Islam is not a "peaceful" religion [Archive] - The Lone Star Command Message Boards

Dibujante

Nov 28, 2005, @ 10:43 PM

Ah, it looks like it's the "world muslim conspiracy" variant of the Nazis' "world jewish conspiracy."

So, let's go to our friendly Old Testament/Torah and have ourselves a little spin!

For before these days there was no hire for man, nor any hire for beast; neither was there any peace to him that went out or came in because of the affliction: for I set all men every one against his neighbour.
Then said I, I will not feed you: that that dieth, let it die; and that that is to be cut off, let it be cut off; and let the rest eat every one the flesh of another.
Woe to the idle shepherd that leaveth the flock! the sword shall be upon his arm, and upon his right eye: his arm shall be clean dried up, and his right eye shall be utterly darkened.
For I will gather all nations against Jerusalem to battle; and the city shall be taken, and the houses rifled, and the women ravished; and half of the city shall go forth into captivity, and the residue of the people shall not be cut off from the city.
Woe unto the inhabitants of the sea coast, the nation of the Cherethites! the word of the LORD is against you; O Canaan, the land of the Philistines, I will even destroy thee, that there shall be no inhabitant.
Ye Ethiopians also, ye shall be slain by my sword.
I have cut off the nations: their towers are desolate; I made their streets waste, that none passeth by: their cities are destroyed, so that there is no man, that there is none inhabitant.
Thou didst march through the land in indignation, thou didst thresh the heathen in anger.
Yet was she carried away, she went into captivity: her young children also were dashed in pieces at the top of all the streets: and they cast lots for her honourable men, and all her great men were bound in chains.
The horseman lifteth up both the bright sword and the glittering spear: and there is a multitude of slain, and a great number of carcases; and there is none end of their corpses; they stumble upon their corpses:
But with an overrunning flood he will make an utter end of the place thereof, and darkness shall pursue his enemies.
And they shall waste the land of Assyria with the sword, and the land of Nimrod in the entrances thereof: thus shall he deliver us from the Assyrian, when he cometh into our land, and when he treadeth within our borders.
Arise and thresh, O daughter of Zion: for I will make thine horn iron, and I will make thy hoofs brass: and thou shalt beat in pieces many people: and I will consecrate their gain unto the LORD, and their substance unto the Lord of the whole earth.
Therefore I will make Samaria as an heap of the field, and as plantings of a vineyard: and I will pour down the stones thereof into the valley, and I will discover the foundations thereof.
Shall I not in that day, saith the LORD, even destroy the wise men out of Edom, and understanding out of the mount of Esau?
And the songs of the temple shall be howlings in that day, saith the Lord GOD: there shall be many dead bodies in every place; they shall cast them forth with silence.
And the high places of Isaac shall be desolate, and the sanctuaries of Israel shall be laid waste; and I will rise against the house of Jeroboam with the sword.
Samaria shall become desolate; for she hath rebelled against her God: they shall fall by the sword: their infants shall be dashed in pieces, and their women with child shall be ripped up.
He that sacrificeth unto any god, save unto the LORD only, he shall be utterly destroyed.I can't stress this one enough. Death to the unbelievers, it says.
I will send my fear before thee, and will destroy all the people to whom thou shalt come, and I will make all thine enemies turn their backs unto thee.
Note that this is nowhere near complete in any way. At all. It probably doesn't even encompass 10% of the violence in the Old Testament. But the current fashion is to claim that arabs/muslims are violent animals prone to fits of spontaneous combustion as a result of jealousy towards Western "civilization". Goebbels would be proud. Fucking proud. This is the moral equivalent of, 200 years after the Nazi victory in Europe, Nazi historians writing a tale of World War 2 that began as follows, "The violent and animalistic Poles, lead by sullen Jewish warchiefs, declared war on our pieceful and cultured nation and invaded, setting torch to house and sword to flesh."

Why, oh why, didn't we get all the fascists at Nuremburg? I'm not surprised, the U.S. has been beset by this pathological mental deficiency since its founding. Nation of peace? Beset by "warlike" enemies? Give me a break and learn to read a fucking book, newb.

tom

Nov 28, 2005, @ 10:46 PM

Those Jews are out to destroy us too. They're evil bankers and accountants.

Dibujante

Nov 28, 2005, @ 10:53 PM

Yes. Jews and Vietnamese immigrants. Once those Vietnamese get their hands on our fast food arteries they'll end Western civilization while cackling madly in Chinese.

tom

Nov 28, 2005, @ 11:09 PM

Don't forget about the Canadians; they may think we don't know about the invasion, but we do.

Wicksy

Nov 28, 2005, @ 11:22 PM

You're missing vital pieces of evidence ....

http://www.tlsconline.com/forums/showthread.php?t=4330

Add to the ever-growing list of terror attacks in the above thread:
London, UK
Bali, Indonesia (again)
Amman, Jordan
Several more homicide bombings in Israel
Iran's threat to "wipe Israel off the map", and their quest for nukes

All of the above were perpetrated by whom? And what was their justification? Their final cry before death is usually what?

Not so much a "conspiracy", more a reality I'd say.

Dibujante

Nov 28, 2005, @ 11:53 PM

Okay, so, correct me if I'm wrong, but you state that the justification for the belief that Islam is a religion of violence is the string of violent attacks carried out by groups of its believers, yes?

Do I really need to point out to you that nearly the entire world was repeatedly invaded and brutalized, and its populations subjected to repeated oppression and even genocide, by European Christians? Or has your revised world history erased that little (well, not really, closer to 500 years of solid massacre) episode?

Edit: If you're willing to state that Christianity and Judaism are also religions of violence and apply the same international pressure (invasion, murdering millions of people, etc) to them, then I'll accept your original proposal.

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 12:23 AM

Edit: If you're willing to state that Christianity and Judaism are also religions of violence and apply the same international pressure (invasion, murdering millions of people, etc) to them, then I'll accept your original proposal.
I'd be willing to state that a few thousand years ago, Judaism may have been a violent religion. Until they were expelled from their land, dispersed throughout the world and persecuted wherever they went.

Christianity has been very violent in the past, yes.

Look at a world map today. Where are all the violent flashpoints? Who causes the terror attacks?

Do you agree that not all are Muslims are terrorists, but 99% of terrorists are Muslim? Who perpetrated ALL the attacks mentioned above?

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 12:40 AM

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 12:58 AM

For a total score of 6 (possibly more if we agree on which way to hash the terrorist campaign in Israel. Is it a single terrorist action? Is it one for every single bomb? Is it one for every wave of violence? Who knows?).
How about one for every civilian target. For example: pizza parlours, weddings, hotels, children's discos, nightclubs, trade centres, and mere members of the public, etc.
Does that sound ok?

The tally so far is a lot more than 6. Read the thread to which I posted a link for a further incomplete list.

I'll meet you and raise one: 1 U.S. bombing of Moammar Qadaffilol. You're kidding right.

3 Israel's unprovoked assault on positions in Eastern Egypt which left dozens of soldiers dead.Assault on military positions? Surely that's "freedom fighting", not terrorism.

5 U.S. saturation bombing of civilian centers in Baghdad during the 1st Gulf War. Mass murder of civilian targets in order to cow their government into submission constitutes "terror". It's what happened on 9/11...What civilian centres?

6 U.S. destroys only pharamceutical plant in Sudan and refuses to even compensate them for this act of medicinal terror.Really? Are you sure they didn't just miss?

7 Invasion of Panama and murder of hundreds of civilians as the U.S. topples the Panamanian government.Who murdered them? How?

Score, 7. The ball is back in your court.
I make it 2 to you, several to me.

Christianity and Judaism seem to be religions of war to this day.To this day? Gimme a break. Every one of the terror attacks I've given so far have been within the last 4 years. All your feeble attempts date back decades.

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 01:11 AM

How about one for every civilian target. For example: pizza parlours, weddings, hotels, children's discos, nightclubs, trade centres, and mere members of the public, etc.
Does that sound ok?And then we can get one for every target by operatives in the Lavon incident, since they targetted libraries, theatres, and post offices? Oh, and let's include the retaliatory terrorism that Israel engaged in. Don't think you can win on that front, I was personally there.

lol. You're kidding right.Uh, no. The U.S. attempted to assassinate Moammar Qadaffi with a bombing run that left hundreds of people, including his adopted infant daughter, dead.

Assault on military positions? Surely that's "freedom fighting", not terrorism.What, so the Pentagon bombing wasn't an act of terror? When a nation kills the soldiers of another nation during peacetime that's as much terror as anything else. Soldiers are not "fair game" year-round.

What civilian centres?The whole of Baghdad...did you somehow miss it? Or are you just playing stupid?

Really? Are you sure they didn't just miss?It was pretty fucking obvious and you guys didn't even investigate before bombing it to the ground.

Who murdered them? How?The U.S. murdered them with bombs and artillery.

To this day? Gimme a break. Every one of the terror attacks I've given so far have been within the last 4 years. All your feeble attempts date back decades.These are all within the last 25 years. Edit: Except bay of pigs. Anything within the living memory of most of the population ought to be valid. You can make any case you want by altering the time period. In fact, if a U.S. soldier shot an Iraqi just a minute ago and I constrained all findings to the last five minutes I could easily paint a picture of widespread U.S. terror. However, I will not resort to such cheap tricks in proving said point.

Are all you kids this dumb? What do they teach you in school? That the West is always justified in everything it does? Let me guess, they even taught you that the bombs were dropped on Japan to force a surrender. What a load of bullshit! I simply remain amused that the people with the most blood on their hands can point their fingers at newcomers to the field and shriek that they are the real monsters.

7-6, your ball.

DrunkenUno

Nov 29, 2005, @ 04:21 AM

Please point out where I said Judaism or Christianity are "peaceful" religions. I simply said that Islam is not a "peaceful" religion, contrary to the bullshit spouted on networks.

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 04:40 AM

And I'm pointing out that if the West is "peaceful" despite its supposedly "non-peaceful" religions, then the "peacefulness" of Islam has no bearing on anything. It's as peaceful as any of the other Abrahamic faiths.

Blacksand

Nov 29, 2005, @ 05:06 AM

People get killed. Sometimes people get killed from religious motivation.

Case, and topic, closed.

**EDIT**

Keep it civil.
Thread re-opened.

Quietus

Nov 29, 2005, @ 11:18 AM

Hey, if you want to engage in a terrorist attack naming contest, you're on.
You've currently got:
London
Bali x2
Amman
The U.S.
Israel
For a total score of 6 (possibly more if we agree on which way to hash the terrorist campaign in Israel. Is it a single terrorist action? Is it one for every single bomb? Is it one for every wave of violence? Who knows?).

I'll meet you and raise one:
1 U.S. bombing of Moammar Qadaffi
2 Israel's covert operations in Egypt as part of the "Lavon Incident" (I'll count it as one if you count the Intifadeh as one per wave).
3 Israel's unprovoked assault on positions in Eastern Egypt which left dozens of soldiers dead.
4 The United States' Bay of Pigs attack on Cuba (I'll refrain from mentioning all of the Cuban attacks for now)
5 U.S. saturation bombing of civilian centers in Baghdad during the 1st Gulf War. Mass murder of civilian targets in order to cow their government into submission constitutes "terror". It's what happened on 9/11...
6 U.S. destroys only pharamceutical plant in Sudan and refuses to even compensate them for this act of medicinal terror.
7 Invasion of Panama and murder of hundreds of civilians as the U.S. topples the Panamanian government.
Score, 7. The ball is back in your court.

Christianity and Judaism seem to be religions of war to this day.

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

A country tactically eliminating key people and locations is not terrorism. Radicals targeting civilians is terrorism. Most governments do not wish to eliminate large portions of the civilian populace, and do not intentionally target civilian areas without reason (And some people decide to build military installations in these areas, thinking they will not be attacked).

The US did not need to target civilians in the first Gulf War to force the government into submission. Our forces trampled theirs, defeating them in days. Look into it, it's amazing how fast and efficient the plan was. Our second assault in Iraq had similar success.

What, so the Pentagon bombing wasn't an act of terror? When a nation kills the soldiers of another nation during peacetime that's as much terror as anything else. Soldiers are not "fair game" year-round.

A soldiers entire job is to fight, and defend his country. Any country, or organization seeking to harm that country will have to consider and possibly target the soldiers directly to achieve their goals. So yes, they are fair game, year round.

The whole of Baghdad...did you somehow miss it? Or are you just playing stupid?

Precision bombing is what took place in Baghdad. If we wanted to level the city we would have literally carpet bombed the place, and there would be nothing left. Some precision bombs can strike a building, leveling it and leave nearby buildings unharmed. Besides, when you place military installations within a city (that NEED to be removed in any conflict) they will be attacked, and civilians will likely be hurt.

Are all you kids this dumb? What do they teach you in school? That the West is always justified in everything it does? Let me guess, they even taught you that the bombs were dropped on Japan to force a surrender. What a load of bullshit! I simply remain amused that the people with the most blood on their hands can point their fingers at newcomers to the field and shriek that they are the real monsters.

A ground invasion of Japan would cause far too many casualties among US soldiers. Dropping the bombs was a much safer option. At the time they were dropped, Japanese forces were already weak, and defeat was inevitable even without the bombs. However, many soldiers (and likely more Japanese civilians than were killed in the bombs) would still die in the ground invasion, so this made dropping the bomb a viable solution. Precision bombs and guided missles were nowhere near as advanced as they were today, so the bombing runs alone to eliminate war production would have killed huge numbers of japanese. Plus, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were large military centers for Japan.

6 U.S. destroys only pharamceutical plant in Sudan and refuses to even compensate them for this act of medicinal terror.

Do you really know what all that pharmaceutical plant was producing?

Critta

Nov 29, 2005, @ 01:00 PM

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

A country tactically eliminating key people and locations is not terrorism. Radicals targeting civilians is terrorism. Most governments do not wish to eliminate large portions of the civilian populace, and do not intentionally target civilian areas without reason (And some people decide to build military installations in these areas, thinking they will not be attacked).

Precision bombing is what took place in Baghdad. If we wanted to level the city we would have literally carpet bombed the place, and there would be nothing left. Some precision bombs can strike a building, leveling it and leave nearby buildings unharmed. Besides, when you place military installations within a city (that NEED to be removed in any conflict) they will be attacked, and civilians will likely be hurt.

Ok, so the "precision bombing" which took place in Baghdad towards the end of the first gulf war not only destroyed the millitary installations, but also the electricity network and as a result destroyed the water purification network and sewage treatement facilities of the country.

Electricity power stations, water purification and power plants are not millitary targets, in effect, the Iraqi people were punished for the actions of their dictator, the civilian population was made to suffer because of the actions of their leader and millitary.

On top of this, chlorine, the chemical needed to purify water without the usage of the plants was then placed on the list of sanctioned items during the UN sanctions imposed upon Iraq between the two Gulf Wars.

Also on the list of sanctioned supplies included antibiotics and other vital medicines for treating the inevitable diseases this lack of clean drinking water caused.

In my eyes, this was a deliberate and unprovoked attack directly against the Iraqi people and caused the deaths of 100,000 adults and doubled the infant mortality rate in Iraq in the years directly following the war.

The Geneva Convention article 54 clearly states:

"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

Therefore this is an unlawful use of force, by an organised group against people with the intention of coercing the government of that people for political means. Firmly within your definition of terrorism.

Finally, before anyone tries to argue that this was an unanticipated or unplanned event, here (http://www.gulflink.osd.mil/declassdocs/dia/19950901/950901_511rept_91.html) is the US report on the effect of destroying the Iraqi water supply would have upon the country, published in Jan 1991, not de-classified until 1995.

Quietus

Nov 29, 2005, @ 02:05 PM

A military network cannot effectively function without electricity or water, can it?

Papa Smurf

Nov 29, 2005, @ 02:16 PM

ter·ror·ism
n.
The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

I liked this, so what you are saying is that the US Britian and all the other allies were terrorist, as the invasion of Iraq was against International law, and if someone quotes UNSCR1441 I will laugh and then quote the section where it rules out the use of force.

A country tactically eliminating key people and locations is not terrorism.
emmm yes it is as laid out by your own defination of terrorism, assasinasion is against international law is prohibited by Article 23b of the Hague Convention of 1899, and therefore under your defination it is terrorism.

The US did not need to target civilians in the first Gulf War to force the government into submission. Our forces trampled theirs, defeating them in days. Look into it, it's amazing how fast and efficient the plan was. Our second assault in Iraq had similar success.
No we did not need to kill them because that time we got Saddam to kill them for us, we asked them to rise up, we dropped thousands of lefletts from the skys then when they did rebel, what did we do? We left them adandoned with no support to be hunted down and slaughtered, for the homeland to be drained of water, so were does them blame lie here? I would say quite firmly at our door. Also in the first war the only troops we fought were conscripts, Saddam preserved his Rebulican Gaurd.

A soldiers entire job is to fight, and defend his country. Any country, or organization seeking to harm that country will have to consider and possibly target the soldiers directly to achieve their goals. So yes, they are fair game, year round.
Again wrong to take military action against another country you are suppose to declare war under international law by the seconf Hauge convention 1904, by your logic our troops in Northern Ireland were fair game, as are our troops in Afganistan and Iraq, so that would kind of end this debate because that would make them freedom fighters.

Precision bombing is what took place in Baghdad. If we wanted to level the city we would have literally carpet bombed the place, and there would be nothing left. Some precision bombs can strike a building, leveling it and leave nearby buildings unharmed. Besides, when you place military installations within a city (that NEED to be removed in any conflict) they will be attacked, and civilians will likely be hurt.
Now then "smart bombs" are pretty accurate these days the JDAM types used have a CEP of 13m, their guidence system fails then they use inercial guidence systems giving the a CEP of 30m, do you know how they work out the CEP of something? Its were half of the bombs land, so only half of those dropped will be with in a 10m radius of the target, now that would worry me. But its still pretty dam impressive, the problem lies not just with the bombs but also the target selected, people call it "smart bombs dumb targets".

On March 20, the first night of the war, when the CIA got word that Saddam Hussein was in a bunker under a particular house in Baghdad. Two F-117s, quickly dispatched to the area, dropped four 2,000-pound EGBU-27 earth-penetrating bombs on the site. The results: One Iraqi civilian was killed, 14 were wounded; Saddam was nowhere to be found. A postwar inspection revealed there never was a bunker.

Besides, when you place military installations within a city (that NEED to be removed in any conflict) they will be attacked, and civilians will likely be hurt.

In another high-profile strike, on April 7, a B-1B dropped four 2,000-pound JDAM bombs on a restaurant where Saddam and his two sons were believed to be meeting. Shortly afterward, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "I think we did get Saddam Hussein. He was seen being dug out of the rubble and wasn't able to breathe." Someone might have been dug out the rubble; 18 people were killed, but they did not include the Husseins.

Yes a very military target that is, OHNOES they have a scud in their soup! We bomb civilian targets too, we just do it from 30,000 feet.

Now we should also look at the statisics from Serbia as we have a pretty good idea of how accurate these bombs are and the causulty rates. (70% were JDAM's its 90% in Iraq)

One remarkable statistic to come out of the 1999 air war against Serbian leader Slobodan Milosevic was that, ton for ton, the bombing killed civilians at the same rate as the air campaigns over Vietnam a quarter-century earlier. The calculation http://www.slate.com/id/2072709/sidebar/2072712/ seemed absurd at first glance. After all, the bombs dropped on Yugoslavia were far more accurate. But that new accuracy emboldened commanders to aim more bombs at targets that required accuracy—for example, a particular building in downtown Belgrade. And since some of those bombs missed, more civilians died than anyone had predicted. Over half the bombs in that war were dropped on Belgrade and other cities. It's likely that almost all the bombs in the war dropped on Baghdad, will have similar consequences.

