5 of 7
5
End game?
Posted: 02 October 2010 09:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 61 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2010-09-23

the title of this post is
Uncovering the truth…once again

“Stop twisting facts and misquoting every little thing”.

again using what you do to describe ohters

let me clear your immoral suggestion to people…not to you

the question he asked was

What is the penalty for apostasy?  Do you approve?

here wee have 2 questions, not one as he wants the reader to believe

my answer to the last one was
yes,i approve
my answer to the 1st is
the penalty is to be left alone
which obviously mean
the penalty for apostasy is the following
to be left alone

now how can this statement be put out of context, special y when the following lines to that answer explained any misunderstanding?
let look at his quote one more time

i never approved to killing for thought

yes approve it
  the penalty is to be left alone.


now i leave the readers to see your immoral suggestion , and making the entire thread a personal vendetta of yours towards me.
my answers were clear, and there was no contradiction, as i said you have accusations already prepared to dumb on whom ever opposes you


now let view the lies once more
he says

Basically, you assumed I was calling you a muslim, which I didn’t in that sentence,

in red what he made bold in his lie
lets see what he said , and you readers be the judge of it

Finally, we turn to this, your most disgusting, immoral, and intolerant injunction, justified by deference to your holy book, and supported by the worst argument possible;

now based on whats in red, did he or did he not, suggest I’m a muslim?( not that it matters but to show the lie )

You then quoted a different sentence where I had assumed you were a muslim.

and then to cover this indecent and this immoral path he says he “assume at another sentence…
so he did say so?
does it makes any difference which sentence it was?
he did and that’s what i said…

Racism - the prejudice that members of one race are intrinsically superior to members of other races.


here he attempts to again cover racism not by denying there’s any, but by saying that muslims are not a race ( he said that million times) and there for any act of discrimination against them is not racism.
I’ll leave the readers to be judge of that, but for the sake of describing him correctly, he’s a immoral decrementing against a group of people and advertising hate ...what would we call that?
Discrimination and hate crime…!( but not Racism)
But is that true lets use the same article he copied from , (source Wikipedia) and let us read the following

Racist attitudes, or prejudice, are held by a substantial portion of the U.S. population.[2][3][4] Discrimination against African Americans, Latin Americans, and Muslims is widely acknowledged.[5] Members of every major American ethnic minority have perceived racism in their dealings with other minority groups

so it CAN be considered RACISM or immoral prejudice
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Racism_in_the_United_States

I am prejudiced against bad ideas.

no you are prejudice against Muslimsas a group of people regardless of any ideas.

1- if i did , it was a mistake, ( that I’m not apologizing for)
2-it makes sense , perfect sense
3- let the frame of my sanity be decided by those who read this thread…in another words, it’s non of your business.

so he quotes the previous and rants about it with meaningless sentences…
lets see what was the quoted answering

Get it?  Stop calling me a fucking racist, it doesn’t even make sense, and it is making you look stupid.

that was the sentence i replied with the previous 3 points which again were
1-if i did , it was a mistake, ( that I’m not apologizing for) , “if i did” implies that i may have did or not, and i did and i said it in that same post , i did type the word Racist, and found that doing such thing is indecent so i edited it out as pointed to him , just out of respecting myself and keeping a decent conversation , something now seem he doesn’t care about so i hope the readers excuse me if i said such thing after this reply.
also i’m not apologizing because my believe is its true, i have others conventions too but again for the same reason stated above I still keep them to myself
2-he stated in the quotes , that it makes no sense, and i said , it did make perfect sense
if i meet a person and every time i do i curse him , it means i don’t respect him , and saying ...oh no i respect him , does not change the facts…rant along
3- informing him to keep his personal attacks aside , and leave the judgment of my sanity or the lack of it for those who read…

so i was correct in all 3 charges…

The actual numbers are down around 90,000 total since 2003.  This includes iraqis who have been killed by suicide bombers and IEDs that missed american troops.  I witnessed 8 people being vaporized by a single IED in a tractor trailer, probably more than 50 suffered from lacerations as the glass in every car within 100 feet shattered inward.  They were innocent Iraqis, bystanders.  To put that in perspective, I spent 18 months in theatre, Iraq and Afghanistan, often ambushed, and still never killed the 8 people that the insurgents managed to wipe out in an instant.

