| Author | Message | ||
     Blake |
My definition of a soldier agrees with that of the Geneva convention. Your's does not. Terrorists are NOT soldiers. They are fanatical cult murders. | ||
| Bomber |
Blake -- to claim understanding of the new testament without knowledge of the old (superceed? that's a new one on me) is flawed, I believe -- you're lack of familiarity with the old testament does you no credit, as an avowed christian further, I asked no questions that I can see -- while you and I may see some of the folks in the middle east as terrorists, I have a feeling they likely see themselves otherwise -- the British in the late 1700s would likely have characterize many North Americans as terrorists ah well, again, slogan shouting with little thought (not directed specifically at you, Blake) | ||
| Frankfast |
You are confusing my blaming America when in fact the blame is to be placed on the present administration and those who support it. America has spoken in the last election or hasn't the newspaper reached your town yet. You are in the minority now as far as this war is concerned and in the interest of a democratic society you need to pay heed to the majority opinion as does this president. (Message edited by frankfast on December 27, 2006) | ||
| Frankfast |
And about the Geneva Convention. I believe you had a different opinion about it when those photos appeared from the Abu Garibe prison. Wasn't it more like an eye for an eye. Now you refer to it for a description of a soldier. Let's be more consistent. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Frank, the use of atomic weapons on Japan saved more lives in the end. Do some research. Oh wait, any literature proving my statement above would be Halliburton propaganda. America never does anything to save lives. | ||
| Aesquire |
"The official reason for the war given by the administration has been proven false." ?? The Saddam dictatorship was not in violation of U.N. resolutions? Did not fire on Allied planes enforcing the "no fly zone" put in place to prevent even more bombings of his own people? Did not hide & lie about poison gas weapons? ( over 500 shells have been recovered, scattered & hidden in Iraq. Don't believe anything but leftist/anti American propaganda? then do not "google" anything like "mustard gas shells found in Iraq". I do wonder about the lack of interest by the U.S. tv media in reporting anything like that.) Damn it, I've really tried to find the lie, but it's not there, except in the mouths of the enemy & those who support them. I can't figure out why the current admin. does not have these shells on display in the capital rotunda. That does not mean we can't discuss on if this conflict could have been done better, wiser, or if deposing a vicious murderer is part of our job on this planet. These are good questions. I, for example, think the phrase "the war on terror" is asinine. If you can't say what the issue is, how the heck do you expect to solve it? "Yeah and the thousands of women and children were collateral damage. Give me a break." Yep. Sucks don't it? Different time, different war. I don't think we should go back to those days. I don't think that destroying the means of production of weapons of war by the enemy should ever again require the mass deaths of thousands by burning their cities. The distributed system used by the Japanese at that time had small machine shops scattered in peoples homes. The large, traditional factories had been damaged quite a bit by Allied bombing. Hence the small shops. The fire bombing of Tokyo, the nuking of Hiroshima & Nagasaki, were tragedies on a vast scale. The fact that the nuclear attacks ended the war & prevented even more death does not change that truth. | ||
| Frankfast |
Dropping nuclear weapons to save lives is the lamest excuse for those events that I've ever heard. But that's how the history books whitewashed it. I'm tired of this thread so Blake don't write anything that might lure me back into it. Let's go back to talking about motorcycles. Probably the only thing we have in common. | ||
| Frankfast |
Anybody for a new thread on animal rights? | ||
| Aesquire |
Freaking nuts isn't it? It really sounds as ironic as the "we had to destroy the village in order to save it" eh? My Uncle Rusty always credited Truman's decision with keeping him from dying on the beach at Honshu. He was a SeaBee, and was going to go in on the first wave of the invasion. Instead he spent weeks in a transport off Okinawa. Did you know that Honda started making motorcycles with the little gas engines that were used as aux. power plants ( generators ) in the B-29? How's that for ironic? | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
Anybody for a new thread on animal rights? Please. I love animals. Theyre delicious. | ||
| Chasespeed |