A ground invasion of Japan would cause far too many casualties among US soldiers. Dropping the bombs was a much safer option. At the time they were dropped, Japanese forces were already weak, and defeat was inevitable even without the bombs. However, many soldiers (and likely more Japanese civilians than were killed in the bombs) would still die in the ground invasion, so this made dropping the bomb a viable solution. Precision bombs and guided missles were nowhere near as advanced as they were today, so the bombing runs alone to eliminate war production would have killed huge numbers of japanese. Plus, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were large military centers for Japan.
LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL this deserves a whole thread of its own

Do you really know what all that pharmaceutical plant was producing?
YES! LOL there have been several reports done on this and they all concluded that there was no chemical weapons development and no link to Osama Bin Laden, in fact what the reports did say that this plant preoduct 60-70% of the vital drugs needed by the Sudan to fight letal diseases including malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera. It also produced almost all the veterinary medicine, in a country where much of the economy is dependent on animal husbandry. The plant made vital medicines available to the Sudanese at 20% of world market prices, a matter of life and death in a country with a per capita GNP of roughly $300 per year.

Nice, make those poor Africans even poorer, oh but you helped these people out didn't you, helped them to rebuild create a new plant to service the vital short fall in medical supplies, sadly NO

http://www.doublestandards.org/sudan.html read this and educate yourself

Karmashock

Nov 29, 2005, @ 02:22 PM

I liked this, so what you are saying is that the US Britian and all the other allies were terrorist, as the invasion of Iraq was against International law
Actually it wasn't. The US and UK lawyers were very careful about it... perhaps it was close... but not actually.

I care nothing for this this thread, but the comment that it was against international law is merely an opinon, and not a fact. And before you get carried away with thinking opinons mean anything in legal matters, forget it... everyone has one...

Critta

Nov 29, 2005, @ 02:46 PM

A military network cannot effectively function without electricity or water, can it?

The US did not need to target civilians in the first Gulf War to force the government into submission. Our forces trampled theirs, defeating them in days. Look into it, it's amazing how fast and efficient the plan was. Our second assault in Iraq had similar success.

You seem to have contradicted yourself quite heavily there.

I'll leave your own comment as a reason why the destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure wasn't required.

Papa Smurf

Nov 29, 2005, @ 02:47 PM

Karma yes it was

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/middle_east/3661134.stm

the only possible justification for a legal war falls under UNSCR1441 and as the only body which can legitamise a military campigne under one of its resoulution is the UN, I would say that the head of the UN saying it was illegal is more than just opinion.

So it was illegal, unless you have some brilliant stick your head in the sand responce, its your opinion that it was legal, I am sticking to the facts.

Quietus

Nov 29, 2005, @ 02:59 PM

emmm yes it is as laid out by your own defination of terrorism, assasinasion is against international law is prohibited by Article 23b of the Hague Convention of 1899, and therefore under your defination it is terrorism.

The Hague Convention of 1899 outlaws "treacherous" attacks on adversaries. You would be against targeting leaders during war? When one strike might be capable of ending the war altogether?

No we did not need to kill them because that time we got Saddam to kill them for us, we asked them to rise up, we dropped thousands of lefletts from the skys then when they did rebel, what did we do? We left them adandoned with no support to be hunted down and slaughtered, for the homeland to be drained of water, so were does them blame lie here? I would say quite firmly at our door. Also in the first war the only troops we fought were conscripts, Saddam preserved his Rebulican Gaurd.

During the ground invasion, our armed forces dispatched all resistance in days. The same thing happened the second time around, all of the trouble this time is coming from the insurgent attacks. Large portions of the Republican Guard were defeated in the first Gulf War, it provided the strongest resistance of any Iraqi unit in the war.

Again wrong to take military action against another country you are suppose to declare war under international law by the seconf Hauge convention 1904, by your logic our troops in Northern Ireland were fair game, as are our troops in Afganistan and Iraq, so that would kind of end this debate because that would make them freedom fighters.

For a nation to attack another nations soldiers, that is an act of war, whether you declare it or not. Soldiers are trained to fight, it is in their job description. They know full well they will be targeted at one point or another. For terrorists to attack soldiers, it is still terrorism, but the soldiers should not just assume that because they are not in a war they will not be targeted by anyone.

Now then "smart bombs" are pretty accurate these days the JDAM types used have a CEP of 13m, their guidence system fails then they use inercial guidence systems giving the a CEP of 30m, do you know how they work out the CEP of something? Its were half of the bombs land, so only half of those dropped will be with in a 10m radius of the target, now that would worry me. But its still pretty dam impressive, the problem lies not just with the bombs but also the target selected, people call it "smart bombs dumb targets".

Nowadays don't they have a CEP of 3m? You double CEP rating to get the width of the approximate "bull's eye" in which a bomb will land 50% of the time.

On March 20, the first night of the war, when the CIA got word that Saddam Hussein was in a bunker under a particular house in Baghdad. Two F-117s, quickly dispatched to the area, dropped four 2,000-pound EGBU-27 earth-penetrating bombs on the site. The results: One Iraqi civilian was killed, 14 were wounded; Saddam was nowhere to be found. A postwar inspection revealed there never was a bunker.

A case of bad intelligence, not ineffectiveness of bombs.

In another high-profile strike, on April 7, a B-1B dropped four 2,000-pound JDAM bombs on a restaurant where Saddam and his two sons were believed to be meeting. Shortly afterward, Vice President Dick Cheney said, "I think we did get Saddam Hussein. He was seen being dug out of the rubble and wasn't able to breathe." Someone might have been dug out the rubble; 18 people were killed, but they did not include the Husseins.

That wasn't the only incident like that. If I had the opportunity, I would have taken it as well.

LOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOLOL this deserves a whole thread of its own

Then start up a thread, or PM and enlighten me. But leave your misinformation at the door. :)

YES! LOL there have been several reports done on this and they all concluded that there was no chemical weapons development and no link to Osama Bin Laden, in fact what the reports did say that this plant preoduct 60-70% of the vital drugs needed by the Sudan to fight letal diseases including malaria, tuberculosis, and cholera. It also produced almost all the veterinary medicine, in a country where much of the economy is dependent on animal husbandry. The plant made vital medicines available to the Sudanese at 20% of world market prices, a matter of life and death in a country with a per capita GNP of roughly $300 per year.

I honestly did not know much about this incident. I just assumed people were jumping to conclusions like normal. Looking back it is a huge fuckup, but they were likely acting on intelligence leading to the soil sample, right? After the soil sample confirmed their intelligence, they bombed? Was it another case of bad intelligence?

Karmashock

Nov 29, 2005, @ 03:20 PM

I would say that the head of the UN saying it was illegal is more than just opinion.
In fact, that's all it is... it's his opinion, but it has no power make legal judgement or rule on the matter. It is merely the opinion of a powerful man. I could counter it with any opposing opinion by any other powerful man.

Critta

Nov 29, 2005, @ 03:37 PM

For a nation to attack another nations soldiers, that is an act of war, whether you declare it or not. Soldiers are trained to fight, it is in their job description. They know full well they will be targeted at one point or another. For terrorists to attack soldiers, it is still terrorism, but the soldiers should not just assume that because they are not in a war they will not be targeted by anyone.

The Hague Convention III:
Article 1

"The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."

Ergo - just attacking another nation's soldiers is not an applicable application of war, hence any other attack against a nations millitary without a formal declaration of war is a terrorist attack according to your definition.

A case of bad intelligence, not ineffectiveness of bombs....

...I honestly did not know much about this incident. I just assumed people were jumping to conclusions like normal. Looking back it is a huge fuckup, but they were likely acting on intelligence leading to the soil sample, right? After the soil sample confirmed their intelligence, they bombed? Was it another case of bad intelligence?

So what you're trying to say here is that destroying the infrastructure of enemy countries (illegal under the Geneva convention) is ok, as long as it is a case of bad intelligence?

Dropping bombs on civilian targets is ok, as long as it is a case of bad intelligence?

Bad intelligence shouldn't be a get out clause for breaking laws, hey, if I go out and do something illegal without realising I'm doing it, would "oh, I didn't realise" be an acceptable alibi in court?

I fail too see your point here, perhaps you could clarify it?

Also - do you accept the illegality of your countries attacks against the infrastructure of Iraq? You do not seem to have come up with any kind of explaination or refutal of the facts I gave you.

Critta

Nov 29, 2005, @ 03:45 PM

A military network cannot effectively function without electricity or water, can it?

Just as a reminder:

The Geneva Convention article 54 clearly states:

"It is prohibited to attack, destroy, remove, or render useless objects indispensable to the survival of the civilian population, such as foodstuffs, crops, livestock, drinking water installations and supplies, and irrigation works, for the specific purpose of denying them for their sustenance value to the civilian population or to the adverse Party, whatever the motive, whether in order to starve out civilians, to cause them to move away, or for any other motive."

The destruction of the Iraqi infrastructure caused between 500,000 - 1.5m casualties between the end of the first gulf war and the onset of the second, so please don't try and tell me that this infrastructure was not indispensable to the survival of the population.

Papa Smurf

Nov 29, 2005, @ 06:07 PM

Ah the stick your head in the sand answer, let me just skip over the UN for a moment, ill come back to them.

Even though the Iraq invasion WAS illegal under the UN charter, and Kofi Annan said so, and that the UN exclusivly has the right to declare military action against a nation under one of its resolutions.

Lets look at whether it was legal under American law

Section 3 Paragraph B

(b) PRESIDENTIAL DETERMINATION- In connection with the exercise of the authority granted in subsection (a) to use force the President shall, prior to such exercise or as soon thereafter as may be feasible, but no later than 48 hours after exercising such authority, make available to the Speaker of the House of Representatives and the President pro tempore of the Senate his determination that--

(1) reliance by the United States on further diplomatic or other peaceful means alone either (A) will not adequately protect the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq or (B) is not likely to lead to enforcement of all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq; and

(2) acting pursuant to this joint resolution is consistent with the United States and other countries continuing to take the necessary actions against international terrorist and terrorist organizations, including those nations, organizations, or persons who planned, authorized, committed or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001.

the Congressional authorization for force that Bush used to launch the invasion of Iraq. However, if you read Section 3, paragraph B (above), Bush was required to prove to the Congress that Iraq was in violation of UN Resolutions by still being in possession of weapons of mass destruction, and secondly, that Iraq was behind 9-11. Both claims have since been disproved and discredited, and appear to be created by the Pentagon Office at the heart of the Israeli spy scandal.

Therefore, under United States law, the war in Iraq is illegal.

Oh maybe you should have a look at this i loved the quote in it from Richard Perle Senior Whitehouse hawk and a key member of the defence policy board.

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."

Back to the UN

Mr Annan said that the invasion was not sanctioned by the UN security council or in accordance with the UN's founding charter. In an interview with the BBC World Service broadcast last night, he was asked outright if the war was illegal. He replied: "Yes, if you wish."

He then added unequivocally: "I have indicated it was not in conformity with the UN charter. From our point of view and from the charter point of view it was illegal."
More than just an opinion, as he is the head of the organisation with the exclusive right to allow military action under one of its resolutions, no not his opinion, the opinion of the UN. You can quote any "powerful leader" you like but until one of them is the head of the UN it makes no diffrence.

But wait lets look for offical confirmation

The UN had warned the US and its allies a week before the invasion in March 2003 that military action would violate the UN charter.

""I don't buy the argument the war was legalized by the Iraqi violation of earlier resolutions."

And it appeared yesterday that the Government shared that view until the eve of war, when it received the Lord Goldsmith's final advice.

Sir Andrew Turnbull, the Cabinet Secretary, revealed that the Government had assumed, until the eve of war in Iraq, that it needed a specific UN mandate to authorize military action.

Mr Blix demolished the argument advanced by Lord Goldsmith three days before the war began, which stated that resolution 1441 authorized the use of force because it revived earlier UN resolutions passed after the 1991 ceasefire.

Mr Blix said that while it was possible to argue that Iraq had breached the ceasefire by violating UN resolutions adopted since 1991, the "ownership" of the resolutions rested with the entire 15-member Security Council and not with individual states. "It's the Security Council that is party to the ceasefire, not the UK and US individually, and therefore it is the council that has ownership of the ceasefire, in my interpretation."
Oh deat, oh dear, it would appear the man whos job it was to say whether Iraq were in violation also says the war was illegal, as far as you point to the fact that the British and American Governments had been very careful about make sure it was legal, I think you'll find one persons opinion is not being careful under any description I would subscribe too, redundency, redundency redundency.

lets see what an international panel (The panellists include Professor Philippe Sands QC, a member of Cherie Booth's Matrix chambers, Professor Christine Chinkin, professor of international law at the London School of Economics, and Jan Kavan, the president of the UN General Assembly and former Czech foreign minister). of the best lawyers in the world said

(family fortunes noise)

Nope they said it was illegal too.

God i could go on and on and on and on and on, but ill leave it there for now.

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 06:21 PM

God i could go on and on and on and on and on, but ill leave it there for now.Please don't. I've worn out my mouse wheel scrolling over the majority of your posts which I could not be bothered to decipher.

Resolution 1441. There I said it. Go ahead and laugh, I don't care. "Serious consequences". Remember that. It means something.

Iraq war was illegal? So sue us. Take us to court. Put your money where your mouth is and prove it. Innocent until proven guilty, remember? That's what you keep banging on about isn't it.

It is merely the opinion of a powerful manCorrection: It is merely the opinion of a man.

Karmashock

Nov 29, 2005, @ 06:22 PM

"I think in this case international law stood in the way of doing the right thing."
I need the full paragraph... I have never seen the full quote and the primary reporter of this quote is the fucking guardian, which is hardly an unbiased source.

Tell me they're not known for their bias.

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 06:51 PM

And then we can get one for every target by operatives in the Lavon incident, since they targetted libraries, theatres, and post offices? Oh, and let's include the retaliatory terrorism that Israel engaged in. Don't think you can win on that front, I was personally there.
...
These are all within the last 25 years. Edit: Except bay of pigs. Anything within the living memory of most of the population ought to be valid.
The Lavon Incident was in the 1950's apparently. That's about - ohhh - 50 years ago? And you were there, you say? And it was within the past 25 years, you say? Perhaps you can give some links to articles about the Lavon Incident showing what you call "Israeli terrorism". Maybe you have some photographs of your own?

You can make any case you want by altering the time period.Yes, but the point of this discussion is to demonstrate which religion is more violent, or appears to induce violence among its followers. I've already said that Judaism was violent a few thousand years ago, and that Christianity was violent (burning of Catholics etc). Recently however, it appears that Islam is definitely emerging as a more violent religion (however that's certainly not to say that it wasn't violent in the past also).

7-6, your ball.How many of the incidents you have posted (most of which aren't terrorist incidents anyway...) have any relationship whatsoever with a religion? How many of those incidents were perpetrated in the name of a religion?

The answer of course is NONE.

20-0 to me. Your ball.

DJTheBaron

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:07 PM

if you read the full paragraph, do you discount it because its from the guardian and stick your head in the sand, or contemplate you may be fighting a loosing battle?

MVB

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:08 PM

What Islam is today differs greatly from what it was at the time of its founding.

The Old Testament, while important historically for Christians, is unimportant doctrinally. It is the pre-Christian history of "God." It is not Christianity. Moreover, I don't see how pointing out militarism and violence in one religion refutes its existence in another. I suppose that wasn't the point of that lengthy quotehistory of the OT.

Islam was founded by a profiteering merchant turned "visionary" and military leader, who used Islam to build an army of Muslims and attack and take over the city that spurned him for his nutty ideals. Woe be to the person who dares to shed light on the political/trade intrigue that got him booted in the first place. He was a vengeful, petty man who experienced lengthy periods of self-doubt and schizophrenia, and who used spoken word and his skills as a salesman to raise an army for personal gain/revenge.

After him, others did the same. Islam was the banner of conquest for its early foundings, more or less. Talk about it today? Who knows. At its foundings, however, naught but militaristic bullshit, I don't care how much you wish otherwise (the general "you").

Honestly Judaism was founded more or less peacefully, and for a long time CHANGED into a hybrid militaristic kinda thing. Christianity was certainly founded peacefully and with peaceful intents; Jesus, if you even want to be blasphemic/critical, was at worst a hippy, not a warmonger. Same thing for almost any religion you want to look at, EXCEPT ... Islam. Historically it is not acknowledged as a religion until it consolidates as a military and political force under a disgruntled Muhammad in the time just before his attack on Mecca and the people that booted him.

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:14 PM

Dibs is about to drop a very long one...

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:15 PM

A ground invasion of Japan would cause far too many casualties among US soldiers. Dropping the bombs was a much safer option. At the time they were dropped, Japanese forces were already weak, and defeat was inevitable even without the bombs. However, many soldiers (and likely more Japanese civilians than were killed in the bombs) would still die in the ground invasion, so this made dropping the bomb a viable solution. Precision bombs and guided missles were nowhere near as advanced as they were today, so the bombing runs alone to eliminate war production would have killed huge numbers of japanese. Plus, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were large military centers for Japan.

That is the common misrepresentation. I direct you to President Truman's diary entry for July 18th, 1945. In it he says that he "discussed [with Churchill and Stalin] the Jap emperor's offer of peace." This is nearly a month before the bombs dropped. The Japanese offered to surrender on two conditions: that their royal family not be harmed and that they maintain their national autonomy. These were the same conditions that the Americans eventually gave to them. Therefore, the dropping of the bombs was not essential to the Japanese peace process. It did not save any lives. It, and the firebombing of Tokyo, instead murdered up to a million civilians.

So why was the bomb dropped? I think that "blind racial hatred" is a stupid and inappropriate assignation to make. I believe that this was the opening salvo of the cold war. As Russian troops approached from the north and Soviet power expanded, the United States used Japanese civilians as an example of the destructive power of their new weapon. With such a well-known example of military power, the United States hoped to intimidate the Soviet Union.

Perhaps you can give some links to articles about the Lavon Incident showing what you call "Israeli terrorism". Maybe you have some photographs of your own?Okay, here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_Affair
Here's a summary: Israeli intelligence services establishes a number of cells in Egypt. These sells engage in a campaign of terror, bombing post offices, libraries and theatres which American and British personnel frequent. This was done, ostensibly, in an attempt to goad American and British intervention into the region.

Israel further aggravated Egypt by an unprovoked border raid which claimed the lives of 40 soldiers and captured another 40. Faced with Israeli intelligence agents attempting to draw Egypt into a war with the two largest powers in the world, Egypt responded by sending "intelligence" units into Israel to sabotage the (correctly) suspected military buildups along the Egyptian border.

Israel got its wish, however, when Egypt nationalized the Suez canal, paying market value to the previous stockholders. In an act of blatant aggression, Israel, the U.S. and the U.K. invaded Egypt simultaneously, stopping only when the Soviet Union indicated that it would bring this to the U.N. and demand action.

Since Israel is a theocracy, any terrorist actions perpetrated by its government are inextricably linked to religion. However, I think that your premise of Islam as the new "religion of violence" is flawed by the assumption that terrorists are solely and exclusively motivated by Islam. I have read the transcripts of every speech produced by Al-Qaeda post 2001. While they are very religious people and derive a great deal of inspiration from religion, they are also motivated by a percieved string of U.S. imperial operations in the middle east, including the Lebanese civil war, the invasion of Egypt and the mass murder of civilians in Iraq. From an analysis of their statements, their motivation is not solely religious.

Edit: Oh, and on the tangent of Iraq having violated U.N. resolutions. Need I remind the U.S. and the U.K. that their unwavering support for Israel and pre-Apartheid South Africa continued through the violation of 77 resolutions by the former and 43 by the latter? Not that it makes a violation of the resolutions any more valid, but it indicates quite strongly that the U.S. was not motivated by a desire to enforce U.N. resolutions.

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:28 PM

Okay, here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lavon_AffairThat's it?

Since Israel is a theocracy, any terrorist actions perpetrated by its government are inextricably linked to religion.LMAO. Since when is Israel a theocracy? I doubt even Papa would be foolish enough to state such an inversion of reality.
Israel is a democracy Dibs. Its people vote for its government. 20% of whom are Arab/Muslim. There are also many Christians in Israel. They're all allowed to vote (shock/horror). A country like The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocracy - governed as it is by crazy Islamic mullahs.

However, I think that your premise of Islam as the new "religion of violence" is flawed by the assumption that terrorists are solely and exclusively motivated by Islam. I have read the transcripts of every speech produced by Al-Qaeda post 2001. While they are very religious people and derive a great deal of inspiration from religion, they are also motivated by a percieved string of U.S. imperial operations in the middle east, including the Lebanese civil war, the invasion of Egypt and the mass murder of civilians in Iraq. From an analysis of their statements, their motivation is not solely religious.I have only one thing to say: Allahu Akhbar! Show me the way to the 72 virgins in eternal paradise.