again the same point i made , you done nothing but use my own links creating the illusion you’re saying a new thing
i used that source to show that numbers vary and even a number such as 600,000 was mentioned even if it was an exaggeration, i used that number the same way you used the old UN statistic from a 5 page article based on a 3 episodes series , recognizing only the numbers you like and disregarding all the other information, as i shown people in previous posts.
so what i did was exactly what you did , but it was against something you want to defend , so you got irritated, do you know now how muslims feel? ( i doubt it )

and let me prove to you , 1- that you don’t read whether making the effort to understand what i write
i said in the same paragraph i used the big figure at the following

and i don’t say troops killed all of them but well, they’re well over half a million human (600,000+) so you had your good share.

so its clear what i said but have you read it
and again with using the same strategy to make you understand how using figures you like in an article that doesn’t support your claim to your advantage is wrong, i said replying

ok what are the estimates
how many have you killed in Iraq, or Afghanistan, or both , how many of you were killed, how many families lost fathers, sons daughters…etc, how many lived in fear, how many were tortured by you liberating troop and how many of them were tortured…do you want me to go on

i’m not pushing an anti-American view, i’m far from doing so, I had friends amongst them back then some i’m still in contact with and some not…that’s the point DO YOU GET IT.

and all you quoted is what serves you ready at hand convection to any statement i make, instead of thinking for a minute .
but gain i still stand my ground the numbers are much higher and the latest UN reports so ,, but due to the “war” it can not be confirmed yet ( ill find the report and post it, but look at this
http://usliberals.about.com/od/homelandsecurit1/a/IraqNumbers.htm

I really am done speaking with you.  Your last post was almost a how-to on misquotation, and I’m just tired of fixing your mistakes. I’ll find a more honest muslim to speak with.

again the same agenda appears to create the illusion that i said i was muslim , while i never did, now deny this
I already know better Christians…

i extended my hand to you thousands of times through this thread and readers will see that,i agreed to arguments to narrow our indifference in opinion.
i answered every question you asked sincerely , because i thought you’ll come back with a decent argument about them , i ignored personal attacks and claims against me , ones you never apologized for or even attempted to.
So you want to stop , fine, i have no problem either way .
you’re not searching for Muslims or atheist or Christians or Jews…you’re searching for anyone who shares your convection without opposing you.

[ Edited: 02 October 2010 10:13 AM by theFreethinker]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 October 2010 02:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 62 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

I already know better Christians…

FYI, I’m an atheist.

We disagree, but either way, good luck over there.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 October 2010 11:41 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 63 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2010-09-23
Reerr - 06 October 2010 06:30 PM

I already know better Christians…

FYI, I’m an atheist.

We disagree, but either way, good luck over there.

i know mate wink

thank you, and we don’t really disagree at all , we’re just unable to unite our ideas of a good strategy.

best of luck to you too .

Profile
 
 
Posted: 12 October 2010 01:05 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 64 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  34
Joined  2010-09-23

you know…
i had 2 very annoying discussions with Idiots about Evolution, and based on those I’m going to agree to 2 points you made (major points i think)

1

This study done by Pew Research Poll in 2006 suggests that rejection of evolution correlates directly with widespread religious literalism.  Notice Turkey at the very bottom, below even the US.  I would also remind you that no other muslim country is even listed.  It is generally safe to say that Turkey is the most liberal of muslim countries, yet only 25% of the population accepted evolution, in 2006.

2

I don’t feel religion is the cause of EVERY problem in the middle east.  There are certainly many other bad ideas that are causing despair, but it seems to me that only one bad idea is self-imposed, and it’s complicity in many of the problems in the middle east is endlessly obfuscated.

we maybe still disagree in a “major” point< but anyways i agree completely with the quoted above.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 10 February 2011 12:53 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 65 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

Looks like the revolution has begun.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 21 May 2011 05:15 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 66 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

Islam means submission, not peace, specifically submission to the will of allah.  Moreover, given Islams preoccupation with predestination, the jihadists are acting precisely in accordance with the will of allah, just as the more moderate muslims are doing (just as I am doing, apparently).  There is no basis upon which to criticize their actions without somehow compelling them to either ignore certain passages or just not take them as literal.  This is what produces moderate christianity.  In my opinion, the idea of a ‘true’ muslim, or an ‘accurate’ interpretation of the bible, koran, or torah is an illusion built upon the unjustified premises that there IS a god or gods, he/she DID write a book, and he/she has ONE interpretation of this book in mind.  I think these, among other bad premises, lie at the core of religious dogma, and enable all forms of religiosity, from the ultra-liberal to the fundamentalist.  If religious people were to turn their attention to defending these premises, and forestalling action in service of them until they were properly justified, the dogmatists wreaking havoc upon society would then be preoccupied indefinitely (or just atheists). 

