative? How about actually exercising mutual “faith” in those religious teachings that we claim to hold so dear and loving each other. They hate our government, they don’t hate you.
[quote]Big Banana wrote:
Mohammed himself was a murderer and pederast. It is a cornerstone of the religion. Those that claim it isn’t are ill-informed or liars.[/quote]
Those that claim that it is are engaging in Cherry Picking, much the same way some Christians distort the message of the bible to support their views on racism.
The only way to know what Islam is and isn’t is to read the Koran and the Hadith. Both of these hold “The Prophet” up as an ideal to be emulated, and his words as those of God.
.[/quote]
Have you in fact done this? Have you gone to Temple to be taught (as I was told in another thread, we cannot interpret the Bible on our own)? How many practicing Muslims do you actually know personally?
At any rate, you’re making a fallacious association. You’re implying that the way you believe a mortal prophet lived is represenstative of how the mainstream belief is practiced. Is your only criticism of him that he took a 9 year old bride and waged war? Because he was an actual historical figure who in his name no specious claim of actual divinity were ever made. And was it all that unusual to marry a 9 year old in that day? In that culture?
[quote]CappedAndPlanIt wrote:
Pat - do you ever consider that maybe the “terrorists” dont “hate us for merely existing”, but instead see the victims of terrorism as “collateral damage”? That they see what they’re doing as a “war” and using the same logic that “War is ugly and it always will be. There seldom is a proper reason for people to die over it, but it happens.”?
Wouldn’t you be a little upset to hear someone say that exact thing about American deaths?[/quote]
LOL @ the targeting of civilians being “collateral”.
“Collateral damage is damage that is unintended or incidental to the intended outcome”
[/quote]
There is no LOL here, be better than that!
On one side, you have a peoples that still throw rocks at tanks. On the other, a superpower that can bomb you from their control room without ever looking you in the eye. Terrorism is the commerce of their war because they lack the resources to fight us (and others) on our terms.
Issues of what constitutes a “military target” aside, there isn’t much difference between hi-jacking a plane and sending it into a building and firing a volley of cruise missiles at a City with both combatants and civilians.
They are both forms of war. Trying to apply “rules” to war, whether legal (by agreement) or moral, is meaningless. [/quote]
Intentionally targeting and killing innocent people and attempting to spare as many civilians while the opponents attempt to maximize their own civilian casualties are not equivalent at all.
BG, I believe the Quran is the only major religious text that condones killing the enemies of the religion. Could be mistaken though- wouldnt be a first.