"TSA will grope less children"
- Thread starter Rascal
- Start date
Lets see if i can add something to this debate. Out of lols. <3
In the 20th century, we saw the most disastrous wars of history, both in Europe and in the Far East. Tell me, which of these were centered around religious disputes?
I am not saying it has to be Muslims. Chatolics/Christians did it. Pagans did it.
I mean just look at many of the great prophets of Judaism.
They spoke of the value of peace even in a time when war was the accepted state of affairs.
Isaiah's words are inscribed on the wall of the United Nations: "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword upon nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
I don't see your opinion in here. << Are we debating or annyoing people?
Her defense is kinda clear to me. She is saying that in Kuran you can't find a "call" for terrorism or meyhem. That is a fact. <.<
Now you are doing the same thing, He is doing.
I am sorry. But i don't see any back up in evidance from cereal box. <.<
True. But then again. So are any other religions in the world. (except some exceptions.)
Killing is acceptable in the Kuran under about five conditions.
One is to protect land, one is to protect family, another to protect self, etc.
Dying in a holy war means you get seven virgins, etc. Not all Muslims believe this fanatically,that is true..
Your scriptures also say, "When you go into war, (do this)"... if i am not mistaken.
She may be subjective. But that is her opinion. She lives in that world. Tell me,if we are talking about that. Do you live in that kind of environment? Can you tell us something about your exp with Muslims? Or is it all what you saw on TV=?
(busted.. ) nya...
agreed <3
:sigh::huuh::shiftyeyes::sigh:
Got a point there. But then again. If we are talking about religious evidence. Where in the Bible does it say : "go concure and destroy?" :huuh:
Everything can be "explained" in different ways. Any scripture or data. or writtings. All can be used out of context. Rigth?
That is between you two.
Not beliefs. "Use of beliefs" . That is totally different thingy.
And not just in middle east. That can be applied any where in the world. Look at eastern Europe.
In the 20th century, we saw the most disastrous wars of history, both in Europe and in the Far East. Tell me, which of these were centered around religious disputes?
I am not saying it has to be Muslims. Chatolics/Christians did it. Pagans did it.
I mean just look at many of the great prophets of Judaism.
They spoke of the value of peace even in a time when war was the accepted state of affairs.
Isaiah's words are inscribed on the wall of the United Nations: "And they shall beat their swords into plowshares, and their spears into pruning hooks. Nation shall not lift up sword upon nation, neither shall they learn war any more."
I don't see your opinion in here. << Are we debating or annyoing people?
Her defense is kinda clear to me. She is saying that in Kuran you can't find a "call" for terrorism or meyhem. That is a fact. <.<
Now you are doing the same thing, He is doing.
I am sorry. But i don't see any back up in evidance from cereal box. <.<
True. But then again. So are any other religions in the world. (except some exceptions.)
Killing is acceptable in the Kuran under about five conditions.
One is to protect land, one is to protect family, another to protect self, etc.
Dying in a holy war means you get seven virgins, etc. Not all Muslims believe this fanatically,that is true..
Your scriptures also say, "When you go into war, (do this)"... if i am not mistaken.
She may be subjective. But that is her opinion. She lives in that world. Tell me,if we are talking about that. Do you live in that kind of environment? Can you tell us something about your exp with Muslims? Or is it all what you saw on TV=?
(busted.. ) nya...agreed <3
:sigh::huuh::shiftyeyes::sigh:
Got a point there. But then again. If we are talking about religious evidence. Where in the Bible does it say : "go concure and destroy?" :huuh:
Everything can be "explained" in different ways. Any scripture or data. or writtings. All can be used out of context. Rigth?
That is between you two.
Not beliefs. "Use of beliefs" . That is totally different thingy.
And not just in middle east. That can be applied any where in the world. Look at eastern Europe.
I dont disagree... unless I missed the point because it doesnt seem you disagreed with my post. I am unfamiliar with the "prophets of Judaism", but I can add to it, that the shared prophets of the Abrahamic faiths all preached peace.
to protect land, family, and self... would you deny anyone that right?
dying in a holy war = virgins... ok.. yeah thats no where in the book, look again.
