C'jais Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy There are other ways to deal with overpopulation, No, there is not. Birth prevention is the single greatest aid to booming development countries. There is no way around this fact. and since when is it ok to not want your child? It is not ok to not want your child. That's just inhumane. But it's perfectly alright to no want a child. There's a very important difference. There is no way you can relate to a lump of cells as a human being. It's the blueprint of one, yes, but it is far from getting referred to as an individual to be protected by laws and petty beliefs. You can't kill something that's not there yet. You can only prevent it from becoming it. No, thats not the greater good, it is personal convience. Due to irrational beliefs like this, people are starving and suffocating in their own piss and sh/t in unfortunate countries around the world. What you call personal convenience I call the only humane option to deal with this in the long run. Saddam is a threat to the free peoples of the earth, Oh please. Don't make him into something he's obviously not. He's a mad, unrealiable leader with a tendency for bullying his population, but he is by no means a threat to anything apart from the immediate vicinity, and should he ever try something as deliberality silly as bombing other countries because he simply feels like it, he'll be pounded by the entire arab world (which is the only area he can even hit) - while he may be a megalomaniac, he's not suicidal. The entire argument that "He's gonna nuke us if we wait" falls flat for the single reason that you could apply this to every other middle eastern country with the capability to build WOMD's. Heck, even China could nuke you, and they're way more oppressive than Hussein has even got the imagination to think of. Save the money. Go home. Spend your resources on more pressing matters such as solving the smoldering Israel-Palestine conflict, which people seem to dismiss as totally irrelevant. Israel is commiting twice as many atrocities as Saddam, and the world ignorant of this, due to you 'mericans having them as an ally and focusing the media's attention on Gulf War II. If that fails, you could always go after Pakistan or N. Korea, which we know for certain has nukes, and the disposition and willingness to use them (in Korea's case, that is). Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 25, 2003 Share Posted February 25, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais No, there is not. Birth prevention is the single greatest aid to booming development countries. There is no way around this fact. Yeah, birth prevention. If you can't see the difference between that and murdering your child then i don't know why i waste my time talking to you. It is not ok to not want your child. That's just inhumane. But it's perfectly alright to no want a child. There's a very important difference. Alright, if you don't want a child, don't have one. Take contraceptives, do something active about it. Don't just sit there, let it happen, then murder it. There is no way you can relate to a lump of cells as a human being. It's the blueprint of one, yes, but it is far from getting referred to as an individual to be protected by laws and petty beliefs. You can't kill something that's not there yet. You can only prevent it from becoming it. *shakes head* You are depriving a person of existance, i still don't understand how you can be alright with that. Due to irrational beliefs like this, people are starving and suffocating in their own piss and sh/t in unfortunate countries around the world. What you call personal convenience I call the only humane option to deal with this in the long run. Yes, humane, very much so. Killing your child is the only way to deal with it. You disgust me. Killing what will be is no different than killing something that already is, except what will be has longer to live. But neither are neccessary, i've already given you one reason. And many thirdworld countries are like that because of their treacherous governments, anyways, not just overpopulation. Oh please. Don't make him into something he's obviously not. He's a mad, unrealiable leader with a tendency for bullying his population, but he is by no means a threat to anything apart from the immediate vicinity, and should he ever try something as deliberality silly as bombing other countries because he simply feels like it, he'll be pounded by the entire arab world (which is the only area he can even hit) - while he may be a megalomaniac, he's not suicidal. Yeah, that really stopped Al Quaeda from doing it. Your logic falls flat, because Saddam can always use terrorists, and its not like he'd have to fire a missle from Baghdad. He could attack us and we could never be completely sure it was him. And with y'all out there sreaming for peace over protection, we may never be able to retaliate. The entire argument that "He's gonna nuke us if we wait" falls flat for the single reason that you could apply this to every other middle eastern country with the capability to build WOMD's. Heck, even China could nuke you, and they're way more oppressive than Hussein has even got the imagination to think of. China hasn't threatened us directly, they haven't fought one war with us over their weapons, they haven't tried to decieve us and hide their weapons, they haven't deliberately opposed the UN. Saddam has, and that's why he's dangerous. Every otehr nation could nuke us, yes, but right now Iraq is the greatest threat, because he hides his weapons and helps terrorism with WMDs. We should have finished the job 12 years ago, but we didn't, and Saddam is still a threat. And after 9/11, how can you say it's not possible? Save the money. Go home. Spend your resources on more pressing matters such as solving the smoldering Israel-Palestine conflict, which people seem to dismiss as totally irrelevant. Israel is commiting twice as many atrocities as Saddam, and the world ignorant of this, due to you 'mericans having them as an ally and focusing the media's attention on Gulf War II. How can you stand for Palestine against Israel?!? Palestinians slaughter Israeli civilians, and when Israel retaliates to protect themselves, you antagonize them? I'm sorry, but what is wrong with you? Qui-Gon. Blah blah blah blah blah. I keep hearing the exact same arguments about Iraq from you and others in almost the exact same words, and quite frankly i'm getting tired of repeating myself. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Yeah, birth prevention. If you can't see the difference between that and murdering your child then i don't know why i waste my time talking to you. Would you refer to a few chemicals as a person? A few cells without anything to give them any kind of identity is not human. It's not an individual in any way. If there is no individual, there is no "murder" involved in it. Just as you don't get charged with murder for killing a few of your own body cells, you can't "kill" nondescript organic material. It's birth prevention for a reason - you prevent a person from coming into being. It sounds as if you believe something *magical* happens when a sperm cell collides with an egg cell, in fact, if you're going to about such junk as "souls", then I frankly don't care about your opinion, as you obviously can't distinguish facts and reality from your black and white world. *shakes head* You are depriving a person of existance, i still don't understand how you can be alright with that. [...] Killing what will be is no different than killing something that already is. What could be is completely irrelevant as there's no consciousness there yet. This is exactly as silly as saying that you kill a child by using a condom, as you prevent it from coming into being. Unless you're going to argue your case with the myth that something magical happens when a new life is started. In that case, please go back to your religious planet and let us deal with the troubles on ours. Yeah, that really stopped Al Quaeda from doing it. Your logic falls flat, because Saddam can always use terrorists, So far, I haven't heard a thing about Saddam being connected to terrorists. Nations are one thing, terrorist groups are something completely different. Saddam has no reason to attack you. If he ever does so, he'd be bombed to smithereens by the rest of the world. and its not like he'd have to fire a missle from Baghdad. He could attack us and we could never be completely sure it was him. Get a grip. With the paranoia you present, anyone could attack you and you'd never know. China hasn't threatened us directly, they haven't tried to decieve us and hide their weapons, The only reason Saddam and Israel hides their weapons, is because you give them a reason to. As the attention is focused on them, and as they know they're going to hell if they show those weapons, they naturally hide them. In Israel's case, they're pretty much free to do what they want, as they're allies of you. Meanwhile, no one's bothered to go after N. Korea or Pakistan. they haven't fought one war with us over their weapons Read up on the Gulf war. , they haven't deliberately opposed the UN. *cough* ROFL. Do you have any idea of what's going on in Tibet and China? but right now Iraq is the greatest threat, because he hides his weapons This doesn't make him a threat. USA hides its WOMD's too. and helps terrorism with WMDs. Right. And Santa lives in my back yard. And after 9/11, how can you say it's not possible? 