by Max Barry

Latest Forum Topics

Advertisement

Search

Search

[+] Advanced...

Author:

Region:

Sort:

«12. . .198199200201202203204. . .515516»

The masses empire

Castical wrote:http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ohio-state-university-active-shooter-on-campus/

Thanks for the article. I find it interesting that the only time the word 'Muslim' is when he refers to himself not by the media at all.

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:As of December 2010, 327,750 Israelis live in the 121 settlements in the West Bank officially recognized by the Israeli government,

...well as long as they are recognised by a government that should not exist, save you are a born again armageddonist, then it must be ok.

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:Are they the ones sending suicide bombers across the borders?

Hamas / muslim brotherhood took a decision to stop suicide bombings nearly 10 years ago. Now I have little time for the brotherhood but to be fair they did that. I mean what is the point in making a decision like that if their detractors would rather they got back doing it because it fits their narrative?

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:

I love the notion of violating other's rights. Are they the ones sending suicide bombers across the borders? Are they the ones who are launching rockets non stop at civilian targets? Are they the ones who non stop teach their children to hate the people across the border and that to die in the process of killing a many of them as possible will get you rewards in the afterlife? Are their parents happy that their children die trying to kill the ones on the other side of the border? DO YOU EVEN UNDERSTAND ISLAM?

This again shows there is no integral argument for the existence or even criticism of the Israeli entity, It's almost Godwin's law with Palestinians; 'they're psycho muslims so the Israelis are right' is the fall back argument de rigueur.

The masses empire wrote:Islam is a religion of peace though! You don't understand them! They are just different! <cries in corner with sign overhead "safe space">

Compared with Protestantism it definitely is.
Unless the USA can excuse slaughtering millions all over the world because the natives are sub human, as the British have always done, the deaths reeked by these imperialists will outweigh any Islamic slaughter forever.

The defenders of righteousness

While it is possible that a large portion of terrorists are Muslim (which is still possible to dispute, as Oire did, but not necessary for the debate), the converse is also true; the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. So, any attempts to demonize Muslims as all terrorists are misguided and wrong.

And it is wrong to ostracize people for their religion. It is therefore, evil. While not considered a crime under U.S. law, it is nevertheless cruel. Of course, no one should commit terrorism regardless of how they were treated, but wrongdoing in this instance does not solely weigh upon the terrorist.

Either way, this is all ancillary, as has been stated repeatedly, to assessing Israel's actions in Palestine. They are still immoral and unjust.

The landlocked isles

There is a difference between "a large portion of x are y" and "a disproportionate number of x are y." If 1% of Muslims are terrorists (made-up number, obviously), the latter is true so long as other religions have a terrorist concentration of under 1%, but the former is not. Also, keep in mind my disclaimer. I realize that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that they should not be treated as such. I was offering an explanation as to why it is reasonable to associate Islam with terrorism.

The defenders of righteousness wrote:While it is possible that a large portion of terrorists are Muslim (which is still possible to dispute, as Oire did, but not necessary for the debate), the converse is also true; the vast majority of Muslims are not terrorists. So, any attempts to demonize Muslims as all terrorists are misguided and wrong.

I'm sorry but who is doing this? The argument is kind of worn and tired. All Germans were not SS officers. All citizens of Japanese descent were not loyal solders of the Emperor (or wait, FDR thought this was so and had them all placed in internment camps). All Muslims are not terrorists. However a significant number of Muslims support the extension of their religious laws in such a way that the very nature of the Constitution and freedom of religion is threatened. Yes, they won't kill you if you blaspheme the prophet, but they will cheer the ones who will.

The landlocked isles wrote:There is a difference between "a large portion of x are y" and "a disproportionate number of x are y." If 1% of Muslims are terrorists (made-up number, obviously), the latter is true so long as other religions have a terrorist concentration of under 1%, but the former is not. Also, keep in mind my disclaimer. I realize that not all Muslims are terrorists, and that they should not be treated as such. I was offering an explanation as to why it is reasonable to associate Islam with terrorism.

Most USA national politicians supported their terrorist wars and aggressions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria and so on. These scumbags and their two parties remain insitu as the representatives of the vast majority of Americans. So that makes the vast majority of Americans terrorists.
And I did not make that number up.

The defenders of righteousness wrote:

And it is wrong to ostracize people for their religion.

Oh no it isn't!

Oire wrote:Most USA national politicians supported their terrorist wars and aggressions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria and so on.

This is what happens when you abuse the definition of words. "Terrorist wars" is an oxymoron.

Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

The United States did not use "violence and threats" to "intimidate or coerce" ... they used violence to take out enemies (along with significant civilian casualties but that is a side effect as opposed to the purpose of terrorism which is specifically directed at civilians).