I've read the book cover to cover countless times... its very very long... yes there are instructions of how to behave in times of war... which include to try to make peace.
yes, taking things out of context is probably how most religious fanatics of any faith justify their stupidity. I'm talking literally here, the Quran simply does not say anything to support the claim that if you kill some fanatical muslims the rest (normal) will come after you.
to protect land, family, and self... would you deny anyone that right?
dying in a holy war = virgins... ok.. yeah thats no where in the book, look again.
I've read the book cover to cover countless times... its very very long... yes there are instructions of how to behave in times of war... which include to try to make peace.
yes, taking things out of context is probably how most religious fanatics of any faith justify their stupidity. I'm talking literally here, the Quran simply does not say anything to support the claim that if you kill some fanatical muslims the rest (normal) will come after you.
There is nothing about terrorism in the Qur'an. Actually, even suicide is not allowed in Islam.
So these suicide bombers are either:
1) Retarded and don't know their own religion
2) Aren't muslim
3) Are being persuaded to kill their own brethren (in terms or religion)
And, if people are blowing themselves for virgins in heaven, I pity them. Especially because they aren't dieing for Islam, they're just making people more Islamaphobic.
Well thats my 2 cents anyways
So these suicide bombers are either:
1) Retarded and don't know their own religion
2) Aren't muslim
3) Are being persuaded to kill their own brethren (in terms or religion)
And, if people are blowing themselves for virgins in heaven, I pity them. Especially because they aren't dieing for Islam, they're just making people more Islamaphobic.
Well thats my 2 cents anyways
http://www.theonion.com/articles/hijackers-surprised-to-find-selves-in-hell,1445/
Best article written over 9/11
Best article written over 9/11
See?
Why even entertain the notion?
It doesnt matter if you think its a joke.
Every action, Every choice has blowback. Just because 9/11 was a 13 year planned blowback doesnt take away from the fact that it is. Russia has had less problems then the US in regards to terrorists. Even China.
Americans use the term terrorist with absolute hatred and extreme fear. Congratulations they achieved their goal. Now that one tiny insignificant patch of dirt has shown the world that the godking can bleed you had no choice but to goto war is that it?
Do you really think the situation you are currently in can be solved by more pro-active choices, well placed media articles and for lack of a better term: Occupation?
Yes the lands are barbaric. Yes they are technologically inept. Yes they require alot of re-educating in order to fit into the western world but you know what? They have their own patch of land to build sand castles in and untill they decide to want to be a part of the western world and leave their barbaric customs behind they can do what they want on their own soil.
You sit there from your ivory tower having absolutely no clue how the world works. You watch through the slit of an iron helm trying to make out what it is that you can see over in the distance. No clue what is actually going on. No clue whose side you are really on but one thing you know for sure. Your Ivory tower does not say "Terrorist" on the side yet and therefore terrorists are bad.
If you were truly unafraid of terrorists you wouldnt even for a second think about bombing millions of innocents just to get a few bad eggs. So yea. Be afraid. Run. Hide. Whine but most of all. Keep lying to yourself.
What does this have to do with a satiric article I posted?
Yes it does, but when you have to take action or to make a choice you have no idea what and when that will be. You make decisions on the basis of the information you have at that moment, meaning these decisions are always imperfect because they are based on a very limited amount of information.
Who knows. Sure beats doing nothing and wait for the next bomb to go off near one of your embassies or the next plane to be hijacked and flown into a landmark.
We dont care that they are barbaric. If they can be barbaric in peace, let them be. We do take issue when they insist on taking their barbarism to our countries, when they insist on imposing their barbarity on us. If they do that, all bets are off and we should have no qualms about showing them the consequences of flying planes in our buildings.
Okay, and this part is relevant how? I mean, it sounds all high and mighty, but what is its relevance to your point? Hmm, it seems it has absolutely no relevance other then to throw people off and making you sound like some wise sage or something. It would be very nice if you stopped making assumptions about me, what I think, what side Im on, etc. They are not relevant to the discussion and youre in no position to make claims about me.