Dibs is about to drop a very long one...Well ok, it was only a small log. I guess he must've spent the disproportionately long amount of time it took him to post frantically searching for evidence of the Lavon Affair. Even though he was there of course, in the 1950's, which apparently was no more than 25 years ago.

20-0 to me. Your ball.

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:30 PM

Edit: Oh, and on the tangent of Iraq having violated U.N. resolutions. Need I remind the U.S. and the U.K. that their unwavering support for Israel and pre-Apartheid South Africa continued through the violation of 77 resolutions by the former and 43 by the latter? Not that it makes a violation of the resolutions any more valid, but it indicates quite strongly that the U.S. was not motivated by a desire to enforce U.N. resolutions.
Which resolutions has Israel violated, Dibs? Please name/list them. I'd really like to know...

Karmashock

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:38 PM

I know of no existing major world religions that are evil... what evil there is, rests in the heart of man.

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:49 PM

That's it? Why, yes. It's quite well-documented. What more do you ask? There are citations of other sources at the end of the document, I simply found that to be the most concise presentation.

LMAO. Since when is Israel a theocracy? I doubt even Papa would be foolish enough to state such an inversion of reality.
Israel is a democracy Dibs. Its people vote for its government. 20% of whom are Arab/Muslim. There are also many Christians in Israel. They're all allowed to vote (shock/horror). A country like The Islamic Republic of Iran is a theocracy - governed as it is by crazy Islamic mullahs. I've been there. Israeli arabs have limited rights to own land and non-Jews in Israel cannot marry. All marriage is ordained by the Orthodox Jewish establishment. The establishment also holds power over burial ceremonies and forced observation of Jewish holy days. The Israeli government has refused to recognize the existence of many Arab settlements and therefore denied them access to basic state services. Furthermore, all Jews recieve automatic citizenship in Israel by dint of their faith, whereas most Palestinians still do not have Israeli citizenship.

Israel is established, in their code of laws as a "Jewish state". It cannot be a completely fair and egalitarian state because it is obligated, by law, to maintain its Jewish majority.

A theocracy is a government whose policy is, in part or in whole, formed by religious dictates. Israel is, by definition, a Jewish State, and its actions, granting exclusive powers to the Orthodox Jewish institution and circumscribing the rights of non-Jews to basic services, as well as enforced observance of Jewish religious precepts, is consistent with this.

I have only one thing to say: Allahu Akhbar! Show me the way to the 72 virgins in eternal paradise.That's a non-argument.

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:51 PM

Which resolutions has Israel violated, Dibs? Please name/list them. I'd really like to know...
# 1955-1992:
# * Resolution 106: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for Gaza raid".
# * Resolution 111: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for raid on Syria that killed fifty-six people".
# * Resolution 127: " . . . 'recommends' Israel suspends it's 'no-man's zone' in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 162: " . . . 'urges' Israel to comply with UN decisions".
# * Resolution 171: " . . . determines flagrant violations' by Israel in its attack on Syria".
# * Resolution 228: " . . . 'censures' Israel for its attack on Samu in the West Bank, then under Jordanian control".
# * Resolution 237: " . . . 'urges' Israel to allow return of new 1967 Palestinian refugees".
# * Resolution 248: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for its massive attack on Karameh in Jordan".
# * Resolution 250: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to refrain from holding military parade in Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 251: " . . . 'deeply deplores' Israeli military parade in Jerusalem in defiance of Resolution 250".
# * Resolution 252: " . . . 'declares invalid' Israel's acts to unify Jerusalem as Jewish capital".
# * Resolution 256: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli raids on Jordan as 'flagrant violation".
# * Resolution 259: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to accept UN mission to probe occupation".
# * Resolution 262: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for attack on Beirut airport".
# * Resolution 265: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks for Salt in Jordan".
# * Resolution 267: " . . . 'censures' Israel for administrative acts to change the status of Jerusalem".
# *Resolution 270: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for air attacks on villages in southern Lebanon".
# * Resolution 271: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's failure to obey UN resolutions on Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 279: " . . . 'demands' withdrawal of Israeli forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 280: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli's attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 285: " . . . 'demands' immediate Israeli withdrawal form Lebanon".
# * Resolution 298: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's changing of the status of Jerusalem".
# * Resolution 313: " . . . 'demands' that Israel stop attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 316: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for repeated attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 317: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to release Arabs abducted in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 332: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's repeated attacks against Lebanon".
# * Resolution 337: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violating Lebanon's sovereignty".
# * Resolution 347: " . . . 'condemns' Israeli attacks on Lebanon".
# * Resolution 425: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 427: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to complete its withdrawal from Lebanon.
# * Resolution 444: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's lack of cooperation with UN peacekeeping forces".
# * Resolution 446: " . . . 'determines' that Israeli settlements are a 'serious
# obstruction' to peace and calls on Israel to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 450: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacking Lebanon".
# * Resolution 452: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to cease building settlements in occupied territories".
# * Resolution 465: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's settlements and asks all member
# states not to assist Israel's settlements program".
# * Resolution 467: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's military intervention in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 468: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to rescind illegal expulsions of
# two Palestinian mayors and a judge and to facilitate their return".
# * Resolution 469: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's failure to observe the
# council's order not to deport Palestinians".
# * Resolution 471: " . . . 'expresses deep concern' at Israel's failure to abide
# by the Fourth Geneva Convention".
# * Resolution 476: " . . . 'reiterates' that Israel's claim to Jerusalem are 'null and void'".
# * Resolution 478: " . . . 'censures (Israel) in the strongest terms' for its
# claim to Jerusalem in its 'Basic Law'".
# * Resolution 484: " . . . 'declares it imperative' that Israel re-admit two deported
# Palestinian mayors".
# * Resolution 487: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel for its attack on Iraq's
# nuclear facility".
# * Resolution 497: " . . . 'decides' that Israel's annexation of Syria's Golan
# Heights is 'null and void' and demands that Israel rescinds its decision forthwith".
# * Resolution 498: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to withdraw from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 501: " . . . 'calls' on Israel to stop attacks against Lebanon and withdraw its troops".
# * Resolution 509: " . . . 'demands' that Israel withdraw its forces forthwith and unconditionally from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 515: " . . . 'demands' that Israel lift its siege of Beirut and
# allow food supplies to be brought in".
# * Resolution 517: " . . . 'censures' Israel for failing to obey UN resolutions
# and demands that Israel withdraw its forces from Lebanon".
# * Resolution 518: " . . . 'demands' that Israel cooperate fully with UN forces in Lebanon".
# * Resolution 520: " . . . 'condemns' Israel's attack into West Beirut".
# * Resolution 573: " . . . 'condemns' Israel 'vigorously' for bombing Tunisia
# in attack on PLO headquarters.
# * Resolution 587: " . . . 'takes note' of previous calls on Israel to withdraw
# its forces from Lebanon and urges all parties to withdraw".
# * Resolution 592: " . . . 'strongly deplores' the killing of Palestinian students
# at Bir Zeit University by Israeli troops".
# * Resolution 605: " . . . 'strongly deplores' Israel's policies and practices
# denying the human rights of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 607: " . . . 'calls' on Israel not to deport Palestinians and strongly
# requests it to abide by the Fourth Geneva Convention.
# * Resolution 608: " . . . 'deeply regrets' that Israel has defied the United Nations and deported Palestinian civilians".
# * Resolution 636: " . . . 'deeply regrets' Israeli deportation of Palestinian civilians.
# * Resolution 641: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's continuing deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 672: " . . . 'condemns' Israel for violence against Palestinians
# at the Haram al-Sharif/Temple Mount.
# * Resolution 673: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's refusal to cooperate with the United
# Nations.
# * Resolution 681: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's resumption of the deportation of
# Palestinians.
# * Resolution 694: " . . . 'deplores' Israel's deportation of Palestinians and
# calls on it to ensure their safe and immediate return.
# * Resolution 726: " . . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of Palestinians.
# * Resolution 799: ". . . 'strongly condemns' Israel's deportation of 413 Palestinians
# and calls for their immediate return.

Have fun.

Karmashock

Nov 29, 2005, @ 07:57 PM

Have fun.
Just curious... can you think of another nation so sieged by enemies with a cleaner record... that also survived the situation?...

just curious...

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 08:06 PM

Why, yes. It's quite well-documented. What more do you ask? There are citations of other sources at the end of the document, I simply found that to be the most concise presentation. I've been there.Really? In the 1950's? Which was no more than 25 years ago?
The fact that you've been there says what? I've been there too, ya know. And I say it's a democracy.
And what in your "extensive evidence" about this Lavon Affair shows that it was religiously motivated?

Israeli arabs have limited rights to own land and non-Jews in Israel cannot marry.Israeli Jews also have limited rights to own land. I'm British living in Britain. I also have limited rights to own land. Your point being?
The rest of what you wrote I'm going to ignore, because it's just a load of bollocks.

Israel is established, in their code of laws as a "Jewish state". It cannot be a completely fair and egalitarian state because it is obligated, by law, to maintain its Jewish majority.And yet its government is VOTED FOR BY THE PEOPLE - REGARDLESS OF FAITH, COLOUR OR CREED. It is therefore, quite simply, a DEMOCARACY.

A theocracy is a government whose policy is...... determined by "divine guidance". Something that Israel is not, but the Islamic Republic of Iran is.

That's a non-argument.No it isn't. It demonstrates clearly their motivation for committing heinous acts of terror. It is their death cry.

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 08:09 PM

Have fun.Thanks, I will.

a) Which body issued these resolutions? I notice you didn't provide that information. Perhaps by mistake. Perhaps deliberately/dishonestly.

b) How is it possible to violate a resolution that condemns you?

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 08:18 PM

Thanks, I will.

a) Which body issued these resolutions? I notice you didn't provide that information. Perhaps by mistake. Perhaps deliberately/dishonestly.

b) How is it possible to violate a resolution that condemns you?
I declined to post the entire resolution since there simply isn't enough room on the forum. In each resolution condeming Israel, the U.N. demanded either the cessation of hostilities, the withdarwal of offending forces or the repatriation of displaced persons, which Israel consistently ignored.

You cannot disregard the rest of my argument "as bollocks". That is the case. I have lived there and watched Israeli politics. I have also read the reports of international observers. I have also read the Israeli legal code. Non-Jews have limited rights in Israel. Israel's law declares illegal any attempts to alter Israel's status as a Jewish State. Democracy proscribed by anything other than considerations for human rights is not democracy.

Furthermore, you have not successfully refuted my argument about the motivations of Al-Qaeda. Your argument was unsubstantiated and incoherent. From an analysis of their statements, their motivations stem, in part, from political sources. You completely deny this, but where is your proof?

Karmashock, the fact that Israel was besieged by numerous enemies does not give it the right to forcibly deport people and steal their land, engage in terrorist acts with the intent of provoking a war, or declare wars of aggression. Your argument does not validate the consistent instances of Israeli aggression that the U.N. has condemned. The U.N. has also condemned acts of Arab aggression, which were also morally wrong and illegal. Despite this, two wrongs do not make a right, and Israel still stands in blatant violation of dozens of U.N. resolutions. Iraq has barely exceeded one dozen.

Finally, Wicksy, Israel would have a better shot at being recognized as a government voted in by the people "regardless of faith" if it didn't systematically deny Palestinians citizenship in Israel. Palestinians are still apparently subject to to the Israeli government, yet have no representation. This is the definition of a "colonized people".

Karmashock

Nov 29, 2005, @ 08:33 PM

I declined to post the entire resolution since there simply isn't enough room on the forum. In each resolution condeming Israel, the U.N. demanded either the cessation of hostilities, the withdarwal of offending forces or the repatriation of displaced persons, which Israel consistently ignored.
funny how things got peaceful when a certain 'gentlemen' ceased to live... how peace suddenly seems to have a good chance... must be a coincidence...

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 08:42 PM

funny how things got peaceful when a certain 'gentlemen' ceased to live... how peace suddenly seems to have a good chance... must be a coincidence...
Things did not get peaceful. I was present for the elimination of a number of these 'gentlemen' and found that their elimination was almost always followed by a wave of violence. I believe that these 'gentlemen' were eliminated because their leadership had the potential of damaging Israel enough to make Israel grant concessions to the peace process, for example, ceasing its illegal occupation of Palestinian land and its progressive deportation of Palestinians.

Your argument is not based in fact and as an eye-witness observer I dispute it.

Karmashock

Nov 29, 2005, @ 08:46 PM

Things did not get peaceful. I was present for the elimination of a number of these 'gentlemen' and found that their elimination was almost always followed by a wave of violence. I believe that these 'gentlemen' were eliminated because their leadership had the potential of damaging Israel enough to make Israel grant concessions to the peace process, for example, ceasing its illegal occupation of Palestinian land and its progressive deportation of Palestinians.

Your argument is not based in fact and as an eye-witness observer I dispute it.
I'm only refering to a single individual... arafat. Funny how things got quiet when he died.

Wicksy

Nov 29, 2005, @ 08:52 PM

In each resolution condeming Israel, the U.N. demanded either the cessation of hostilities, the withdarwal of offending forces or the repatriation of displaced persons, which Israel consistently ignored.And which UN body issued these resolutions? Kindly stop skirting around the question and answer it. If you don't, I will simply answer it for you.

You cannot disregard the rest of my argument "as bollocks". That is the case. I have lived there and watched Israeli politics. I have also read the reports of international observers.Yes I can. I have also lived there and I also observe Israeli politics and the reports of international observers. That is not an argument, and neither is yours. You consistently seem to believe that the fact that you've "been there" solidifies your argument and puts you beyond reproach. It does not. You also claim to have "been there" in the 1950's, which apparently was no more than 25 years ago. Given this, how can you expect us to take any of your claims seriously?

I have also read the Israeli legal code. Non-Jews have limited rights in Israel. Israel's law declares illegal any attempts to alter Israel's status as a Jewish State. Democracy proscribed by anything other than considerations for human rights is not democracy.lol. You like to redefine words to fit your agenda, don't you?
A democracy is a democracy is a democracy. A democracy is a governmental system based on elected representation. Israel is a democracy.
http://www.odci.gov/cia/publications/factbook/geos/is.html
Government type: parliamentary democracy
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Israel
Israel is a parliamentary democracy.
Israel's legal system is a western legal system best classified as "mixed": it has a strong Anglo-American influence, but in some parts has borrowed heavily from civil law tradition.
Religious tribunals (Jewish, Sharia'a, Druze and Christian) have exclusive jurisdiction on annulment of marriages
Hence, your arguments are "bollocks".

Furthermore, you have not successfully refuted my argument about the motivations of Al-Qaeda. Your argument was unsubstantiated and incoherent. From an analysis of their statements, their motivations stem, in part, from political sources. You completely deny this, but where is your proof?Excuse me, but where is yours????
I've quoted them and their death cries, which you know damn well to be true. You have offered nothing except your own opinion.

The U.N. has also condemned acts of Arab aggression, which were also morally wrong and illegal.I'll come back to this when you answer the question about which UN body issued these resolutions.

Israel still stands in blatant violation of dozens of U.N. resolutions.Which UN body issued these resolutions?

Finally, Wicksy, Israel would have a better shot at being recognized as a government voted in by the people "regardless of faith" if it didn't systematically deny Palestinians citizenship in Israel.Britain also denies Palestinians citizenship in Britain. So does every other country on this planet, except perhaps Jordan. Again, you have no point here whatsoever.

Finally Dibujante. I just love it when people try to deflect attention away from the many failings of the Muslim world (or virtually anything really...) by saying "OMG LOOK AT ISRAEL!!". Its a typically pointless and fruitless tactic and they always lose.

Dibujante

Nov 29, 2005, @ 10:54 PM

And which UN body issued these resolutions? Kindly stop skirting around the question and answer it. If you don't, I will simply answer it for you.Sorry, I didn't know you were asking for which body within the UN issued them. The security council.

Yes I can. I have also lived there and I also observe Israeli politics and the reports of international observers. That is not an argument, and neither is yours. You consistently seem to believe that the fact that you've "been there" solidifies your argument and puts you beyond reproach. It does not. You also claim to have "been there" in the 1950's, which apparently was no more than 25 years ago. Given this, how can you expect us to take any of your claims seriously?Okay, when did I claim to have been present for the Lavon incident? I forgot to mention it on the list of exceptions and at no point meant to declare that it was only 25 years ago. Finally, how is this point not ad hominem?

lol. You like to redefine words to fit your agenda, don't you?
A democracy is a democracy is a democracy. A democracy is a governmental system based on elected representation. Israel is a democracy.I think that you do not have a comprehensive definition of the terms present. A "theocracy" is "a government subject to religious authority" which can come from its religious texts, its priests or any other body vested with religious power. A democratic government which incorporates, say, Shari'ah Law into its legal code can be considered a theocracy as much as a government in which one branch of the government is composed of priests. Democracy and Theocracy are not contradictory. A theocracy does not imply despotism, they are qualitatively different concepts.

Excuse me, but where is yours????
I've quoted them and their death cries, which you know damn well to be true. You have offered nothing except your own opinion.Their supposed death cries (this arises primarily from stereotype, unless you want to disprove me) are not useful material for analysing their motives, unless the analyst is not committed to a thorough analysis. I told you that I had listened to Al-Qaeda's addresses, but since you are insistent, I will provide excerpts:
Praise be to Allah who created the creation for his worship and commanded them to be just and permitted the wronged one to retaliate against the oppressor in kind. To proceed:

Peace be upon he who follows the guidance: People of America this talk of mine is for you and concerns the ideal way to prevent another Manhattan, and deals with the war and its causes and results.

Before I begin, I say to you that security is an indispensable pillar of human life and that free men do not forfeit their security, contrary to Bush's claim that we hate freedom.

If so, then let him explain to us why we don't strike for example - Sweden? And we know that freedom-haters don't possess defiant spirits like those of the 19 - may Allah have mercy on them.

No, we fight because we are free men who don't sleep under oppression. We want to restore freedom to our nation, just as you lay waste to our nation. So shall we lay waste to yours.

No one except a dumb thief plays with the security of others and then makes himself believe he will be secure. Whereas thinking people, when disaster strikes, make it their priority to look for its causes, in order to prevent it happening again.

But I am amazed at you. Even though we are in the fourth year after the events of September 11th, Bush is still engaged in distortion, deception and hiding from you the real causes. And thus, the reasons are still there for a repeat of what occurred.

So I shall talk to you about the story behind those events and shall tell you truthfully about the moments in which the decision was taken, for you to consider.

I say to you, Allah knows that it had never occurred to us to strike the towers. But after it became unbearable and we witnessed the oppression and tyranny of the American/Israeli coalition against our people in Palestine and Lebanon, it came to my mind.

The events that affected my soul in a direct way started in 1982 when America permitted the Israelis to invade Lebanon and the American Sixth Fleet helped them in that. This bombardment began and many were killed and injured and others were terrorised and displaced.

I couldn't forget those moving scenes, blood and severed limbs, women and children sprawled everywhere. Houses destroyed along with their occupants and high rises demolished over their residents, rockets raining down on our home without mercy.

The situation was like a crocodile meeting a helpless child, powerless except for his screams. Does the crocodile understand a conversation that doesn't include a weapon? And the whole world saw and heard but it didn't respond.

In those difficult moments many hard-to-describe ideas bubbled in my soul, but in the end they produced an intense feeling of rejection of tyranny, and gave birth to a strong resolve to punish the oppressors.

And as I looked at those demolished towers in Lebanon, it entered my mind that we should punish the oppressor in kind and that we should destroy towers in America in order that they taste some of what we tasted and so that they be deterred from killing our women and children.

And that day, it was confirmed to me that oppression and the intentional killing of innocent women and children is a deliberate American policy. Destruction is freedom and democracy, while resistance is terrorism and intolerance.

This means the oppressing and embargoing to death of millions as Bush Sr did in Iraq in the greatest mass slaughter of children mankind has ever known, and it means the throwing of millions of pounds of bombs and explosives at millions of children - also in Iraq - as Bush Jr did, in order to remove an old agent and replace him with a new puppet to assist in the pilfering of Iraq's oil and other outrages.

So with these images and their like as their background, the events of September 11th came as a reply to those great wrongs, should a man be blamed for defending his sanctuary?