Castical

The defenders of righteousness

War is essentially state sponsored terrorism.
In a war you use violence to coerce another nation in to doing something you'd like it to or stop doing something you don't.
Ex. Country B sends settlers into country A's land and starts mining their resources. Country A doesn't like this so they send in the army to attack Country B's settlement to make them leave. The damage and violence they inflict convinces B that it is not worth it to remain in A's land.
This is basically the exact same thing as
Country B sends settlers into Country A's land and starts mining their resources. People in country A are still angry about this, but their government isn't very organized so instead pissed off locals grab guns and walk in to B's settlement destroying things and killing people. They keep this up for a while and B eventually decides it's not worth it to stay in A's land.

It's the exact same thing the only difference us that war what we call violence between nations and terrorism is what we call violence conducted by non state groups, they are equally reprehensible.

The landlocked isles

Oire wrote:Most USA national politicians supported their terrorist wars and aggressions in Afghanistan, Iraq, Lybia, Syria and so on. These scumbags and their two parties remain insitu as the representatives of the vast majority of Americans. So that makes the vast majority of Americans terrorists.
And I did not make that number up.

This makes little to no sense.

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:I'm sorry but who is doing this? The argument is kind of worn and tired. All Germans were not SS officers. All citizens of Japanese descent were not loyal solders of the Emperor (or wait, FDR thought this was so and had them all placed in internment camps). All Muslims are not terrorists. However a significant number of Muslims support the extension of their religious laws in such a way that the very nature of the Constitution and freedom of religion is threatened. Yes, they won't kill you if you blaspheme the prophet, but they will cheer the ones who will.

It's not just that, their are also some pretty concerning things in the Quran, which has one set of rules for dealing with Muslims, and another set of rules for dealing with "infidels," in regards to war. Guess who gets the short end of that stick.

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:This is what happens when you abuse the definition of words. "Terrorist wars" is an oxymoron.
Terrorism: the use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.

Terrorism schmerrorism. Terrorism is the practice of using terror. And terror is what the US and co unleashed in the mid east over the past couple of decades.
How bastardised language becomes when words become a political tool.

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:

The United States did not use "violence and threats" to "intimidate or coerce" ... they used violence to take out enemies (along with significant civilian casualties but that is a side effect as opposed to the purpose of terrorism which is specifically directed at civilians).

Using even your definition of terrorism, the use and abuse of the no fly zone in Libya, by Britain, France & USA, was the use of threats and violence, to intimidate and coerce for political purposes.
It may be flippant of me to call the Yanks terrorists, but certainly not outrageous.

My argument was that the democratic majority of the USA and other western nations will support wars which they know will kill hundreds of thousands of civilians and will excuse it as a side effect; and will then go on (and on) about takfiri jihadists as if they represent the agenda of a large chunk of Muslims.

The landlocked isles wrote:This makes little to no sense.

The ability of the electorate to wash their hands of the decisions the people they have elected is astounding.

The defenders of righteousness

The defenders of righteousness

Many americans mostly simply ignore foreign affairs except for when politicians bring them up. They're definitely not the deciding factor in most American voter's minds. Whenever the average American speaks of their "foreign policy" positions, it's typically more like their positions on domestic policy issues affected by foreign policy, like the draft or the patriot act, or stopping terrorists at home or trade agreements for jobs. These aren't pure foreign issues, and they mostly care about their domestic portions. As long as a politician in America vaguely says they'll be strong on defense and tough on our enemies and love veterans, most Americans won't ask any other questions about foreign policy.

Oire wrote:Terrorism schmerrorism. Terrorism is the practice of using terror. And terror is what the US and co unleashed in the mid east over the past couple of decades.

So, riddle me this, did the United States commit an act of Terrorism when it firebombed Tokyo in WWII or was this a case of cruel war bordering on a war crime?

Words really do have meanings. The United States never used fear tactics in the Middle East. They used overwhelming firepower to crush the opposition.

Oire wrote:Using even your definition of terrorism, the use and abuse of the no fly zone in Libya ...

Because the civilian population were a race of supermen who flew from one town to the other? No fly zones are typically against military aircraft. You have a very odd definition of terrorism.

The Imperial Papal States and The landlocked isles

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:So, riddle me this, did the United States commit an act of Terrorism when it firebombed Tokyo in WWII or was this a case of cruel war bordering on a war crime?

Are you trying to point to another event in history where you can justify killing civilians?

Frustrated Franciscans wrote: The United States never used fear tactics in the Middle East. They used overwhelming firepower to crush the opposition.

Overwhelming fire power is never frightening?

Frustrated Franciscans wrote:

Because the civilian population were a race of supermen who flew from one town to the other? No fly zones are typically against military aircraft. You have a very odd definition of terrorism.

I took your definition of terrorism and applied it to western actions in Libya. It involved threats and violence, and they intimidated and coerced for political purposes.
And the abuse of the no fly zone is well documented. They did their best to clear out the Libyan state forces, benefiting ISIL among others.

This is what the Yanks and Brits desperately wanted in Syria today. They could keep this jihadi insurrection going another 5 years and kill another million people.

