1 edit
Originally posted by Rajk999And then those whom loved and cherished the people you shoot down will come after you (or worse, irrationally shoot at anyone who "supports" you) and things get worse.
Now this is what I call bonehead stupidity :
You see the guy who threatened to kill you (and he already attacked you before) coming up your street with a shotgun, you wait for him to commit the act (shoot your wife and kids) them you disarm him.
Hell no .. You have to take your sniper rifle and shoot him and those who support him 400 yrds down the road.
---
It's actually people like you who makes wars and terrorism possible. What I'd like to see is if it was possible to round you all up; everyone advocating violence as a solution to the problems and then put you all on an island somewhere. Then you could have a blast kicking each others asses while those of us who are peaceful live in perfect harmony with each other.
That's not gonna happen though, so I'll just keep trying to change your mindset. Violence doesn't solve shit.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyI think killing a child is wrong. I also think executing a child murderer is wrong.
It has taken me YEARS to discover the meaning of being a pseudo liberal, but I have finally dont it. This is amazing. I guarantee that this thread will blow your mind because it is so unbelievable!
(a) = Innocent Child
(b) = Killer/Rapist
(c) = Government/Democracy
So then these two events occur.
Event1 = (b) kills (a)while enjoying his h lf of [1a] and the terrorist is fighting on behalf of itself,ie, for ONLY [1b]
Mike
What leads you to believe I think there is a moral equivalence between the two?
Is that really the limit of your imagination?
It is precisely this kind of over-simplification that leads non-Liberals to do very bad things indeed, e.g.
(a) Al Qaeda are bad
(b) Saddam Hussein is bad
(c) Therefore Al Qaeda = Saddam Hussein.
Originally posted by Rajk999Lol. 😀
Its the docile humbling, crocodile feeders like yourself make wars and terrorism start and continue.
The only way I can see a war getting started in the first place because of me, is if I annoy the hell out of someone who thinks violence is a solution (say... you?).
Originally posted by stockenExactly ..Thank you.
Lol. 😀
The only way I can see a war getting started in the first place because of me, is if I annoy the hell out of someone who thinks violence is a solution (say... you?).
The cartoon controversy turned violent not because of people like me who think violence can end violence, but becuase a significant % of the muslim community believes STARTING violence is the way to solve problems.
1 edit
Originally posted by StarValleyWyYou make a very good initial point, because it would probably be universally accepted that ww2 was fought on the basis of that logic.
... "He is evil for killing innocent people who don't want his vision of facist government. I am not evil for opposing him."
.....See my previous posts about facing a benevolent enemy. The IRA did negotiate. Will Al Queda? Not to date....
.....I say you are dead wrong. It is about the nation of Iraq having the same freedoms that you poo poo and I cherish. Thanks for proving my point about Libs equating killing evil to evil.....
However in using an argument that applied to one nation state amassing arms and troops and then expanding its own borders to conquer the territory of surrounding sovereign nations as being equivalent to waging a conventional war on a sovereign state on the pretext of unfound wmd, then acting against the consensus of the international body set up to verify the terms under which that war should have occured thus going it alone in a war that became a war on terror, thus making Iraq the repository of all world terror and leading to the inept and totally illogical action of fighting a war on terrorists with a visible conventtional force, is about as sensible as having had a strategy of sending in small bands of highly trained and closely knit fighters to stem the tide of Nazism.
The actions of the US are not consistent with a universal overarching principle of the international rule of LAW and the respect of national sovereignty. Like most people I do not doubt that Iraq harboured terrorists, but the notion that they could be removed root and branch by a crushing of a tyranical regime is the most ludicrous nonsense ever perpetrated in the court of popular opinion. Terrorism works within but also outside of and across national boundaries. That very singular fact should have been enough reason to reject facing off against one nation.
The part that leaves many gobsmacked is the technique of removing this cancer however. The old adage that the operation was a success but the patient died, is simply not good enough to justify the way in which this war is being fought and that the almost casual acceptance that collateral damage while regretable is necesary. In all of your scenarios where you find it incomprehensible that so called pseudo libs equate killing monsters as being just as monstrous as the killing these monsters perpetrate, there is a tacit acceptance on our part that the state would
1) be able to correctly identify the monster.
2) find that monster guilty in a court of law
3) punish that monster according to statutary law.
If the technique that the state employed in ridding society of child killers was to round up people living at that killers last known address and then having them executed, after how many deaths of these arbitrarily rounded up collateral killings would you and the greater society deem as absolute incomprehensible folly? It beggars belief that for a job this important, the tools chosen were so woefully inadequate.