Is defending oneself and punishing the aggressor in kind, objectionable terrorism? If it is such, then it is unavoidable for us.

This is the message which I sought to communicate to you in word and deed, repeatedly, for years before September 11th.

And you can read this, if you wish, in my interview with Scott in Time Magazine in 1996, or with Peter Arnett on CNN in 1997, or my meeting with John Weiner in 1998.

You can observe it practically, if you wish, in Kenya and Tanzania and in Aden. And you can read it in my interview with Abdul Bari Atwan, as well as my interviews with Robert Fisk. Osama Bin Laden apparently states that his motivations are not purely religious in nature. Please provide for me a speech of his in which he explicitly denies non-religious influences and states that religious influences are the sole motivating factor for his entire movement.

Britain also denies Palestinians citizenship in Britain. So does every other country on this planet, except perhaps Jordan. Again, you have no point here whatsoever.Wicksy, Britain doesn't currently occupy Palestinian territory and subject over a million Palestinians to its rule. Back before the creation of Israel, when Britain did, it was immoral and anti-democratic for Britain to refuse Palestinians citizenship.

Finally Dibujante. I just love it when people try to deflect attention away from the many failings of the Muslim world (or virtually anything really...) by saying "OMG LOOK AT ISRAEL!!". Its a typically pointless and fruitless tactic and they always lose.I'm not justifying any one of the failings of the Muslim world. I'm stating that the U.S.'s justifications for attacking parts of the Muslim world can also be applied to Israel, which implies that the U.S. is not being honest about its justifications.

Quietus

Nov 30, 2005, @ 12:56 AM

The Hague Convention III:
Article 1

"The Contracting Powers recognize that hostilities between themselves must not commence without previous and explicit warning, in the form either of a reasoned declaration of war or of an ultimatum with conditional declaration of war."

Ergo - just attacking another nation's soldiers is not an applicable application of war, hence any other attack against a nations millitary without a formal declaration of war is a terrorist attack according to your definition.

So what you're trying to say here is that destroying the infrastructure of enemy countries (illegal under the Geneva convention) is ok, as long as it is a case of bad intelligence?

Dropping bombs on civilian targets is ok, as long as it is a case of bad intelligence?

Bad intelligence shouldn't be a get out clause for breaking laws, hey, if I go out and do something illegal without realising I'm doing it, would "oh, I didn't realise" be an acceptable alibi in court?

I fail too see your point here, perhaps you could clarify it?

Also - do you accept the illegality of your countries attacks against the infrastructure of Iraq? You do not seem to have come up with any kind of explaination or refutal of the facts I gave you.

I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that it was ok. I was just trying to give an explanation as to why.

I accept that some view it as illegal. I do not have to agree though. Plus, the UN and all of it's resolutions are consentual. The US is not forced to agree with or comply with anything the UN sets forth. The conditions set in the Hague conventions are very dated. You can't realistically expect them to apply to modern warfare and tactics. Especially when most of the world chooses not to follow the Hague or UN.

Dibujante

Nov 30, 2005, @ 01:25 AM

I'm sorry, I did not mean to imply that it was ok. I was just trying to give an explanation as to why.

I accept that some view it as illegal. I do not have to agree though. Plus, the UN and all of it's resolutions are consentual. The US is not forced to agree with or comply with anything the UN sets forth. The conditions set in the Hague conventions are very dated. You can't realistically expect them to apply to modern warfare and tactics. Especially when most of the world chooses not to follow the Hague or UN.If the U.N. provisions are too ineffectual or outdated for them to apply to the U.S., then the U.S. cannot invoke a refusal to follow U.N. resolutions as part of its rationale for the invasion of Iraq. If that justification is not present, then Iraq's supposed possession of weapons of mass destruction in defiance of the U.N. was a non-issue, making the invasion illegal.

Papa Smurf

Nov 30, 2005, @ 10:44 AM

I know of no existing major world religions that are evil... what evil there is, rests in the heart of man.
Something i whole heartedly agree with.

Wicksey you over excitable munchkin, I am merely agruing the point.

oh and Isreal is not a theocracy, its not a democracy either, there are 3.5 million people excluded from voting in Isreal who were born and live with in its boards.

Karmashock

Nov 30, 2005, @ 12:53 PM

Something i whole heartedly agree with.

Wicksey you over excitable munchkin, I am merely agruing the point.

oh and Isreal is not a theocracy, its not a democracy either, there are 3.5 million people excluded from voting in Isreal who were born and live with in its boards.
You've clearly been spending too much time with dibs... his logic is wearing off on you... let me explain... by 'that' logic, no nation on earth is or has ever been a democracy. Every democratic power has a large number of non voting people in them. They're not citizens. If you are a citizen, then you can vote. It's just that simple. What you should be looking at is how one gets citizenship.

Dibujante

Nov 30, 2005, @ 05:25 PM

You've clearly been spending too much time with dibs... his logic is wearing off on you... let me explain... by 'that' logic, no nation on earth is or has ever been a democracy. Every democratic power has a large number of non voting people in them. They're not citizens. If you are a citizen, then you can vote. It's just that simple. What you should be looking at is how one gets citizenship.
In the United States, which is a democracy, one acquires citizenship by being born in the United States or being born to people with U.S. citizenship. In Israel one acquires citizenship by being Jewish or being born to people with Israeli citizenship. Being born in Israel has no bearing. Millions of Palestinians were born in Israel and still do not have citizenship rights. This is an egregious violation of Article 15 of the Unviersal Declaration of Human Rights, which guarantees to everyone the right to a nationality.

Karmashock

Nov 30, 2005, @ 05:42 PM

In the United States, which is a democracy, one acquires citizenship by being born in the United States or being born to people with U.S. citizenship.
Actually, the US is a Federal Republic. However, most people tend to call republics "democracies"... Consider France and Germany... both republics... both considered to be "democratic" nations... though citizenship is not aquired through birth. At least it isn't in Germany... I'm not absolutely sure about France.

What of Japan? I'm fairly certain you don't aquire citizenship unless you are born OF citizens. The US, that hated empire of purest black nightmare evil, is one of the few nations on earth were simply being born here gives you citizenship. What about Switzerland? The world's oldest 'democracy'... I haven't checked there either, but I doubt being born there grants you citizenship unless at least one parent was already a citizen.

What you are BOTH doing is desperately grasping at straws.

If you hate israel, then just say "I hate israel"... then scream and beat your chest like monkeys... it's ok... Really. But unless you have actual reasons for doing so, any statement of 'ire' that isn't justly backed up will come out that way... so why hide it?...

*passing out the bananas*, Karmashock.

Dibujante

Nov 30, 2005, @ 06:21 PM

Actually, the US is a Federal Republic. However, most people tend to call republics "democracies"... Consider France and Germany... both republics... both considered to be "democratic" nations... though citizenship is not aquired through birth. At least it isn't in Germany... I'm not absolutely sure about France.You are wrong. Germany reformed its legal code as of January 1st, 2000 to conform with EU standards and allow naturalization by birth. However, for the U.S., Japan, France and Germany the situation is different. None of those countries lay claims to large swaths of land populated by people who they systematically deny citizenship to. If Israel didn't occupy Palestinian zones, then it would be denying citizenship to people who had voluntarily come to Israel. Since it occupies Palestinian zones, it is aggressively denying Palestinians the right to citizenship with the power that rules their land. This is a violation of the right to a nationality. Until a Palestinian state is established, Israel has no justification to reject Palestinians as citizens.

If you hate israel, then just say "I hate israel"... then scream and beat your chest like monkeys... it's ok... Really. But unless you have actual reasons for doing so, any statement of 'ire' that isn't justly backed up will come out that way... so why hide it?...
*passing out the bananas*, Karmashock.I do not hate Israel and this is an ad hominem attack.

DrunkenUno

Nov 30, 2005, @ 07:00 PM

Dibujante

Nov 30, 2005, @ 08:01 PM

Before 2000, something like 10% of germany was turkish "guest workers" and their children, who could not become citizens. I don't really see the difference between that and having a bunch of palestinians in Israel.
When did Germany conquer and occupy Turkey? It doesn't occupy Turkey at the moment, unlike Israel's relationship to Palestine.
Edit: While I think that it was still wrong to deny the children of these workers citizenship, there was no violent, military compulsion of the situation, unlike the Israeli occupation.

Karmashock

Nov 30, 2005, @ 09:21 PM

None of those countries lay claims to large swaths of land populated by people who they systematically deny citizenship to.
That those people were allowed to live there at all was an act of mercy. You know how the LOSERS in that war used those people... How many people lived there before the war? Not even a fraction. Beyond that, the population concentration is most densily concentrated around Israel proper. Americans by the boarder know this sort thing well... cities form for no other reason then that they are close to you.

If Israel didn't occupy Palestinian zones
What is Palestinian? It never was. It's the joke reminents of territory taken from the losers in a war.

Israel's mistake was allowing them to stay at all. Had they done the sensible thing which is take the land entirely, they would be safer, and happier.
This is a violation of the right to a nationality.
WHAT NATION!?!

Israel will give them one... but they never had one to begin with.

I do not hate Israel and this is an ad hominem attack.
Hardly, you blindly strike at all allies of the US. You enjoy that judgement.

You dig deep to find reasons to hate, but don't dig at all to find reasons to forgive or reasons to love. Love and forgiveness have no value to you. Peace no utility.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 12:54 AM

That those people were allowed to live there at all was an act of mercy. You know how the LOSERS in that war used those people... How many people lived there before the war? Not even a fraction. Beyond that, the population concentration is most densily concentrated around Israel proper. Americans by the boarder know this sort thing well... cities form for no other reason then that they are close to you.

Israel's mistake was allowing them to stay at all. Had they done the sensible thing which is take the land entirely, they would be safer, and happier.You are discussing forced deportation. That is a form of ethnic cleansing. If any other state did that you would be up in arms.

Further, prior to the creation of Israel, the population of "Palestine" was composed of about 600,000 Arab Muslims, 80,000 Jews and 80,000 Christians. It was declared by U.N. fiat that a small minority of the population would rule the area. Israel's large population came almost entirely from a sudden influx of Jews from around the world. Prior to Israel, "Palestine" was in no particular way Jewish. The original inhabitants were displaced and continue to be displaced through "settlement" programs. This produces the illusion that Arabs are crowding their cities around Israel's periphery. Israel's periphery is defined as those areas which have had their Arab population forcibly moved to those cities in the West Bank and the Gaza Strip.

Israel will give them one... but they never had one to begin with.Neither did the Jews. That area was occupied by the United Kingdom. Prior to that, it was occupied by the Turks. The only claim that can survive that history of violence is the claim of its inhabitants to rule the land they live on. There is no justification for Israeli claims that is any stronger than Arab claims.

You dig deep to find reasons to hate, but don't dig at all to find reasons to forgive or reasons to love. Love and forgiveness have no value to you. Peace no utility.
Demonstrate at which point I have advocated warfare or violence as an optimal solution to world problems. Also, demonstrate at which point I demanded that the Israeli or American nations be obliterated, i.e. genocide.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 01:15 AM

You are discussing forced deportation. That is a form of ethnic cleansing. If any other state did that you would be up in arms.
Uh... if you're deporting them to their native country, whose boarders just changed a couple hundred miles, then it's hardly ethnic cleansing. Boarder was at line x, now it's at line x-2... people from said nation, please pick your shit up and go where you belong.

Furthermore, the numbers were slow low in those days, it's not really a huge deal.

Further, prior to the creation of Israel, the population of "Palestine" was composed of about 600,000 Arab Muslims, 80,000 Jews and 80,000 Christians.
Actually, the whole region was under British rule. The Turks are the only ones with a claim.

The original inhabitants were displaced
And what say you to the refuges of the war that asked to come home to their native lands and were denied? Was that israel's fault that Jordan wouldn't take back it's own people when they willingly wished to leave the land lost to jordan and return home?

The Arabs are in no way blameless or innocent. Like all of the sons of adam we are sinners - all.
There is no justification for Israeli claims that is any stronger than Arab claims.
And there is no justification for the rule of your kings, queens, or parliment. You are the decendents of conquerers... just like every other nation on earth.

So we must not be absolutists... or we damn everyone and everything loses meaning.

Demonstrate at which point I have advocated warfare or violence as an optimal solution to world problems. Also, demonstrate at which point I demanded that the Israeli or American nations be obliterated, i.e. genocide.
Show where I claimed you did? I never did... I said you hate and you only look for things to fuel that hate. You will accept even the most thread bare information to launch any kind of insult at a country you don't even understand... but you won't spend a second looking to find a reason to love it... and no reason to forgive.

I, however do not look to destroy or hate. I wish love and peace upon the world. For that to happen, we must know each other. The seperations that have caused us to war brother on brother for thousands of years will not come to an end until we know each other. The people of the world will not know peace until the curse of babel is broken.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 01:50 AM

Uh... if you're deporting them to their native country, whose boarders just changed a couple hundred miles, then it's hardly ethnic cleansing. Boarder was at line x, now it's at line x-2... people from said nation, please pick your shit up and go where you belong.It is still ethnic cleansing. Even if we disregard the fact that Israel's current expansion policies will, ultimately, "push the Palestinians into the sea", it is ethnic cleansing to systematically depossess and deport segments of the population based on their ethnicity. It is a violation of human rights to deport someone for anything other than a crime.

Furthermore, the numbers were slow low in those days, it's not really a huge deal.Hundreds of thousands of people were deported. I don't see how you can make the judgement that it was "not a huge deal". A crime is a crime.

Actually, the whole region was under British rule. The Turks are the only ones with a claim.So from where comes your justification that the Israelis have a right to land they didn't live on that Palestinians don't to land they did live on?

And what say you to the refuges of the war that asked to come home to their native lands and were denied? Was that israel's fault that Jordan wouldn't take back it's own people when they willingly wished to leave the land lost to jordan and return home?I haven't seen any evidence of this. To date there are over one and a half million Palestinian refugees living in Jordan. If you have evidence, please share. Web-accessible format preferred.

The Arabs are in no way blameless or innocent. Like all of the sons of adam we are sinners - all.Please demonstrate where I declared the Arabs to be blameless or innocent.

Show where I claimed you did? I never did... You stated that peace had no utility to me. Demonstrate where I have advocated violence as the optimal solution to a problem.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 02:41 AM

It is still ethnic cleansing. Even if we disregard the fact that Israel's current expansion policies will, ultimately, "push the Palestinians into the sea"
No... the point is to send them to be with their people from jordan and other such countries... and that line is equally usable against the Palestinians who suggested that the jews would be driven into the sea and the seas would run red with their blood.

Furthermore, if ethnic cleaning was commonly associated with deporting a lot of people to culturally similar lands, then it wouldn't have the power it has.

Stop using nasty words just to get an unjustified effect. I've caught you at it so many times it's just getting pathetic.

It is a violation of human rights to deport someone for anything other than a crime.
Not being a citizen of the country you're in or having visa is probably a crime. :lol:
So from where comes your justification that the Israelis have a right to land they didn't live on that Palestinians don't to land they did live on?
Well, by your own words they both lived there. Furthermore, neither group has superior claim to the other by any legal means unless you recognize england, the league of nations, or the UN as arbitor... which you do not.

The UN's rules only seem worth something to you when they agree with you, eh?

Irony... such tragic irony.
I haven't seen any evidence of this. To date there are over one and a half million Palestinian refugees living in Jordan. If you have evidence, please share. Web-accessible format preferred.
Have they been offered citizenship anywhere by their arab brothers? The US would be nicer to these people then their own people have been. How many fucking people do we let live her when they willfully violate our immigration law?

Please demonstrate where I declared the Arabs to be blameless or innocent.
Oh, then you have criticism for someone besides the US, Israel, and any other of our allies? Really... hmm... do you like anyone?...

You stated that peace had no utility to me. Demonstrate where I have advocated violence as the optimal solution to a problem.
For peace you need order, is there an order you would advocate? That is a noun.

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 03:07 AM

No... the point is to send them to be with their people from jordan and other such countries... and that line is equally usable against the Palestinians who suggested that the jews would be driven into the sea and the seas would run red with their blood.

Furthermore, if ethnic cleaning was commonly associated with deporting a lot of people to culturally similar lands, then it wouldn't have the power it has.

Stop using nasty words just to get an unjustified effect. I've caught you at it so many times it's just getting pathetic.I had no intention of using a mass-murder connotation of the term "ethnic cleansing". I define "ethnic cleansing" as the systematic removal, through any means, of an ethnic group from a region. Furthermore, what difference do the terms make? They're just metaphors for a complex process. This process is the forcible deportation of Palestinians, which is morally and legally wrong.

Not being a citizen of the country you're in or having visa is probably a crime. :lol:The Palestinians were given no choice as to what country they were in. To then be told that they were declared criminals because the invading country refused to give them a visa is not only immoral, it's in violation of a basic principle of all functional legal codes, ex post facto.

Well, by your own words they both lived there. Furthermore, neither group has superior claim to the other by any legal means unless you recognize england, the league of nations, or the UN as arbitor... which you do not.

The UN's rules only seem worth something to you when they agree with you, eh?

Irony... such tragic irony.I stand completely by the U.N.'s decision. 100%. The U.N. did not grant to Israel all of Palestine. The U.N. granted to Israel a section of Palestine. The rest of Palestine was to remain in the hands of its former occupants. Nothing justifies the transfer of land by force.

Oh, then you have criticism for someone besides the US, Israel, and any other of our allies? Really... hmm... do you like anyone?...It is possible to criticize an entity without despising that entity.

For peace you need order, is there an order you would advocate? That is a noun.I advocate the domestic and international rule of law.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 03:30 AM

I had no intention of using a mass-murder connotation of the term "ethnic cleansing".
Don't use it then. Use mass deportation... doesn't have the same power though does it... want to call it mass illegal deportation? Still doesn't have the same power.

Don't use that word if that isn't what you mean.

The Palestinians were given no choice as to what country they were in. To then be told that they were declared criminals because the invading country refused to give them a visa is not only immoral, it's in violation of a basic principle of all functional legal codes, ex post facto.
Don't see how you can object to a conquering power telling the people that just lost to leave the zone they took.

Is being ruled by your conquerors any better? It historically isn't very good for the conqueror... it always goes better when they leave or are killed.

I stand completely by the U.N.'s decision. 100%. The U.N. did not grant to Israel all of Palestine. The U.N. granted to Israel a section of Palestine. The rest of Palestine was to remain in the hands of its former occupants. Nothing justifies the transfer of land by force.
Then no nation on earth is entitled to its land.

I don't care who you are... at some point, their ancestors drove or killed another faction that held sway there. Even the native americans. Screwed each other over time and time again... going so far as to eat each other in some parts...

It is possible to criticize an entity without despising that entity.
Not when you show nothing but contempt for it and make a point of making no effort to understand or forgive it for anything. As I said, you will spend infinite amounts of energy to find the most thread bare thing to pull up to justify preexisting hatred... but won't lift a finger to forgive or understand.

You are not a man of love and peace...

I advocate the domestic and international rule of law.
Why is the UN more fit to make judgements then any other body on earth? Are they made of more noble members? Are they of more noble morality?

They were made by the very genocidal, greedy, slavish empires you deplore, with the intent of controlling smaller powers in a more orderly fashion.

Is that not true?... or is there 'some' nobility in these powers that made the UN... twice. Perhaps only for that second and never again?

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 04:31 AM

Don't use it then. Use mass deportation... doesn't have the same power though does it... want to call it mass illegal deportation? Still doesn't have the same power.

Don't use that word if that isn't what you mean.If "mass deportation" is the term you want to use, then so be it. "Ethnic cleansing" is the appropriate term according to the dictionary, "The systematic elimination of an ethnic group or groups from a region or society, as by deportation, forced emigration (emphasis mine), or genocide."

Don't see how you can object to a conquering power telling the people that just lost to leave the zone they took.

Is being ruled by your conquerors any better? It historically isn't very good for the conqueror... it always goes better when they leave or are killed.I object to conquest and anything that comes out of it.

Furthermore, you justify deportation on the grounds that it is better than abuse under the rule of conquerors. In this way, you advocate the lesser of two evils. Advocacy of the lesser of two evils carries with it the implicit advocacy of an evil. Deportation or abuse at the hands of conquerors are both wrong. One is not justified by being "less evil" than the other.