You know, I have alot on my mind, adn cant sleep, so, I read this thread, for the first time, since I posted in it early on.. First, ANY comparison of ME(or mine), to a terrorist(calling THEM a soldier), would be met with a VERY painfull and bloody line of thought on that comment in person. That isnt even remotely accurate... you might as well call a armed robber a soldier... Second, I look at it this way, and I have pissed alot of people off by saying this, BUT, I have done my time over there, as have MANY others, and several more on this board I am sure... If you dont like it, GET THE F**K OUT. I am sick of hearing it.. Yes, if we leave before the job is done, we will have ALOT mroe problems in the future... I dont care about the religious aspect in all this, NOR politcal. All i care about is making sure that my 3 year old daughter, has a place to grow up, and make the desicions SHE wants to make. Becuase they dropped that bomb on japan, I am here, to listen to a bunch of whinners.. My grandfather was a Marine, landed Iwo, and several other places,(i would have to look at his citations again to tell you more), BUT, I am sure, if it werent for that bomb, he wouldnt have came home..ALOT of people woudlnt have. Civilian casualties are always regretable. But, they happen sometimes, its called collateral damage. When you TARGET civilians, you are a terrorist. When you take over, a CIVILIAN airliner, and crash it into a building, you are a terrorist. When you kidnap a person, and make outrageous demands, you are a terrorist. We have to follow the Rules of Engagement while out there, THEY do not. You seeing the pattern here? So, excercising MY right to freedom of speech.. To all the bleeding heart individuals, thta cant accept responsiblity, OR let others accept thier own responsibilities.. and think everyone is SO deprioved, and depressed, etc etc etc Get a clue, then kiss my a**... My 2 cents, plus inflation, and a little interst for good measure.. Not looking at this thread again... (Message edited by chasespeed on December 28, 2006) (Message edited by chasespeed on December 28, 2006) | ||
| P0p0k0pf |
It is factually proven that islamic extremists pretty much want everyone else to die. They are conditioned that way by their loving parents. I pity them... If we don't stop them now, we are ensuring that our little girls and boys will have to do it, with much less certainty of success and much more bloodshed when they must face the problem. Our grandparents said they wanted to make the world safe for their children. Our parents worked and fought to achieve the same for us. Unfortunately, our generation will not be the one to reap what our ancestors have nurtured with their own blood. Choose to accept it now or be forced to later... | ||
| Triumph900 |
"Would you give up some of your rights to gun ownership for this rhetoric in the US?" Yes. | ||
| Frankfast |
During the Viet Nam War, I believe the common name for our enemy were "gooks". They didn't care much for the Geneva convention either nor did they wear uniforms. They were also "communist" who we were all told to hate. As I remember we removed ourselves from that country before the job was "done". Abandoned the propped up government we were defending. Picked up and left. Recently I saw our President over there shaking hands with those very same "gooks", trying to come up with some sort of trade agreement beneficial to both countries much as he has tried to do with China, another "commie", "gook" country who supplied the Viet Cong and the NVA with military hardware. The stuff that killed our guys. It seems we don't hate those "commies" as much as we did then. Now we hate "terrorists". Times change. Enemies change. Names change. It's too bad we can't look to the past, then look to the future and skip all the bloodshed in the present. (Message edited by frankfast on December 28, 2006) | ||
| Hootowl |
And what happened in Vietnam and Cambodia right after we left? It's too bad we can't look to the past, then look to the present and skip all the bloodshed in the future. (Message edited by hootowl on December 28, 2006) | ||
| Frankfast |
Be honest. Did you really care? | ||
| Blake |
Bomber, I understand the Old Testament. Some clarification is in order as you seem to have the impression that I believe that the entire Old Testament is of no import. I believe I stated that.... The teachings of Jesus supersede the Old Testament. For instance his teaching wrt the Old Testament law concerning adulters and such, the one you yourself mentioned is the perfect example. You know his teachings on such issues, yes? They supersede the Old Testament laws. Yes? Thus, I am a "Christian", not an "Old Testamentarian." Where in conflict, the teachings of Jesus govern over Old Testament law. Much of the Old Testament is historical. Some is judicial. That judicial content which has been addressed by Jesus and the early recognized leaders of the Christian church and as related via the New Testament governs Christian philosophy. Yes? Yes!  