9/11 was a terrorist attack. Saddam is no dodgy terrorist. To use this argumentation is equal to saying it was Afghanistan that bombed the twin towers. How can you stand for Palestine against Israel?!? Palestinians slaughter Israeli civilians, and when Israel retaliates to protect themselves, you antagonize them? I'm sorry, but what is wrong with you? No personal attacks please. I've had enough from flamy Christians in the swamp already. No, I don't think Palestine is any better. They both act as infantile idiots down there. But to claim Israel is somehow morally superior to Palestine just reeks of American bias towards their allies. If you really would like to be viewed as the global preserver of freedom, you should cut off Israel once and for all. Qui-Gon. Blah blah blah blah blah. I keep hearing the exact same arguments about Iraq from you and others in almost the exact same words, and quite frankly i'm getting tired of repeating myself. Looking through the thread, you're no better than him. Saddam is a threat to the free world. Because he hides his weapons and uses terrorists. A fetus is a human being. I can't explain why. Knock it off. [EDIT] BTW, you should touch up on your quoting skills (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Your first paragraph three paragraphs doomed what else you said in the latter ones. I refuse to converse with someone who condones, no, who defends the slaughter of innocent babies who, BTW, have individual, unique, working brains from very early on in pregnancy. If you said something valuable in the other paragraphs, which i find hard to believe, i don't care. I stand by everything i said, and you can make what you like of it, so don't even think for a second i'm giving up on my position or backing down from the issue itself. That is all i have to to say to you. I do not plan to post anymore in this thread, so the debate, in my mind, is over. If someone else wants to put up with you, its not my concern. Please don't turn this into more than it is. If you absolutely want to get immature about it, you can send me a PM. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Thank you for proving my point, but you don't have to be such a putz about it. And I was so hoping this forum could handle such discussion better than the swamp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tie Guy Posted February 26, 2003 Share Posted February 26, 2003 Now didn't i say you could send me a PM if you had anything immature to say? What is "better discussion"? Because it certainly isn't coming in here, repeating things we've discussed over and over, insulting me for my religious beliefs, defending those who slughter innocents for no reason (and i'm not talking about abortion), and antagonizing people who have thus far done nothing wrong. If that's your idea of "better discussion" then i suggest you try Saddam, I hear he's available. Now, i'm serious about this, if you have anything anything else that is insulting, revolting, or all-around illogical, you can send it to my PM. And i didn't want to post in here again. I've would have let you say anything else about your position or what not and not said a thing, but nope, i now see that's never going to happen. You can't just let it go and be done with it, you have to come out and say nothing about your opinion, just that i'm a putz and that i can't hold a discussion better than a swamper. Thanks a lot. Oh, and how does this prove your point? Because i don't want to talk to you about this anymore, that somehow proves abortion ok or that we shouldn't go to war? Believe me, i could talk for hours upon hours on either topic, i'm just not going to do it with you. I think i made that clear. Now, i don't think i made any insulting comments or anything in this post, and if you think i did, you are certainly taking it the wrong way. So, i don't see why this shouldn't be the end of the topic. Mods, there isn't any reason within my capacity to keep this open. You can wait for C'jais to have the last word if you like, but i really don't see what anyone could say that would be constructive at this point. Sorry for letting this get out of hand, i'm at least partially responsible, and thanks. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JEDI_MASTA Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 the question of abortion comes down to something verry simple Is it better to live in a foster home, or be dead... i think ill pick the earlier........ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Now didn't i say you could send me a PM if you had anything immature to say? Please. Don't act so juvenile. What is "better discussion"? Discussion is using rational thought, seeing the same thing from two sides, and not stonewalling. Because it certainly isn't coming in here, repeating things we've discussed over and over I was not aware of that, seeing as I only entered the debate recently. insulting me for my religious beliefs, I said you believe in such irrational nonsense as "souls". I said you live in a black and white world, which you so far have proved beyond doubt. defending those who slughter innocents for no reason I, and Qui, are thinking in the long run. Sure, you'll save some opressed Iraqis, but in the doing, you'll grow even more hatred for you own country, and more terrorism and retaliations will be the result. Or are you talking about Palestine? Bah. and antagonizing people who have thus far done nothing wrong. Where did I do this? If that's your idea of "better discussion" then i suggest you try Saddam, I hear he's available. Stop with the flamy remarks. Now, i'm serious about this, if you have anything anything else that is insulting, revolting, or all-around illogical, you can send it to my PM. Listen here, zealot-boy, I don't wanna take any more crap from you. Ok? Cool it off. And i didn't want to post in here again. I've would have let you say anything else about your position or what not and not said a thing, but nope, i now see that's never going to happen. You appeared to be completely withdrawing from the thread, so I saw no point in trying to prove something further. If you had showed even the slightest ability to actually listen to the opposing side, I'd have cared enough to write more. and that i can't hold a discussion better than a swamper. Thanks a lot. You can't, and that's pretty scary. You have even less empathy than those Xians in the Swamp. No, I didn't call you a putz. I said you were acting like a putz the way you abjectly refused to participate in the thread, solely because I was of another opinion. Believe me, i could talk for hours upon hours on either topic, i'm just not going to do it with you. I think i made that clear. Yes. You don't want to talk to me, because I defend abortion. Inconveniently, that also excludes a large part of the rest of the world. Now, i don't think i made any insulting comments or anything in this post, Yeah, you do that. Thankfully I'm not modding this forum, so I'll let you slide. Mods, there isn't any reason within my capacity to keep this open. You can wait for C'jais to have the last word if you like, but i really don't see what anyone could say that would be constructive at this point. Sorry for letting this get out of hand, i'm at least partially responsible, and thanks. I'm a mod, if you haven't noticed. So you're calling for them to close the thread? That's certainly responsible. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted February 27, 2003 Share Posted February 27, 2003 Originally posted by JEDI_MASTA Is it better to live in a foster home, or be dead... i think ill pick the earlier........ You can't make that analogy, as a few cells do not have any identity. There is no consciousness, so you can't compare it to you in any way. It's like trying to argue that a stone would care about what happened to it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 2, 2003 Share Posted March 2, 2003 Originally posted by Tie Guy Yeah, birth prevention. If you can't see the difference between that and murdering your child then i don't know why i waste my time talking to you. Ah, I forgot something vital to this point. What would you consider birth prevention? Would you view the pill and the spiral as birth prevention? The damn trouble is, both of these actually prevents the embryo from attaching to the womb, resulting in an abortion after the merging of the sperm and egg cell. End result: the foetus dies. Is that birth prevention to you? It appears condoms are the only way to go these days. And to think how many women are unwittingly killing their babies and not even knowing!!! Staggering. Appalling. But brutal and inhuman? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon_Leon Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 I'll just deal with one remark that is preposterous, and that is C'Jai saying that 'Israël has committed twice as many atrocities as Saddam has.' First of all, if you're a country where your citizens are slaughtered on the streets, you do something about it. What the Palestinian Authority has done from day 1 is marking those security actions (apprehension of terrorists, demolishing bomb-factories, etc) as 'one-sided atrocities against the Palestinian people.' In case you didn't know; before the second intifada an extensive team of 'media-advisers' was hired by the PA and came in full swing as soon as Sharon made a legal visit to the temple mount in 2001. Yes, legal. Because jews actually can visit that spot. Or didn't you know ? I'll make it even better; that site is under DUAL ownership. So why are the PA (with a whole media-world sheepishly behind that) screaming from the top of their lungs that that was an act worthy of an intifada ? I'll make it even simpler for you. The PA says it wants peace. Now i ask you, if such things as simply visiting those sites make a people go blow the other side up, do they want peace ? When they refuse to stop shooting in order to actually flesh out peace proposals that are already on the table, do they want peace ? Next time you mention something off-hand like "twice as many atrocities", i suggest you actually 1) visit the area you're talking about and see for yourself and 2) think common sense. By the way, there's two kinds of UN resolutions; the binding ones and the recommending ones. Guess which ones have been set up by mostly Arab states in the UN with respect to Israël ? Right. The recommening ones. Now guess which only binding resolution that applies to Israël still isn't accepted by those same Arab states ? You guessed it. The one that marks the very existence of Israël, from 1948. The only ones in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that don't want peace are the Arabs and the PA (and don't even get me started on where those REALLY come from.. Arafat is an Egyptian. Did you know that ? He's not a Palestinian and never was). Next time you point the finger to the Israeli government shouting 'warcrimes!', look at what actually is happening. Now that that's off my chest: In a thread marked 'Rumsfeld is a moron' i notice discussions about Iraq, North Korea, Birth prevention, the Israeli-Palestine conflict and countless examples that veer off in as many directions. Any possibility in keeping this on-topic ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Seeing how C'jais and Tie Guy are going at it reminds me as to why debates never really work: We're human. We let ourselves become so enamored to our own opinions that we actually defend them as truth, when in fact almost all "truths" we cling to are all subject to some form of "spin" or "slant". Why is that, you ask? Because, we did not experience history first hand, nor do we know the mindset of others, or because we weren't present in the UN sessions. Whatever the reasons, we have experienced it all second hand and indirectly, making all our information subject to "spin", "slant", or even another individual's position etc. I find it amusing to see this very idea demonstrated in a Star Wars related forum. Even though George Lucas's writing has never been profound in it's abiltiy to peer into the inner most workings of human nature, and yet one line Obiwan says to Luke in Episode VI: Return of the Jedi, contains a musing that seemingly unravels the human psyche as it pertains to "truth": "Luke, you're going to find that many of the truths we cling to depend greatly on our own point of view." There were never more insightful, profound or truthful words spoken throughout the entire saga then those above, from the wise Jedi Master Obiwan Kenobi. We tend to be emotional beings, humans, so much so that we may lash out or revert to immature and less than effective methods of people relation skills. All because a "truth" or opinion that we subscribe to has come under fire by someone equally enamored to their own view. Tempers run hot as we may doubt ourselves. We see our "truth" unraveling before our eyes, and we seek to do the same to the other camp. Yes, an open mind would facilitate a better atmosphere for debates of such weight, but as humans there are no such things as "open minds", some may be less closed than others, but we are incapable of an "open mind" in the strictest sense of the term, but we, nevertheless, must be willing to hear the other side, evaluate it, and at the same time, less emotionally defend our own position. Next to love, it is one of the hardest lessons to learn: the quiet debater, one who can listen and one who can share without falling to the temptation of raising their voice, name calling, personal attacks, or bringing to light other faults in logic that are irrelevant to the debate at hand. You want to know why I haven't been as active in these debate threads? Because, I am not a quiet debater. My maturity level will drop at seeing my stance attacked, and in wisdom, I choose the high road. Instead of placing myself in a situation where I will find myself tempted to say or do that which can be construed as "bad form", I choose to refrain so that my personal integrity is not tarnished beyond that which it is already. Debate is not for the weak, but neither is it for the strong and powerful, but rather for those who are secure in all the "truths" they cling. And remember, there is no right or wrong to a debate, because if there were, it wouldn't be a debate. That's why simple arithmetic isn't a big ticket in the great debate forums of our world. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon_Leon Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 And with that, i thank Havoc Stryphe from the bottom of my heart for bringing that sweet glow of tempered wisdom to this thread.. i'll add just one thing; if you agree with him or not, tone down on the flames. And C'Jai; mods are by no means whatsoever free to say what they want. We stick to the same courtesy rules as anyone here, so i'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from calling people 'zealot-boy' while explaining how you didn't flame.. as it happens, i DO mod this forum, and i will close this thread if it's not going anywhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Originally posted by Paragon_Leon I'll just deal with one remark that is preposterous, and that is C'Jai saying that 'Israël has committed twice as many atrocities as Saddam has.' I am fully aware that Palestine isn't any better than Israel, but to actually think that Israel is innocent and only subject to a malicious conspiracy is outright ignorance, to put it bluntly. For chrissakes, they run over human shields with tanks. Israel has WOMD's for sure, and most likely nukes as well. It is clear that the only reason Israel isn't subject to binding resolutions is because Saddam is allegedly mad, and because a lot of Jews in the ruling body of USA is desperately trying to keep Israel as the only bastion of America in the arab world. I'll admit the comment about them "committing twice as many atrocities as Saddam" was uncalled for, and based on nothing really. However, if that is the only preposterous comment you could find in this thread, I'd advise you read it again Now that that's off my chest: In a thread marked 'Rumsfeld is a moron' i notice discussions about Iraq, North Korea, Birth prevention, the Israeli-Palestine conflict and countless examples that veer off in as many directions. Any possibility in keeping this on-topic ? If a thread changes its topic underway, so be it. Unless it turns into idle chatter, of course. No need to close a good discussion regardless of whether it's on the original topic or not. As long as it has a topic, it's all good IMHO. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe Debate is not for the weak, but neither is it for the strong and powerful, but rather for those who are secure in all the "truths" they cling. There are no truths. Only facts. And remember, there is no right or wrong to a debate, because if there were, it wouldn't be a debate. That's why simple arithmetic isn't a big ticket in the great debate forums of our world. Nope, but someone who postulates that the world was created 6 thousand years ago, that they can talk to an invisible, immaterial being who cannot be objectively measured in any way, and who will even go so far as to say there are things such as ultimate, universal morals and stuff like souls are obviously not following the simple procedures of logic. A fine speech, aye. But for the people who defend facts and logic, it does get a bit hopeless trying to remain calm in the face of people who cannot see the logical fallacy of their own statements. Not referring to this thread, BTW. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 3, 2003 Share Posted March 3, 2003 Originally posted by Paragon_Leon i'll add just one thing; if you agree with him or not, tone down on the flames. And C'Jai; mods are by no means whatsoever free to say what they want. We stick to the same courtesy rules as anyone here, so i'd appreciate it if you'd refrain from calling people 'zealot-boy' while explaining how you didn't flame.. Fair enough, that one was over the line. You have my apology, Tie guy. However, I'd appreciate it if you also looked at the other part as well. If what he said to me wasn't insulting or flaming, I'm hard pressed to see just what it was. Now, I leap to my defenses quickly, when speaking to Christians, as I stereotype their arguments based on months of experience in the Swamp. I know them pretty much by heart, and they're all equally illogical. Tie guy, I'm sorry if I accused you wrongly of believing in souls and such, but it was a hasty reflex on my part. You couldn't know this, but I've been subjected to a great deal of hounding and harassment from Christians (wonder why?) - been called a liar, an idiot, a biased, egocentric prick etc. If I react harshly when confronted with religious people, you all know why, now. I take a lot of flak from being the only mod I know that cares to commit himself to ethical, religious and scientific debates. as it happens, i DO mod this forum, and i will close this thread if it's not going anywhere. It's going somewhere. It's not the exact same topic as the original one, but to close it would be sacrificing good discussion on the altar of petty rules designed to accommodate 13 year olds. Peyce. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jared Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 hmmmm..... As far as the abortion thing, I honestly don't know enough about the pills to say that they are evil, but in my eyes, abortion at any age is murder. We live in a warped society indeed. But, I don't think there is anything to do about it unless my name was George Bush. So, my best advice would be to the people that are against it, to not do it, and that would pretty much be the best thing to do, instead of telling people to burn in hell because they believe something different, which doesn't mean its right, but I believe that someday they will have to answer for it. Now, that is my opinion and everyone is entitled to their own opinion. As far as the troops in germany, I see nothing wrong with that at all. Why do they need troops anyway? I'll leave with saying, what if when you were a little tiny 'fetus' which btw means baby in latin, and someone killed you. Hmmm. Somehow I don't think anyone thinks about that. I mean, it could of happened fairly easily and you would be wiped from existance. So....something to think about before you say it's not alive intil the doctors say it is. :rolleyes: Peace. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Havoc Stryphe Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by C'jais There are no truths. Only facts. That is why every time the words Truth or Truths appear in my post they were in quotation marks, therefore implying that they are only opinions or facts subject to spin, slant or another's opinion, which incidentally, was also stated in my post to further clear up any misunderstandings about the matter. Truth is the "facts" or theories in which we choose to believe, it is completely relative to the individual, not the masses. I can choose to believe a lie, and in time I will convince myself that it is really truth, and that is where polygraphs can fail. Because a human mind is completely malleable, and therefore can be conditioned to believe anything, and that is why truth is such a dangerous and/or powerful concept, because it can, quite literally, be anything our heart desires. Oh, and just to let you know, C'jais, I too am a Christian, but I will not force my belief on another, nor would I deface or belittle another for trying to prove my beliefs wrong, that contradicts the very belief I would be trying to defend. It is those Christians who resort to such antics, that make it difficult for the rest of us who would try to debate in a much more civilized and quieter manner. Ironically, I, too, am a huge proponent of logic, and yet I believe in God. As you said, it is the very furthest you could remove oneself from logic, to believe in something that is so immeasurable, non-quantitative, and intangible, and yet, I do. That is why it is called faith. I can assure you, though, it does not make an individual any less capable of unraveling the mysteries of the universe, or succeeding in the field science, or even less able to follow a logic algorithm. It is simply that they expanded beyond the region of that which is only tangible and stretched out on faith. Now, to keep this thread on topic, or at very least try to move it in that direction, I will give my view on what America, Bush, and in this case, Rumsfield are doing in regards to Iraq and Suddam Hussein. I have already stated this in several threads that were of nearly identical topic, so those who have read my opinion, and that is all it is, please bear with me. Those who have yet to read my thoughts, please feel free to debate them or even contradict them, they are after all, only my opinions and are in no way fact, truth or even quasi-true. First, no matter how much you hate the guy, no matter how poorly it appears he is running the government, George W. Bush is still a president in his first term. Politically speaking, the majority of what he is trying to do, will be what he feels is in the best interest of our nation. If not, he would be committing political suicide and destroying any chance of re-election for sure. "He already is/has!" you say? Exactly my point, the decisions he's making is not for a personal agenda, because he has basically destroyed any hopes of an easy re-election in two years. It's quite obvious that out National Security Advisor or our Defense Secretary, or both have proof that Suddam has Weapons of Mass Destruction or is actively researching them and has strong ties with Al-queda, specifically the attacks of 9-11. This evidence is what George W. Bush is acting on. However, to disclose the nature of evidence/proof we have, would render the source completely useless from that point on, or worse yet have those sources (Probably CIA or State personnel) compromised and or killed. Besides having United States personnel killed, the ramifications of revealing the source or sources would be detrimental at best. With a war with Iraq seemingly imminent, we could use all the inside info we can muster, to help locate Suddam and his weapons. Now, if you knew beyond a shadow of a doubt that Suddam had Weapons of Mass Destruction at his disposal and know full well what kind of sentiment he holds America in and helps terrorism strike at America, then you too, would try your best to make the world see what you see without compromising your inside sources. You would also want to eliminate that threat to your country. Would you not? Now, do I agree with all Bush is saying and proposing? No. But I have to respect the guy for committing political suicide to ensure the safety of our country. He could of easily backed off by know, but he knows what a lot of other nations don't, and what his own citizens don't. He obviously can't live with himself knowing he didn't make an attempt to remove Suddam Hussein and the threat Iraq currently poses to world peace. Ask yourself this, even if he wins the war, do you think he'll be viewed as a hero? Of course not. His political career is over. Why would he have risked that for something the majority of the nation and even the world doesn't seem to agree with him over? Because he knows what we don't, and I wish he could show us, and the rest of the world, exactly what that is, but the reality of it is, he can't. Not without compromising the lives of American personnel. Of course a war on Iraq also endangers thousands of American soldiers, but in the end, whether he shows the proof or not, this war is most likely to happen. Even more likely if he discloses that proof. So he would gain nothing, but more support for the war at the cost of a valuable information and possible additional human lives beyond the casualties of war. It's an extremely difficult position George W. Bush finds himself in, and you all seem Blasé about the whole thing. He has sealed his own fate, politically, probably is losing sleep over this and I know I, personally, would have resigned or hung myself by know if I were in his shoes. The decisions that man faces everyday make our lives look petty. He makes the decisions that will affect millions of Americans everyday, and ultimately the whole world, and like it or not, the guy is human. Which mean he's going to make mistakes. Don't fool yourselves into thinking that the "other guy" would have done things any differently or better. You go ahead and bad mouth the man, but I wouldn't want his responsibility for all the money in the world, nor would I ever want to be making the decisions he's making right now. On one hand, I could let the world know what I know at the cost of American lives and eliminate a valuable source of Iraqi inside information therefore rendering us partially blind in the war. Or I can protect those sources and possibly go into war alone because the rest of the world doesn't believe me, but I would have spared those sources and would have better info to make future decisions educated and efficiently during the war. Either way, thousands of lives will be endangered in war. Or I can just ignore the fact that Suddam has biological weapons and is working on/has nuclear weapons and supports the same terrorist group that just viciously attacked our nation, making the possibility of the next strike even more deadly with the use of biological/chemical/nuclear weapons on American soil with the aid of Suddam Hussein, but just hope it never happens. No matter what I choose, the possibility of me getting re-elected isn't looking very good. That's not the kind of decision I want to make, but you know what, I think I'll just sit back and bitch, moan, badmouth, slander and insult the poor sap who has to actually make those kind of decisions! He's just a guy, who is having every kind of difficulty simultaneously that the last four presidents had to deal with individually: Cold War with North Korea - Carter/Reagan Cold war with Soviet Union Columbia Space Shuttle disaster - Reagan Challenger Space Shuttle disaster War with Iraq - Bush Sr. War with Iraq Hurting Economy - Clinton hurting economy Loss of thousands of lives in an attack on our own soil - Never happened before on such large scale! The guy is under more stress than any of us could possibly imagine. He's still just a man who is a husband and a father, trying