Then no nation on earth is entitled to its land.

I don't care who you are... at some point, their ancestors drove or killed another faction that held sway there. Even the native americans. Screwed each other over time and time again... going so far as to eat each other in some parts...What's done is done, but what was done was no less wrong. I care less about righting past wrongs than preventing future wrongs. And if there's an ongoing wrong that can be righted, then it is a must.

Not when you show nothing but contempt for it and make a point of making no effort to understand or forgive it for anything. As I said, you will spend infinite amounts of energy to find the most thread bare thing to pull up to justify preexisting hatred... but won't lift a finger to forgive or understand.
I have yet to be presented with a compelling argument.

You are not a man of love and peace...I am not a man of love, but to prove the other half of that you have to demonstrate me advocating violence.

Why is the UN more fit to make judgements then any other body on earth? Are they made of more noble members? Are they of more noble morality?Without the U.N. there is no international law at all. The U.N. has flaws that ought to be corrected. However, any nation that claims to enforce U.N. mandate cannot ignore violations of U.N. mandate by its allies and not be a hypocrite.

They were made by the very genocidal, greedy, slavish empires you deplore, with the intent of controlling smaller powers in a more orderly fashion.That is one rather compelling argument for the creation of the security council, dominated by the "great powers" who could use it to ensure that their primacy was not challenged.

Is that not true?... or is there 'some' nobility in these powers that made the UN... twice. Perhaps only for that second and never again?If these "great powers" attempted to cooperate with the U.N. and promote international cooperation, then I would give them more respect. As it stands, the U.S.'s U.N. record is no better than the Soviet Union's, and possibly worse. The U.S. tries to make a laughingstock of the U.N.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 07:27 AM

If "mass deportation" is the term you want to use, then so be it. "Ethnic cleansing" is the appropriate term according to the dictionary
Shut the fuck up. Just shut the fuck straight up.

If "mass deportation" is what people assocaited the term "ethnic cleansing" with, you sure as fuck wouldn't even be attacted to it in the first place.

Use a term that ACTUALLY describes what you're talking about, instead of the most gross exageration or distortion that may or may not be any relevance to the topic at hand.
I object to conquest and anything that comes out of it.
Then you object to every government on earth including the UN. All are products of conquest. Who sits upon the security council of the UN? The winners of the last big war.

Please... Choose less deluded philsophy please. One with 'some' tie to this world.

What's done is done
Israel exists. Get over it. Bring up it's birth and I'll list the birth of any nation.

Every baby comes into this world covered in blood... no less nations.
And if there's an ongoing wrong that can be righted, then it is a must.
Oh, and how would you do that if they said "no"? Force them?

I have yet to be presented with a compelling argument.
Every post you make vindicates me.
I am not a man of love, but to prove the other half of that you have to demonstrate me advocating violence.
Would you prefer chaos then? You certainly support no order.
Without the U.N. there is no international law at all. The U.N. has flaws that ought to be corrected. However, any nation that claims to enforce U.N. mandate cannot ignore violations of U.N. mandate by its allies and not be a hypocrite.
The UN itself is a hypocrite. It is the second ill concieved body of international law.

And you are not right about there being no international law without the UN. There are treaties. There was international law before the UN. Perhaps they didn't call it as such... but they had more power then the UN does now... and made the terms very clear. I fail to see the difference. Unless you're one to be confused by fancy buildings with diplomats.
That is one rather compelling argument for the creation of the security council, dominated by the "great powers" who could use it to ensure that their primacy was not challenged.
Then you see that your support of them is a farce. Should the security council agree on any set of core issues, it will be law. You call that democracy?

Would you legitimize that? Or will you turn a blind eye again because america would be helped more by it's weakening then hurt?
If these "great powers" attempted to cooperate with the U.N. and promote international cooperation, then I would give them more respect. As it stands, the U.S.'s U.N. record is no better than the Soviet Union's, and possibly worse. The U.S. tries to make a laughingstock of the U.N.
Cooperate with what? What do they even do? What's their record of action?

Americans like direction and vision. We see neither in the UN. It is mindless and wanders... It cannot create peace because it has no ethical code to bind it. And laws passed in it's body are merely words. Action and passion must exist there or it is husk.

Why would you not make a fool of such a power? Especially when it makes a point over stepping it's power. It only makes noise when we do something because it knows that we tend to listen more then others... so we are punished for what little respect we still have for the organization.

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 07:56 AM

Shut the fuck up. Just shut the fuck straight up.

If "mass deportation" is what people assocaited the term "ethnic cleansing" with, you sure as fuck wouldn't even be attacted to it in the first place.

Use a term that ACTUALLY describes what you're talking about, instead of the most gross exageration or distortion that may or may not be any relevance to the topic at hand.I cited the dictionary. That is the definition. You cannot deny that.

That said, if you object to the connotation that you have for that term, then I have already stated that I am willing to use a different term. Your outburst is uncalled for.

Then you object to every government on earth including the UN. All are products of conquest. Who sits upon the security council of the UN? The winners of the last big war.

Please... Choose less deluded philsophy please. One with 'some' tie to this world.I have yet to see an alternative other than "might makes right".

Oh, and how would you do that if they said "no"? Force them?What do you do to any criminal who refuses to cease their criminal actions?

Would you prefer chaos then? You certainly support no order.I support the rule of domestic and international law.

And you are not right about there being no international law without the UN. There are treaties. There was international law before the UN. Perhaps they didn't call it as such... but they had more power then the UN does now... and made the terms very clear. I fail to see the difference. Unless you're one to be confused by fancy buildings with diplomats.The main problem with treaties is that they have no external enforcement mechanism. In this way, they are like multinational cartels, in which each nation hopes that no other nation cheats and benefits all the while hoping to cheat and benefit. When there is no body of oversight to enforce an agreement, it will be weak.

Then you see that your support of them is a farce. Should the security council agree on any set of core issues, it will be law. You call that democracy?

Would you legitimize that? Or will you turn a blind eye again because america would be helped more by it's weakening then hurt?I oppose the existence of a security council. I believe that the security council serves no constructive end and should be abolished. The U.N. should be based on one democratic body.

Cooperate with what? What do they even do? What's their record of action?
The U.N. brought the warring parties to the table and hammered out a peace agreement during the first Arab-Israeli war. The threat of invoking the U.N. also ended the join American-Israeli-British invasion of Egypt.

Americans like direction and vision. We see neither in the UN. It is mindless and wanders... It cannot create peace because it has no ethical code to bind it. And laws passed in it's body are merely words. Action and passion must exist there or it is husk.At the moment, it is less powerful than it ought to be. It is committed to a policy of diplomacy before action (which I think is good) followed by limited action once diplomacy fails (which I think is bad). I think that member states of the U.N. will need to vote more policing powers to the U.N. before it will make anything significant of itself. In the meantime, however, what arbiter of international law is there?

Why would you not make a fool of such a power? Especially when it makes a point over stepping it's power. It only makes noise when we do something because it knows that we tend to listen more then others... so we are punished for what little respect we still have for the organization.The U.N. has condemned human rights abuses and wars of aggression all over the world, not just those of the United States. The U.N. is rarely listened to, however, mostly because, lacking any policing mechanism, it has to rely on individual member states to spontaneously enforce its decrees. This system is prone to favoritism, ensuring that resolutions a hypothetical member state favors (such as limiting Iraq's weapons programme) are enforced, whereas resolutions the hypothetical member state opposes (such as cessation of Israel's deportation programme) are ignored. Any system that relies on whimsical enforcement is doomed to favoritism.

However, your earlier outburst sidelined the original discussion. I still hold that Israel's mass deportation programme is illegal and immoral. You have yet to provide a compelling argument against that.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 08:24 AM

Your outburst is uncalled for.
We both know that it is prefectly called for... what you say in response is irrelevant. Stop abusing the language. You can take that any kind of way you like... just stop it.
I have yet to see an alternative other than "might makes right".
That is not my philosophy, but yours seems to be 'if against US, then good.'

What do you do to any criminal who refuses to cease their criminal actions?
Answer the question. Would you use force? After determining them to be a 'criminal' state... which is different from a rogue state... just for example...

I support the rule of domestic and international law.
So if the US made international law, you would support it?

The main problem with treaties is that they have no external enforcement mechanism.
Sure they do... most treaties between countries are honored more carefully then quiet a few of the UN resolutions for a reason. There is 'some' enforcement behind them that WILL come when it is broken.

In this way, they are like multinational cartels, in which each nation hopes that no other nation cheats and benefits all the while hoping to cheat and benefit. When there is no body of oversight to enforce an agreement, it will be weak.
Oil for food.
I oppose the existence of a security council. I believe that the security council serves no constructive end and should be abolished. The U.N. should be based on one democratic body.
With or without dictators and bloody murderers getting a vote?

Oh and what happens when your UN makes a law that the most powerful nations in the world oppose but the smaller ones like?... what then?...

The whole system would be invalidated instantly. You need a check on democracy to stop the majority from abusing minority rights. And the minority include the rich and powerful.
The U.N. brought the warring parties to the table and hammered out a peace agreement during the first Arab-Israeli war.
pfft... it was israel's backed by american firepower that ended that one.

The threat of invoking the U.N. also ended the join American-Israeli-British invasion of Egypt.
Please the US and britian are among the few nations that out of old respect still listen sometimes to the UN... but the is generally laughed at the world over. They are without power, without guts, and without vision.

At the moment, it is less powerful than it ought to be. It is committed to a policy of diplomacy before action (which I think is good) followed by limited action once diplomacy fails (which I think is bad). I think that member states of the U.N. will need to vote more policing powers to the U.N. before it will make anything significant of itself. In the meantime, however, what arbiter of international law is there?
the member states will not vote it such powers... and the UN cannot take them.

So that just won't happen period.

That you don't see the gall of the first person that wrote 'international law' on peice of paper and laugh is really kind of funny. Might as well write "galactic law"... it's nearly as meaningless. The UN's power flows from the security council... and it is at it's will alone that it can act. Most UN actions you like, are french ones... which has a poetic symmetry about it...

The U.N. has condemned human rights abuses and wars of aggression all over the world, not just those of the United States. The U.N. is rarely listened to, however, mostly because, lacking any policing mechanism, it has to rely on individual member states to spontaneously enforce its decrees. This system is prone to favoritism, ensuring that resolutions a hypothetical member state favors (such as limiting Iraq's weapons programme) are enforced, whereas resolutions the hypothetical member state opposes (such as cessation of Israel's deportation programme) are ignored. Any system that relies on whimsical enforcement is doomed to favoritism.
Again, will of the security council.

But, the UN does make a much bigger deal out of some nations violating a rule then others... I mean... if china slaughtered a village of their own people for kicks, the UN would say "oh that's bad"... but that would be the end of it... the US gets endless shit for petty offenses.

I still hold that Israel's mass deportation programme is illegal and immoral. You have yet to provide a compelling argument against that.
I hold it is the most moral thing you can do considering the alternatives. And no... just giving them the land and a state is a valid decision. It is decisions like that that kill nations.

But it is too late... they will have a state... it is unfortunate that they will have a state on either side of israel... that only shows how tired the israels are of the conflict... one such state manageable... two will only create further problems.

There will be another war... this time between a pal government and an israeli government... You can't have two such states next to each other and have peace.

There needs to be one party that is clearly superior so that aggression just won't happen. While israel is that state... the pal will probably harbor suicide bombers and attack israel. Israel will find out where they are and destroy them... that will cause some sort of repercussion from the pal... and there you go again.

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 08:38 AM

We both know that it is prefectly called for... what you say in response is irrelevant. Stop abusing the language. You can take that any kind of way you like... just stop it.No, it is not abusing the English language. That is the definition in the dictionary. Again, I have stated that if that definition offends you, we can use a different term. However, it is not your prerogative to rewrite the dictionary.

Answer the question. Would you use force? After determining them to be a 'criminal' state... which is different from a rogue state... just for example...Yes.

So if the US made international law, you would support it?No. The U.S. does not represent the entire world. Therefore its laws would be inherently undemocratic, regardless of their content. If the U.S. were one of the members in a multinational body contributing to making laws I would support them, provided that they were fairly applied.

Sure they do... most treaties between countries are honored more carefully then quiet a few of the UN resolutions for a reason. There is 'some' enforcement behind them that WILL come when it is broken.Very well, what external agency enforces CAFTA?

With or without dictators and bloody murderers getting a vote?Without. The U.N. needs to set specific standards for voting status. Governments that do not meet these standards may not vote and will not be guaranteed to recieve U.N. protection if they are invaded or their rights in any other way abridged. By declaring themselves to be anti-social, they forfeit the rights of society.

Oh and what happens when your UN makes a law that the most powerful nations in the world oppose but the smaller ones like?... what then?...

The whole system would be invalidated instantly. You need a check on democracy to stop the majority from abusing minority rights. And the minority include the rich and powerful.You should know from your own constitutional background what the solution to this problem is. The U.S. created a bicameral system in order to ensure that issues had to be supported by a majority of people and a majority of interests (although, admittedly, the changing sociopolitical landscape of the United States has rendered the senate rather misrepresentative) in order to be made into law. There is no reason why the U.N. could not adopt a bicameral system, one in which each member state got a single vote, and one in which each member state got a vote based on representation.

Please the US and britian are among the few nations that out of old respect still listen sometimes to the UN... but the is generally laughed at the world over. They are without power, without guts, and without vision.Actually, during that invasion, only the Soviet Union's threat to bring the matter to the U.N. ended the aggression. The U.K. and the U.S. were afraid of potential Soviet intervention. Israel was not, however, and continued to illegally occupy the Sinai peninsula.

But it is too late... they will have a state... it is unfortunateWhy is it unfortunate to prevent the mass deportation of over a million people? Such an action would be a monstrous violation of human rights. Any nation concerned with international human rights should vehemently oppose it.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 09:03 AM

No, it is not abusing the English language.
I'm tired of it. Don't do it. I have no more patience for your bullshit.

Yes.
Would you kill? What if they kept their troops in cities... hid amoungst women and children? What if they were dangerous... what if you started taking more casualities then you could afford... what then?

No. The U.S. does not represent the entire world.
Neither does the UN. They presume to represent the whole world, but they hardly do so. And are as likely to play into the hands of dictators as serve democracies.

Without. The U.N. needs to set specific standards for voting status. Governments that do not meet these standards may not vote and will not be guaranteed to recieve U.N. protection if they are invaded or their rights in any other way abridged. By declaring themselves to be anti-social, they forfeit the rights of society.
You would cast out half the world. In so doing you would make yourself an enemy of some of the most WILLING killers on earth.

You would need protection... strength... and that would force you to make compromises... with us.

You should know from your own constitutional background what the solution to this problem is.
I do... it was the security council. You forget... we made it... The league of nations and the UN were both entirely american ideas. It's our system... we created it so the world would take care of itself.

But if it worked, then teh soviets wouldn't have needed the US to counter them.... We shouldnt' be required again and again if the UN is working... so it isn't.

Actually, during that invasion, only the Soviet Union's threat to bring the matter to the U.N. ended the aggression. The U.K. and the U.S. were afraid of potential Soviet intervention. Israel was not, however, and continued to illegally occupy the Sinai peninsula.
That the US was warry of soviet aggression somehow given a pass by the UN, that is not the UN doing anything. That is the balance of nations.

Why is it unfortunate to prevent the mass deportation of over a million people? Such an action would be a monstrous violation of human rights. Any nation concerned with international human rights should vehemently oppose it.
There is no loss of life and if you're sending them to be with their own people in their proper country, then all you've done is taken their land and property. That is the crime of a thief... which is a petty crime to throw at the feet of a conqueror.

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 09:42 AM

I'm tired of it. Don't do it. I have no more patience for your bullshit.It is not bullshit. I am not abusing the language. I am proficient in six human languages. It is unlikely that I am incapable of proper use of the terms.

Would you kill? What if they kept their troops in cities... hid amoungst women and children? What if they were dangerous... what if you started taking more casualities then you could afford... what then?Yes, with as much caution as was possible. Sometimes civilian casualties occur. These should be indemnified. However, a state that proves itself to be a danger to its neighbors and to its people needs to be destroyed by the concerted efforts of the world.

Neither does the UN. They presume to represent the whole world, but they hardly do so. And are as likely to play into the hands of dictators as serve democracies.If neither is representative, then no intervention is justified until an effectively representative body can come into being. However, the U.N. represents a majority of the people on the planet. It is currently the closest thing the world has to a representative body.

You would cast out half the world. In so doing you would make yourself an enemy of some of the most WILLING killers on earth.

You would need protection... strength... and that would force you to make compromises... with us.You saw what appeasement did for the Nazis. Compromising with belligerent, anti-social states is only asking for trouble in the long run.

I do... it was the security council. You forget... we made it... The league of nations and the UN were both entirely american ideas. It's our system... we created it so the world would take care of itself.The security council was not the answer. The security council gave a few military powers near-dictatorial power over the entire U.N. I already provided you with the answer, straight from American constitutional theory, which I am also proficient in.

That the US was warry of soviet aggression somehow given a pass by the UN, that is not the UN doing anything. That is the balance of nations.The U.S. was worried about the U.N. allowing a nation to intervene in its war of aggression. Since the U.S. backed out, the system functioned as it ought to: a violation of the sovereignty of a nation was prevented.

There is no loss of life and if you're sending them to be with their own people in their proper country, then all you've done is taken their land and property. That is the crime of a thief... which is a petty crime to throw at the feet of a conqueror.Yes, the conquest alone is a greater crime. However, adding one crime to another cannot reduce the criminality of anything. In dispossessing them of their land or other property, one commits theft on an enormous scale and creates a nation of refugees with no sovereign political institutions to call their own. This would just be another Diaspora, which was extremely criminal to begin with.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 06:37 PM

It is not bullshit. I am not abusing the language. I am proficient in six human languages. It is unlikely that I am incapable of proper use of the terms.
As I said, I'm tired of your bullshit. Don't do it and I won't call you on it. Keep doing it and you'll only continue to make yourself look stupid infront of everyone. Everytime to lable one of these things with some over the top term just to get shock value it devalues everyone's opinion of you.

So the choice always remains yours, but everyone sees it as bullshit.

Yes, with as much caution as was possible. Sometimes civilian casualties occur. These should be indemnified. However, a state that proves itself to be a danger to its neighbors and to its people needs to be destroyed by the concerted efforts of the world.
So your only problem with the US's actions is that it didn't get what you'd consider to be a proper UN license? Had the US gotten such a license, would have been fine with it?

If neither is representative, then no intervention is justified until an effectively representative body can come into being. However, the U.N. represents a majority of the people on the planet. It is currently the closest thing the world has to a representative body.
Wait, so "the best we have" is an excuse with you on the UN but capitalism can't use that for economics? It is after all, the best we have.

You saw what appeasement did for the Nazis. Compromising with belligerent, anti-social states is only asking for trouble in the long run.
America is nazis again?... Hardly. Deal with ANY power and there will be compromises. Look at any senate on the planet. THere always compromises. The US would hold extra cards and therefore be able to get more compromises then most. No matter what you do, you will compromise or you will fail.

And when you compromise your perfect ideology will be bent and twisted. There is no escaping that. Some will say it must all be torn down because it isn't perfect. You will have the power then to either tear it down and be nothing again... or keep it alive in the hopes that it might end well dispite some issues.

The security council was not the answer. The security council gave a few military powers near-dictatorial power over the entire U.N. I already provided you with the answer, straight from American constitutional theory, which I am also proficient in.
So have one house represented by population and another house represented by the fact that it is a state at all?

The U.S. was worried about the U.N. allowing a nation to intervene in its war of aggression. Since the U.S. backed out, the system functioned as it ought to: a violation of the sovereignty of a nation was prevented.
And if russia hadn't been there to object with force?... what of your system?

A system that depends on a rival super state's objection is a pathetic system indeed... and hardly worthy of note because said super state could have just as easily done this without the UN.

Yes, the conquest alone is a greater crime.
Conquest is a conditional crime. The motivations and means are relevant in determining it's nature. Again, if you believe it makes any power that does it unfit to represent or illegitimate... then there is no innocent nation on earth.

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 06:58 PM

As I said, I'm tired of your bullshit. Don't do it and I won't call you on it. Keep doing it and you'll only continue to make yourself look stupid infront of everyone. Everytime to lable one of these things with some over the top term just to get shock value it devalues everyone's opinion of you.

