Somebody really needs to find this guy!

[Orsorum]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: remagavon
There is no absolute right, or wrong with any of this. The bad thing is that we can't reason with them because they don't want anything except vengence, and they aren't centralized so we can't deal with them politically. This should also probably be in P&N.

I understand that. I am not saying that the U.S. is right, but how can they be so heartless and cold to innocent people. I actually understand where they are coming from with all the "involvement" in foreign affairs that the U.S. does. But in the end, I don't care what they say about being a citizen of this "corrupt" country makes us guilty, that is crap. Ghandi was a great leader who enforced change in a different way. It took a lot more sacrifice on his part and lead to more change. People who do the opposite, like Al-Queda, are just bullies and cowards who didn't get their way.

And yes this should be in P&N, but I am just ranting.

We did the same thing to the Japanese and the Germans.

 

[GasX]

Back to P&N you freaks!

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: J0hnny

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Sounds like President Bush. How many innocent Iraqi's are dead because of him?

Surely not as many as Hussein was single-handedly responsible for.

Take off your partisan blinders, set down the talking points, and think.

None-the-less, our boys are dying for nothing!

Nothing? We liberated millions of people. Does that sound like nothing?

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DaShen
:| People who say that these people are just misunderstood are idiots. Only sadistic hate-filled bastards resort to violence against innocent people to get their way, even if they think their cause is right.

Sounds like President Bush. How many innocent Iraqi's are dead because of him?

Last I checked, Bushdid not belong to any terrorist organisation and did not kill any civillians. But you already knew that :roll:

He gave the orders ... he's responsible. Despite what you believe, the buck stops at the top.

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Sounds like President Bush. How many innocent Iraqi's are dead because of him?

Surely not as many as Hussein was single-handedly responsible for.

Take off your partisan blinders, set down the talking points, and think.

That remains to be seen.

 

[MrWizzard]

None-the-less, our boys are dying for nothing!

Nothing?

All the terrorists that have been killed?

Saddam out of power?

People not being gassed anymore?

Payments to Terrorist's family's from Saddam have been stopped.

NOTHING?! It doesn't have to benefit just you to count as more than nothing.

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: DaShen
:| People who say that these people are just misunderstood are idiots. Only sadistic hate-filled bastards resort to violence against innocent people to get their way, even if they think their cause is right.

Sounds like President Bush. How many innocent Iraqi's are dead because of him?

Last I checked, Bushdid not belong to any terrorist organisation and did not kill any civillians. But you already knew that :roll:

He gave the orders ... he's responsible. Despite what you believe, the buck stops at the top.

He gave orders to who? The terrorists? Dude, your tinfoil hat is getting way too small for your head.

 

[ironcrotch]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Sounds like President Bush. How many innocent Iraqi's are dead because of him?

Surely not as many as Hussein was single-handedly responsible for.

Take off your partisan blinders, set down the talking points, and think.

That remains to be seen.

yea, cuz we're not for sure if he gas'd his own people. I mean hundreds of thousands of his own people murdered and laying dead in the streets isn't enough proof

 

[EatSpam]

Originally posted by: ironcrotch

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Sounds like President Bush. How many innocent Iraqi's are dead because of him?

Surely not as many as Hussein was single-handedly responsible for.

Take off your partisan blinders, set down the talking points, and think.

That remains to be seen.

yea, cuz we're not for sure if he gas'd his own people. I mean hundreds of thousands of his own people murdered and laying dead in the streets isn't enough proof

Um, link to hundreds of thousands of corpses lining the streets of Iraq, pre-invasion??? :roll:

Our kills continue to mount every day. How long until we exceed Saddam Hussein's count?

 

[AnyMal]

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: ironcrotch

Originally posted by: EatSpam

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Sounds like President Bush. How many innocent Iraqi's are dead because of him?

Surely not as many as Hussein was single-handedly responsible for.

Take off your partisan blinders, set down the talking points, and think.

That remains to be seen.

yea, cuz we're not for sure if he gas'd his own people. I mean hundreds of thousands of his own people murdered and laying dead in the streets isn't enough proof

Um, link to hundreds of thousands of corpses lining the streets of Iraq, pre-invasion??? :roll:

Our kills continue to mount every day. How long until we exceed Saddam Hussein's count?

Links to our soldiers killing civillians? Nice work troll.

 

[MrWizzard]

EATSPAM

Can you cut out cancer without taking some good tissue?

WE ARE NOT arguing that the civilian casualties are GOOD ok.

They are a byproduct of war. It's going to happen.