to make decisions for the well being of our nation. Cut him a little slack, at least state your opinions in less judgmental way. You know what the cruel irony is here? If Bush had only continued to hunt terrorist pockets within Afghanistan and Pakistan, and ignored Suddam Hussein and Iraq, and in five years, God forbid, a nuclear bomb within a truck goes of in downtown New York City, killing 3/4 of the city's population, and it came out later, in the press, that President Bush and his advisors were aware of Iraq researching nuclear capabilities and having ties to Al-queda, but did nothing. These same people would be calling Bush a moron, because he knew about the possibility but did nothing to stop Millions from being killed! The fact remains that you are complaining just to complain. And by the way, great speeches do not make a man great. Hitler was a great orator and gave very compelling and stirring speeches. Likewise, just because a man does not verbalize well, in no way makes that man any less intelligent. Stephan Hawkings does not speak well at all, but he is a genius without compare. Does Bush make stirring speeches that move the soul and demand there place within history.... no. But then again, that is Bush's appeal. He's not a "smooth talker". He is a just a man, trying to do a job. And as I stated earlier, since he is a mere mortal, he is subject to failure and mistakes. Unfortunately, he is not perfect like some of you apparently are. He is foremost a man, a husband, and a father doing a job, just like some of you have jobs. He does it the best he can. "How do I know that?", because the whole world is watching him, and he still has another term to run for. Believe me, he's doing the very best he can! To call him a moron, is immature at best. Has he made mistakes, yes, but which of you are without blame? Let him throw the first stone! You decide what to wear today, which class to blow off, and maybe on a tough day, where to go to college, or if you should propose to your girlfriend. Whereas Bush has to decide where the nations 3 trillion dollars should go, what nation poses more of a threat, how to console 5,000 families have lost love ones, and if he should endanger the lives of thousands of soldiers in war. All of those with the hot limelight of the media bearing down on you, and the whole world waiting on your every word. You come to me and tell me when you have room to speak that way to any man in that office, and I'll call you a liar. No man deserves being called a moron. Much less one who is bearing the burdens that man does. You are selfish, thoughtless, and heartless individuals to pick on a man at such a time in his career as this. It makes me sick to think you are our next generation of congressmen, lawyers, businessmen and, yes, even president. You don't agree with Bush or Rumsfield, fine, but state your reasons without calling the man a moron, stupid, or an ass. That would denote some human decency and some intelligence. *Note this is aimed at those who refuse to state their differing opinions without making reference to Bush or Rumsfield being an idiot, a moron, stupid, and ass etc... If you have stated you reasons without resorting to using those terms. I applaud you and respect you... Thank you. As far as Europeans' views of America, I can't say I blame them. As an American, I find that most of us our elitist, and self centered, and I find it very disturbing. Is this war necessary? From what we have been given, it would seem only somewhat convincing to us Americans, and it's our government pushing for the war. Now there may still be some sort of information that Bush has at his disposable that is fueling this drive to war. Some sort of info, that completely justifies our actions, at least for America. This info may be too sensitive to release or might compromise human lives or even threaten to injure further the shaky relationship between America and Iraq. So, as of now, with what we've been given, it seems that the war may be justified, but not thoroughly justified. And that's how America sees it. Imagine, being a foreign power and you are being told you should help us attack, but we can't prove it's absolutely necessary to go to war, just show you some sordid, circumstantial evidence that somewhat displays the need to attack, but if you decide not to help us, we shall forever remember your lack of action and support in our time of need. It seems bullish and downright rude of our nation to act in such a manner, nor do I approve of it. But I still believe that Bush is acting on information that we have yet to learn and therefore is acting in the best interests of our nation and maybe the world. But on the flipside, I don not blame the rest of the world for viewing us as warmongers, for without the information that absolutely proves the necessity to attack Iraq, and then to ask another nation to risk her lives and her peace on "our word" is both bold and presumptuous. For many a man has given his word, only to later be found a liar and fortunist. It is abundantly clear, however, that we, the United States of America, are going to war, with or without of the aid of her Allies. I will neither abandon my nation in her time of need, nor will I seek to undermine the very government that places us in this dire situation. I will support her as I may, because I have faith that there is more evidence than I, and average American, can even fathom that depicts without reprehension nor shadow of a doubt, that Suddam Hussein represents a clear and present danger to the health and well being of America and her people, and maybe even the entire world. It is on that faith that I pledge my allegiance to such a country as the united states. It is on that faith that I cast my vote for who I thought would lead this country with the best intentions and with the most foresight of her future, and it is still with that very faith that I would endure the hardships that my country may encounter due to her stance on global terrorism and Iraqi's dictatorship. I love my nation, even though she may have her fair share of faults about her. So in the end, she may not be perfect, and I don't blame the Europeans one bit of their distaste for America, but she is my home, and it is my President that leads us down the path to war, and it is my brothers, sisters, and friends that will go off to fight this war, and I refuse to turn my back to them. Concerning Terrorism and possible Iraqi involvement: A terrorist group may be funded by Iraq or outfitted with an Iraqi bomb, possibly chemical/biological in nature. That is possibility that we must be aware of. Especially considering that Iraq does not have any conventional means of striking at America, he may resort to terrorist tactics. Funding, outfitting and training terrorists cells and sending them into the heart of the enemy. With talks of possible connections with the al-queda network, it is an even more viable means of attack by Suddam. There is a tape in London that is supposedly recorded by Bin Laden recently, but is still being authenticated. In that recording, Bin Laden predicts his own death as a martyr in one of his own suicide bombings this year. What better way for both parties, Iraq and Al-queda, to accomplish their goals then to have Iraq provide a weapon of mass destruction, and Al-queda to provide the bodies, planning, and insertion for that weapon. The possibility is becoming more real, and we must be vigilant in our quest to ensure that doesn't happen. Does it call for war, I don't know, but I'm glad I'm not the one making that decision. As of right now, Suddam has his nation at stake and may not jeopardize that by possibly connecting himself to Al-queda, but we are gearing up for war with Iraq, with or without the UN's support. If We are already at war with Iraq and we will not stop until Suddam is out of power, than all bets are off. Suddam, when backed into a corner, will find anyway he can to lash out at his enemies. If this war goes forward, we must be very aware and alert to the possibility. *DISCLAIMER: This post has been a cut and paste job of other posts made by myself in three different threads spanning a time frame of approximately three weeks with minimal editing to make them complete thoughts since taken out of their original context. Although my position stays the same throughout, my thoughts may come across as disjointed, or non-linear. This is due to them being from three different threads at three different times. So please take that into consideration before blasting my thought processes. I again want to state that the above stated position is only that of myself. I do not represent any other entity or group, but myself, and all is based simply on my opinions and beliefs. I in no way state that these are truth or fact. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ShadowTemplar Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Okay, enough about France. What about China, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Mexico, Norway, Denmark, Iceland, Canada, Germany, Latvia, Syria, South Africa, Madagascar, and Brazil? All these countries, and more, oppose the war. Think they've all got selfish reasons for not wanting a war? *points to sig* Originally posted by Dagobahn Eagle Or maybe they just know what war in your homeland is like and don't want to force it on the Iraqis (France lost 40 000 in one single battle). That was WWI... And I believe that it was a single day not a single battle. While you have a point, you are making it less compelling by taking an example with wholly different tactics, strategies, and techlevel. Tie Guy Res Fieri Its not the Iraqis were waging war on, BTW, it's Saddam and his regime. We've made it clear that Iraq is not our target, its Saddam and his WMDs. We aren't going to intentionally harm the citizens, we'll be too busy liberating them. Do you really believe that? That post sounds like an E40 to me. Tie Guy Res Fieri quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by C'jais *Off-topic* So by extending your argument, you also agree that when speaking of abortion, a few "civilian casualties" are acceptable, as they're in the way of the greater good - unwanted children, massive overpopulation in Africa and India and preventing teenage girls from having a change of pace they didn't quite expect. *back on topic* -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- [...] There are other ways to deal with overpopulation, and since when is it ok to not want your child? Abortion is a fully acceptable way of birth control. Read up on the most basic of human biology, if you are in doubt as to why. Saddam is a threat to the free peoples of the earth, and we have attempted to deal with him in every other way. War is all that is left, and it must be done. "The Free Peoples", eh? I take it that it's no accident that you use Tolkien's epic-sounding term? JM Qui-Gon Jinn Sith Lord But the [iraqi] civillians are going to be severely harmed, whether you like it or not. Do you really think they want war? I do, actually. We have many exile Iraqi stating that war will be the only way to get rid of Hussein, whom they are desperate to do away with. JM Qui-Gon Jinn Sith Lord quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by Tie Guy There are other ways to deal with overpopulation, -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Wars, for instance, have always worked great . The only problem is, you'll have to kill living human beings instead of preventing them from ever excisting. LOL. Great point. Tie Guy Res Fieri quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Originally posted by C'jais No, there is not. Birth prevention is the single greatest aid to booming development countries. There is no way around this fact. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, birth prevention. If you can't see the difference between that and murdering your child then i don't know why i waste my time talking to you. And if you don't know basic Biology, I don't know why we are wasting our time trying to tell you that abortion falls far short of murder. Alright, if you don't want a child, don't have one. Take contraceptives, do something active about it. Don't just sit there, let it happen, then murder it. Contraceptives, you say? What kind, dare I ask? There is no way you can relate to a lump of cells as a human being. It's the blueprint of one, yes, but it is far from getting referred to as an individual to be protected by laws and petty beliefs. You can't kill something that's not there yet. You can only prevent it from becoming it. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *shakes head* You are depriving a person of existance, i still don't understand how you can be alright with that. Your failure to comprehend the results of medical science is in no way an argument for your case. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Due to irrational beliefs like this, people are starving and suffocating in their own piss and sh/t in unfortunate countries around the world. What you call personal convenience I call the only humane option to deal with this in the long run. Yes, humane, very much so. Killing your child is the only way to deal with it. You disgust me. Killing what will be is no different than killing something that already is, except what will be has longer to live. So destroying the models/blueprints for Michelangelo's Chapel or the Pyramids would be just as much a crime to civilization as hewing the above structures into stone slabs to build something from? Well, then, I suggest that you go blow up The Colossus. And many thirdworld countries are like that because of their treacherous governments, anyways, not just overpopulation. One word: Demographics. That's in the second year of High School in Denmark. I don't know what crappy politicians you have, but even with our miserable Minister of Entertainment Education, we are appearently learning more than the average Bible Belt College Graduate, if I am to judge by these fora. should he ever try something as deliberality silly as bombing other countries because he simply feels like it, he'll be pounded by the entire arab world (which is the only area he can even hit) - while he may be a megalomaniac, he's not suicidal. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Yeah, that really stopped Al Quaeda from doing it. Your logic falls flat, because Saddam can always use terrorists, and its not like he'd have to fire a missle from Baghdad. He could attack us and we could never be completely sure it was him. And with y'all out there sreaming for peace over protection, we may never be able to retaliate. Biotoxins can be traced all the way back to the lab of origen. Chemical WOMDs can be traced all the way back to he lab of origen. Iraq is not even close to having nukes. Oh, and bin Laden hates Hussein. This means what? Sorry, but I'd be going after Israel, Iran, or North Korea. Besides your argument falls flat, as AQ didn't have a country to care about. Hussein has. He is in a completely different strategic situation. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The entire argument that "He's gonna nuke us if we wait" falls flat for the single reason that you could apply this to every other middle eastern country with the capability to build WOMD's. Heck, even China could nuke you, and they're way more oppressive than Hussein has even got the imagination to think of. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- China hasn't threatened us directly, they haven't fought one war with us over their weapons, they haven't tried to decieve us and hide their weapons, they haven't deliberately opposed the UN. Saddam has, and that's why he's dangerous. Every otehr nation could nuke us, yes, but right now Iraq is the greatest threat, because he hides his weapons and helps terrorism with WMDs. We should have finished the job 12 years ago, but we didn't, and Saddam is still a threat. You have a point about China... Buut that still leaves the rest of the Middle East, which has far closer ties (no pun intended) with Al Queda than Hussein will ever get. And after 9/11, how can you say it's not possible? Even after 9/11 we still have to look rationally at the world around us. It'll do absolutely no good to anyone if we (the Western World) start to shoot at ghosts. Personally I didn't think it possible that el Presidente could possibly behave in a way so stupid that it would squander the support almost the entire world... But he has. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Save the money. Go home. Spend your resources on more pressing matters such as solving the smoldering Israel-Palestine conflict, which people seem to dismiss as totally irrelevant. Israel is commiting twice as many atrocities as Saddam, and the world ignorant of this, due to you 'mericans having them as an ally and focusing the media's attention on Gulf War II.[/b] -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- How can you stand for Palestine against Israel?!? Palestinians slaughter Israeli civilians, and when Israel retaliates to protect themselves, you antagonize them? I'm sorry, but what is wrong with you? He didn't "stand for Palestine", did he? Did he at all comment on whether there is a 'good side' in that conflict? No he did not. He simply said that Israel is a bad side. Qui-Gon. Blah blah blah blah blah. I keep hearing the exact same arguments about Iraq from you and others in almost the exact same words, and quite frankly i'm getting tired of repeating myself. You are hearing the "exact same arguments" because you keep repeating yourself. Your arguments have been refuted, which means that they are no longer valid. The ball is in your court. C'jais EuroTrash quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *shakes head* You are depriving a person of existance, i still don't understand how you can be alright with that. [...] Killing what will be is no different than killing something that already is. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- What could be is completely irrelevant as there's no consciousness there yet. This is exactly as silly as saying that you kill a child by using a condom, as you prevent it from coming into being. Unless you're going to argue your case with the myth that something magical happens when a new life is started. In that case, please go back to your religious planet and let us deal with the troubles on ours. And we do have enough, without some half-witted myth creating more. Meanwhile, no one's bothered to go after N. Korea or Pakistan. Or India. When mentioning Pakistan, you should also mention India. quote: -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- they haven't deliberately opposed the UN. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- *cough* ROFL. Do you have any idea of what's going on in Tibet and China? Ooh, I forgot that. Me bad. Well, looks like your 'point' just vanished, doesn't it, Tie? If you really would like to be viewed as the global preserver of freedom, you should cut off Israel once and for all. No sooner done than said. Tie Guy Res Fieri Your first paragraph three paragraphs doomed what else you said in the latter ones. I refuse to converse with someone who condones, no, who defends the slaughter of innocent babies who, BTW, have individual, unique, working brains from very early on in pregnancy. From about the start of the third trimester, to be exact. Now you may have a peculiar definition of "early", but in my book "two thirds into" isn't covered by that term. If by 'working brain' you mean 'any kind of brain signal' then you are utterly unqualified to participate in any serious debate about this topic. Dogs have brains working on a more advanced level than the foetus at the stages we are talking about here. If you said something valuable in the other paragraphs, which i find hard to believe, i don't care. Quite apart from the smoking parts of that statement, the notion that 'it doesn't matter what the other guy says' is oozing with fundamentalistic belief. What's next? Will you be proposing some 'Master of all Creation' that made the world in a week. Go to a real school and learn some real things, instead of just reading a nonsensial, obsolete, use-, and worthless, old book (yes I am talking about the Bible, if anyone is in doubt, and I can prove all of it). Then I will take you completely seriously. C'jais EuroTrash And I was so hoping this forum could handle such discussion better than the swamp. Based on what? Tie Guy Res Fieri What is "better discussion"?[long nonsensial rant smelling slightly of smoke] Better discussion is a rational discussion. We live in the age of Rationalism, in case it escaped your notice. The same rationalism that replaced the cruel, genocidal, oppressive belief with the open-minded, inspired, productive reasoning. The same Rationalism that has produced railroads, medicine, heating systems, running water, electricity, and an almost endless list of other beneficial things. Know that I will fight belief in any form, in any place. For belief is the antithesis of rationalism, and has produced nothing, save devastation, pain, suffering, and cruelty on a massive scale. Now, i'm serious about this, if you have anything anything else that is insulting, revolting, or all-around illogical, you can send it to my PM. I could say the same thing, exept that I don't want my Inbox filled up with such junk. And i didn't want to post in here again. I've would have let you say anything else about your position or what not and not said a thing, but nope, i now see that's never going to happen. You can't just let it go and be done with it, you have to come out and say nothing about your opinion, just that i'm a putz and that i can't hold a discussion better than a swamper. Thanks a lot. He did say something about his opinion. He presented proof that it was correct. Which is more than you have done so far. You also can't expect that your silly remarks will go uncommented. That you don't have time to defend them is not a reason to stop discussing them. If you are right, then a rational, open-minded discussion will reveal it to be so. Oh, and how does this prove your point? Because i don't want to talk to you about this anymore, that somehow proves abortion ok or that we shouldn't go to war? You are talking about the wrong points. The point you proved better than any of us could ever have done (exept by looking at similiar cases) was that irrationality kills the debate: Since we (or rather C'Jais) has already proven your 'reasoning' to be irrational, your closing remarks prove that irrationality closes debates. Q.e.d. Now, i don't think i made any insulting comments or anything in this post, and if you think i did, you are certainly taking it the wrong way. So, i don't see why this shouldn't be the end of the topic. Mods, there isn't any reason within my capacity to keep this open. You can wait for C'jais to have the last word if you like, but i really don't see what anyone could say that would be constructive at this point. Wait a sec. You are saying that because you didn't offend anyone and because you aren't gonna change your mind, the debate is over? Am I the only one who finds that to be just a little silly? C'Jais and you are not the only people on this thread. As long as people take an interest in it, I say we keep it open. JEDI_MASTA Token Conservative the question of abortion comes down to something verry simple Is it better to live in a foster home, or be dead... i think ill pick the earlier........ No, abortion comes down to something very simple: Does the woman have the right to govern her own body? And before you make your 'prevention warcry', do think about what kinds of prevention you recommend. I will ask nasty questions on this subject, and then you'd Emperor be damned better be able to give some answers that are at the very least consistent. C'jais EuroTrash No, I didn't call you a putz. I said you were acting like a putz the way you abjectly refused to participate in the thread, solely because I was of another opinion. Not solely. The other major contributing factor was that you had real arguments. Paragon_Leon Moderator I'll just deal with one remark that is preposterous, and that is C'Jai saying that 'Israël has committed twice as many atrocities as Saddam has.' First of all, if you're a country where your citizens are slaughtered on the streets, you do something about it. What the Palestinian Authority has done from day 1 is marking those security actions (apprehension of terrorists, demolishing bomb-factories, etc) as 'one-sided atrocities against the Palestinian people.' Did he say that the PA were any better?[/rethorical question] In case you didn't know; before the second intifada an extensive team of 'media-advisers' was hired by the PA and came in full swing as soon as Sharon made a legal visit to the temple mount in 2001. Yes, legal. Legal or not, that was ****ing stupid. And moreover he knew that visiting the Temple Mount during a Muslim holy time would incite discontentment. A responsible leader?[/rethorical question] So why are the PA (with a whole media-world sheepishly behind that) screaming from the top of their lungs that that was an act worthy of an intifada? Eer, which 'media world' are you talking about? Not the Danish one, that's for sure. The visit is listed as the event that triggered the current intefada, which is a fact. Whether the intefada is just or not, is not touched upon. Furthermore, I would like to point out that "the event that triggered" =/= "the cause of". The media are perfectly aware that the cause of the intefada is not so much the visit, as it is the generally miserable situation in the occiupied stolen terretories is the cause of he intefada. I'll make it even simpler for you. The PA says it wants peace. Now i ask you, if such things as simply visiting those sites make a people go blow the other side up, do they want peace? When they refuse to stop shooting in order to actually flesh out peace proposals that are already on the table, do they want peace? What you are basically saying here is just a repetition of the same, old Israeli propaganda: "Stop your bombings and get to the Table." But: 1) How exactly is the PA going to stop anything with a squadron of Israeli tanks sitting on top of the ruins of their HQ? 2) A 'peace' that doesn't involve a) total removal of all of the illegal occupations and b) a functioning Palestinian State, is not a sincere peace proposal, but just plain propaganda. Next time you mention something off-hand like "twice as many atrocities" His estimate (index 200) is closer than your (index 0). Oh, but of course Tank Shocking through civilian Palestinian cities doesn't count. That's just legitimate self-defence.[/stinging sarcasm] By the way, there's two kinds of UN resolutions; the binding ones and the recommending ones. Guess which ones have been set up by mostly Arab states in the UN with respect to Israël ? Right. The recommening ones. Which only proves that the US shouldn't be allowed to veto resolutions, because they bully other Security Counsil members, and refuse to pass resolutions against their allies, solely because they are allies. The only ones in the Israeli-Palestinian conflict that don't want peace are the Arabs and the PA Oh, and inciting hostilities, and killing civilians, and shooting children, and Tank Shocking civilian cities, and air raiding suspected generals with combat helicopters that can't even hit the right target most of the time, and utterly crushing the Palestinian infrastructure, and stealing Palestinian land is just normal, peaceful riot-control. Gee, Sharon clearly must have been part of the beta-testing team on C&C Generals. Next time you point the finger to the Israeli government shouting 'warcrimes!', look at what actually is happening. What’s actually happening has already been detailed above. Now that that's off my chest: In a thread marked 'Rumsfeld is a moron' i notice discussions about Iraq, North Korea, Birth prevention, the Israeli-Palestine conflict and countless examples that veer off in as many directions. Any possibility in keeping this on-topic? But if you look more closely at all those directions, then they can be traced directly back to D. Rumsfeld (unless you are one of those people who still believe that Bush is making his own decisions. And as an endnote let me ad: For those of you who think that I am Pro-Palestinian: I am most definitely not. Infact I have a whole bag of similar stuff to pour at a Pro-Palestinian, in the unlikely event that such a specimen ever shows up. Where most of you guys go wrong is that you say: The Palestinians are bad, and the Israeli are good. The first is right, the second wrong. Havoc Stryphe Purveyor of Fine Ironies Seeing how C'jais and Tie Guy are going at it reminds me as to why debates never really work: We're human. C’Jais? Where? He has presented documentation, at least. A little, evocative trick that most anti-abortionists/creationists/other fundamentalists haven’t quite grasped yet (none named, none forgotten). *Work in progress. Will continue this next time I have time. Must leave now.* Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Paragon_Leon Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 alright, lessee now... quote: Eer, which 'media world' are you talking about? Not the Danish one, that's for sure. The visit is listed as the event that triggered the current intefada, which is a fact. Wrong. Recent facts turned up showed speeches held in Palestinian schools proclaiming that they were preparing the intifada long in advance. They simply used the visit as something that would look like a 'just' reason to start. And touching on that a bit more: C'Jai, the point of dual ownership and legal entrance stands. If you would suggest that it was not responsible, you pretty much say that sites that should be an example of how the two peoples can live together, can work - as long as Israelis don't show themselves. Btw, jews visit it all the time - on many a muslim holiday, and not a bad face then. Again; it was used. Quote: Whether the intefada is just or not, is not touched upon. Furthermore, I would like to point out that "the event that triggered" =/= "the cause of". The media are perfectly aware that the cause of the intefada is not so much the visit, as it is the generally miserable situation in the occiupied stolen terretories is the cause of he intefada. Well, if you'd suggest there's some kind of Israeli propaganda, you certainly have touched upon the biggest Palestinian one here. Before the intifada, the Palestinian Authority got literally billions of dollars, mostly from the European Union, to cultivate their Site A area's, as designated in the Oslo Agreements. Those agreements also state that those funds should be used for schooling, infrastructure and economy stimulus, like harbours. Years later, still before the intifada, most money turned out to have disappeared in lots of Authority pockets and was used for aqcuiring weapons. If you have watched any news recently, you will have noticed that the poor, oppressed and unarmed Palestinians suddenly, out of the blue, have mines, zillions of rifles, explosives and the works. The ship that was intercepted recently was just the tip of the iceberg. In speeches at a Palestinian university, Barghouti (top PA guy now in Israeli custody) has literally claimed the PA-area's as being the first 'bridge-head' to the political and - if necessary - violent removal of the entire state of Israel. In his terms (Arafat has used the same words in a clandestine French documentary-recording): "from the Jordan border to the Mediterranean Sea". If you want, i can provide you with a ton of facts that undeniably show that destruction of Israel is the one and only goal. "Oppression" of the Palestinians has become an oh-so easy term to use, but it is sadly used wrongly. Yes, the Palestinians are oppressed - by their own leaders. You're pointing your finger the wrong with with that claim. Quote: 1) How exactly is the PA going to stop anything with a squadron of Israeli tanks sitting on top of the ruins of their HQ? Answer with rhetorical question: There's satellite uplinks from the PA headquarters possible to the recent Arab summit; there's phones, faxes, e-mail and a complete diplomatic network in place. Don't tell me you really want to claim they can't put their police into motion, do you ?? Quote: 2) A 'peace' that doesn't involve a) total removal of all of the illegal occupations and b) a functioning Palestinian State, is not a sincere peace proposal, but just plain propaganda. Answer: There we go again.... If you simply read the Oslo Agreements (on which the whole PA-area's are based anyway), you'll find that over 99% of the so-called 'illegal Israeli settlements' are in the so-called B-area's, which are to be shared. So another rhetorical question based on such a fact; who's going against agreements here ? What you claim is, sadly, total Palestinian progaganda. Regarding b); that is possible, but only with a leadership that gives a *** about 'their' people and actually acknowledges something as a state of Israel instead of simply striving for it's disappearance. Quote: Which only proves that the US shouldn't be allowed to veto resolutions, because they bully other Security Counsil members, and refuse to pass resolutions against their allies, solely because they are allies. Bravo. Top logic. [/sarcasm] Quote: Oh, and inciting hostilities Inciting has a start somewhere, doesn't it ? Name me one that actually is a funded reason for stuff like suicide bombing. Quote: and killing civilians, and shooting children, Right. Like there's a bunch of tanks just rolling in, looking for anything that moves, and then just shooting wildly. That is just unbelievably sad, to see how such a claim actually finds soil in a sane mind. Maybe you remember the 'massacre' of Jenin. You know, the one where hundreds of innocent Palestinians were killed when they were defenseless and slaughtered by a multitude of highly-armed Israelis ? You may remember the UN approving a inquiry into that. Turns out there were 43 deaths, of which there were 24 Israeli soldiers who were killed by booby-traps that were installed long before they entered Jenin. It was pretty much a ghost-town already in those final days, apart from the reported armed militia that were there. That's a taste of how it has been played pretty consistently throughout the past few years. Oh yeah, have you ever wondered what five year old kids do at the HEAD of an armed mob ? Yeah, great valued human life if your parents use you for that. And incidentally; Palestinians consider it an honour to offer their children for the intifada - until the camera turns off, as appeared to happen in a recent news-item. Then the parent started to rant about how he was forced to have them walk in front and have snipers go at their business behind them. That, whether you are pro-Palestinian or pro-Israel, is the very, very, very lowest you can get. I dare to call it bestial. And it makes me so angry i almost cracked my monitor just now. The 'stealing Palestinian land' part has been covered previously in this post i guess, but if you want, i can go on about it. For the record; I'm not saying one side is 100 % good and the other 100 % bad; it is however a fact that most of the simple claims like "Israelis kill Palestinian children / innocent civilians" and "steal their land" and "incite violence in return" are, as i'm trying to show, completely over-the-top-misguided-and-twisted-crap. I'm not even sorry; that's what it is. If you actually want to claim something like that; fine. Go look at your history book and see when there actually was a 'Palestinian state' with 'Palestinians' living there that apparently has to be re-installed. Then read the actual Oslo Agreement document. Then come back. I'm sure we'll have a lot to talk about then... but simply stating that 'everyone is bad' simply because that would appear to be the most just response to a situation like this is actually pretty irresponsible.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Leon: Take it to Shadowtemplar. The Israel-Palestine conflict isn't my area (I obviously don't know anything about it compared to you), and you've presented your case nicely. But any more falseness on behalf of abortion and prevention, and I'll come stormin' in again. (: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
C'jais Posted March 4, 2003 Share Posted March 4, 2003 Originally posted by Havoc Stryphe Oh, and just to let you know, C'jais, I too am a Christian, but I will not force my belief on another I had that figured out (; I'm pleased to see you have this attitude. I pray you'll also stand by your healthy principles when it comes to education and the individual rights of women. I can assure you, though, it does not make an individual any less capable of unraveling the mysteries of the universe, or succeeding in the field science, or even less able to follow a logic algorithm. It is simply that they expanded beyond the region of that which is only tangible and stretched out on faith. In general - yes. But take a visit to the Senate Chambers. Look at the evolution vs creationism threads, and the ones on abortion and cloning. It's clear that these Christians are defying facts. It is clear they are using their own, illogical beliefs to disprove a rational argument. As long as people keep their spiritual world to themselves, and avoid mixing it with the objective, material world, it's all fine with me. You cannot use the Bible as proof of creationism, and it's outrageous that people in America are trying to change the school system this way. You cannot use the Bible as basis for going to war, as basis for deciding when a fetus is alive (in the human sense), and you cannot use it as basis for ignoring facts in general. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.