You seem to mistake good policy with cowardice. Do you really think a state is afraid of terrorists when they decide not to carpet bomb the middle east with nukes? No of course not, they are afraid of the political blowback of killing millions just to get a few terrorists. Its bad PR, its bad for your political and thus trade relations with other countries. The costs dont outweigh the gains.
Yes it does, but when you have to take action or to make a choice you have no idea what and when that will be. You make decisions on the basis of the information you have at that moment, meaning these decisions are always imperfect because they are based on a very limited amount of information.
Who knows. Sure beats doing nothing and wait for the next bomb to go off near one of your embassies or the next plane to be hijacked and flown into a landmark.
We dont care that they are barbaric. If they can be barbaric in peace, let them be. We do take issue when they insist on taking their barbarism to our countries, when they insist on imposing their barbarity on us. If they do that, all bets are off and we should have no qualms about showing them the consequences of flying planes in our buildings.
Okay, and this part is relevant how? I mean, it sounds all high and mighty, but what is its relevance to your point? Hmm, it seems it has absolutely no relevance other then to throw people off and making you sound like some wise sage or something. It would be very nice if you stopped making assumptions about me, what I think, what side Im on, etc. They are not relevant to the discussion and youre in no position to make claims about me.
You seem to mistake good policy with cowardice. Do you really think a state is afraid of terrorists when they decide not to carpet bomb the middle east with nukes? No of course not, they are afraid of the political blowback of killing millions just to get a few terrorists. Its bad PR, its bad for your political and thus trade relations with other countries. The costs dont outweigh the gains.
Same as always. Its still a joke to you.
If history teaches us anything its that there is no such thing as "limited information".
Actually, You insisted on forcing your weapons into their hands to fight your enemies and when the dust settled you washed your hands and denied your involvement. So no you have absolutely no right to say THEY INSISTED.
Oh ooops, I had more in the original post, just ignore that bit
Anyway, I am not making assumptions. You are the one imposing your will and dominance over others in this thread. It's what you try and do in every thread just to provoke me or others.
This is not meant to be inflammatory but: Are you really so naieve that we wouldnt notice?
Good policy!?
If you carpet bomb the middle east, YOU become the terrorists for killing millions of innocent civilians.. Why cant you see that?
Media blowback my ass.. you'll be dethroned in days.
You realize the only reason the cold war didnt escalate is because there were men on the ground fighting the urge to press the button first right?
The sum of all fears might be fiction but the damn message rings true.
"Now it's about fear! Our fear of your missiles, your fear of our subs, fear of being weak, fear of making a mistake... the same fear of the other guy that had us build these goddamn bombs in the first place!"
If history teaches us anything its that there is no such thing as "limited information".
Actually, You insisted on forcing your weapons into their hands to fight your enemies and when the dust settled you washed your hands and denied your involvement. So no you have absolutely no right to say THEY INSISTED.
Oh ooops, I had more in the original post, just ignore that bit
Anyway, I am not making assumptions. You are the one imposing your will and dominance over others in this thread. It's what you try and do in every thread just to provoke me or others.
This is not meant to be inflammatory but: Are you really so naieve that we wouldnt notice?
Good policy!?
If you carpet bomb the middle east, YOU become the terrorists for killing millions of innocent civilians.. Why cant you see that?
Media blowback my ass.. you'll be dethroned in days.
You realize the only reason the cold war didnt escalate is because there were men on the ground fighting the urge to press the button first right?
The sum of all fears might be fiction but the damn message rings true.
"Now it's about fear! Our fear of your missiles, your fear of our subs, fear of being weak, fear of making a mistake... the same fear of the other guy that had us build these goddamn bombs in the first place!"
What?
In what universe youre from are politicians all knowing and where they can see exactly what each choice has for consequences? Seriously, are they on spice or something?
Right, on this world, people and politicians arent all knowing and they cant look into the future, thus the amount of information on which they must base their decisions is limited.