If it was a religion of peace, the adherents would be more concerned about the violence being perpetrated in it’s name than the criticism of the religion.

**I failed to add, and should have, another point of disagreement: The religion of Jainism, which Sam Harris references in his books and media appearances, is the only religion whose core dogma really is nonviolence.  Islam, taken in comparison with Jainism, is not a religion of peace, and using the word ‘islam’ (which has a number of meanings) in the wrong context to make this claim is disingenuous at best.

[ Edited: 21 May 2011 06:20 AM by Reerr]
Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2011 05:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 67 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2011-06-04

If someone owns a book a wants to make a public spectacle of himself burning it - then Gee! Feel free. He’s the ass not me.
But I take strenuous exception to his calling what went on just before his Quran-burning a “trial.”


He soaked the book in kerosene for an hour before ... ?? ... ahuh ...  BEFORE… the trial started. Talk about a presumption of guilt!
The entire trial from reading the charges to the pronouncement of guilt lasted 8 minutes.
He immediately set the book alight.


This is like….
Catching your suspect.
Stripping him down, shackling him to the chair, greasing him up and applying the electrodes.
Then you read the murder charge, pronounce him guilty and flip the switch. In 8 minutes. Now that’s one hell of a defense the poor prisoner gets to put up. Not even a discussion about a right of appeal either.


That’s his idea of a trial?.... Even kangaroos have a more advanced sense of fairness.


Pastor Jones, the shepherd of some seriously misguided sheep, didn’t so much burn the Quran as he spat on his own rights to a presumption of innocence, freedom of expression and due process.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2011 08:32 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 68 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

No one here, as far as I can tell, is defending the circus this clown put on surrounding the koran burning.  Just that the action of burning a koran, which in the age of digital storage, should be utterly benign and immediately forgettable.  That some significant number of muslims feel this is an action worth killing actual people over is a problem.  Not his treatment of a koran or his goofy sense of justice.  Lets not forget that he brings his own faith-based baggage, already doing harm to his comprehension of reality such that he seriously put a book on trial. 

People do this all the time in jest, put inanimate objects on trial; these people are generally called comedians.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2011 11:27 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 69 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2011-06-04
Reerr - 05 June 2011 12:32 PM

No one here, as far as I can tell, is defending the circus this clown put on surrounding the koran burning.  Just that the action of burning a koran, which in the age of digital storage, should be utterly benign and immediately forgettable.  That some significant number of muslims feel this is an action worth killing actual people over is a problem.  Not his treatment of a koran or his goofy sense of justice.  Lets not forget that he brings his own faith-based baggage, already doing harm to his comprehension of reality such that he seriously put a book on trial. 

People do this all the time in jest, put inanimate objects on trial; these people are generally called comedians.

Some significant number feel burning a Koran is worth killing people over….?

Not really. I’ve not heard or read that any Islamic cleric has issued a fatwa to kill the bigot. If Muslims had a real religious problem with Jones burning a Koran then they’d have killed Jones - not just any infidels who happened to be handy. Some criminal rabble over there were putting on a show as much as he was and their theatre is a lot bloodier than his. For us to blame all Islam for the actions of a few murderous misguided adherents is about as logical as blaming all of Christianity for the bombing of Baghdad, or all atheism for Stalin’s pogroms. That they say they did it for Islam doesn’t mean Islam condones the act. Some American arms maker put biblical references on US soldiers’ guns - that doesn’t mean Christianity, the West or the Secular World approved.


Sure, Islam didn’t issue a statement condemning the murders, but then neither Christianity nor the secular world have issued statements condemning the recent drone bombing of Afghan children. But I found this statement on Wiki:-
“Jones attracted thousands of fans and critics on Facebook and said he regularly received death threats after the event was announced. The American Muslim Association of North America condemned the threats against Jones. The Ahmadiyya Muslim Community condemned all forms of extremism, stating that it is “never a true reflection of the religion.” “
That strikes me as a pretty good start and likely more than the Muslim world ever got from Christianity.


The real problem with this affair is the same one that reared its head with the cartoon fiasco. The media blows it all out of proportion thanks to folk who have a political agenda and use this stuff to inflame. See Imran Garda’s article at http://blogs.aljazeera.net/europe/2010/12/31/never-ending-cartoon-chaos
“It was what he said next that I’ll never forget:
“If it wasn’t for her, we may never even have heard of those cartoons.” “


Jones heads a designated hate group; he got his TV time because he publicly burnt a Koran at a time the Muslim world feels cornered and condemned by the west just because it’s Muslim. No TV infamy = no outcry about it from an invaded war-weary people.
If Jones had burnt a beautifully illustrated copy of “The Hobbit” in his back yard a decade ago - would you even know?
(My neighbour did that - because it’s fantasy and therefore the devil’s work. I gave it to her - and I watched her burn it. Those were real tears in eyes and my pocket actually itched.)

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2011 04:30 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 70 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

For us to blame all Islam for the actions of a few murderous misguided adherents is about as logical as blaming all of Christianity for the bombing of Baghdad, or all atheism for Stalin’s pogroms.

Agreed.  Show me where I did this.  Thx.

Let me show you something:

recent drone bombing of Afghan children

This is what’s called collateral damage.  Kind of like manslaughter, it’s accidental.  An unfortunate, occasional byproduct of a legitimate action.  I don’t think it is any less tragic, but to set the record straight on this:

In a statement, Petraeus said NATO’s International Security Assistance Force was “deeply sorry for this tragedy.” Expressing condolences to the families of those killed, the general said he would make a personal apology to Karzai upon the Afghan leader’s return from an official visit to London.

“These deaths should never have happened,” Petraeus said.

~http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/03/world/la-fg-afghan-children-killed-20110303

Now, the perpetrators of the riots in Afghanistan
:

...

See what’s missing?  Here it is again, in case you missed it:

...

Catch it that time?  Apples and oranges, my friend.

If Muslims had a real religious problem with Jones burning a Koran then they’d have killed Jones - not just any infidels who happened to be handy.

Their inability to gain access to an american citizen for a right proper religious orgy of violence does not suggest that they would not have done so had they such access.  I would further suggest that their treatment of at least one(that I saw) effigy of the man belies this claim that they wouldn’t have killed Jones.  Or perhaps you missed that bit of the broadcast…

No TV infamy = no outcry

Nonsense.  Are you actually suggesting that if you had televised your addled neighbor and his fantastical rituals, that effing Tolken fans would have rioted and killed people?  I mean…really?  If that is the case, I would really, really, really appreciate if you could just spell that out in a sentence so I can have an amazing signature for my future posts.

Lee.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2011 05:41 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 71 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2011-06-04
Reerr - 05 June 2011 08:30 PM

For us to blame all Islam for the actions of a few murderous misguided adherents is about as logical as blaming all of Christianity for the bombing of Baghdad, or all atheism for Stalin’s pogroms.

Agreed.  Show me where I did this.  Thx.

Let me show you something:

recent drone bombing of Afghan children

This is what’s called collateral damage.  Kind of like manslaughter, it’s accidental.  An unfortunate, occasional byproduct of a legitimate action.  I don’t think it is any less tragic, but to set the record straight on this:

In a statement, Petraeus said NATO’s International Security Assistance Force was “deeply sorry for this tragedy.” Expressing condolences to the families of those killed, the general said he would make a personal apology to Karzai upon the Afghan leader’s return from an official visit to London.

“These deaths should never have happened,” Petraeus said.

~http://articles.latimes.com/2011/mar/03/world/la-fg-afghan-children-killed-20110303

Now, the perpetrators of the riots in Afghanistan
:

...

See what’s missing?  Here it is again, in case you missed it:

...

Catch it that time?  Apples and oranges, my friend.

If Muslims had a real religious problem with Jones burning a Koran then they’d have killed Jones - not just any infidels who happened to be handy.

Their inability to gain access to an american citizen for a right proper religious orgy of violence does not suggest that they would not have done so had they such access.  I would further suggest that their treatment of at least one(that I saw) effigy of the man belies this claim that they wouldn’t have killed Jones.  Or perhaps you missed that bit of the broadcast…

No TV infamy = no outcry

Nonsense.  Are you actually suggesting that if you had televised your addled neighbor and his fantastical rituals, that effing Tolken fans would have rioted and killed people?  I mean…really?  If that is the case, I would really, really, really appreciate if you could just spell that out in a sentence so I can have an amazing signature for my future posts.

Lee.

No. Sigh.
I’m saying burn one book and nobody notices; burn another and get 3 weeks of international fame.
(Look. It’s 10 years and I’m still pissed off when I think of that book. It was an incredible specimen, horrifically expensive. I gave it to her as gift for her daughter who liked fairytales - obviously unbeknownst to Mom. I gave it. It was hers. I could not in good conscience stop her burning her own stuff. But shit. It pissed me off. Tolkien fans didn’t riot - they hosed themselves! There’s a whole bunch of us around the bonfire and I’m getting pats on the back, “Never mind. It’s just a book. She’s burning it because it’s evil. Funny. She always seemed so ... normal. Didn’t know she was such a crackpot. Heehee”)
The media should have dignified Jones with absolutely no attention. Your suggestion that it’s significant that a bunch of rabble rousing hooligans didn’t apologise for their killing spree is - wickedly amusing.


You reply suggests you find “collateral damage” acceptable… “An unfortunate, occasional byproduct of a legitimate action.” Okay. I’ll give you once, but after the 10th time it’s intentionally unintentional. But oh man! I wish I had your certainty about the rightness of such wrongness.
“We didn’t intentionally kill the children - we just don’t particularly care that we unintentionally killed them because we thought we were killing some bad guy? Not our fault they were in the way.” Just another brick on the road to hell. Kind of an acceptable indifference to the fact that we are deliberately unintentionally bombing the children of people ‘cos maybe we’ll hit the bad guy too. You might call it legitimate action or war - I call it depraved. “Who cares. They’re not ours. Someone else’s little rugrats. Girls are probably better off dead anyway.” Would we be so cavalier, I wonder, if it was our own children being killed by such impersonal death falling out the sky? I think not.


I guess what I’m saying is: the religion of Islam didn’t kill those people, some perverted nutcases did.
Islam no more killed them than Christianity killed the politician at Jonestown.


As an aside. Considering that I despise religion and regard it as probably thee greatest evil perpetrated by humankind on humankind - it’s rather interesting to find myself in a position where I’m actually defending one. And for all the wrong reasons. grin
Do you really care that they burnt an ... effigy? I abhor the fact they killed some UN workers - but I’d have (secretly, very secretly) cheered them had they burnt Jones. Sorry.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 05 June 2011 08:43 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 72 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

I’m saying burn one book and nobody notices; burn another and get 3 weeks of international fame.

And I’m saying the difference lies in the people who take the particular book seriously.  How is this not patently obvious?

I could not in good conscience stop her burning her own stuff.

Enter Jones’ copy of the koran…

Your suggestion that it’s significant that a bunch of rabble rousing hooligans didn’t apologise for their killing spree is - wickedly amusing.

In response to your suggestion that this was analogous to the drone attacks.  I was pointing out the important differences.

You reply suggests you find “collateral damage” acceptable… “An unfortunate, occasional byproduct of a legitimate action.” Okay. I’ll give you once, but after the 10th time it’s intentionally unintentional. But oh man! I wish I had your certainty about the rightness of such wrongness.

The legitimate action is legitimate every time, by definition.  We can hash out the ethics of war in another forum, this isn’t the place.  My point here was that the intention is not to kill innocent children, but to kill combatants. 

“We didn’t intentionally kill the children - we just don’t particularly care that we unintentionally killed them because we thought we were killing some bad guy? Not our fault they were in the way.”