So the choice always remains yours, but everyone sees it as bullshit.I am citing the most credible source there is, the dictionary. I repeat: if you find the term offensive, we can use a different one. However, it is impossible to successfully argue that the term is not appropriate. The dictionary definition matches the situation perfectly. Your arguments are entirely without merit.

So your only problem with the US's actions is that it didn't get what you'd consider to be a proper UN license? Had the US gotten such a license, would have been fine with it?Yes. If a democratic assembly of nations decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed in order to protect the people of Iraq and their neighbors, then I would have "been fine with it". The U.S.'s decision to effectively launch the invasion alone was a maverick decision that threatened international law.

Wait, so "the best we have" is an excuse with you on the UN but capitalism can't use that for economics? It is after all, the best we have.Do you particularly want to turn this into a debate on capitalsm? We can do that, but first, clarify this statement so that I can see how it somehow applies.

And when you compromise your perfect ideology will be bent and twisted. There is no escaping that. Some will say it must all be torn down because it isn't perfect. You will have the power then to either tear it down and be nothing again... or keep it alive in the hopes that it might end well dispite some issues.Extending this analogy, in what way does the United States compromise with murderers and rapists in its citizenry?

So have one house represented by population and another house represented by the fact that it is a state at all?Yes. This will ensure that any action taken by the U.N. must meet the approval of the majority of the population (proportional representation) as well as meet the approval of a plurality of weaker nations (equal representation). It's the same as the American constitutional system. If you have not already done so, I advise you read the Federalist papers. They offer a number of intriguing insights into American constitutional theory.

And if russia hadn't been there to object with force?... what of your system?
That is the weakness of the security council model. The security council effectively shrinks the U.N. to the size of that security council. There is limited possibility for collective action and intervention. That solution was not ideally accomplished, but the end effect was ideal: enforcement of international law. The project, then, is to achieve enforceable international law that does not rely on the whims of any one power.

Conquest is a conditional crime. The motivations and means are relevant in determining it's nature. Again, if you believe it makes any power that does it unfit to represent or illegitimate... then there is no innocent nation on earth.No, nothing ever justifies conquest. Every nation has a right to self-determination. If a state is invaded and destroyed then it is up to the nation to produce for itself a new state, that they again govern over. The occupation of another nation is a crime.

However, since historical crimes often cannot be rectified, it is preferable to attempt to prevent future crimes rather than to attempt to resolve past crimes. For example, the U.S. has no right to any of the land that it currently occupies. However, over 90% of the former inhabitants are dead, meaning that there is almost no one to give that land back to. Therefore, the ideal solution is to attempt to compensate the survivors as best one can (monetary compensation, subsidies to allow them to buy land back from willing sellers, affirmative action to bring their educational level up to par) while passing laws to prevent future such abuses (the usurpation of reservation lands, worthless as they are).

Likewise, the solution to Israel-Palestine is not to fall back to the 1948 borders. Large parts of the occupied territory have had their prior populations forcibly removed and supplanted by a "settler" population. Therefore, the ideal solution is to remove settlers from contested areas, establish an independent Palestinian state (or two, since they're geographically isolated) and allow Israel to keep some of the land that it has already depopulated. While not as "morally superior" as deporting millions of Jews back to the 1948 borders (which may not be so morally superior after all), it is a workable solution to prevent future human rights violations.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 07:17 PM

I am citing the most credible source there is
Actually, the most credible source is 'use'. The dictionary is based upon how the words are used. You know you're abusing them. So please shut the fuck up... it's just pathetic now.

Yes. If a democratic assembly of nations decided that Saddam Hussein needed to be deposed in order to protect the people of Iraq and their neighbors, then I would have "been fine with it".
That isn't what I asked you. I asked you, if the UN oked the US's actions, would you be ok with them?
Do you particularly want to turn this into a debate on capitalsm? We can do that, but first, clarify this statement so that I can see how it somehow applies.
Merely pointing out double standards in your value system.

Extending this analogy, in what way does the United States compromise with murderers and rapists in its citizenry?
That isn't the analogy... as the US isn't hte criminal in it... but a strong ally nation with interests.

How do weaker politicans compromise with stronger ones, would be a better analogy. I will not have you side track my point with obvious tactics like that.

Yes. This will ensure that any action taken by the U.N. must meet the approval of the majority of the population (proportional representation) as well as meet the approval of a plurality of weaker nations (equal representation). It's the same as the American constitutional system.
You do realize that most of the evils you accuse the US of were oked by such a body. Organization does not make a people moral.

You cannot tame the sinning soul of man with such trifles.

That is the weakness of the security council model. The security council effectively shrinks the U.N. to the size of that security council. There is limited possibility for collective action and intervention. That solution was not ideally accomplished, but the end effect was ideal: enforcement of international law. The project, then, is to achieve enforceable international law that does not rely on the whims of any one power.
It would be futile. You would have to get a lot of spineless nations take a responsible stand on international issues where it wasn't just a fucking party with speeches, but they had to DO SOMETHING! And if it wasn't enough, be held accountable for it.

The UN has no accountability... this is it's weakness. No one need do anything. If the US didn't care most of the human rights stuff that you think the UN did would have never happened. America goes before the UN envoy and sees that they are greeted properly half the time the dictators don't just forbid you entry in the first place. Our will behind the scenes has done far more good over the years then evil... we have supported the UN far more often hten we have opposed it... and without us nothing like it would exist in the world.

No, nothing ever justifies conquest. Every nation has a right to self-determination. If a state is invaded and destroyed then it is up to the nation to produce for itself a new state, that they again govern over. The occupation of another nation is a crime.
It is a crime our world is built upon and most cultures are proud of their conquests, not ashamed.

However, since historical crimes often cannot be rectified, it is preferable to attempt to prevent future crimes rather than to attempt to resolve past crimes.
Not true at all. Look, all we have to do is give the land back to the decendents of hte people that were conquered. Its very simple. We just tell 90 percent of the people that live everywhere that they have to live where they came from. For example, most of the japanese would return to china. Most of America would return to europe. Everyone in israel's old territory would have to get out and give the land back to the jews that inhabited that land.

and everytime we figured out who someone else took the land from, we should give it back to them!

The result of course is genocide. :lol: :lol:

For example, the U.S. has no right to any of the land that it currently occupies. However, over 90% of the former inhabitants are dead, meaning that there is almost no one to give that land back to.
Just because they were the former inhabitents doesn't mean they were the rightful ones. After all, the indians did as much conquering as anyone. So we should find the FIRST indians on any piece of land and then give it to them.

By that logic, the first humans to cross the straight... own all of america. Look, they might not want us all to leave... maybe we could pay them rent?

Therefore, the ideal solution is to remove settlers from contested areas
genocide

establish an independent Palestinian state
conquest
While not as "morally superior" as deporting millions of Jews back to the 1948 borders (which may not be so morally superior after all), it is a workable solution to prevent future human rights violations.
genocide.

Dibujante

Dec 1, 2005, @ 09:00 PM

Actually, the most credible source is 'use'. The dictionary is based upon how the words are used. You know you're abusing them. So please shut the fuck up... it's just pathetic now.If the most credible source is 'use', and the dictionary is based on 'use', then it is a credible source. You offer no substantiation for your arguments aside from insults. Your arguments are uncompelling and wrong.

That isn't what I asked you. I asked you, if the UN oked the US's actions, would you be ok with them?If the U.N. pre-emptively okayed those actions, then yes. However, the invasion is illegal even if ratified ex post facto.

Merely pointing out double standards in your value system.You will have to elaborate on what those double standards are before I understand what you are talking about.

That isn't the analogy... as the US isn't hte criminal in it... but a strong ally nation with interests.

How do weaker politicans compromise with stronger ones, would be a better analogy. I will not have you side track my point with obvious tactics like that.That was the analogy. I stated that criminal, anti-social states would be excluded from the U.N. You then stated that the U.N. would need to compromise with the U.S. and that this would violate the previous principle. You made the implication that the U.S. was an anti-social state that should be compromised with. By extension, I brought up anti-social, criminal individuals and asked you what to do with them. The "compromise between weak and strong" is a different tangent entirely.

It would be futile. You would have to get a lot of spineless nations take a responsible stand on international issues where it wasn't just a fucking party with speeches, but they had to DO SOMETHING! And if it wasn't enough, be held accountable for it.

The UN has no accountability... this is it's weakness. No one need do anything. If the US didn't care most of the human rights stuff that you think the UN did would have never happened. America goes before the UN envoy and sees that they are greeted properly half the time the dictators don't just forbid you entry in the first place. Our will behind the scenes has done far more good over the years then evil... we have supported the UN far more often hten we have opposed it... and without us nothing like it would exist in the world.If the U.N. is so spineless and useless and unaccountable without the U.S., then why is there a U.N. at all? Your argument seems to indicate that the U.N. contributes nothing.

Not true at all. Look, all we have to do is give the land back to the decendents of hte people that were conquered. Its very simple. We just tell 90 percent of the people that live everywhere that they have to live where they came from. For example, most of the japanese would return to china. Most of America would return to europe. Everyone in israel's old territory would have to get out and give the land back to the jews that inhabited that land.

and everytime we figured out who someone else took the land from, we should give it back to them!

The result of course is genocide. :lol: :lol: My point exactly. The crime could not be undone without committing an even greater crime. Therefore, an effective compromise is in order, to attempt to do the greatest good while tolerating the least evil.

genocide

conquest

genocide.Not genocide but ethnic cleansing. No attempt is made to destroy the Jewish nation, however, Jews would be systematically removed from certain parts of Israel.

Conquest, however, is an entirely inappropriate label to apply to establishing a Palestinian state. The Palestinians were conquered, so establishing their state is the reversal of conquest.

Karmashock

Dec 1, 2005, @ 09:26 PM

If the most credible...
I am tired of your bullshit. Shut up.

If the U.N. pre-emptively okayed those actions, then yes. However, the invasion is illegal even if ratified ex post facto.
The sanctions were oked by the UN. Why do you bring them up as blood on our hands?
You will have to elaborate on what those double standards are before I understand what you are talking about.
No I won't... Just pointing out another of your double standards... I have no more patience for your obvious evasions.
That was the analogy. I stated that criminal, anti-social states would be excluded from the U.N. You then stated that the U.N. would need to compromise with the U.S. and that this would violate the previous principle.
No, the UN would have to serve special interests to remain powerful enough to defend itself. Not serve the dictators... but bend it's purpose to suit those that can shield it. It is that or nations would flee from it to avoid being targeted as a part of it. Unless the UN could generate such fear in the enemy that they would not strike even its most humble member, it is worthless.

You made the implication that the U.S. was an anti-social state that should be compromised with.
no...
If the U.N. is so spineless and useless and unaccountable without the U.S., then why is there a U.N. at all? Your argument seems to indicate that the U.N. contributes nothing.
it is generally a waste of time in any serious matter.

My point exactly. The crime could not be undone without committing an even greater crime. Therefore, an effective compromise is in order, to attempt to do the greatest good while tolerating the least evil.
the least evil? Who are you to decide what is the least evil? The US does that and you call it JUST evil. But you know somewhere in that diseased logic of yours that the US does seek the least evil.

Not genocide but ethnic cleansing. No attempt is made to destroy the Jewish nation, however, Jews would be systematically removed from certain parts of Israel.
There is no attempt to destory the palistinian state as it never existed. Most of what i am refering to is land taken by israel from the powers that attacked it the arab israeli war. The arab population that lived on what was formally a part of another country would leave and return to their proper countries as their nations made the mistake of losing land to a rival.

No evil in that.

Conquest, however, is an entirely inappropriate label to apply to establishing a Palestinian state. The Palestinians were conquered, so establishing their state is the reversal of conquest.
There is no reversal of conquest when it is being done by an outside force. You reverse conquest from within. Only conquest comes from without. All you are doing is subjecting the region to some bizzare UN imperial force... dictating laws and codes that are more often loved by dictators then free societies.

You do know that is what the UN largely defends don't you? The democratic powers of the world are communal powers that make friends and have allies. Dictatorships rarely have so many friends and are therefore weaker in this period of time. The UN shelters them from conquest by democractic powers that would liberate the oppressed people and bring love and peace to the world.

But then that would make things terrible for you... so little reason to hate and little hope of chaos...

Dibujante

Dec 2, 2005, @ 03:47 AM

I am tired of your bullshit. Shut up.No. You have provided no arguments in favor of your position. I have cited a credible, qualified source. Your outburst is uncalled for. Either argue a point or concede it. Do not simply insist that the opposition "shut up".

The sanctions were oked by the UN. Why do you bring them up as blood on our hands?

No I won't... Just pointing out another of your double standards... I have no more patience for your obvious evasions.I do not deny that I have double standards. It would probably take me some time to think of them, as most people's double standards are ingrained. However, I honestly do not currently have in mind what double standards you are talking about. Without informing me I will be unable to contribute to any debate. Please elaborate that position into a debate or at least proof or drop it.

No, the UN would have to serve special interests to remain powerful enough to defend itself. Not serve the dictators... but bend it's purpose to suit those that can shield it. It is that or nations would flee from it to avoid being targeted as a part of it. Unless the UN could generate such fear in the enemy that they would not strike even its most humble member, it is worthless.
That's a different implication than we were discussing. I stated that the U.N. should exclude from membership all states that oppress their people or attack their neighbors. You stated that that would exclude those states most capable of fighting. You then went on to state that in order for the U.N. to be able to fight, it would have to compromise with those states. What confused me is that you went on to name the United States.

it is generally a waste of time in any serious matter.If you believe it to be a waste of time, why take credit for it or invoke it?

the least evil? Who are you to decide what is the least evil? The US does that and you call it JUST evil. But you know somewhere in that diseased logic of yours that the US does seek the least evil.

There is no attempt to destory the palistinian state as it never existed. Most of what i am refering to is land taken by israel from the powers that attacked it the arab israeli war. The arab population that lived on what was formally a part of another country would leave and return to their proper countries as their nations made the mistake of losing land to a rival.

No evil in that. By extension, the Germans should have kept those parts of Poland whose population they deported and/or exterminated. And since conquest, according to you, justifies occupation, they should have kept their entire empire, and Japan should have kepts its, as well?

There is no reversal of conquest when it is being done by an outside force. You reverse conquest from within. Only conquest comes from without. All you are doing is subjecting the region to some bizzare UN imperial force... dictating laws and codes that are more often loved by dictators then free societies.Since these laws and codes attempt to protect the sovereign rights of nations from encroachment by other nations or by states, the extension to the domestic realm is that laws against murder or theft are bizarre forces mandating laws and codes favored by dictators?

You do know that is what the UN largely defends don't you? The democratic powers of the world are communal powers that make friends and have allies. Dictatorships rarely have so many friends and are therefore weaker in this period of time. The UN shelters them from conquest by democractic powers that would liberate the oppressed people and bring love and peace to the world.

But then that would make things terrible for you... so little reason to hate and little hope of chaos...
There are few historical examples of liberation. A majority of the world was not liberated but enslaved by these powers you extol. For that reason, they should not be trusted except when there is oversight to ensure the integrity of their actions.

Karmashock

Dec 2, 2005, @ 04:08 AM

No.
Yes.

------------------------

you didn't comment on this one... but you left it in your post...
The sanctions were oked by the UN. Why do you bring them up as blood on our hands?

I do not deny that I have double standards. It would probably take me some time to think of them, as most people's double standards are ingrained. However, I honestly do not currently have in mind what double standards you are talking about. Without informing me I will be unable to contribute to any debate. Please elaborate that position into a debate or at least proof or drop it.
Your opinion on them doesn't interest me right now...

That's a different implication than we were discussing. I stated that the U.N. should exclude from membership all states that oppress their people or attack their neighbors. You stated that that would exclude those states most capable of fighting. You then went on to state that in order for the U.N. to be able to fight, it would have to compromise with those states. What confused me is that you went on to name the United States.
You are confused, the point I was making is that you have put all the powers that are the most WILLING to fight in one camp will putting all the pansies in the other. That won't work... unless there are some bulls amoung the sissies.

The US is one of hte prime forces for order in this world. The UN draws most of it's power from the US and without that strength the free world is vulnerable. The US is the great super power. Without it, the forces of tyranny would be able to dictate world policy more effectively then then their counters. You would not be able to hold solidarity. Free states close to opressive ones would cut deals and your union would collapse.

That is unless you made some deals a certain free state with a long term agenda for peace... something more meaningful then an endless stalemate.

If you believe it to be a waste of time, why take credit for it or invoke it?
Because my opinion of it isn't always relevant. To those that love the UN but hate the US, it's useful to point out what the UN really is... and who brought it into this world... twice.
----------------------------------------------------
you missed another one... but still included it in your post...

the least evil? Who are you to decide what is the least evil? The US does that and you call it JUST evil. But you know somewhere in that diseased logic of yours that the US does seek the least evil.
-------------------------------------------------------
By extension, the Germans should have kept those parts of Poland whose population they deported and/or exterminated. And since conquest, according to you, justifies occupation, they should have kept their entire empire, and Japan should have kepts its, as well?
Germany didn't win... and if you don't win... you didn't conquer. But I don't think I would find anyone that would disagree with the statement that deporting a people is preferable to killing them. Which you seem to say are the same thing.

Since these laws and codes attempt to protect the sovereign rights of nations from encroachment by other nations or by states, the extension to the domestic realm is that laws against murder or theft are bizarre forces mandating laws and codes favored by dictators?
I'm afraid you're going to have to re state that... I lost you after 'bizarre'.

There are few historical examples of liberation.
Very little of the current era is comparable to history. We are in a very different world. We have walked upon the moon and seen the structure of life. We have made clock work minds out of stone... and released the heart of a star upon foes.

History is a poor guide in such times... there is a freshness about everything.

Dibujante

Dec 2, 2005, @ 07:00 AM

Yes.You have no justification aside from the repeated assertion of your position, as such, I will simply ignore this.

Your opinion on them doesn't interest me right now...If you won't tell me what you're talking about, I cannot discuss it, and will also ignore this.

You are confused, the point I was making is that you have put all the powers that are the most WILLING to fight in one camp will putting all the pansies in the other. That won't work... unless there are some bulls amoung the sissies.

Let's analyze the flow of events:
I oppose the existence of a security council. I believe that the security council serves no constructive end and should be abolished. The U.N. should be based on one democratic body.
With or without dictators and bloody murderers getting a vote?
Without. The U.N. needs to set specific standards for voting status. Governments that do not meet these standards may not vote and will not be guaranteed to recieve U.N. protection if they are invaded or their rights in any other way abridged. By declaring themselves to be anti-social, they forfeit the rights of society.
You would cast out half the world. In so doing you would make yourself an enemy of some of the most WILLING killers on earth.

You would need protection... strength... and that would force you to make compromises... with us.
At this point, you state that, by casting out bloody handed dictators, the U.N. would be stripping itself of its protection, forcing it to make a compromise with those it ejected, since, it seems, you believe that the U.S. is among the ejectees. The implication here seems to be that the U.S. is in the same boat with these bloody handed dictators. Hence, the confusion. If that wasn't your intent, then clarify and that'll be the end of it.

Germany didn't win... and if you don't win... you didn't conquer. But I don't think I would find anyone that would disagree with the statement that deporting a people is preferable to killing them. Which you seem to say are the same thing.If the only thing that legitimizes the occupation of conquered lands is the eventual victory of the conqueror, then isn't that an ideology of "might makes right"?

Very little of the current era is comparable to history. We are in a very different world. We have walked upon the moon and seen the structure of life. We have made clock work minds out of stone... and released the heart of a star upon foes.

History is a poor guide in such times... there is a freshness about everything.History is the only analytical tool humans have to attempt to predict what the outcomes of future actions are. What definitive proof could the U.S. offer, prior to the invasion of Iraq, that they were going to fairly and efficiently reconstruct Iraq? How would you justify a proof of that?

Also, as to who recieves the guilt of U.N. sanctions:
The U.N. sanctions were the actions of the security council. As such, the security council is primarily guilty; they carried out the action (the U.S. personally enforced it, but as it was doing the will of the SC, it doesn't shoulder a larger section of blame for this).