I don't understand what you are arguing? Are you saying if there are any civilian casualties that we should not have gone to war? What about WW2 or WW1?

How many is too many? 1? 1000? I really want to know what you think? Or is there a cause in your mind that makes civilian casualties justified?

How did you feel about Sept. 11th? If we knew where Bin-Ladin was and he was in a town with 10,000 civilians and they might die if we go in there and try to get him would you allow that? Where do you draw the line?

Are civilian casualties ok to you if we are attacking a country that killed 300,000 Americans?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: AnyMal

Originally posted by: J0hnny

Originally posted by: Pabster

Originally posted by: EatSpam
Sounds like President Bush. How many innocent Iraqi's are dead because of him?

Surely not as many as Hussein was single-handedly responsible for.

Take off your partisan blinders, set down the talking points, and think.

None-the-less, our boys are dying for nothing!

Nothing? We liberated millions of people. Does that sound like nothing?

Oh is that what the pre-war intelligence was saying?

 

[jpeyton]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

None-the-less, our boys are dying for nothing!

Nothing?

All the terrorists that have been killed?

Saddam out of power?

People not being gassed anymore?

Payments to Terrorist's family's from Saddam have been stopped.

NOTHING?! It doesn't have to benefit just you to count as more than nothing.

All the terrorists have been killed? That is news to me. Since Zarqawi and many foriegn insurgents weren't even in Iraq before the war, I would think the number of terrorists in Iraq have increased.

Praise Allah, secular Saddam is out of power and the entire Iraqi government will be replaced from the top down with a government modeled after Iran. That's a huge improvement.

Replace "gassed" with "bombed".

 

[MrWizzard]

jpeyton

If we had found WMDs would you think the war was justified?

 

[MrWizzard]

By jpeyton

All the terrorists have been killed? That is news to me. Since Zarqawi and many foriegn insurgents weren't even in Iraq before the war, I would think the number of terrorists in Iraq have increased.

I'm sorry if you mis-understood me, I am not saying that was a reason we went to war. I am saying that is one of the more positive things that was accomplished.

By jpeyton
Replace "gassed" with "bombed".

Why? I am talking about the ones that were specifically gassed not generally bombed. Yes a bomb might have dropped the gas but I still feel gassed is the right word.

 

[ahurtt]

Originally posted by: KC5AV

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: remagavon
There is no absolute right, or wrong with any of this. The bad thing is that we can't reason with them because they don't want anything except vengence, and they aren't centralized so we can't deal with them politically. This should also probably be in P&N.

I understand that. I am not saying that the U.S. is right, but how can they be so heartless and cold to innocent people. I actually understand where they are coming from with all the "involvement" in foreign affairs that the U.S. does. But in the end, I don't care what they say about being a citizen of this "corrupt" country makes us guilty, that is crap. Ghandi was a great leader who enforced change in a different way. It took a lot more sacrifice on his part and lead to more change. People who do the opposite, like Al-Queda, are just bullies and cowards who didn't get their way.

And yes this should be in P&N, but I am just ranting.

As they see it, there are no innocent Americans.

:thumbsup: The day we were born into this world in the USA, we were targets to these animals. The day my child or your child is born into the world, he or she will be a target as well. Just think about that. . .keep that in mind. They want you dead simply because you exist.

 

[remagavon]

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: remagavon
The problem is there is nobody on the planet that could have the effect of Ghandi, unless maybe the Pope did something similar. He's the only figure that I think could possibly get enough people moving to do something for peace. Like that'll happen.

That isn't true. I believe anyone who is willing to go to such lengths for what they believe can institute change. You just ahve to be willing to lose it all, just like Ghandi. Although he was really too trusting in the power of the human spirit. He should have been more forceful when India was being developed. It is sad with the unrest in Pakistan and India.

Sorry I am quoting myself, but I wanted to add that the main difference between Ghandi and the leading "terrorists" is not passive aggression versus violence. I believe it is strength of will, although non-voilence is a close sencond (but I believe they are inherently tied). None of the main terrorist leaders are willing to die for their cause. None of them have put themselves in harms way. Maybe during '86 bin Laden did, but he also had many people protecting him as well during that time (he was rich and funding the efforts BTW). Ghandi was willing and able to go to any length to institute change, including sacrificing his own well being for the sake of his cause, the "terrorists" are only willing to sacrifice others.