Your rather callous assertions about the mindset of troops in theatre is grossly unconscionable.  Those men and women will live with that event for the rest of their lives, regretting every bullet, reliving every missed opportunity to avert an unfortunate catastrophe.  I shan’t speak for them, but I have to take at least some umbrage, being a veteran myself, in such an unthinking defamation of the character of the anonymous pilots and servicemen involved.  I noticed the casual inclusion of quotation marks, I don’t suppose there is a citation to go along with that strawman?

Would we be so cavalier, I wonder, if it was our own children being killed by such impersonal death falling out the sky? I think not.

Again, was your choice of the word “cavalier” an intentional slight upon men and women you don’t know, couldn’t know?  Are you listening to yourself?  But briefly to respond; thus is war.  The ethics of war is, again, another conversation.  I would remind you, however, that nations being bombed generally return fire.  They don’t aim for schools, but sometimes they hit schools.  This is what it means to have imperfect weapons, amidst imperfect conflicts, guided by imperfect hands, in an imperfect world.  I would see an end to all war if it were possible, but I don’t think pacifism is a moral stance either.  As long as men exist who make war upon a man, such a man is obligated to take such action as is warranted in response while taking care to minimize collateral damage.  I’m afraid that’s the best you’ll get out of me: shit happens, and we get to live with it (or die without it).

I guess what I’m saying is: the religion of Islam didn’t kill those people, some perverted nutcases did.

Perverted by _ _ _ _ _.  Care to play a quick game of hangman?  This is a high stakes game, you may want to have a few practice runs.

As an aside. Considering that I despise religion and regard it as probably thee greatest evil perpetrated by humankind on humankind - it’s rather interesting to find myself in a position where I’m actually defending one

Ironic, to say the least.

Do you really care that they burnt an ... effigy?

Kind of missed the point here, too.  You suggested that if they were seriously offended religiously, they would want to kill Jones(“If Muslims had a real religious problem with Jones burning a Koran then they’d have killed Jones”)  I pointed out their treatment of an effigy of him, and how that might indicate the intent to do the person real harm, and now you’re non-plussed over the treatment of a cloth bag.  They didn’t have access to Jones, so they took the next best thing: a representation of him, and a few nearby Europeans(not as ” An unfortunate, occasional byproduct of a legitimate action”, but the actual thing they set out to do; the end result of an irrational temper tantrum) .  I don’t care much about cloth bags either, unless they have my face and name on them, and they’re being beaten and burned.  Then, I tend to perk up my ears and look over my shoulder.

I abhor the fact they killed some UN workers - but I’d have (secretly, very secretly) cheered them had they burnt Jones. Sorry.

Right, well, have your cake and eat it too, why don’t you.  Your moral scruples are apparently finely tuned when it comes to collateral damage wrought in the fog of a shadow war, but when talking about the deliberate, and deliberately brutal, murder of 10 or so random innocent people who just happened to belong to the ‘other’, you treat it as a simple caveat to introduce your condoning the potential murder of an American citizen exercising his freedom of expression in a manner you don’t approve of.  Bewildering path you’ve taken to the supposed moral high ground, sir.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 06 June 2011 09:58 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 73 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2011-06-04
Reerr - 06 June 2011 12:43 AM

I’m saying burn one book and nobody notices; burn another and get 3 weeks of international fame.

And I’m saying the difference lies in the people who take the particular book seriously.  How is this not patently obvious?

I could not in good conscience stop her burning her own stuff.

Enter Jones’ copy of the koran…

Your suggestion that it’s significant that a bunch of rabble rousing hooligans didn’t apologise for their killing spree is - wickedly amusing.

In response to your suggestion that this was analogous to the drone attacks.  I was pointing out the important differences.

You reply suggests you find “collateral damage” acceptable… “An unfortunate, occasional byproduct of a legitimate action.” Okay. I’ll give you once, but after the 10th time it’s intentionally unintentional. But oh man! I wish I had your certainty about the rightness of such wrongness.

The legitimate action is legitimate every time, by definition.  We can hash out the ethics of war in another forum, this isn’t the place.  My point here was that the intention is not to kill innocent children, but to kill combatants. 

“We didn’t intentionally kill the children - we just don’t particularly care that we unintentionally killed them because we thought we were killing some bad guy? Not our fault they were in the way.”