I am still curious if you can produce any statements or action by Jesus as described in the New Testament that you feel equate to the most troubling of those revealed by muhammed and put down in the koran. I'm quite certain you cannot. I'm quite certain that I can produce a frightening collection of barbarous and brutal actions, law and statements by mohammad as represented in the koran. When one of Jesus' apostles took up arms to defend Jesus and cut the ear from a Roman soldier who had come to enforce the capture of Jesus, he admonished the apostle and healed the soldier's ear. That is Jesus. Mohammed? When the entire male population of a Jewish city surrendered to mohammeds forces begging for mercy, mohammed ordered them all beheaded, every single male from the age of puberty and up, murdered. Because allah willed it. Compare/contrast the teachings and actions of Jesus versus mohammed? I'm all over it and ready to debate the facts and I ain't cherry picking. Are you interested? It is a very interesting topic for me. You bring the Scotch? Surely you don't disagree that any "religion" who's laws demand the execution of apostates is a cult and that those who support such laws are cult members? Do you? Frank, You won't be let off easy here. Sorry. If you don't care to face debate, don't post your far-lefty nonsense here. The photos of and the hazing activities at Abu Ghraib were in violation of the Geneva Convention; the people responsible were revealed, held accountable, tried, and punished by their own peers in the American military. Terrorists do not self-police their ranks seeking to uphold adherance to honorable and humane codes of conduct, nor do they abide by the Geneva Convention, nor are they in any way shape or form soldiers. They are brutal criminals and murderers. Out one side of the left wingers mouth comes derision of our leaders for refusing to engage terrorists in discussion; then out the other side of their mouths comes derision of our leaders for seeking to engage in discussions with nations, former enemies, seeking after dacades to engage in mutual capitalistic (not communistic) trade relations. There is no policy safe from derision by the far lefties; the only goal of such far-left wingers is to deride the opposing parties of the American government in any and all ways possible. If congress feels they have a mandate to end the war and bring home the troops, then they should vote to do just that. They won't. Because the congressional vote was not a mandate on the war. Joe Lieberman is not anti-Iraq-war. He is very pro-Iraq-war. He recognizes that for America and the free world it is vital that we succeed in Iraq. The election of Senator Lieberman reflects most accurately the true mandate of Americans concerning the war, and that was reflected in a VERY blue state. We either win this war or suffer more and more violence at the hands of jihadi fascists. Frank, are you too timid to anwer my question? You far-lefties are like that, you're okay slinging your BS until the facts and hard questions hit you in the face. I repeat: What do you imagine warfare entails? No risk of civilian casualties? You apparently think communism does not warrant opposition? Might want to rethink that. You might also want to realize that their are indeed at least two means to defeat communism. One is militarily, which is absolutely warranted when the communists themselves seek to expand, conquer and subjugate through violent means. Another means to defeat communism is through economic means, where prosperity brought through free trade and open interaction melt away a formerly closed society's walls and allow international standards for freedom and liberty begin to take hold. There is no stopping it. I prefer the latter over the former by far. But when faced with violent expansionism of communism, we have no choice but to oppose it in kind. It's too bad that some don't recognize that freedom is not free, that the fruits of liberty are only enjoyed thanks to the blood of patriots. As Jefferson said (I paraphrase), America must oppose tyranny and oppression everywhere we find it. | ||
| Bomber |
Blake -- thanks for the clarification on your view of the two books of the bible -- I understand YOUR stance better now, but do not think your views represent those of christondom. also note that islam advises good treatment for "people of the book," which would be christians and jews. a lack of consistancy in religious philosophy? how can this be? (sarcasm, as all religions with which I am familiar contain such inconsistancies) selections of horrid behavior by members of a religion and equating said behavior with the tenents of the religion is, in my opinion, failed logic -- I can think of few religions that havn't a bloody and violent past, when judging the behavior of their "followers." Christianity is not one of those few religions change and alter over the years -- just as you cite that, in your belief, the teaching in the new testament have altered statements in the old. my islamic friends hold that the teachings in the koran are also properly applied differently today than in centuries past. when my daughter was born, my wife started attending church services again (she'd stopped for some time). after hearing a sermon in which it was stated that our weeks old daugher was going to hell, as she'd not received the sacraments in this particular church, my wife stopped going again. while I disagree with this stance, not all members of this church agree with it, and I havn't the attitude necessary to call it a cult. again, I try not to judge a large group of people by the behavior of a few. | ||
