The next time someone complains about how we are treating the POW's....

[UltraQuiet]

<< Then how do we define self-defense? >>



OK Czar here's the question I asked Elledan a few months ago. You have a gun, an "evildoer" has a gun pointed at your childs head and say he's going to kill him. Do you kill the "evildoer" or do you let your child be killed?

 

[Czar]

<<

<< Then how do we define self-defense? >>



OK Czar here's the question I asked Elledan a few months ago. You have a gun, an "evildoer" has a gun pointed at your childs head and say he's going to kill him. Do you kill the "evildoer" or do you let your child be killed? >>


Ofcorse not, but regarding self-defense, do you think its possible that this "evildoer" is acting also in self-defense because he belives you are threatening him?

 

[Czar]

<< Hey Czar, out of curiosity, why do you say killing is wrong? I don't disagree with you, but i don't agree with you either. Could you explain why you think that? Is it morals, biblical, b/c it's barbaric, or what? >>


Because it serves no purpose.

 

[Optimus]

Czar:

If I were a threat to the evildoer, then why is pointing a gun at my child acceptable? The child is innocent.

So were the people in the WTC.

War between armies is one thing, war targetting civilians is another.

But I believe you are referring to the Seals issue this thread is about - in this case, an unarmed captive cannot still pose a direct threat.




<< Because it serves no purpose. >>



A lot of things serve no purpose... is everything that serves no purpose "wrong"?

 

[Czar]

Optimus,
The so called "evildoer" isnt able to reach you or that he belives that it is more likely that you stop threatening him if he threatens your child.

In this day and age there is no war between armies, nearly all modern wars have higher civilian casualties than military ones.

I´m refering to self-defense in general, regarding this thread than most likely it was a direct revange for all their "comrads" who have been killed in the bombings.


<< A lot of things serve no purpose... is everything that serves no purpose "wrong"? >>

No but when it only does harm then it is "wrong".

 

[Hammer]

Hey Czar, here's a riddle for you:

What would have happen to Iceland if the US had hung it out to dry during the Cold War?

 

[Czar]

<< Hey Czar, here's a riddle for you:

What would have happen to Iceland if the US had hung it out to dry during the Cold War? >>


Not a clue realy, only thing for sure is that no Marshall plan. And realy, that doesnt have to do with this issue.

 

[spazntwich1]

<< Hey Czar, here's a riddle for you:

What would have happen to Iceland if the US had hung it out to dry during the Cold War? >>



Easy: We might've lost all of those beautiful Icelandic girls!

 

[StormRider]

<< an eye for an eye will make the whole world go blind.

Dropping bombs on whole troops of soldiers doesn't make us any more civilized than what they did. Killing is wrong either way.

>>



Czar,

Let's take a look at how Nature handles threats. Take our body for example. Let's supposed it's been invaded by a virus/bacteria. What happens? Our bodies immune system kicks in. Our body temperature increases. When this happens sometimes "innocent/good" cells are killed or hurt. My mom once temporily lost her hearing because of a high fever that resulted from an infection in her sinus cavity. Her body fought the infection but in the aftermath of the fight, her ears were damaged.

If our bodies do not fight back, then death can result.

The Taliban/al-Qaeda is like a virus/bacteria. They are out to kill us. Is the human body "wrong" when it tries to kill an infection? Is it wrong for it to defend itself? Is it wrong for us to defend ourselves by killing the Taliban/al-Qaeda? I say it's not wrong.

You try to take the high moral ground but you take it to extremes and your point of view is like a cancer. Sometimes you have to take sides -- and not worry about "right or wrong". Are you with the Taliban/al-Qaeda or are you with us? If cells in the human body started to worry about killing infections, then the whole body will die. Those "high-moral" cells are like a cancer -- helping the enemy from within. If more people thought like you, we might as well all commit suicide.

 

[Hammer]

The issue is that you always have something negative to say about the US. Don't bite the hand the feeds you.
You'd be speaking Russian right now if it wasn't for us.



<<

<< Hey Czar, here's a riddle for you:

What would have happen to Iceland if the US had hung it out to dry during the Cold War? >>


Not a clue realy, only thing for sure is that no Marshall plan. And realy, that doesnt have to do with this issue. >>

 

[Czar]

StormRider,
First of all, that quote was written by novon, not me.

The definition of good and evil depends on each and everyone one of us, what I belive is good can be evil to you and visa versa. To the Taliban and many other people the US is the bacteria and therefor in this issue there is no right and no wrong in this case.

Its true, I try to take the high moral ground, but you only see one side of this. There is motive to every action and everyone belives they are doing good.

 

[Czar]

hammer09,
and does this nullifiy my point? so no one can object to actions taken by the US or any nation that helped some other nation because of the "if it werent for us" speech? hey, we here in europe could also do the same, if it werent for us your country wouldnt even exist in the same way it does now. Sounds a bit stupid doesnt it.

 

[Hammer]

My point is that its safe to curse violence and killing in war when you sit all warm and cozy under the protection of a benevolent country and have no need to maintain a military to defend yourself.

 

[Czar]

<< My point is that its safe to curse violence and killing in war when you sit all warm and cozy under the protection of a benevolent country and have no need to maintain a military to defend yourself. >>


But is my point wrong? should everyone stop objecting things that US does and just support it blindly just because?

 

[StormRider]

<< StormRider,
First of all, that quote was written by novon, not me.
>>



Opps, sorry about misquoting you.