Your rather callous assertions about the mindset of troops in theatre is grossly unconscionable.  Those men and women will live with that event for the rest of their lives, regretting every bullet, reliving every missed opportunity to avert an unfortunate catastrophe.  I shan’t speak for them, but I have to take at least some umbrage, being a veteran myself, in such an unthinking defamation of the character of the anonymous pilots and servicemen involved.  I noticed the casual inclusion of quotation marks, I don’t suppose there is a citation to go along with that strawman?

Would we be so cavalier, I wonder, if it was our own children being killed by such impersonal death falling out the sky? I think not.

Again, was your choice of the word “cavalier” an intentional slight upon men and women you don’t know, couldn’t know?  Are you listening to yourself?  But briefly to respond; thus is war.  The ethics of war is, again, another conversation.  I would remind you, however, that nations being bombed generally return fire.  They don’t aim for schools, but sometimes they hit schools.  This is what it means to have imperfect weapons, amidst imperfect conflicts, guided by imperfect hands, in an imperfect world.  I would see an end to all war if it were possible, but I don’t think pacifism is a moral stance either.  As long as men exist who make war upon a man, such a man is obligated to take such action as is warranted in response while taking care to minimize collateral damage.  I’m afraid that’s the best you’ll get out of me: shit happens, and we get to live with it (or die without it).

I guess what I’m saying is: the religion of Islam didn’t kill those people, some perverted nutcases did.

Perverted by _ _ _ _ _.  Care to play a quick game of hangman?  This is a high stakes game, you may want to have a few practice runs.

As an aside. Considering that I despise religion and regard it as probably thee greatest evil perpetrated by humankind on humankind - it’s rather interesting to find myself in a position where I’m actually defending one

Ironic, to say the least.

Do you really care that they burnt an ... effigy?

Kind of missed the point here, too.  You suggested that if they were seriously offended religiously, they would want to kill Jones(“If Muslims had a real religious problem with Jones burning a Koran then they’d have killed Jones”)  I pointed out their treatment of an effigy of him, and how that might indicate the intent to do the person real harm, and now you’re non-plussed over the treatment of a cloth bag.  They didn’t have access to Jones, so they took the next best thing: a representation of him, and a few nearby Europeans(not as ” An unfortunate, occasional byproduct of a legitimate action”, but the actual thing they set out to do; the end result of an irrational temper tantrum) .  I don’t care much about cloth bags either, unless they have my face and name on them, and they’re being beaten and burned.  Then, I tend to perk up my ears and look over my shoulder.

I abhor the fact they killed some UN workers - but I’d have (secretly, very secretly) cheered them had they burnt Jones. Sorry.

Right, well, have your cake and eat it too, why don’t you.  Your moral scruples are apparently finely tuned when it comes to collateral damage wrought in the fog of a shadow war, but when talking about the deliberate, and deliberately brutal, murder of 10 or so random innocent people who just happened to belong to the ‘other’, you treat it as a simple caveat to introduce your condoning the potential murder of an American citizen exercising his freedom of expression in a manner you don’t approve of.  Bewildering path you’ve taken to the supposed moral high ground, sir.

Don’t you think it’s time to take the stick out of your arse?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2011 06:39 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 74 ]  
Jr. Member
RankRank
Total Posts:  81
Joined  2010-09-10

Don’t you think it’s time to take the stick out of your arse?

If you’d like to publish your opinion privately, and avoid this messy criticism bit, I suggest using a diary.  Otherwise, if you’re going to engage in a discussion and find yourself unable to respond in a mature fashion, just don’t respond.  This quoted bit above is childish. 

When (if) you feel up to a proper response, I’ll delete this message and we can continue.

Lee.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 07 June 2011 09:49 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 75 ]  
Newbie
Rank
Total Posts:  15
Joined  2011-06-04
Reerr - 07 June 2011 10:39 AM

Don’t you think it’s time to take the stick out of your arse?

If you’d like to publish your opinion privately, and avoid this messy criticism bit, I suggest using a diary.  Otherwise, if you’re going to engage in a discussion and find yourself unable to respond in a mature fashion, just don’t respond.  This quoted bit above is childish. 

When (if) you feel up to a proper response, I’ll delete this message and we can continue.

Lee.


There is no need for you to delete your post.
My post begged the retort - as yours did mine.

Profile
 
 
   
5 of 7
5
 
RSS 2.0     Atom Feed