| Jon |
The teachings of Jesus do not supercede as in render null and void the teachings of the Old Testament. The Old is in the New revealed and the New is in the Old concealed. The OT and the NT are pals, written by the same author (God) through the agency of various prophets. The New contains further revelation and clarification about some things hidden in the Old. Jesus Himself fulfilled many Old prophecies and since the New contains the record of these Old Testament fulfilling events, you could in a loose way state that the New fulfills the Old, but does not negate the old, rather finishing what the Old started...in a manner of speaking. | ||
| Bomber |
wow -- disagreement as to the interpretation of the bible! who'da thunk it? ;-} | ||
| Frankfast |
I'll answer your questions again. "What do you imagine warfare entails? No risk of human casualties?" I agree. That's why I am against it. "War is hell, for sure the most horrendous brutal act of civilized human kind." No argument here. "If freedom, national security, liberty and justice are worth defending then unfortunately the most brutal act, war, is sometimes necessary." Not in this case.There is more of a threat now than before this war started. "You are obviously a pacifist opposed to a war for any reason and eager to blame America first while putting politics ahead of country." I'm not a pacifist although I think it is an ideal. The Quakers are an admirable society of people. I've never blamed "America". You seem to confuse the policies of the present administration with the ideals of this country. To me, they are not the same. It is you that is putting politics ahead of country. "I cannot oppose such a stance more strongly. I think it is foolish in the extreme." You would. (Message edited by frankfast on December 28, 2006) | ||
| Blake |
Bullshit. The policies of our leaders ARE the policies of this country. They ARE one in the same. Whether you agree with them or not is another matter. Bomber, You seem to want to find disagreement, though there is in truth none. Jon and I are meaning the exact same thing. | ||
| Blake |
"If freedom, national security, liberty and justice are worth defending then unfortunately the most brutal act, war, is sometimes necessary." "Not in this case.There is more of a threat now than before this war started." Okay then in what case Frank? I dare you to name one. You won't. You cannot. You live entirely in theory and make believe, so it is beyond you. | ||
| Johnnymceldoo |
 | ||
| Bomber |
blake -- you are being unnecessarily confrontational and argumentative -- go back and look at the agreement for board participation you and Frank disagree (and you misquote him in the process --policy of the country is one thing, ideals of the country another) take a breath | ||
| Aesquire |
You may wish to blame the actions of the European leaders at the end of WW1 for much of the troubles in the middle east. So? most all are dead, and without the Tardis, you can't change the way dead people drew lines on the map for the purpose of exploiting the poor natives. Should we be involved in any foreign adventures at all, regardless of provocation? Good question. Each time we have gone isolationist, it bites us, despite it being the best intentions of our founding fathers that we not be involved with European wars & intrigue. If J. Carter had not let Iran.....( and I loved his idea of making the freedom of a people the main criteria of our friendly relationship with them ) If R. Reagan had not reduced the Soviet threat.... If G.H.W. Bush had not let Saddam off so easy... ( even though he was "encouraged" not to by the Saudi's, the U.N., and the news services dismay at the "highway of death" where we pounded the retreating thieves as they fled ) If W. Clinton had not..... If G.W. Bush had not invaded Iraq, deposed a murderous thug, won an unexpected victory over a much larger army, abandoned by their leaders, helped establish a true democracy for the first time in ???. Then stuck around to try & pick up the pieces..... If the Mullahs in Iran were not supplying counterfeit money, arms, and support to cowardly thugs across the region.... Then things would be different. But they are not. So we won the war to free Afghanistan, & Iraq. If we lost, would the man who liked to feed his enemies into woodchippers feet first while he watched, who taught his sons to murder without qualm, whose police enjoyed raping a mans wife or daughter while he was forced to watch, have been convicted of a fraction of his crimes by his OWN people? Now the conflict