I honestly think that if bin Laden came out in the open. As in turning himself in and stating why he believes the U.S. is wrong before the U.S. inflicted punishment, more people would listen, and change would happen (just like in Ghandi's case). He states his beliefs behind a camera. That doesn't say anything on how strongly he believes in his own convictions. It only says that he is powerful and willing to sacrifice others for his belief.

**EDIT**
They send "brainwashed" followers to do the sacrificing for them.

What I'm saying is that I don't think any one figure today outside of the Pope has enough backing from the common people to institute any kind of change. People cared for Ghandi, if you or I or anybody else really tried to do that they simply wouldn't care and would continue with their ways. The Pope putting himself at risk is a huge deal so I think that would possibly be enough to get people moving. That's all.

If Bin Laden came out in the open we would kill him within minutes. Not exactly the response they're looking for. True, there could be a better way of going about protest, but most Americans and people worldwide for that matter are either ignorant or they choose to simply ignore what evidence is there. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just how people are.

 

[Conky]

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

By jpeyton

All the terrorists have been killed? That is news to me. Since Zarqawi and many foriegn insurgents weren't even in Iraq before the war, I would think the number of terrorists in Iraq have increased.

I'm sorry if you mis-understood me, I am not saying that was a reason we went to war. I am saying that is one of the more positive things that was accomplished.

He didn't misunderstand you, he misquoted you. He's one of those P&N trolls.

 

[DaShen]

Originally posted by: remagavon

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: DaShen

Originally posted by: remagavon
The problem is there is nobody on the planet that could have the effect of Ghandi, unless maybe the Pope did something similar. He's the only figure that I think could possibly get enough people moving to do something for peace. Like that'll happen.

That isn't true. I believe anyone who is willing to go to such lengths for what they believe can institute change. You just ahve to be willing to lose it all, just like Ghandi. Although he was really too trusting in the power of the human spirit. He should have been more forceful when India was being developed. It is sad with the unrest in Pakistan and India.

Sorry I am quoting myself, but I wanted to add that the main difference between Ghandi and the leading "terrorists" is not passive aggression versus violence. I believe it is strength of will, although non-voilence is a close sencond (but I believe they are inherently tied). None of the main terrorist leaders are willing to die for their cause. None of them have put themselves in harms way. Maybe during '86 bin Laden did, but he also had many people protecting him as well during that time (he was rich and funding the efforts BTW). Ghandi was willing and able to go to any length to institute change, including sacrificing his own well being for the sake of his cause, the "terrorists" are only willing to sacrifice others.

I honestly think that if bin Laden came out in the open. As in turning himself in and stating why he believes the U.S. is wrong before the U.S. inflicted punishment, more people would listen, and change would happen (just like in Ghandi's case). He states his beliefs behind a camera. That doesn't say anything on how strongly he believes in his own convictions. It only says that he is powerful and willing to sacrifice others for his belief.

**EDIT**
They send "brainwashed" followers to do the sacrificing for them.

What I'm saying is that I don't think any one figure today outside of the Pope has enough backing from the common people to institute any kind of change. People cared for Ghandi, if you or I or anybody else really tried to do that they simply wouldn't care and would continue with their ways. The Pope putting himself at risk is a huge deal so I think that would possibly be enough to get people moving. That's all.

If Bin Laden came out in the open we would kill him within minutes. Not exactly the response they're looking for. True, there could be a better way of going about protest, but most Americans and people worldwide for that matter are either ignorant or they choose to simply ignore what evidence is there. Not that there's anything wrong with that, it's just how people are.

Hmmmm.... very, very true. But look at Ghandi's beginnings when he first started his movement in S. Africa. He wasn't well-known until after he started in S. Africa. Anyone with conviction and a good character (both come hand-in-hand) can do it. He was just a lawyer before that.

And I guess I slightly agree with your bin Laden thinking, but if he was able to turn himself in publicly, we wouldn't be able to just kill him straight out because it would invoke a lot of rebellion. But we could also lock him up and hope people forget about him like Hussein. But if not him his followers could do the same until we wouldn't be able to hide it anymore.

 

[J0hnny]

Originally posted by: Crazyfool

Originally posted by: MrWizzard

By jpeyton

All the terrorists have been killed? That is news to me. Since Zarqawi and many foriegn insurgents weren't even in Iraq before the war, I would think the number of terrorists in Iraq have increased.

I'm sorry if you mis-understood me, I am not saying that was a reason we went to war. I am saying that is one of the more positive things that was accomplished.

He didn't misunderstand you, he misquoted you. He's one of those P&N trolls.

Oh so he's a troll because his disagrees with your opinion on the war. Okaaaaay.