The IRA did negotiate. Small point of order. After how many years in your view did they take before the authorities did negotiate with them and for how long did the establishment's stubborn refusal to deal with terrorism, its rejection of terrorism as a means of voicing political dissent and after how many countless senseless killings before the British government agreed to finally acknowledge the legitimacy of Sinn Fein the political wing of the IRA before any meaningfull negotiation took place and the IRA finally disbanded. How many false alarms were there in the process of disarmament and how many claims and counter claims of deliberately derailing the peace process were made by both sides, before the final acts of terrorist actions jerkingly grinded to a halt?
The day that the US can transgress the national sovereignty of other countries and determine that a "rogue nation" should be chastised for their internal actions without the US signing on to a higher ordering principle of government such as the UN etc, and then because of its power and history of defending democratic principles declares it can go it alone(in direct stubborn opposition to International democratic principles) means that ultimately regardless of your assertion that the US should be trusted in this matter, the US internationally increasingly takes on the characteristics of a "rogue nation" itself. Iraq was targeted because of Saddams inability to rule without despotism and because the country was determined to be a hotbed of terrorism.
While the US refuses to conform to the wishes of the majority of the world's nations. instead choosing to act outside of the concerns and constraints as voted in the UN, seeing such a compliance as a bit of an inconvenience, then we have no basis to conclude that despotism in the form of US instigated self interest, will not undermine the very moral and democratic underpinnings of a country that most fair minded people still see as our(the world's) last beacon of hope.
Originally posted by Rajk999My work is that of a lifetime and without any promise of success.
Exactly ..Thank you.
The cartoon controversy turned violent not because of people like me who think violence can end violence, but becuase a significant % of the muslim community believes STARTING violence is the way to solve problems.
Originally posted by dottewellSay what? Are you that bad at language or am I missing a point?
I think killing a child is wrong. I also think executing a child murderer is wrong.
What leads you to believe I think there is a moral equivalence between the two?.
You say that BOTH are wrong ( AND HENCE EQUAL) then in the next breath ask what leads me to think that you hold both events as equal in moral value. I suggest that you take thinking lessons. If you can find a very patient teacher. Read the following VERY CAREFULLY.
I think killing a child is wrong. I also think executing a child murderer is wrong.
What leads you to believe I think there is a moral equivalence between the two?
A direct answer is "Oh gee. I don't know. How about this? I believe you when you say that both are equal."
Originally posted by cashthetrashThe very subtle difference between a legitimate GOVERNMENT/DEMOCRACY using it's military to fight terrorists is a part of what this thread is about.
Just for curiosity sake how it unintentional to drop bombs on rooms full of women and children. And then just say oops it was unintentional. Did it ever occur to you, that it is YOU who support terrorism by helping to recruit it. You kill my dog I kill your cat. You can make up any name you choose. But when you kill someones child. wife, husband, mother ...[text shortened]... g the devils work and taking souls to hell. You are not doing Gods work God has fired you.
I believe that a legitimate democracy has the right to wage war to fight evil. More than a "right" -- I think fighting evil is a DUTY.
Some innocent people do die in war. I have no cure for that. But the intentional TARGETING of innocent people is not acceptable.
How does killing a pet equate or compare to the subject of this thread?
You kind of miss the point. In war I WANT TO KILL MY ENEMIES WIFE AND KIDS. That is how one wins a war.
As to all the religion crap... sorry. I'm an atheist fighting religious evil.
And I'll just ask you this. If god is so pissed at me, tell her I'll meet her behind the barn after work!
😕😀
2 edits
Originally posted by kmax87You are using your arguments AGAINST war and you don't use my arguments in FAVOR of war to then change the subject -- or ATTEMPT to change the subject of this thread.
You make a very good initial point, because it would probably be universally accepted that ww2 was fought on the basis of that logic.
However in using an argument that applied to one nation state amassing arms and troops and then expanding its own borders to conquer the territory of surrounding sovereign nations as being equivalent to waging a conventional a country that most fair minded people still see as our(the world's) last beacon of hope.
That is fine, but is off subject. Is it right or wrong to try and kill terrorists? And don't tell me that the coalition are terrorists. That is not a valid argument in this context. Start a STANG thread if you want to go that route.
That's the question here in this thread. And if I read your post correctly, which is quite frankly difficult because it is not too well stated or concentrated to a point... You equate the "dictatorship of Saddam" to a "sovereign nation". We can save a lot of wasted "gas" on this subject. I do not so recognize dictatorships. You do. I don't. That might be a good thread to debate, but this is not about that. Saddam gained power in an armed coup and solidified it with mass killings. Support him if you will. I do not.
As to international law... I know you don't want to hear this, but it was followed to a tee. Saddam was the one who was in default. The surrender document he signed put him in obligation to do certain things. That document specifically says that should he fail to comply then it would be null and void and the war would continue. He failed and the war resumed. The documents are out there just waiting to be read. Do you really think that if the US was breaking international law, that the UN wouldn't attack and conquor the US?
Anyway, the main answer I will give your rather unfocused post is that you and I don't agree on anything, and from my point of view, that is wonderful news.