Actually no. They were already fighting the Soviets even if we hadnt involved ourselves. Only they got slaughtered pretty badly, so we helped them out. Also, do you really think the CIA knew at that time that if we gave them weapons to fight our MUTUAL enemies they would later come back to fight us?
what? O.O
So, im imposing my will and dominance by having my own view on things? Or is it because that view doesnt stroke with your view. You think that I should be less dominant by giving up my views in favor of yours or someone elses because of what? They ask me nicely? Seriously, lame dude.
And why did they fight the urge to press the button? Because they knew it would be their death sentence as well. In other words, they would only stand to loose from pressing that button. Thats what Mutually Assured Destruction stands for. Suicide is not a good policy, so you dont do it.
Also, no. Terrorism is using force against civilians to reach a political objective. In other words, you try to pressure the enemies government into concessions by scaring the civilians through intimidation tactics. If you carpet bomb the middle east to get a few terrorists, civilians are just collateral damage. Youre not a terrorist, although you are guilty of severe war crimes against humanity and such. But yeah, only guilty if you indeed get dethroned, caught and send to some special war crimes tribunal.
Anyways, assuming I have the entire country behind me when I say Im gonna carpet bomb the middle east, the political blow back from the rest of the world should be enough deterrent from doing it. I stand to loose more then I gain. It is not in the best interest of my country.
In what universe youre from are politicians all knowing and where they can see exactly what each choice has for consequences? Seriously, are they on spice or something?
Right, on this world, people and politicians arent all knowing and they cant look into the future, thus the amount of information on which they must base their decisions is limited.
Actually no. They were already fighting the Soviets even if we hadnt involved ourselves. Only they got slaughtered pretty badly, so we helped them out. Also, do you really think the CIA knew at that time that if we gave them weapons to fight our MUTUAL enemies they would later come back to fight us?
Oh ooops, I had more in the original post, just ignore that bit
Anyway, I am not making assumptions. You are the one imposing your will and dominance over others in this thread. It's what you try and do in every thread just to provoke me or others.
This is not meant to be inflammatory but: Are you really so naieve that we wouldnt notice?
Anyway, I am not making assumptions. You are the one imposing your will and dominance over others in this thread. It's what you try and do in every thread just to provoke me or others.
This is not meant to be inflammatory but: Are you really so naieve that we wouldnt notice?
So, im imposing my will and dominance by having my own view on things? Or is it because that view doesnt stroke with your view. You think that I should be less dominant by giving up my views in favor of yours or someone elses because of what? They ask me nicely? Seriously, lame dude.
And why did they fight the urge to press the button? Because they knew it would be their death sentence as well. In other words, they would only stand to loose from pressing that button. Thats what Mutually Assured Destruction stands for. Suicide is not a good policy, so you dont do it.
Also, no. Terrorism is using force against civilians to reach a political objective. In other words, you try to pressure the enemies government into concessions by scaring the civilians through intimidation tactics. If you carpet bomb the middle east to get a few terrorists, civilians are just collateral damage. Youre not a terrorist, although you are guilty of severe war crimes against humanity and such. But yeah, only guilty if you indeed get dethroned, caught and send to some special war crimes tribunal.
Anyways, assuming I have the entire country behind me when I say Im gonna carpet bomb the middle east, the political blow back from the rest of the world should be enough deterrent from doing it. I stand to loose more then I gain. It is not in the best interest of my country.
you are a terrorist. terrorism is using terror as a means to achieve any end actually. doesnt mean it doesnt have a place and time, but doesnt change the fact that it is what it is. Also by your own definition, you are using force on civilians to reach a political objective, even if you are in addition using the force on non-civilians. Curious, do you consider the atom bombings on Japan an act of terrorism? why or why not? How does this differ from the attacks of 9/11 that are widely accepted as terrorism? The bombings targeted civilians, and yet were an act of war. Collateral damage? or Terrorism?
edit: >.> in that first sentence its a general "you" lol not you. [MENTION=159]-lexus-[/MENTION]
edit: >.> in that first sentence its a general "you" lol not you. [MENTION=159]-lexus-[/MENTION]
U.S actually bombed Japanese cities for months before this bombing. About 60 cities I believe.
And U.S asked for surrender before that bombing but Japan ignored.