<<
The definition of good and evil depends on each and everyone one of us, what I belive is good can be evil to you and visa versa. To the Taliban and many other people the US is the bacteria and therefor in this issue there is no right and no wrong in this case.

Its true, I try to take the high moral ground, but you only see one side of this. There is motive to every action and everyone belives they are doing good.

>>



Of course right and wrong is relative. If the Taliban/al-Qaeda wins this "war" then history will be written so that we are the bad guys. And if we win this "war", history will be written so that they are the bad guys.

But my point is this -- at some point in your life, you have to pick sides. It's not about right or wrong. It's just us versus them.

You sit there and enjoy the freedoms that "we" provide you. You have the freedom to say whatever you want. If you were living under the Taliban/al-Qaeda way of life, you would be sitting on the floor, rocking and bobbing your head up and down as you try to memorize every verse of the Koran. If you speak your own mind, you might get a flogging. If you aren't Muslim, then you would be required to pay a penalty tax.

You are essentially a part of "us" but you take their side. You're like a cancer -- trying to weaken our resolve for a very important battle for our way of life. Which side do you want to be on?

 

[Hammer]

Should you object about every issue the US is involved in just because its the US? It seems like you do. I don't think I ever seen a post of your with 'US' in it that was negative.



<< But is my point wrong? should everyone stop objecting things that US does and just support it blindly just because? >>

 

[Balt]

<< <<To the Taliban and many other people the US is the bacteria and therefor in this issue there is no right and no wrong in this case.>> >>



What a steaming load of crap.

 

[Czar]

StormRider,
Its true that whoever wins this will be regarded as the good guy in history books, but in history books we will read after 10-20 years will look at the US as the winner but it is very possible that after 10-20 years people in the middle east will look at the taliban/alqaeda as the winners regardless of the facts.

I will not pick sides untill I am forced to. I sit here because of how the world is, not because of just one thing over another, just because some part of it is because of the US but that does not ban me from critizising actions taken by the US. You cant say that without the US the world would be controled by Germany, by China, by Russia or by the Taliban because there are so many factors to take into account, not just one.

I do not take their side, just trying to make people realise that the world is not black and white and that the reason that makes someone dislike some person is very possibly the same reason why that person dislikes that someone.

 

[NikPreviousAcct]

Why would I ever complain about how well we treat those pieces of crap? They should have shade from the sun and enough food/water to keep them alive, and that's it.

That story of the SEAL is a sad one -and one that pinches the one giant nerve that I have left.



<< "We body slammed them today and killed hundreds of those guys," Hagenbeck said. >>

I believe a w0ot is in order. So, great, we see yet another Black Hawk Down story? Why does this keep happening??? I just don't get it

nik

 

[Czar]

<< Should you object about every issue the US is involved in just because its the US? It seems like you do. I don't think I ever seen a post of your with 'US' in it that was negative. >>


Should I?, no because some issues I agree with and some I dont, just like it is with everyone.

 

[Hammer]

That's a very european attitude. When it comes to terrorism, you are either with us or with them. If you want to support terrorism, that's your business, but be prepared to live with the consequences. Did I say the whole world would be controlled? No, I said Iceland. Why? Because every conventional Soviet attack plan called for taking Iceland as one of the first steps due to its strategic location.



<< ill not pick sides untill I am forced to.t here because of how the world is, not because of just one thing over another, just because some part of it is because of the US but that does not ban me from critizising actions taken by the US. You cant say that without the US the world would be controled by Germany, by China, by Russia or by the Taliban because there are so many factors to take into account, not just one. >>

 

[Czar]

hammer09
Thats where I disagree and agree, I am with you fighting terrorism but I'm not with in your thinking of those terrirists nor how quickly military actions are taken. The most important objectiv when fighting terrorism is removing the reason for it because if the reason is there there will always be more terorrists no matter how many are killed.

And again, what does Russia have to do with this? nothing.

 

[soccerbud34]

<<
The most important objectiv when fighting terrorism is removing the reason for it because if the reason is there there will always be more terorrists no matter how many are killed. >>




According to those terrorists, the reason behind their terroristic attach is becasuse of the bad influence of the western culture(especially that of the US), which they view as an evil threat to their society and their culture. So how should we remove the reason?



<< ill not pick sides untill I am forced to. >>



To me, with that attitude, when you are forced to take sides, the time will most like be too late.
e.g. during World War II when the European nations decided to take side against Germany, it was too late.

but that's just my two cents

edit ** spelling **

 

[Czar]

soccerbud34


<< According to those terrorists, the reason behind their terroristic attch is becasuse of the bad influence of the western culture(especially that of the US), which they view as an evil threat to their society and their culture. So how should we remove the reason? >>


By interfering with their society alot less is one way.



<< To me, with that attitude, when you are forced to take sides, the time will most like be too late.
e.g. during World War II when the European nations decided to take side against Germany, it was too late. >>


It all depends how close to you the threat is, in the WW2 the threat was very close, currently the terrorist threat is closest to the US.

And people learned alot from WW2 that will continue for as long as people talk about it.

 

[soccerbud34]

<< soccerbud34


<< According to those terrorists, the reason behind their terroristic attch is becasuse of the bad influence of the western culture(especially that of the US), which they view as an evil threat to their society and their culture. So how should we remove the reason? >>


By interfering with their society alot less is one way.

Are we, as american or as the western culture, forcing them to adopt or conform to our culture? If so, can you give examples as to how we are forcing them?

just wondering