However, the "no-fly zones" were a product solely of the U.K. and the U.S., so both countries shoulder responsability for their repercussions. The "no-fly zones" were explained as means of stopping Saddam Hussein's weapons build-up, but they systematically destroyed a number of targets, both military and civilian, in those areas.

The U.S. and the U.K. are solely responsible for the degradation of Iraq's infrastructure during the first Gulf War. They specifically targetted Baghdad and destroyed large sections of Iraq's health, electrical, water and road infrastructure. The severity of the sanctions, for which the SC is to blame, was magnified by the civilian bombing campaign perpetrated by the U.S. and the U.K.

In short, the situation is not cut and dried. There are many actors and many different responsabilities are shouldered by many different players. However, the U.S. and the U.K. played the principal part in the development of the sanction-induced deaths.

Karmashock

Dec 2, 2005, @ 04:21 PM

You have no justification aside from the repeated assertion of your position, as such, I will simply ignore this.
We both know the truth, so there's no point in me wasting my time with your evasions.

If you won't tell me what you're talking about, I cannot discuss it, and will also ignore this.
Doesn't bother me in the least... I'm not interested in what you think about it right now... I was just noting it to myself as much as anyone....

At this point, you state that, by casting out bloody handed dictators, the U.N. would be stripping itself of its protection, forcing it to make a compromise with those it ejected, since, it seems, you believe that the U.S. is among the ejectees.
I do not believe the US would be amoung the ejected. If it were, then the UN would die as an organization outright. I believe the US would be included and thus included would take a leadership role as power with both the vision and power to lead such a group. Futhermore, without it's strong involvement members of the group would be intimidated away.

If the only thing that legitimizes the occupation of conquered lands is the eventual victory of the conqueror, then isn't that an ideology of "might makes right"?
Might makes right is not a moral point, dib. It's just a fact of this universe. If you dominate then you're the one calling the shots.

Who has the right to the island of england? Those that were able to take it. Because after all... possession is 9/10ths of the law... if you're able to take something and hold it from all enemies, then it's yours.

History is the only analytical tool humans have to attempt to predict what the outcomes of future actions are.
Not true at all. Were that so, then why would you support ideas that have never been tested? Your ideal world has never been and yet you say that it's better then what we have now. How do you know if history is the only tool?

You rely too heavily on a few scraps of history.

Also, as to who recieves the guilt of U.N. sanctions:
The U.N. sanctions were the actions of the security council.
Pathetic... don't bring up the UN as a reason you have issues with the US actios in Iraq again... it's clearly irrelevant to you. The US opperated entirely within the UN's rules and codes.

So "oh that's illegal" is no longer a valid defense for you until you demonstrate that you don't have a gapping double standard on that issue.

TFL Mad Bomber

Dec 6, 2005, @ 11:21 AM

LOL Religions violent or peaceful? LOL I am just waiting for the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews to wipe each other out so that the atheists can inherit what is rightfully ours.

Religion is all manufactured to suit those in power at the time. In times of trouble and when an enemy was needed people turn to the more violent verses to find meaning. In times of plenty when peace and prosperity rule people look to happier verses. Come on people. Be smarter than you look. I despise religion but it is not religion that is violent. It is the creators and users of the religion. Do you really think that the crusades were about anything other than money? Come on people! My two favorite crusades never even made it to the "Holy Land." One of them ended in the looting of Constantinople, a fellow Christian city, and the other is known as the "Children's Crusade." Recruiters went to cities and gathered children. When they got to the shipping ports in Italy they sold them into slavery. LOL!!!! If you want to really know about the crusades then the truth is that Saladin is regarded as probably the highest example of knighthood. He didn't slaughter the civilians and played nice, more or less. The actual Christian crusaders were there for new lands and empire. They got to Constantinople, which was ruled by a king who had asked the Pope in Rome for aid (a few hundred knights) and ended up with 100k worth of soldiers and their families. These crusaders were not let into Constantinople for fear that they would take the city (later a justifiable worry) and then they proceded to kill Christian and muslim alike in the countryside, looting and making an empire or rather a series of empires. LOL The muslims were fighting them and each other. The Christians were helpful to each other only if it served their purposes. If they thought one king was getting too powerful their forces were as likely to attack him as the muslims. Funny religious people.

Karmashock

Dec 6, 2005, @ 11:29 AM

LOL Religions violent or peaceful? LOL I am just waiting for the Christians, Muslims, Hindus, Buddhists, and Jews to wipe each other out so that the atheists can inherit what is rightfully ours.
Atheism is as much a thing of faith as the rest... and as inheriting, for a people to thrive they must believe in themselves. Athiests tend to be more interested in tearing things down then in actually building anything. Do they have an holidays? And songs? What have they ever done to contribute to any kind of culture what so ever? Nothing.

You will inherit nothing but the crown of ash... and sit upon a throne of rot... for yours is a dead and pathetic faith that begets nothing but contempt for your fellow man.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Apocalypse

Dec 6, 2005, @ 07:22 PM

I know of no existing major world religions that are evil... what evil there is, rests in the heart of man.

I have to say, I'm in full agreement. All the various bibles of various races/religion haven't done a blind thing. It's man that pulls the trigger, not a book.

Critta

Dec 7, 2005, @ 02:50 PM

Atheism is as much a thing of faith as the rest... and as inheriting, for a people to thrive they must believe in themselves. Athiests tend to be more interested in tearing things down then in actually building anything. Do they have an holidays? And songs? What have they ever done to contribute to any kind of culture what so ever? Nothing.

You will inherit nothing but the crown of ash... and sit upon a throne of rot... for yours is a dead and pathetic faith that begets nothing but contempt for your fellow man.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Some notable atheists:

Woody Allen (1935-?) - American filmmaker, actor and writer.
James D. Watson (1929-?) - Nobel Prize laureate, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
Francis Crick (1916-2004) - Nobel Prize laureate biophysicist, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a figure of molecular biology and also neuroscience.
Douglas Adams (1951-2001) - British radio playwright and author.
Democritus (460?-357 BCE) - Greek philosopher, father of materialism, viewed everything as matter composed of indestructible particles ("atoms").
Sir David Attenborough (1926-) - British natural history presenter and anthropologist.
Gary Numan (1958-?) - British New Wave and industrial musician whose albums Sacrifice (1994), Exile (1997) and Pure (2000) stridently debunked religious beliefs.
Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) - Russian-born American writer of fiction and nonfiction works, scientist and science popularizer.
Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991) - American television producer and creator of Star Trek.
Jello Biafra (1958-?) - Punk rock musician and political activist.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) - French philosopher, considered the father of sociology.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) - Austrian neurologist, father of psychoanalysis, considered the belief in God to stem from an unconscious fear of one's own biological father.

You have given no proof for your vitriolic attack on atheists, nor even tried to suggest any reason why you believe what you do.

Have a look through the list above - I'm sure even you will find someone in that list who have done much to contribute to the culture of their society, many people who have built the basis of what a lot of our scientific understanding today relies on.

In short. Shush.

Karmashock

Dec 7, 2005, @ 03:26 PM

Some notable atheists:
What I meant to say is that athiesm never did anything, not that athiests themselves can't pursue great things indepedent of their vacant philosophy.

They have no civilization and no unifying culture. They believe in nothing inparticular except that they think that 95 percent of the rest of the planet is stupid.

All the major world religions did great things for their believers at one time or another. They united them or brought peace or civilized them etc.

What has athiesm done for society. Show me what it has to offer. It seems to do nothing but scoff at the world. Is that your philosophy? Calling 95 out of 100 people you meet stupid and then walking around like you're some how in 'the know'? The best world religions preached love, understanding, and fellowship... devotion to something greater then yourself. Greater then any material thing.

Religion isn't about fear... it's about love and peace. Agnostics are at least honest about things. They admit that they don't know and can't know. Athiests are no less religious then the people they smuggly declare to be deluded.

Show me the works of Athiesm or hush.

Critta

Dec 7, 2005, @ 05:03 PM

Surely though Atheism is a lack of belief in a god, and atheists create their own belief structure and work their life around that.

You seem to be looking at it with rather a one sided view, yes, the lack of a belief in a higher being could easily cause some form of superiority complex within people, but then surely these people are no different to those who preach their religions at you to try and make you believe and call you stupid or tell you that you're going to "go to hell" for not listening to their stupid rants about "Letting {insert random religious figure here} into your life".

I'll make my earlier point a little clearer. The atheist (as I see it) has their own individual belief structure, and each of these is different, there is no "set text" to go by, as such - atheists should be judged on their own merits rather than as a group.

Karmashock

Dec 7, 2005, @ 05:29 PM

I'll make my earlier point a little clearer. The atheist (as I see it) has their own individual belief structure, and each of these is different, there is no "set text" to go by, as such - atheists should be judged on their own merits rather than as a group.
Then you aren't a group. You are nothing... that is what we judge 'just anyone' by... everyone... you then have NOTHING to distinquish yourself with. Nothing to point at and say "athiesm did this"... every great religion can point at something it did that was positive for it's believers at the very least... if not the world. Athiesm has nothing to show for itself but a sub culture of prideful bigots that thrive on thinking little of their fellow man.

There is no love... there is no hope... there is no understanding... there is no dream. It is a religion of pride or dispare. It is in fact the kind of religion the devil would love if he exists.

Remember, the devil's sin WAS pride... and origional sin was also pride. It is pride that is at the core of all sins. Satan's sin was thinking he could judge God or outwit him. The sin that satan tempted humanity with was also pride... he said taste of this apple and know the power of God... it was to challenge him... to be gods ourselves... it was the sin of babel as well.

I say this only to point out that the judeochristian religion regards such thoughts of superiority as the hallmark of our corruption. And as to religious figures that say people will burn and be damned with malice in their hearts. Christ also said that many would invoke his name and preach of him... but at the end of days christ will look upon them and say - you never knew me. There are quiet a few 'preachers' in the US for example that I think might unfortunately fall into this group. Men in love with the sound of their voice or the power they can weild by manipulating the faith of others. The point is that such men are not the religion but merely our sin shining out through every soul... even the preachers.

I am not trying to convert you to anything as I don't think you're ready. What I will say is that you are what you will of the world. If your will is motivated by malice, pride, greed, etc... then your works will be tainted by them... and all you make upon this world will reek of that intent. Hell is the kingdom of pride... it is an empire of conflict and petty pissing contests. Those that go to hell are doomed to not only be tortured by demons, but become demons themselves and torture other demons. It is a place where all are compelled to destroy each other... to visit their vices upon others and have the vices of others visited upon them. Hell is humanity stripped of all the good people... it is a land of nothing but evil people that delight in misery of others if only because it shows they have the power to do it... like a person that stabbs you just to see the look of pain on your face.

My take on Islam is that it probably did some good for many people... but its more hostile forms must die off for they create disunity and seperation in the new world. The new world will be about love, peace, understanding, and prosperity. They cannot stop it... the sooner they join it, the better for all. For we are family.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Psy

Dec 7, 2005, @ 06:35 PM

edit:

Nm the whole thread devolved into Karmas .... pride

:P

Dibujante

Dec 7, 2005, @ 06:48 PM

Some notable atheists:

Woody Allen (1935-?) - American filmmaker, actor and writer.
James D. Watson (1929-?) - Nobel Prize laureate, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA
Francis Crick (1916-2004) - Nobel Prize laureate biophysicist, co-discoverer of the structure of DNA, a figure of molecular biology and also neuroscience.
Douglas Adams (1951-2001) - British radio playwright and author.
Democritus (460?-357 BCE) - Greek philosopher, father of materialism, viewed everything as matter composed of indestructible particles ("atoms").
Sir David Attenborough (1926-) - British natural history presenter and anthropologist.
Gary Numan (1958-?) - British New Wave and industrial musician whose albums Sacrifice (1994), Exile (1997) and Pure (2000) stridently debunked religious beliefs.
Isaac Asimov (1920-1992) - Russian-born American writer of fiction and nonfiction works, scientist and science popularizer.
Gene Roddenberry (1921-1991) - American television producer and creator of Star Trek.
Jello Biafra (1958-?) - Punk rock musician and political activist.
Auguste Comte (1798-1857) - French philosopher, considered the father of sociology.
Sigmund Freud (1856-1939) - Austrian neurologist, father of psychoanalysis, considered the belief in God to stem from an unconscious fear of one's own biological father.

You have given no proof for your vitriolic attack on atheists, nor even tried to suggest any reason why you believe what you do.

Have a look through the list above - I'm sure even you will find someone in that list who have done much to contribute to the culture of their society, many people who have built the basis of what a lot of our scientific understanding today relies on.

In short. Shush.
You're talking to a brick wall. Karma's train of logic functions as follows:
Assumption: Atheists are evil, destructive people.
Data provided: Like all groups of people, some are and some aren't.
Perception: Data about destructive, evil atheists exist.
Action: Rhetoric will be added to fill the holes in the argument.
Final product: Atheists are evil, destructive people.

Of important note is how pre-conceptions define perception in this case. Pre-conceptions are derived from a zealous assumption of righteousness, so it is therefore assumed that the belief is correct and that the facts just need to catch up to the impeccable belief.

Karmashock

Dec 7, 2005, @ 07:00 PM

You're talking to a brick wall. Karma's train of logic functions as follows:
Assumption: Atheists are evil, destructive people.
Evil? Not intentionally, but is it evil to dismiss and think fools of 95 percent of your fellow man as a core tenant of your faith? Even in their folly you must love them. That is my faith. Even though I dislike them for doing bad things, that doesn't mean I can't love them. Like I do myself... I don't always like myself just like everyone else on this planet... but that doesn't stop me from forgiving and loving myself anyway.

You cannot dismiss your fellows... you must understand and forgive them. That doesn't mean you shouldn't work against their evil or agree with them about anything... merely that you respect their existence deeply... and at all times do your best to empathize with them as if we were all one... for I believe we are.
Data provided: Like all groups of people, some are and some aren't.
No, I said their works weren't atheistic works. Though I am a neocon, if I build a house it isn't really a 'neocon' house is it? It's merely a house that some guy built. Now, if I built something enshrining a political standpoint, then that would be different. If I did something in the name of it, that would be different.

But you can't just take any atheist has happened to do and call that the work of atheism. That is the work of those people and was in nearly all cases in no way even inspired by it. In fact, Asimov's athiesm is rather funny considering most of his books have a quasi religious undertone.

Perception: Data about destructive, evil atheists exist.
Again, false. I am stating that the faith specifically is destructive and fueled by ultimately evil tendencies.
Action: Rhetoric will be added to fill the holes in the argument.
Considering that you've had to MAKE UP what I've said from scratch without in anyway connecting it to my words or obvious arguement, it is you that is guilty of your own criticism... again.
Final product: Atheists are evil, destructive people.
No, the faith is evil and destructive. It is nothing to be proud of or glory in. For all it can glory in is the presumed greatness of YOUR own being while looking down your nose at 95 percent of your fellows. That is your glory... and it is the crown of ash... it is the final reward for those that thrive on malice. You've admitted your malice enough times in the past that you can't even retorically deny it anymore... it ruins you.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

MVB

Dec 7, 2005, @ 07:07 PM

Karmashock

Dec 7, 2005, @ 07:16 PM

So, Islam was founded by a militaristic, petty merchant who wanted to get back at the folks who shunned him. GG at sticking to thread topic.

Founded with military means and uses = easy to stick to those founding principles.
the claim 'islam is evil' was countered initally in the thread by saying 'all' religions lead to hatred and violence... and that obviously athiesm is the only true religion... and love of self the only true god.

Which is what I'm arguing against now.

As to islam again, it's follows have some hard times in front of them. The path of hatred will destroy them... the path of love will save them.

The choice is theirs.

Dibujante

Dec 7, 2005, @ 08:12 PM

So, Islam was founded by a militaristic, petty merchant who wanted to get back at the folks who shunned him. GG at sticking to thread topic.

Founded with military means and uses = easy to stick to those founding principles.
Christianity's adoption by the Roman Empire (the vehicle by which it reached the world) was inspired by "Ad hoc signo vinces". Judaism's holy land is a product of ethnic extermination. All of the Abrahamic faiths have roots in violence, the fact that some are now considered to be "violent religions" and others to be "peaceful religions" is simply the appellation of religion to a context that doesn't merit it. If a religion founded in violence can today be considered a "non-violent religion", then the observable violence in the Middle East comes likely comes from factors other than the "inherent violence" of Islam.

Karmashock

Dec 7, 2005, @ 08:24 PM

If a religion founded in violence can today be considered a "non-violent religion", then the observable violence in the Middle East comes likely comes from factors other than the "inherent violence" of Islam.
First, christianity is not a violent religion. The romans were the romans before christianity... blaming Jesus for them isn't credible... especially since they killed him to STOP him. If anything, christianity mellowed the romans. They stopped killing each other for sport among other things.

But most importantly, the Romans were the romans before Jesus. Beyond that Islam was concieved in violence as the man that wrote it personally went on war campaigns for it.

That said, neither religion is a doomed faith so long as it's members are willing bury old grudges and love each other. Athiesm will not do that... Islam and christianity might.

Papa Smurf

Dec 8, 2005, @ 11:00 AM

First, christianity is not a violent religion.
yes it is.

Is Christianity only a religion of Peace and Love? I do not think that anyone can honestly and objectively examine American or European history and answer "yes" to that question. Christianity can encourage Peace and Love - but it certainly need not, and it quite often has done just the opposite. Although the people responsible for violence might have found a way to express their hatred without Christianity, it cannot be ignored that Christianity offers a convenient divine mandate for hatred and violent acts against a wide range of people.

Violent inclinations in Christianity are apparent right from the beginning. Jesus is traditionally portrayed as a kind and loving teacher, such that even non-Christians often have an idealized image of him. However, not all of what he reportedly said or did fits within such a characterization - and some of what he did certainly doesn't reflect the better teachings he is supposed to have promoted. For example, he was quite explicit in his condemnation of those who would not follow his teachings, saying to his disciples: "And if any one will not receive you in your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." (Matt. 10:14-15).

If Jesus and God have so little regard for nonbelievers, why should any of their followers? If Jesus can relegate nonbelievers to an eternity of torment, why should they expect higher standards from his followers here? In fact, nonbelievers did not fare any better after Christianity gained official support from the Roman Empire. Despite having been on the receiving end of persecution for many years, Christians refused to take any moral high ground and quickly proceeded to treat pagans with as much contempt and violence as they previously experienced.

Despite the fact that forgiveness is supposed to be a central aspect of Christian theology, Jesus was clear that not everyone could be forgiven: "...whoever blasphemes against the Holy Spirit never has forgiveness and is guilty of an eternal sin." (Mark 3:29) If someone considers another person to have committed such an act, they would not need to take their feelings very far into account - after all, if Jesus will not forgive that person, why should anyone else? As we will see, Christians certainly did not act in a forgiving manner to the pagans whom they had in their control.

After Christianity gained dominance in the Roman Empire, it became clear that they regarded their God as very authoritarian in nature - and as a result, they proceeded to imitate their God and become exceptionally authoritarian themselves. Controlling society, they ruthlessly exterminated other religious beliefs, with only Judaism being permitted to co-exist with their own One True Faith. The exclusivist ideology which fostered such attitudes has continued on through today, with little alteration.

Pagan religion was first prohibited wholesale in 392 by emperor Theodosius. Heavy financial penalities were enacted, but it was not initially very effective

Christianity is traditionally exclusivist in nature - Jesus made it that way, by declaring that no one could go to heaven or spend eternity with God except through him. Accepting this as fact, what possible value could any other religion have? Moreover, the very existence of another religion competing with Christianity on a level playing field threatens many souls with eternal damnation. If you really care about a person's fate, you won't want them to be tempted to follow the Wrong Path. Although this may lead to rather draconian regulations, we should all keep in mind that Jesus never once praised religious pluralism. If he didn't value it, why should anyone else?

Theological support for repression of religious plurality was formally developed by no less a church luminary than Saint Augustine, celebrated Doctor of the Church and Bishop of Hippo. The influence of his ideas upon basic Christian theology is inestimable, and his opinion of "heresies" (from the Greek hairesis or "choice") is unmistakable. As part of his opposition to the Donatist heresies, he developed his doctrine of Cognite intrare, or "compel them to enter" which was used throughout the Middle Ages to justify the suppression of dissent and oppression of difference. In his own words, Augustine stated:

The wounds of a friend are better than the kisses of an enemy. To love with sternness is better than to deceive with gentleness... In Luke 14:23 it is written: 'Compel people to come in!' By threats of the wrath of God, the Father draws souls to the Son.