is with the forces of radical barbarism, as it has been for us since 2001, and them since the dark ages. Arguing about how we got here is useless, unless that discussion offers a solution to the problem. It is obvious that the leftist, anti western civilization agenda has led some to ignore or embrace people whose desires, sometimes clearly & publicly stated, are to destroy the very leftists who defend them. The origin of this thread is not our involvement in the middle east. I would certainly do things different than our leaders, if I was in charge. I suspect that alternate time line would please some of you less than the real one. ( and please some more ) But. It didn't happen & won't. What's now is NOW. The origin of this thread was the cheering on of an 'Strine politco, who, confronted with religious/political ( same thing in the cult of submission ) leaders who wish to establish their own rules without respect to the people of his nation, spoke out. Well. IMHO Leaders who clearly state that an Australian citizen, who is female, and fails to dress as a slave, is just asking for rape & murder. This is not a "we wish to live in our superior traditional way, you sinners" This is "Screw your liberal western society, with your pansy freedoms, we will do as we wish" The gap between explicit permission to rape Australian women, ( "meat before cats..who can blame them?" ) and insistence that Australian citizens be tried by the supposed will of Allah, imposed by misogynistic, evil ( My opinion ) churchmen is a femtometer. Or less. The Koran has many laudable things in it, as does the old testament, and new. So? The evil ones who exploit others faith for power are, at this time, the self declared leaders of the Jihad. How would you deal with this? | ||
| Frankfast |
Blake - It is clear to me now that the Iraq War in your eyes is a Christian Crusade. Although most of America sees itself as Christian, they do not see this war as you do. Your views on muslim immigration support my conclusion and separates you from the mainstream. We have nothing left to talk about nor did we ever. (Message edited by frankfast on December 28, 2006) | ||
| Jon |
Bomber I am not taking issue with Blake's post, just clarifying for others what I assume he meant. Depending on how you interpret the word supercede, you could be right or wrong. Plus Blake owes me 5 bucks for being his friend (annual fee) and if I upset him, there's a chance he may not pay. Then I would have take some measures that are ...how can I put it...ugly.  | ||
| Blake |
Bomber, you should know that I'll not sit by quietly when some fool seeks to equate brutal mass-murdering terrorists to soldiers. This discussion board cannot and will not support that kind of speech. I guess I need to revise the terms of use to reflect that, but it rarely needs saying. Pretty sure the ideals of our nation include defending ourselves and opposing tyranny and oppression including the use of force. You have a point though. I get very angry very quickly when I see people deriding the fine work of our military men on the ground and/or their situation in the field. A change in topic... Surely you recognize that there are indeed folks, so-called Americans, who would rather see America fail in Iraq than succeed, all because of their contempt and hatred for the Bush administration and their desire to see it humiliated and disgraced. I reckon that around five or ten percent of our adult population falls into that miserable group. I cannot express how much I despise such "Americans." They disgust me infinitely. What would you call such people? I'd call them "traitors." The endless moral equavocating that we see from the far left is complete and utter bullshit. We cannot ever proclaim American policy as superior, morally justified, or just without having some jackass far-left-winger bring up some past American transgression. Blame America first is always their knee-jerk answer. I am sick and tired of it amigo. I am sooo sick and tired of it. All the BS conspiracy, big oil, halliburton, divisiveness and derision of our nation and its leaders. There is one core truth that holds as true today as the day it was first uttered, "United We Stand. Divided We Fall." So I am taking a stand against the do-nothing, naysaying, nothing but partisan, blame America first, terrorist loving, far-left wingnutss that seek to pollute this forum. I agree with the philosophy for dealing with the jihadi-fascists as layed out here. But it will take a mushroom cloud over America or something similar along the lines of another 9/11 to make it happen. | ||
| Rocketman |
You may wish to blame the actions of the European leaders at the end of WW1 for much of the troubles in the middle east. You may wish to blame the actions of the American leaders at the end of WW2 for much of the troubles in the middle east. They're the ones that said f*ck off to the Jewish arriving on ships, which were promptly turned away. Welcome to Israel. The source of Jihad itself. Rocket |
