How is it terrorism when they kill soldiers?

[Fragony]

Let's try not to dogpile on top of HoreTore. We may not agree with his views, but I don't think he's said anything all that offensive here. In one sense, I agree with HoreTore; soldiers who sign up for a mission which involves being in someone else's lands, where they may be ordered to fire upon the enemy, are legitimate targets. There is always the option not to interfere in other countries; not that I agree with it all the time.

I think he's trying to express himself freely; which I do believe is a right many of these soldiers themselves would admit they are trying to preserve.

There is, and I believe, a legitimate alternative viewpoint of pacifism which regards soldiers fighting in war to be on the wrong path. Mohandas Gandhi was a person who believed in this; for example. And I don't think Gandhi was unpatriotic to his country, nor was he a shameful man. He was a saint in my opinion.

We should respect HoreTore's right to disagree with our viewpoint, in whole or in part, that there is a legitimate use for armed soldiers, if used correctly and within reason and with strict ethical and moral guidelines. But he can freely speak out against the use of violence, and while I may not agree with him completely, I sympathize with certain sentiments.

I don't agree with the way he's presenting his arguments, but I think it's possible for there to be more than one valid opinion on the use of force, where we may all peacefully and politely coexist with the alternative viewpoint without acting all offended. I've heard people say far worse and far less gracefully too, might I add.

Ya. Bit surprised by the outrage I am perfectly fine with his words, opinions don't kill. I am ten times as immoral. If dutch troops kill Taliban do you really think I mourn the loss of life, they have moms to but and die. I support the invasion of a foreign country, and I don't care about the afghan people, if I hear a civilian was killed I feel sorry for him/her but I don't really care.

[Askthepizzaguy]

Ya. Bit surprised by the outrage I am perfectly fine with his words, opinions don't kill. I am ten times as immoral. If dutch troops kill Taliban do you really think I mourn the loss of life, they have moms to but and die. I support the invasion of a foreign country, and I don't care about the afghan people, if I hear a civilian was killed I feel sorry for him/her but I don't really care.

I consider the needless loss of any life to be a tragedy. These are all human beings. All precautions should be taken to avoid the needless loss of life. Whether it impacts you emotionally or not; lives do matter and it is at the very least illogical to destroy senselessly.

A dollar bill has no emotional impact on me, but if I were to burn it, it would be a senseless waste. Destruction without purpose, or destroying the wrong target, is at the very least a bad mistake, and at worst a crime. Now instead of one dollar bill, imagine a hundred thousand, burning them one at a time with deliberate intent. Seems a hundred thousand times more wasteful, and a lot more of a crime. Now imagine instead of silly paper money, these are living human beings, which are valued immeasurably more than a dollar, and cannot even be quantified in such terms.

It is an unfathomable waste, and a cruel cruel bit of ignorance, to have no reaction to senseless death. If you don't care, that's fine; just make sure you don't vote or anything. If apathy is the watchword, follow through and remain totally neutral. Don't speak out for or against it; and don't affect the democratic process, should there be one.

[HoreTore]

[Fragony]

It is an unfathomable waste, and a cruel cruel bit of ignorance, to have no reaction to senseless death.

That is why I'm not going to take the higher moral ground. There isn't anything noble about what we are doing there it just needs to be done.

[Askthepizzaguy]

That is why I'm not going to take the higher moral ground. There isn't anything noble about what we are doing there it just needs to be done.

If it isn't noble, then why are we doing it? Why does what need to be done? If the Taliban are the enemy, and we pushed them out of power, isn't our duty simply to aid the Afghan government against the Taliban fighters and get permission from Pakistan to wipe out the last pockets of armed terrorist resistance? There's no need to sit in their nation for decades making no progress. Either get the job done and leave, and do it right, or don't do it at all. And if we don't care about Afghan civilians; why not just carpet bomb them until they are all dead? We're bound to hit Taliban eventually.

To run a legitimate war, you have to care about details like human lives. They aren't just details. I'm not trying to shut you down, but I'm not sure what you're arguing for, if anything; and if you're arguing it in a way I understand. No biggie either way.

[Fragony]

If it isn't noble, then why are we doing it? Why does what need to be done?

Killing these terrorist opponents needs to be done. Because if we don't we will have to it it in 10 years with cosiderably more loss of life.

[InsaneApache]

But then that is the tragedy of hard-line socialism - it always comes down to caring more about the concepts than the human beings, despite bleating loudly that the latter's interests are it's raison d'etre.

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

[Askthepizzaguy]

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

I think the right also believe their cause to be just, and they do pretty much whatever when they are in power, too.



Any of your partisan groups believe in their cause, I'd suspect; and I find partisans cause the most damage to us all.

Killing hatebeards needs to be done. Because if we don't we will have to it it in 10 years with cosiderably more loss of life.

According to which political party's propaganda pamphlet? BTW- who are the "inappropriate group bashing term"?

[HoreTore]

According to which political party's propaganda pamphlet? BTW- who are the "inappropriate group bashing term"?

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

I don't think it's necessary to say "no offense", frags, you know we all love you

[Askthepizzaguy]

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

I don't think it's necessary to say "no offense", frags, you know we all love you

@HoreTore or Fragony, (anyone really)

I dislike the gross oversimplification of a person's cultural, social, ethical, moral, religious, legal, government, and global philosophy/worldview into the false dichotomy of "left" and "right". It seems like a lazy way of referring to a very vague concept without having to actually state what you believe or where you stand, and it lends itself to false assumptions; such as- if a person is a right winger, they must of course support the death penalty and oppose stem cell research.

I always thought people were entitled to have individual views on things, and weren't all cookie-cutter carbon copies of the stereotypical "liberal" and "conservative", if those words have any meaning whatsoever.

Back to the topic: Wouldn't a liberal who supports tolerance and free speech and progressive ideology oppose radical religious extremism more than your typical member of the "christian right"? I mean, the "liberal left" has less in common with Muslims than the "right" does. I think you'll find actually a great many of the "liberals" will oppose intolerant radical militant religious extremism just as much as "conservatives" do, and will support efforts to disarm or destroy these threats to civilized society. I think that there is room for disagreement as to how to go about doing so; such as being careful not to carpet bomb civilians, and not torturing people, for one.

Engaging in immoral and fear-based tactics like bombing civilians from the air is not how you fight extremism; it's how you spread it.

[Fragony]

people you seem to disparage so much[/COLOR]"?

Term Deleted is how we call them here, muslim extremists. This is pretty dangerous you know, the Afghan may be a dirt poor, but all these red flowers you when you watch pictures from Afghanistan, what do you think that is? That would be opium, in hands of the Taliban, and for whoever they are usefull for they are sitting on the greatest opium-production of the world. Unlimited funds. This is much more dangerous then some people think it is, all middle-east nations are artificial states. Taliban is gaining influence in Pakistan, now what does pakistan just happen to have. What will be the reaction?

I see you're not familiar with Fragony's worldview. Here's a brief rundown:

Muslim extremists are taking over the world and killing our babies, supported by "lefties"(which I believe includes parties to the right of social democrats, like most liberal parties). They're doing it according to the teachings of the Quran and because our babies tastes good.

Of course non taken

[Fragony]

double post huh, I'll guess I'll try another time

[Subotan]

I read a comment the other day in the CiF section of the Guardian, it went something like this....

"The left think that they can do anything when in power because they believe thier cause to be just".

Sums up the mindset beautifully.

...Just like whenever social conservatives get into power, they try and enforce their morals upon everyone else

[rory_20_uk]

people with strong beliefs always do. Part of a strong belief is that everyone else is either misinformed or just plain wrong.