If he blows you to pieces he's won too...Quote:
Originally Posted by WarHeart88
Printable View
If he blows you to pieces he's won too...Quote:
Originally Posted by WarHeart88
That's jolly big of you. Perhaps you might change your mind if you had to go and tell the victims families that their son/daughter/husband/wife et al were blown to smithereens just so you can feel the rosy glow of self righteousness. :shame:Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
Honestly, some people. :wall:
I'll do that right after you start telling the countless african families dying of disease and hunger why you think it's more important to protect a few thousands rather than their millions. I'll bet I'll finish first.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Do you seriously believe that any muslim country has the ability to invade europe? Or all of them put together? Or do you think the muslims we have here are capable of overthrowing our government and military?Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I really, really, really, honestly can't see that happening. Now, if you were talking about Russia, it'd be something else. They actually have the ability. The middle east don't. Not by a long shot.
I will, immediately after I call for Africans to die slow painful deaths.Quote:
I'll do that right after you start telling the countless african families dying of disease and hunger why you think it's more important to protect a few thousands rather than their millions. I'll bet I'll finish first.
So in your mind it's a 'numbers game'?
Good grief. :wall:
Some would argue that they already are invading...just no blitzkrieg of any kind. There'll be no need of a Quisling this go-around either, just time and cultural relativism.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
“If a man can be jailed for six years for saying "Bomb the UK!" what should then be done about the original author of those offensive drawings of Muhammad”:
So you are telling that saying to kill, slaughter is comparable with a drawing… Hitler spreading hate is like a drawing… Well, all start by words… :inquisitive:
This demonstration was not against the war in Iraq, it was against drawings… I find as well it is a little bit too much, but to wear a Suicide bomber in Uniform was not a good idea….
That's a lunatic conspiracy. To say that the average arab came here because he wanted to take over our lands by slowly making us view them as "just as good as us" instead of "horrible barbarians", well, that's....quite far off.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
It is a numbers game. We will save more people by helping africa than with counter-terrorism. That's all that matters to me. In a perfect world, nobody should die, of course. However, we live in one where a lot of people die, and I want to save as many of them as possible. To me, that's the only moral thing to do. And we will save a lot more in africa than by counter-terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Let's take this back to basics.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
At what point is violence justified?
Is it justified in Personal Self Defense?
Is it justified in Defense of family & friends?
How about in Defense of community? At what level of community?
Is it legitimate to defend your property as well as your person?
Is it legitimate to defend the property of another?
Is it legitimate to defend the property of the community at large?
You seem to be asserting that counter-terrorism is preventing efforts to minimize counter-AIDS efforts?
My country, I assure you, is funding efforts against both with Billions of US$.
Are you truly comfortable with saying something along the lines of:
"Terrorist attacks on the undefended city of Narvik will kill 1500 people in this year, but since the money was spent on helping to eradicate Malaria in Benin and we can be reasonably certain that 2500 people who would have died from malaria in Benin have not do so that this was a spending success for the year."
Woudl your countrymen agree with you?
A bit of clairfying my position.
I don't belive that the UK should have let them walk away with no extra attention. However my root problem here is the six year sentence for advocatinig, not doing, bombing. I can understand probation, extra ploice attention and maybe a few months of jail, but years seem too harsh.
Off topic: Surprisly searching the Org. for U.S. terror threats dosn't turn to the backroom once. 90% of the two pages are mods.
The Backroom does't show up in any searches. If you look for all posts by Don Corleone, you won't see anything I write in the backroom, which is 98% of what I write.Quote:
Originally Posted by Destroyer of Hope
That's really another discussion.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
And yet there are still millions dying of it. There is no denying that if we put the counter-terrorism money into aids/hunger prevention, will save more lives.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
No, I would not, as people were still dying. However, I'd be more uncomfortable saying the opposite. In the second option, more people will die, I don't care who they are, but as more people are going to die there, I'd save them rather than fewer people somewhere else.Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
Very likely, as you picked Narvik, which is located in northern norway. Nobody cares about northern norway, not even the northern-norvegians themselves, as they migrate/flee south to civilized lands. Btw, I didn't know 1500 people existed up there.... Or did you count deer and fish too?Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
*quickly closes the thread before northern norwegian gf sees it*
We do the same thing in the U.S.A. Advocate the death of a person, or send them letters demanding their death, and you'll get in trouble with the law. As an earlier poster said, this is where you run into the limits of free speech.