Oire wrote:Are you trying to point to another event in history where you can justify killing civilians?

That isn't answering the question.

Oire wrote:

Overwhelming fire power is never frightening?

This implies that police, when dressed in riot gear, are 'terrorizing' civilians, because they are displaying overwhelming firepower.

For what I can see, your definition terrorism is anything that involves threatening someone else for the purposes of achieving a goal. While this may be technically correct, it also means that just about any nation on the planet has used 'terrorism' at least once in its existence, including the allied powers during WWII. If this is the case however, than the question you must ask yourself is just because something is, by definition, 'terrorism,' that doesn't mean it's evil.

Oire wrote:Overwhelming fire power is never frightening?

That's an interesting question and a very hard lesson for a lot of 20th century century leaders. Germany's bombardment of England only solidified the population. The same can be seen with the Shock and Awe effect of the second Iraq war ... one of the reasons why the United States lost the peace. Overwhelming fire power only results in resentment and resolve.

Terrorism is a lot more complicated than you think (but it's so easy, even a terrorist can do it). It's a mind game. While overwhelming power goes directly to their goal terrorism acts seemingly at random. It's "seemingly random" because its goals are the places where you least expect them. Its goal is to make their victims perpetually paranoid.

The United States has never had the goal of the average person so worried that the person he loves the most will be killed on the next corner she turned that he ceases everything and does nothing in fear. The goal is never terror. The goal is victory.

That doesn't mean it's not evil. It's just different evil.

The Imperial Papal States wrote:

For what I can see, your definition terrorism is anything that involves threatening someone else for the purposes of achieving a goal. While this may be technically correct, it also means that just about any nation on the planet has used 'terrorism' at least once in its existence, including the allied powers during WWII. If this is the case however, than the question you must ask yourself is just because something is, by definition, 'terrorism,' that doesn't mean it's evil.

My argument is that it is. The western adventures of the past decades are nothing but neo colonial campaigns.

Oire wrote:My argument is that it is. The western adventures of the past decades are nothing but neo colonial campaigns.

That isn't necessarily true.

While I agree that America has become the global hegemon, it didn't actively seek to subdue the world beneath itself. After the collapse of the USSR, the only power that could challenge America had collapsed. So, when times became turbulent, people turned to America to solve their problems. Yes, America may have gone into the Middle East for stupid reasons, but not for colonial reasons. Yes, America effectively controls the world, but it's still far from colonizing it.

I'd also like to note that this idea is akin to the idea that 911 was a false flag (and that the towers were actually hit by model 767 and 777 cruise misleading created by a secret US contractor called Boeing).

The defenders of righteousness

Ok, just to settle things, I found an acceptable definition of colonialism.
the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.
So, if what America has done in the Middle East fits this definition, then that is what it is.
I'm honestly debating the occupying with settlers portion, if it is more irrelevant for modern control then that complicates the issue.

The defenders of righteousness wrote:Ok, just to settle things, I found an acceptable definition of colonialism.
the policy or practice of acquiring full or partial political control over another country, occupying it with settlers, and exploiting it economically.
So, if what America has done in the Middle East fits this definition, then that is what it is.
I'm honestly debating the occupying with settlers portion, if it is more irrelevant for modern control then that complicates the issue.

Looks like someone beat us to the rational answer.

The Imperial Papal States wrote:Looks like someone beat us to the rational answer.

However, I still disagree with the idea that the US is active pursuing colonial interests.

The Imperial Papal States wrote:

I'd also like to note that this idea is akin to the idea that 911 was a false flag

Has anyone yet come up with a good logical explanation for the collapse of the Solomon brothers skyscraper?

The masses empire

I may be a little late to the party but I would like to contribute my two cents. I have an uncle that was at 9/11 and was in the Iraq war. Now, in his own words "they are not equal." When he talked about 9/11 or any act of terrorism he uses the word "cowardice"; meanwhile with the the US engagements over the years he uses "dignity." The main difference between the two is that terrorism strikes from the shadows and the main target is infrastructure/symbols of power. When the US engages in conflict at home (he is a police officer) and overseas the attack is never a slide blow, granted we will use superior technology to our advantage to protect our servicemen, it will never come truly "out-of-the-blue."

The masses empire wrote:I may be a little late to the party but I would like to contribute my two cents. I have an uncle that was at 9/11 and was in the Iraq war. Now, in his own words "they are not equal." When he talked about 9/11 or any act of terrorism he uses the word "cowardice"; meanwhile with the the US engagements over the years he uses "dignity." The main difference between the two is that terrorism strikes from the shadows and the main target is infrastructure/symbols of power. When the US engages in conflict at home (he is a police officer) and overseas the attack is never a slide blow, granted we will use superior technology to our advantage to protect our servicemen, it will never come truly "out-of-the-blue."

This is a good way to put it

«12. . .198199200201202203204. . .515516»

Advertisement