We see here perhaps the first Christian formulation of how "love" justifies violence and persecution. When you genuinely believe in the horror called Hell by Christians, it becomes easy to create mini-hells here on earth. When you believe in a God capable of creating torment for all of eternity, what is a short-lived torment here on earth designed to save people from Hell? With friends like Augustine and his ilk, people certainly have no need for enemies.

Islam was concieved in violence
Generally Muslims have recognized that Muhammad began his ministry among his own people (the Arabs) in and around Mecca in A.D. 610. For thirteen years he faithfully proclaimed that God alone is God. Yet his followers were few and mostly of lower status. With Muhammad they endured opposition, ridicule and even persecution. Still, throughout this period he responded with restraint. In fact, the Qur’an itself documents how he was to respond to rejection and abuse. The following are a few examples:

I (Muhammad) am but a plain warner. (67:2; passim)[3]

We have not sent thee (Muhammad) as a warden over them. (17:54)

So proclaim that which thou art commanded, and withdraw from the idolaters. (15:94; cf. 15:94-99)

And bear with patience what they utter, and part from them with a fair leave taking. (73:10)

... And to be of those who believe and exhort one another to perseverance and exhort one another to pity! (90:17)

Call unto the way of the Lord... and reason with them in a better way.... Grieve not for them and be not in distress because of that which they devise. (16:125-127)

Repel evil with that which is better. (23:96)

All of the above passages are Meccan passages, i.e., passages Muhammad received while he proclaimed Islam in Mecca. As long as he remained in Mecca, he responded to his enemies peacefully and with restraint. He never responded militantly.

Only later did Islam change when Mohammed came to Medina, firstly violence was only allowed in defense, there are 4 stages in the devlopment of Islam recongised by The well known Egyptian scholar, Sayyid Qutb:
1. While the earliest Muslims remained in Mecca before fleeing to Medina, God did not allow them to fight; 2. Permission is given to Muslims to fight against their oppressors; 3. God commands Muslims to fight those fighting them; 4. God commands the Muslims to fight against all polytheists.

But like in all religious texts there are contradictions:

* Aggressive Islam: The Koran and other authoritative Islamic scriptures do contain incitements against non-Muslims. The eminent historian Paul Johnson, for example, cites two Koranic verses: "Strongest among men in enmity to the Believers will you find the Jews and Pagans" (Sura 5, verse 85) and "Then fight and slay the pagans wherever you find them. And seize them, beleaguer them and lie in wait for them." (9:5).

* Aggressive Muslims: Fourteen centuries of Islam have witnessed a long history of Muslims engaged in jihad (holy war) to expand the area under Islamic rule, from the early conquests of the caliphs to what Samuel Huntington terms Islam's "bloody borders" today.

Yes, these points are accurate. But they are one side of the story.

* Mild Islam: Like other sacred writings, the Koran can be mined for quotes to support opposing arguments. In this case, Karen Armstrong, a bestselling apologist for Islam, quotes two gentler passages from the Koran: "There must be no coercion in matters of faith!" (2:256) and "O people! We have formed you into nations and tribes so that you may know one another." (49:13).

* Mild Muslims: There have been occasions of Muslim moderation and tolerance, such as those in long-ago Sicily and Spain. And in one telling example, Mark R. Cohen notes that "The Jews of Islam, especially during the formative and classical centuries (up to the 13th century), experienced much less persecution than did the Jews of Christendom."

It would be a grevious error to say Islam is not peaceful, when so much of its history is based in peaceful co existance with other religious take Spain under Islamic rule, both Christians and Jews flurished, it was only under later Christian rules that the jews and Muslims were expelled or killed. Religion takes its que from history and religions generally have some footing in war or ellude to war in their teachings, all teach tolorence while also preaching intolrence.

Remember, the devil's sin WAS pride... and origional sin was also pride.
LOL Karma you are the biggest sinner of all then :P

LoL I love your comments about Atheism, it shows a true lack of understanding of what it is

That said, neither religion is a doomed faith so long as it's members are willing bury old grudges and love each other. Athiesm will not do that... Islam and christianity might.
I would say completely the opposite Atheists are far more likely to love each other and bury old grudges as they are not tied to a dogma of what is right and wrong, or caught up in the eternal conflict between religions.

Karmashock

Dec 8, 2005, @ 11:54 AM

yes it is.

Is Christianity only a religion of Peace and Love? I do not think that anyone can honestly and objectively examine American or European history and answer "yes" to that question.
Just because a country of christians does something violent doesn't make the religion violent.

That is an extremely specious arguement.

Jesus is traditionally portrayed as a kind and loving teacher, such that even non-Christians often have an idealized image of him. However, not all of what he reportedly said or did fits within such a characterization - and some of what he did certainly doesn't reflect the better teachings he is supposed to have promoted. For example, he was quite explicit in his condemnation of those who would not follow his teachings, saying to his disciples: "And if any one will not receive you in your words, shake off the dust from your feet as you leave that house or town. Truly, I say unto you, it shall be more tolerable on the day of judgment for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah than for that town." (Matt. 10:14-15).
Please make an effort to read the full passage before posting quotes from the bible. It's very easy to take any scripture out of context and use it for purposes it was not intended for. Here is that quote in context.
1And he called unto him his twelve disciples, and gave them authority over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner of disease and all manner of sickness.

2Now the names of the twelve apostles are these: The first, Simon, who is called Peter, and Andrew his brother; James the son of Zebedee, and John his brother; 3Philip, and Bartholomew; Thomas, and Matthew the publican; James the son of Alphaeus, and Thaddaeus; 4Simon the Cananaean, and Judas Iscariot, who also betrayed him.

5These twelve Jesus sent forth, and charged them, saying, Go not into any way of the Gentiles, and enter not into any city of the Samaritans: 6but go rather to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. 7And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand. 8Heal the sick, raise the dead, cleanse the lepers, cast out demons: freely ye received, freely give. 9Get you no gold, nor silver, nor brass in your purses; 10no wallet for your journey, neither two coats, nor shoes, nor staff: for the laborer is worthy of his food. 11And into whatsoever city or village ye shall enter, search out who in it is worthy; and there abide till ye go forth. 12And as ye enter into the house, salute it. 13And if the house be worthy, let your peace come upon it: but if it be not worthy, let your peace return to you. 14And whosoever shall not receive you, nor hear your words, as ye go forth out of that house or that city, shake off the dust of your feet. 15Verily I say unto you, It shall be more tolerable for the land of Sodom and Gomorrah in the day of judgment, than for that city.

16Behold, I send you forth as sheep in the midst of wolves: be ye therefore wise as serpents, and harmless as doves. 17But beware of men: for they will deliver you up to councils, and in theirs synagogues they will scourge you; 18yea and before governors and kings shall ye be brought for my sake, for a testimony to them and to the Gentiles. 19But when they deliver you up, be not anxious how or what ye shall speak: for it shall be given you in that hour what ye shall speak. 20For it is not ye that speak, but the Spirit of your Father that speaketh in you. 21And brother shall deliver up brother to death, and the father his child: and children shall rise up against parents, and cause them to be put to death. 22And ye shall be hated of all men for my name's sake: but he that endureth to the end, the same shall be saved. 23But when they persecute you in this city, flee into the next: for verily I say unto you, Ye shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of man be come.
That is not right to do violence to unbelievers. It is merely saying that on judgement day, those that will not take jesus into their hearts will be treated more harshly the cities of sin.

Please try not to rely on atheist websites. I found the one you got that off of... they're not designed to be compelling, but to preach to the converted. Which makes them useless in a real discussion.

If Jesus and God have so little regard for nonbelievers, why should any of their followers?
You have from now until judgement day before you truely become a non believer. It is not until that day that God's wrath shall cleanse the world... and it is not for any christian to visit it upon his brothers... it is not our right. Only God can judge and only God will do it.

Any man that kills in his name, knows him not.

LOL Karma you are the biggest sinner of all then :P
Karmashock isn't a human being or even alive... Karmashock is a word mirror... a construct. A device that reflects his peers... nothing more.

I am not Karmashock... though I play him often... it is nothing more then play and I only enjoy things learned and lessons taught. The rest is a diversion and a game.

I would think the name itself would be a hint as to that... What is karma? If you debate me, I am your karma... I am your conduct visited back upon yourself. I have often said that I do not throw the first punch, and this is always true. I respond in kind... if you are reasonable and respectful, then so am I... if you are rude, close minded, and vulgar, then I do my best to reflect that.

If you hate me, then you merely hate yourself. I hate no one...

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Papa Smurf

Dec 8, 2005, @ 02:58 PM

Just because a country of christians does something violent doesn't make the religion violent.
But when they are implemented in the name of God and given offical religious dispensation they are. See the crusades for just one example.

the meaning of the matthew quote does not alter when put into the context of the full passage, it tells them to treat them with contempt, and that god will treat them harsher than the people of Soddom and Gomora, the point remains valid.

Also by your rather screwy logic, if something is written by a proponent of Athetism then it can not be held true, in which case the whole bible can not be relied on as this was written by Christians (not even the one that it is claimed to be by).

There is also the multiple references in the old testament which reinforce this agrument I will not quote them as they have previously been quoted in this thread.

Karmashock is the person behind the name to claim it is something more is out right ego again i refer you to your own quotation, you are Karmashock it is a name you hide behind and propogate your incidesious views from.

Remember, the devil's sin WAS pride... and origional sin was also pride.

I'd also like to point out that original sin is NOT pride

Original sin may be taken to mean: (1) the sin that Adam committed; (2) a consequence of this first sin, the hereditary stain with which we are born on account of our origin or descent from Adam.
http://www.newadvent.org/cathen/11312a.htm

(see dad there was a point sending me to Catholic scool after all, it did come in handy for something even if i refuse to believe in Catholic dogma)

If you hate me, then you merely hate yourself. I hate no one...
Now please point out to me were i at any point say I hate you, i think you are an ego manic that for certian this whole section at the bottom of your post is nothing more than self dilluded jibberish

Karmashock isn't a human being or even alive... Karmashock is a word mirror... a construct. A device that reflects his peers... nothing more.

I am not Karmashock... though I play him often... it is nothing more then play and I only enjoy things learned and lessons taught. The rest is a diversion and a game.

I would think the name itself would be a hint as to that... What is karma? If you debate me, I am your karma... I am your conduct visited back upon yourself. I have often said that I do not throw the first punch, and this is always true. I respond in kind... if you are reasonable and respectful, then so am I... if you are rude, close minded, and vulgar, then I do my best to reflect that.

If you hate me, then you merely hate yourself. I hate no one...

kar·ma ( P ) Pronunciation Key (kärm)
n.
Hinduism & Buddhism. The total effect of a person's actions and conduct during the successive phases of the person's existence, regarded as determining the person's destiny.
Fate; destiny.
Informal. A distinctive aura, atmosphere, or feeling: There's bad karma around the house today.

I think you are think about Ying and Yang, Karma is often mistakenly given the meaning you are refering to. How explain to me, with refrence to the definition, what you name has to do with anything? YingYangshock would of been infinatly more appropriate than Karmashock if this was your reasoning or is it that you just made that shit up to make yourself seem big and important lol

Now you raise this point
I have often said that I do not throw the first punch, and this is always true. now show me where in my post do i in any way insult you, I noted you being quite derogitary though to Dibs. Otherwise its as irrelevent as much of your above post which is simply trying to deflect attention away form the points being made.

Now i was only using christianity as an example of how all religions can be both war like and peaceful, but as you want to go down this road, we'll bring up the crusades. Not exactly Christains most glorious moment, but i am sure you'll claim that this was nothing to do with Christianity, and you'd be wrong. They were ordered by Pope Urban II "the word of god on earth" as devolved from St. Peter. How long did the Crusades last? over 250 years, the cruel acts are well documented and probably do not even half way reflect the true brutality inflicted.

Care to debate the power of the Pope with the good little the Catholic boy here?

Karmashock

Dec 8, 2005, @ 05:24 PM

But when they are implemented in the name of God and given offical religious dispensation they are. See the crusades for just one example.
False.

If I killed someone in YOUR name, as in I said "I'm doing this for Papa", does that mean you're a murderer? No. The religion itself must be violent. People themselves are violent so any religion or anything that is assoicated with people could be called violent if any acts of the people are attributed to it.

The crusades were primarily about money, power, and pride. That is not christianity... that is the sins of man. You are again using a logical system that will condemn anything it analyizes. Let me help you out. Find some systems that can go either way... THEN try applying them to whatever you're talking about. For example, I consider the Aztec religion to be one of violence and incredible evil. Why? Because human sacrifice and canabalism was a big part of the religion itself.

See? Easy.

And thus another specious arguement bites the dust.

the meaning of the matthew quote does not alter when put into the context of the full passage, it tells them to treat them with contempt, and that god will treat them harsher than the people of Soddom and Gomora, the point remains valid.
No where does it say treat them with contempt. It says leave their company and do not associate with them. There is no contempt in that. Furthermore, there are contradictory passages that encourage christians to try even though it seems pretty hopeless to convince people.

As to God, that is not christians that are to do that. It is not a christian's place to judge man. Judge not lest ye be judged.

And on judgement day, those that have rejected God are corrupt... and will be judged by God as such.

Are you saying God's judgement is wrong? Creator of the universe? A christian would call that the arrogance of man... his primary flaw.

Also by your rather screwy logic, if something is written by a proponent of Athetism then it can not be held true, in which case the whole bible can not be relied on as this was written by Christians (not even the one that it is claimed to be by).
Please don't lie to me. It's annoying.

I very clearly said that that information was not written to convince people, but to preach to the converted. I didn't say that it was wrong or that its being wrong had anything to do with an antheist writing it.

It is merely useless because it lacks the substance to be of any worth in a real discussion.

There is also the multiple references in the old testament which reinforce this agrument I will not quote them as they have previously been quoted in this thread.
Completely irrelevant. The old testiment is no more christianity then the magna carta is the US constitution.

They might be related through their common relations to english common law... but they are not the same thing.

This again is an issue with atheists. They have an extremely simple belief system and therefore assume that everyone else's system is equally simple or that the complicated bits can just be ignored... Which is again another reason why athiesm has nothing to do with science or logic.

Karmashock is the person behind the name to claim it is something more is out right ego again i refer you to your own quotation, you are Karmashock it is a name you hide behind and propogate your incidesious views from.
False... Karmashock is almost always a character I play. The sins of the character in a story are not the sins of the actor in reality. Karmashock is a construct.

He reflects the behavior of his peers back upon them. If you show him kindness, he returns it. Act otherwise and he'll typically match you as best I can... if anything, I he's more mellow then his peers.

I'd also like to point out that original sin is NOT pride
Why did adam and eve eat the apple that destroyed their innocence? Hunger? :lol:

Now please point out to me were i at any point say I hate you, i think you are an ego manic that for certian this whole section at the bottom of your post is nothing more than self dilluded jibberish
Only when you tell me where I said fairies are made of chocolate.

If you look back, you'll note that I said "if"... this is an indefinete term in the english language. A dialect common to the planet earth, in what is typically known as 'reality'. :)

I think you are think about Ying and Yang, Karma is often mistakenly given the meaning you are refering to. How explain to me, with refrence to the definition, what you name has to do with anything? YingYangshock would of been infinatly more appropriate than Karmashock if this was your reasoning or is it that you just made that shit up to make yourself seem big and important lol
Please make an effort to read what you quote. I feel sorry for you when you prove me right by digging up quotes that are better for my case then yours.

The total effect of a person's actions and conduct during the successive phases of the person's existence, regarded as determining the person's destiny.
In this context, I reflect the "total effect of a person's actions and conduct during the successive phases of"... conversation, thus their conduct determines how they are treated.
Now you raise this point
now show me where in my post do i in any way insult you, I noted you being quite derogitary though to Dibs. Otherwise its as irrelevent as much of your above post which is simply trying to deflect attention away form the points being made.
Show me someone that you believe I attacked, and I will show you where they caused me to reflect that upon them.

Now i was only using christianity as an example of how all religions can be both war like and peaceful, but as you want to go down this road, we'll bring up the crusades
The crusades can't be used as jesus wouldn't approve of them. This much is obvious. What's more, the Vatican was in those days hoplessly corrupt and deeply evil. Today, they are a great deal better, but really remain one of hte most destructive forces AGAINST christianity to this day.

So please don't bring up anything that you damn well know the one on the cross wouldn't approve of.

Further, I would note that they were not attacking a peaceful or innocent power, but a rivial colition, that had already taken a lot of land in europe.

Love and peace, Karmashock.

Papa Smurf

Dec 9, 2005, @ 09:44 AM

The crusades can't be used as jesus wouldn't approve of them. This much is obvious. What's more, the Vatican was in those days hoplessly corrupt and deeply evil. Today, they are a great deal better, but really remain one of hte most destructive forces AGAINST christianity to this day.
Now then Karmaq we are going to have to investigate the roots of the church here a little so lets have a look shall we:

The proof that Christ constituted St. Peter head of His Church is found in the two famous Petrine texts, Matthew 16:17-19, and John 21:15-17.

MATTHEW 16:17-19
In Matthew 16:17-19, the office is solemnly promised to the Apostle. In response to his profession of faith in the Divine Nature of his Master, Christ thus addresses him:

Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven. And I say to thee: That thou art Peter; and upon this rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven.

"Blessed art thou, Simon Bar-Jona: because flesh and blood hath not revealed it to thee, but my Father who is in heaven." The prerogatives here promised are manifestly personal to Peter. His profession of faith was not made as has been sometimes asserted, in the name of the other Apostles. This is evident from the words of Christ. He pronounces on the Apostle, distinguishing him by his name Simon son of John, a peculiar and personal blessing, declaring that his knowledge regarding the Divine Sonship sprang from a special revelation granted to him by the Father (cf. Matthew 11:27).

"And upon this rock I will build my Church. . ." Here then Christ teaches plainly that in the future the Church will be the society of those who acknowledge Him, and that this Church will be built on Peter.

"And the gates of hell shall not prevail against it."It is through her union with Peter, Christ continues, that the Church will prove the victor in her long contest with the Evil One:

The gates of hell shall not prevail against it.

"And I will give to thee the keys of the kingdom of heaven." In the following verse (Matthew 16:19) He promises to bestow on Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven.

The words refer evidently to Isaiah 22:22, where God declares that Eliacim, the son of Helcias, shall be invested with office in place of the worthless Sobna:

And I will lay the key of the house of David upon his shoulder: and he shall open, and none shall shut: and he shall shut and none shall open.
In all countries the key is the symbol of authority. Thus, Christ's words are a promise that He will confer on Peter supreme power to govern the Church. Peter is to be His vicegerent, to rule in His place.

"And whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." Further the character and extent of the power thus bestowed are indicated. It is a power to "bind" and to "loose" -- words which, as is shown below, denote the grant of legislative and judicial authority. And this power is granted in its fullest measure. Whatever Peter binds or looses on earth, his act will receive the Divine ratification.

JOHN 21:15-17
The promise made by Christ in Matthew 16:16-19, received its fulfilment after the Resurrection in the scene described in John 21. Here the Lord, when about to leave the earth, places the whole flock -- the sheep and the lambs alike -- in the charge of the Apostle. The term employed in 21:16, "Be the shepherd [poimaine] of my sheep" indicates that his task is not merely to feed but to rule. It is the same word as is used in Psalm 2:9 (Septuagint): "Thou shalt rule [poimaneis] them with a rod of iron".

Infallibility belongs in a special way to the pope as head of the bishops (Matt. 16:17-19; John 21:15-17). As Vatican II remarked, it is a charism the pope "enjoys in virtue of his office, when, as the supreme shepherd and teacher of all the faithful, who confirms his brethren in their faith (Luke 22:32), he proclaims by a definitive act some doctrine of faith or morals. Therefore his definitions, of themselves, and not from the consent of the Church, are justly held irreformable, for they are pronounced with the assistance of the Holy Spirit, an assistance promised to him in blessed Peter."

Therefor for the Pope to order it in Catholic dogma is the word of god, for a pope to order it is the same as having it written down in the bible, unless you want to go agrue it out with Jesus