Last weekend more than a dozen envelopes bearing the image of skull and crossbones and containing letters threatening the lives of CU-Boulder evolutionary biology professors were slipped under the doors of CU-Boulder buildings.
According to a reprint of the letter posted online, the threat reads: “every true Christian should be ready and willing to take up arms to kill the enemies of Christian society.”
“EBIO (evolutionary biology) professors are terrorists against America and intellectual and spiritual child abusers of their young and impressionable students the EBIO department not only blasphemes God, who is invisible, but it blasphemes His Only Begotten Son and our Messiah, Jesus Christ, which is more unforgivable for all these reason all God-fearing and Truth-loving persons must say, They must go!”
As you can see, the letter-writer doesn't even specifically threaten the evolutionary biology teachers. He just advocates that they be murdered. Nevertheless, the police want to arrest him. I think this makes plenty of sense.
What matters more than saving lives? Why should I care more about saving one norwegian than 2 africans?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
Hmmm...let's see.....I know :idea2: a good start might be not advocating violence.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoreTore
:wall:
I've prolly saved a dozen or so lives in my life. Take it from me, they were grateful.
Typical leftist reasoning though. Let's equate some loonytune advocating death to their fellow subjects with AIDS in Africa.
Straight out of the Stalinist handbook. How to rule a country. ( And get away with it!)
The idea of a country's government is to protect its citizens first over anyone else's. Your argument would hold more weight if you were talking about a global government, but you're not. Most people could care less about starving people 3000 miles away. They make to make sure their loved ones, friends, and family are safe.Quote:
We're not threatened much by terrorism. Seriously. Our nations can stand more bombs than Al Qaida can make. They WILL need a land invasion to beat us. The best they can do, is whack of a few thousands of us. A drop in the ocean compared to the people dying of aids and starvation.
We can safely ignore it, and it wont affect us much. The pre-9/11 security was more than enough, we should spend the money on saving lives in africa instead, that'll give a lot more bang for our buck.
Well, to HoreTore's credit, he's not shy about admitting that he is an avowed Marxist and believes heavily in global socialism. I think based on his views of industry as bad, he's technically more of a Maoist than a Stalinist, but your point is valid, IA.
What....on earth are you talking about? When did I advocate violence? When have I EVER said that I agree with violence? And I haven't "equated some loonytune with aids victims" either, I've said that we can save more lives by doing other things than what we are currently doing. I've said that we will save more lives by helping africa than we will by counter-terrorism.Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
I really, really don't understand you one bit, and I doubt I will.
Not even close, unfortunately :laugh4:Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Stalin, Mao, Pol Pot, Lenin, etc. are all madmen in my opinion. I view them simply as dictators/tyrants. Whether the dictator in question is a capitalist or a socialist doesn't matter to me, he's still a bloody dictator.
I'm a very big fan of industry too, just not a big fan of the "let's lay off half the staff and make the rest work double shifts until we move it to [insert random 3. world country here]"-industry. I believe in worker-controlled means of production, as opposed to state-controlled(like Lenin and his merry men).
Well, I think that's wrong. I care just as much(or little) about my fellow countrymen as those in Thailand or anywhere else. But then I'm a big fan of global governments too....Quote:
Originally Posted by Ice
EDIT: but your argument is, of course, both true and valid. I just disagree....
Clueless.Quote:
I really, really don't understand you one bit, and I doubt I will.
Care to explain a little bit...?Quote:
Originally Posted by InsaneApache
A gentle reminder to debate the opinion, not attack the poster.
Thank you kindly.
:bow:
Bah Horetore! How can you talk about malaria and hunger while the UK is waging war against Muslims and Islam! Why do you allow yourself to be fooled by British and American propaganda in this way? Hunger and poverty are the result of the actions of these satans. They are the deliberate means by which they oppress your brothers and sisters. There will be no more hunger once they are destructed and the will of Allah rules the world. :yes:
And why are you talking about freedom, about freedom of speech? These are the manipulative, deceitful instruments of western hypocracy and hatred:
http://britishoppression.com/images/...artoondemo.gif
https://img54.imageshack.us/img54/85...rotest5ih1.jpg
[/ sarcasm]
Or is it sarcasm? My statements above are not very different from what a quick browsing of websites had to say about this subject. In the opinion of what, I assume to be, a good many Muslims, the imprisonment of these four is the latest chapter in Britains ongoing war with Islam.