So I wouldn't consider it terrorism. And by your definition you would have to also consider those 60 cities terrorism , making that whole war on japan terrorism. I would say U.S was just doing what they had to to end the war.
But their are more then one definitions of terrorism and their is no official definition. Its a word mainly used as a straw man fallacy for politicians to get their way.
And U.S asked for surrender before that bombing but Japan ignored.
So I wouldn't consider it terrorism. And by your definition you would have to also consider those 60 cities terrorism , making that whole war on japan terrorism. I would say U.S was just doing what they had to to end the war.
But their are more then one definitions of terrorism and their is no official definition. Its a word mainly used as a straw man fallacy for politicians to get their way.
Terrorism does indeed have a definition. What it does not have is a clear usage in modern political language. I understand what you're saying, and I while I disagree that we should have bombed japan, I know why it may have been necessary. But that is not my point. We had a goal to achieve. We targeted civilians to achieve it. .... switch to 9/11 they had a goal to achieve (albeit one i don't agree with) and they also targeted civilians to achieve it. ... I think we draw the line where someone is trying to bring about an evil, then they are considered a terrorist, if they are fighting for a just cause, then its collateral damage. The problem lies in how subjective those terms are. From the fanatics point of view, im sure they felt 110% justified in bringing down the twin towers... and from our point of view, we felt justified in destroying hundreds of thousands of lives in Japan. So where is the difference?
also, I do indeed think the bombing of innocents is terrorism. so "by my definition" which is the etymological definition. tho perhaps not the politically correct one, yes we used acts of terrorism to bring an end to the war.
also, I do indeed think the bombing of innocents is terrorism. so "by my definition" which is the etymological definition. tho perhaps not the politically correct one, yes we used acts of terrorism to bring an end to the war.
Yes, the atomic bombings were technically acts of terrorism. Their sole purpose was to devastate Japans willingness to make war by showing it would lead to the utter destruction of Japan if they didnt surrender. Not to attack industrial or other valid military targets.
And no, if civilians die in a military operation that has the sole objective is to kill combatants, who are valid military targets, they are collateral damage. Its not terrorism because you kill the civilians in the hope of getting something accomplished, they die because you are already after the final objective, they just stand in the way.
And no, if civilians die in a military operation that has the sole objective is to kill combatants, who are valid military targets, they are collateral damage. Its not terrorism because you kill the civilians in the hope of getting something accomplished, they die because you are already after the final objective, they just stand in the way.
Their is no clear definition Terrorism , I already said their IS a defintion , actually many definitions.,
And my dear your not saying they ended the war with terrisom your saying the war was about terrorism. In fact your saying most wars are simply acts by terrorist. My definition of terrorism is an act of religious or political significance with the intent to create fear.
And my dear your not saying they ended the war with terrisom your saying the war was about terrorism. In fact your saying most wars are simply acts by terrorist. My definition of terrorism is an act of religious or political significance with the intent to create fear.
no, im saying they ended the war with terrorism. whether or not they also used it within the course of the war doesnt change that.
and YOUR definition (no offense) doesnt count for anything. Terrorism = terror + ism , its simple. the practice of using terror to achieve some end.
what you are trying to say is that the connotations and political usage are grey and blurred. and you would be right.
and YOUR definition (no offense) doesnt count for anything. Terrorism = terror + ism , its simple. the practice of using terror to achieve some end.
what you are trying to say is that the connotations and political usage are grey and blurred. and you would be right.
@-lexus- Are we really using the dictionary...I take law and politics and in both the dictionary is usless....so don't go picking up a dictionary and expecting every definition in their to actually be applied to our world..and if its not apply it mean nothing.
Your saying that WAS the defininition and terrorism was then during the course of the war then it doe matter because thats your definition of terrorism. Don't start being selective on what you say Faux.
Your saying that WAS the defininition and terrorism was then during the course of the war then it doe matter because thats your definition of terrorism. Don't start being selective on what you say Faux.
Did you misread this line on wiki prince?
In the international community, however, terrorism has no universally agreed, legally binding, criminal law definition.