Don't equate actions with religion

[AlteredEgo]

Hardly. The purported existence of other terrorists or criminals has nothing at all to do with the existence of Islamic terrorists. Hence, the crimson-tinted piscine aspect of the post.

The original post NOT about the existance of Islamic terorists. It is about the assertion that those are the only terrorists. The OP also asserts that her rant is about patriotism and ethnocentricity. You are a lot of things, but I never thought unintelligent was among them, which is why I assumed you were playing dumb. It's still my assumption . You're too bright not to get it.

 

[Gillette]

As long as you demand quick and easy answers, I'll doubtless remain predictable in refusing to give them.

I have never demanded a quick or easy anything. Take all the time you want.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Here's another example of your conveiniently picking only what suits you.

Read in it's entirety it should be pretty clear that my meaning is that America's presence in Iraq is illogical based on a reasoning that it was a reaction to 9/11.

Crafty, clever and opportunistic of you to take that sentence of mine and present it as a stand alone statement for you to pick apart.

You want to challenge other people for relevance to the subject of the thread? At no point yet have I seen your response to the OP.

Try it, just for the sake of relevance.
C'mon.

I have no obligation to respond to anything in particular. That being said, the OP made some questionable implications and tendentious assertions, and I did indeed dispute a couple of those, in one way or another. The claim that the Iraq experiment was a direct result of the September 11 attack is, at its most basic, almost tautologically true. If the claim is that the late Saddam H. was behind the attack, it's false. If it's an oblique reference to the evident fact that Saddam H. was one of modern terrorism's paymasters, it was true. Etc, etc. I saw, and see, no value in developing all the ramifications of an unclear statement.

Neither do I see any great crime in noting BS when and where it appears in other posts. Their relationship to the OP is relevant, how? BS is BS wherever it appears.

 

[iobnez88]

Remember the crusades? Christians were pretty radical then

 

[Gillette]

Hardly. The purported existence of other terrorists or criminals has nothing at all to do with the existence of Islamic terrorists. Hence, the crimson-tinted piscine aspect of the post.

The OP of this thread (you did read it, right?) asserts that terrorism is "always" perpetrated by radical fundamentalist muslims. AG's post, like others before it, gives a clear example that such an assertion is false.

Hence, no crimson tint nor a piscine aspect.

You are again talking out of your ass.

 

[B_big dirigible]

The original post NOT about the existance of Islamic terorists. It is about the assertion that those are the only terrorists.

It wasn't about terrorists, it was about those who blow things up.

It also pointed out that some of our better-known Protestants aren't blowing things up. Which, so far as I'm aware, is perfectly true.

So far as I know, the plotters of the Fort Dix non-attack were not, in fact, planning to blow anything up. Unless you count the good old Soviet-made RPG as an explosive. I didn't think it particularly vital to address the matter of whether explosives were or were not part of the Fort Dix plan. The OP was a rant, not a position paper. In any case, it's hardly deniable that, generally, blowing things up is indeed one of modern terrorism's favorite tactics.

 

[B_big dirigible]

The OP of this thread (you did read it, right?) asserts that terrorism is "always" perpetrated by radical fundamentalist muslims. AG's post, like others before it, gives a clear example that such an assertion is false.

Hence, no crimson tint nor a piscine aspect.

You are again talking out of your ass.

The OP makes no such assertion. It's about blowing things up, not terrorism. (Hint - that's in paragraph 1 - it's still there, take a look). So tell me, what other prominent band of n'er-do-wells has been blowing things up of late?

 

[AlteredEgo]

Neither do I see any great crime in noting BS when and where it appears in other posts. Their relationship to the OP is relevant, how? BS is BS wherever it appears.

Now THIS is BS.

 

[AlteredEgo]

The OP makes no such assertion. It's about blowing things up, not terrorism. (Hint - that's in paragraph 1 - it's still there, take a look). So tell me, what other prominent band of n'er-do-wells has been blowing things up of late?

It's in paragrph one? Isn't that the very same paragrph with the EXACT statement you are pretending isn't there? She says in bold, capitalized, underscored text that it's always muslims. And you know it's there. What kind of crap is this?

 

[rob_just_rob]

I've never really understood the logic process to justify all the dead innocents in Iraq. IIRC, it goes something like this:

"Because Saddam killed a lot of innocent people, we're justified in killing a lot of innocent people in order to get rid of him."

Some thoughts on this reasoning...

- if Saddam was such an evil man, why are we not holding ourselves to a higher standard?
- did anyone notice the daily suicide bombings that went on during Saddam's reign? Me neither. Saddam definitely killed some people, but not nearly as many as have died during the current civil war. This particular end doesn't come close to justifying the means. And for that matter...
- when is killing innocent people justified, ever? I'm somewhat dubious about the morality of killing convicted murderers, even if it were somehow possible to be 100% certain that there was no error in the conviction. But innocent bystanders? C'mon.
- do you suppose anyone in the current administration gave even a moment's consideration to any of the above points?

 

[B_big dirigible]

It's in paragrph one? Isn't that the very same paragrph with the EXACT statement you are pretending isn't there? She says in bold, capitalized, underscored text that it's always muslims. And you know it's there. What kind of crap is this?

"It". Sounds like pronoun trouble. Here she is -

That's darn hard to do when you come into my backyard and try to blow it up. I don't see Unitarians, Lutherans, or Pentecostals doing this stuff. It is always radical fundamentalist Muslims.

"It" here refers to what? Obviously, the act of blowing things up. You have a line on someone else who is blowing things up? In their beds or churches or anywhere else? Sounds like Muslims to me. Ideally, accompanied by a rousing "Allahu akbar".

But don't waste our time with ancient history, please. Sure, various people have blown things up on occasion. Try to confine it to current affairs.

 

[B_big dirigible]

I've never really understood the logic process to justify all the dead innocents in Iraq. IIRC, it goes something like this:

"Because Saddam killed a lot of innocent people, we're justified in killing a lot of innocent people in order to get rid of him."

Some thoughts on this reasoning...

- if Saddam was such an evil man, why are we not holding ourselves to a higher standard?
- did anyone notice the daily suicide bombings that went on during Saddam's reign? Me neither. Saddam definitely killed some people, but not nearly as many as have died during the current civil war. This particular end doesn't come close to justifying the means. And for that matter...
- when is killing innocent people justified, ever? I'm somewhat dubious about the morality of killing convicted murderers, even if it were somehow possible to be 100% certain that there was no error in the conviction. But innocent bystanders? C'mon.
- do you suppose anyone in the current administration gave even a moment's consideration to any of the above points?

Your thesis is that forcible defense - that is, anything stronger than talk or maybe blockade - is never justified if there's a chance that somebody, anybody, might get hurt or killed. (And blockade will eventually do that, so that's not so good either.) Is that a fair precis? And if not quite, do you have some number in mind? How many would be justified? Almost exactly 400,000 Americans died in the effort to crush the Axis countries in WW2. Was that too many? Should that war not have been fought? Of course if not, we'd all be doing the Party salute today, those of us still alive, but maybe that's an acceptable price to pay for not hurting anybody.

 

[rob_just_rob]

Your thesis is that forcible defense - that is, anything stronger than talk or maybe blockade - is never justified if there's a chance that somebody, anybody, might get hurt or killed. (And blockade will eventually do that, so that's not so good either.) Is that a fair precis? And if not quite, do you have some number in mind? How many would be justified? Almost exactly 400,000 Americans died in the effort to crush the Axis countries in WW2. Was that too many? Should that war not have been fought? Of course if not, we'd all be doing the Party salute today, those of us still alive, but maybe that's an acceptable price to pay for not hurting anybody.

Wow, I haven't seen the Saddam=Hitler argument all day.

BD, be serious. Comparing Saddam to Hitler is like comparing Paris Hilton to Ted Bundy. Saddam was not and never would be anywhere near as big a threat as Hitler.

(And, btw, Hitler declared war on the USA, not the other way around)

Kudos for going old school and keeping that chestnut kicking, though.


So, seriously now.. why is it ok for America to kill innocent Iraqis, but not for Saddam to kill innocent Iraqis? Is it because they're just Iraqis, or is there some other reason that isn't quite as obvious?

 

[B_big dirigible]

Wow, I haven't seen the Saddam=Hitler argument all day.

BD, be serious. Comparing Saddam to Hitler is like comparing Paris Hilton to Ted Bundy. Saddam was not and never would be anywhere near as big a threat as Hitler.

You're a man of great faith. I don't know anyone with such a perspicacious crystal ball. You think Arabs are too stupid to get atomic bombs? Hitler never managed that little feat. Now anybody with time and money can do it. So you're right, comparing Saddam to Hitler is just silly.

But in any event, you're dodging the question. It doesn't matter how bad he was, to those he'd already killed - he was bad enough. You seemed to be arguing that it is immoral to use deadly force to stop any such man heading any such country. Yes? No?

(And, btw, Hitler declared war on the USA, not the other way around)

No shit, kid. So what? It's just talk until the shooting starts. In fact it had started before that. Look up the U.S.S. Reuben James.

Kudos for going old school and keeping that chestnut kicking, though.

It wasn't a trick question, but you're taking a long time to answer it. The logical consequences of your silly-ass position have been presented. Answer, if you can.

So, seriously now.. why is it ok for America to kill innocent Iraqis, but not for Saddam to kill innocent Iraqis? Is it because they're just Iraqis, or is there some other reason that isn't quite as obvious?

News flash - it's terrorists killing innocent Iraqis - you know, those terrorist types the civilized world is fighting to defeat. You seem to think that's OK just so long as they're only killing Iraqis. Why is that?

 

[SpeedoGuy]

You have a line on someone else who is blowing things up? In their beds or churches or anywhere else? Sounds like Muslims to me. Ideally, accompanied by a rousing "Allahu akbar".

Before 9/11 the most deadly act of terrorism on US soil was committed not by screaming bearded jihadis but by a disgruntled white conservative guy, a Gulf War veteran, with a crew cut.

 

[B_big dirigible]

Before 9/11 the most deadly act of terrorism on US soil was committed not by screaming bearded jihadis but by a disgruntled white conservative guy, a Gulf War veteran, with a crew cut.

I'll bet you were one of those annoying kids who tried to tell his granma how to bake cookies.

I said, no ancient history. Duh. Since you mentioned it, recall that the press enjoyed it so much that they were dead certain that the DC sniper was another white conservative guy. Oops, no, the cute phrase was "angry white male" (meaning me, I suppose). So yes, you're right, it was a non-Muslim white guy. Pat yourself on the back, and stop bothering the adults.

 

[rob_just_rob]

You're a man of great faith. I don't know anyone with such a perspicacious crystal ball. You think Arabs are too stupid to get atomic bombs? Hitler never managed that little feat. Now anybody with time and money can do it. So you're right, comparing Saddam to Hitler is just silly.

You don't have a crystal ball either. That little kid playing his PSP next to you on the bus might grow up and become a mass murderer. Are you going to shoot him? I'd love to see that defense come up in court.

Saddam's Iraq would never pose a legitimate threat to the USA and you know it. Geography, finance, demographics and Iraq's lack of infrastructure make that abundantly clear to anyone who isn't playing the role of apologist for the war.

The really stupid part about the argument you posted above is that Saddam was just about the only non-Islamic ruler in the area. Hell, he used to be a US ally - or has that been conveniently forgotten? Oh yes, those human rights abuses were just fine when Saddam was playing ball. But then he... ummm... he did that thing... you know, the thing that made the US mad... ummm... sorry, what was it again that provoked the 2003 invasion, again? It wasn't human rights - Rumsfeld shook the man's hand, fercrissakes!

But in any event, you're dodging the question. It doesn't matter how bad he was, to those he'd already killed - he was bad enough. You seemed to be arguing that it is immoral to use deadly force to stop any such man heading any such country. Yes? No?

It's immoral to destroy an entire country's infrastructure, plunge it into civil war and kill (directly or indirectly) hundreds of thousands of people to kill one man, yes. What the hell gives any nation the right to make that kind of call?

It wasn't a trick question, but you're taking a long time to answer it. The logical consequences of your silly-ass position have been presented. Answer, if you can.

You've yet to address me with an argument that contained any kind of logic. You have put up a lot of "what ifs" which aren't really a good justification for killing innocent people.

News flash - it's terrorists killing innocent Iraqis - you know, those terrorist types the civilized world is fighting to defeat. You seem to think that's OK just so long as they're only killing Iraqis. Why is that?

Air strikes have a nasty way of killing innocent people. So does destroying the infrastructure that provides clean water, electricity and medical services. So does starting a war on someone else's soil for no good reason. Quit playing dumb. America has killed far more Iraqis since the 1991 than anyone else. Arguing otherwise is the equivalent of shouting fire in the theatre, and then claiming that the people trampled to death at the exits are someone else's responsibility.

 

[B_big dirigible]

You don't have a crystal ball either. That little kid playing his PSP next to you on the bus might grow up and become a mass murderer. Are you going to shoot him? I'd love to see that defense come up in court.

Saddam's Iraq would never pose a legitimate threat to the USA and you know it. Geography, finance, demographics and Iraq's lack of infrastructure make that abundantly clear to anyone who isn't playing the role of apologist for the war.

The really stupid part about the argument you posted above is that Saddam was just about the only non-Islamic ruler in the area. Hell, he used to be a US ally - or has that been conveniently forgotten? Oh yes, those human rights abuses were just fine when Saddam was playing ball. But then he... ummm... he did that thing... you know, the thing that made the US mad... ummm... sorry, what was it again that provoked the 2003 invasion, again? It wasn't human rights - Rumsfeld shook the man's hand, fercrissakes!



It's immoral to destroy an entire country's infrastructure, plunge it into civil war and kill (directly or indirectly) hundreds of thousands of people to kill one man, yes. What the hell gives any nation the right to make that kind of call?



You've yet to address me with an argument that contained any kind of logic. You have put up a lot of "what ifs" which aren't really a good justification for killing innocent people.



Air strikes have a nasty way of killing innocent people. So does destroying the infrastructure that provides clean water, electricity and medical services. So does starting a war on someone else's soil for no good reason. Quit playing dumb. America has killed far more Iraqis since the 1991 than anyone else. Arguing otherwise is the equivalent of shouting fire in the theatre, and then claiming that the people trampled to death at the exits are someone else's responsibility.

I gave you a very straightforward question, and you can't answer it. Save me your bullshit about Saddam the Soviet client being a US ally. Your delusions aren't interesting. Answer the question. It's a simple and logical extension of your mush-mouthed statements on this thread. Just when is deadly force justified?

 

[ostrich egg]

Only Radical muslims hey? Look whos blowing the hell out of the middle east (even pre 9/11) Radical christians, radicals on every side of any issue are bad

 

[Gillette]

BD,

Where was the threat to America from Iraq?