Islamicism is very much a modern movement, at least in its methods. You don't need to go to a madrassa in Islamabad or the mountains of Afghanistan to find its source. All you need is the internet. There you can read all the inspiration behind the thoughts that led these four men to call for anti-British terrorism.
Some 'internet Jihad' views of our topic:
Release the Muslim hostages.
Captives UK.
British Oppression.
They have many links too other sources too.
I hate to throw this in here, but it leapt to my mind so quickly when I saw your post that I just had to.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
It seems that ignoring the known threat of global warming is exactly what conservative idealogy advocates.
Why should we then not simply say "poo-poo" when conservatives tell us they want to spend billions of our tax dollars on the GWOT?
Disclaimer: I am certainly no global warming alarmist. In fact, I am quite happy to ignore the entire issue myself. But it seems to me that if the global warming fear-mongers are even 20% correct, then global warming will be responsible for far more global upheaval and death than terrorism ever could.
First off, welcome back mate. Good to see you.Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Second, I personally advocate intelligent responses to elevated temperature, assuming we know that it's caused my man's actions, not part of a larger cyclical action. Note the keyword known.
Finally, what on Earth has this got to do with whether people should have the legal right to encourage others to go bomb innocent civilians?
But its not. These questions are central to the moral justification for a war against terrorism. If we -- as good little Lockeans -- view life, liberty and property as central human rights (and I do), and consider government to be the result of a mutually agreed upon social contract to maintain/enahance same, then it would be hard to argue against the correctness of a war against terrorism in the context of the government's responsibility to protect the rights of its citizens. Doesn't mean we should help others where possible -- charity is an enobling virtue -- but it is NOT the prime purpose of government.Quote:
Originally Posted by Horetore
I suspect, my marxist friend (Originalist Marxist? Trotskyite? Frankfurt School? Wobbly? -- clearly not a Leninist/Stalinist/Maoist based on your other comments), that you would answer these questions far differently than I, and thereby display an intellectual context radically different than most of the posters here. Love to see you have a go at them.
:laugh4: You sound like a Tidewater native talking about West Virginia....Quote:
Originally Posted by Horetore
I'm a hardcore pacifist too, so war isn't an option, pure and simple ~;) I don't see the prime purpose of government to protect, I believe it to be caring for it's citizens well-being. But as I am a big fan of a world government(an effective one, I might add), I don't differentiate between "our citizens" and "your citizens".Quote:
Originally Posted by Seamus Fermanagh
As for my status, well... It's mix and match. I have the structural belief of Marx, so I have no problem with being labeled a Marxist. But I'm also a pacifist, reformist(as opposed to revolutionary), industrialist and a somewhat lazy enviromentalist.
Thanks my friend. Good to be back.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
Sorry, I did you a bit of an injustice there. Your point was that ignoring threats/warnings can only lead to disaster. In my response, I was pointing out that ignoring the warning/threat of global warming is precisely what mainstream conservative dogma would have us do.Quote:
Originally Posted by Don Corleone
I am guilty of stereotyping you into the current conservative groupthink without really considering what your individual views on the issue are.
:shame:
Come on! We need some more self-flagellation here! Perhaps some grovelling and cringing as well....:devilish:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
Well, we all know I would never dream of doing such a thing... :no:Quote:
Originally Posted by Goofball
So either a pass as payment for past wrongs, assuming you can remember where I've done the same, or for future ones.
One of these days, we need to start an omnibus bitch'n'moan thread where you have to find a way to link each and every cause d'jour that you hold forth on. God, talk about fireworks!
:argue: Aaah! But you can't be opposed to 3rd trimester abortions unless you also support gay marriage and a balanced budget ammendment.
:argue: Nonsense! Your whole argument falls apart because you refuse to recognize that animals are entitled to civil rights, that polygamy should be legally allowed, and the US played almost no role in WWII!
:thinking2: