U.S. again bombs mourners

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

I know, what I meant though is more frequently and for reasons other than occupying land - moreso about converting them them Islam, as Hans Landa has so eloquently prophesized.

Well I think we'd see that in a heartbeat if not for the US support of Israel, along with many other nations. Although I don't think there'd be much interest in conversion, it would be more about extinction.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by valo403

Are you denying that there were links between Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Because those are pretty well documented. There were certainly Saudi ties as well, but I think we all know that going after the Saudi's is a much more complicated endeavor.

Al Qaeda fought along side the Taliban to free Afghanistan from the Soviets using the weapons and training the CIA gave them, of course they had strong links, that doesn't mean the Taliban had anything to do with 9/11.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

I'm sure the US' existence is the only reason Iran hasn't wiped Israel off the map yet.
Similarly, China's existence is the only reason the US, Japan and South Korea hasn't wiped North Korea off the map yet.

Except that the Israeli situation has nothing to do with Al Qaeda. That's about occupied territory, which includes US support for it. Relatedly, that is a reason for anti-US sentiment amongst the Islamic world however, and perhaps worthy of a separate discussion.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Also, given Al-Quedas methods of attack (using radical Muslims already living within our borders), it's not resource heavy at all.
Look at the Toronto 18 and their plans to behead Harper. They were ready to wreak havoc all over Ontario... some of these idiots were born in Canada too... the resource burden was on Canada in this case. That's scary.

I agree in the sense that there is always the possibility of sleeper cells in North America - but that hardly has anything to do with spreading Islam in any way, shape or form. Those types of situations are more retalitory for different reasons.

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Osama's sole beef with the US prior to 9/11 was the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the land that the whabbis consider holy land, had we had a little bit of common sense and not put several thousand beer swilling US troops, especially uncovered females on several vast bases on the Suadi Kuwait border we wouldn't be in this mess.

Not to say the majority of arabs would love us but it was the bases that ticked Osama off.

I hope you're just educating us and not defending Osama's justification for being ticked off (uncovered women and drunks). If so, excellent.


The problem in reasoning with someone like me is that, I refuse to show compassion or respect for a country that isn't free. Saudi Arabia isn't free, so I refuse to provide it an excuse, nor do I care about the people within the borders that support the ideology that keeps them oppressed.
Uncovered Women? Wow. Oh no, let's bomb a ship and then spend the next several years plotting to kill thousands more in American office towers.

I truly believe the world is better off without people that think this way. It's stone-age, it's primitive, it's backwards, it's ruthless, it's oppressive... it's totalitarian nonsense.
Of course libertarians will call out my intolerance for it as stone-age, primitive and backwards. Funny how that works when you think about it.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

I hope you're just educating us and not defending Osama's justification for being ticked off (uncovered women and drunks). If so, excellent.


The problem in reasoning with someone like me is that, I refuse to show compassion or respect for a country that isn't free. Saudi Arabia isn't free, so I refuse to provide it an excuse, nor do I care about the people within the borders that support the ideology that keeps them oppressed.
Uncovered Women? Wow. Oh no, let's bomb a ship and then spend the next several years plotting to kill thousands more in American office towers.

I truly believe the world is better off without people that think this way. It's stone-age, it's primitive, it's backwards, it's ruthless, it's oppressive... it's totalitarian nonsense.
Of course libertarians will call out my intolerance for it as stone-age, primitive and backwards. Funny how that works when you think about it.

And how about the vast majority of them that are kept oppressed not by their religious views, but by a brutal regime?

[Montana Moe]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

I'm an atheist, but given one of the longest threads on this forum is one that is a flat out bashing of all religion, I get a kick out of when someone is shocked when someone slams a foreign religion.


It's not that shocking, nor is it offensive in a free country.

I can't speak for the others, but it was more of a "wow" comment due to the fact that you would think that future generations would just roll over and allow Sharia Law. That's asinine.

Slam foreign religions all you'd like, good sir. Slam them all, I say!

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by Montana Moe

I can't speak for the others, but it was more of a "wow" comment due to the fact that you would think that future generations would just roll over and allow Sharia Law. That's asinine.

Slam foreign religions all you'd like, good sir. Slam them all, I say!

Why would I not think that OUR generation would roll over and allow it?

The UK's current generation is already allowing it:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

Given that Canada is a commonwealth country, we can't be that far off.

Subscribing to the 'when in Rome' way of thinking will get you called a racist these days (don't ask me why, lefty extremists are a mystery to me).


Anyways, this is actually off topic... I apologize. My mind sews all of this together a little too easily perhaps.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

I hope you're just educating us and not defending Osama's justification for being ticked off (uncovered women and drunks).

Of course, even if he is one of those Sharia-embracing libertarians that you show such disdain for - he is clearly not justifying 9/11.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

The problem in reasoning with someone like me is...

That's a rather peculiar way to engage in a conversation.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

I refuse to show compassion or respect for a country that isn't free. Saudi Arabia isn't free, so I refuse to provide it an excuse, nor do I care about the people within the borders that support the ideology that keeps them oppressed.

You refuse to show compassion or respect for girls that attend school against the wishes of religious zealots? You blame those girls for the acid thrown in their face because they haven't openly renounced their faith (which would result in their death) ?

What a peculiar thing to be proud of.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Uncovered Women? Wow. Oh no, let's bomb a ship and then spend the next several years plotting to kill thousands more in American office towers.

Justifications for vengeance murders often lack proportion and may even be wrong!

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

I truly believe the world is better off without people that think this way. It's stone-age, it's primitive, it's backwards, it's ruthless, it's oppressive... it's totalitarian nonsense.

Pacifism is the belief that avoiding violence can end the proliferation of those thoughts.

As long as the strongest army makes the rules your opponents will aspire to strengthen their army and weaken yours.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Of course libertarians will call out my intolerance for it as stone-age, primitive and backwards. Funny how that works when you think about it.

I'm not sure that being a libertarian is involved, but if you find comedy in my confusion at the hypocrisy of your ruthless and primitive worldview...then...congratulations?

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by Gozer

You refuse to show compassion or respect for girls that attend school against the wishes of religious zealots? You blame those girls for the acid thrown in their face because they haven't openly renounced their faith (which would result in their death) ?

You're over stretching (on purpose perhaps) what I've said. Big Time.

I never said any of what you suggested in this. If there are people within those borders fighting to be liberated or fighting for the kind of freedoms we enjoy, then of course I have compassion for them and I welcome THOSE kind of individuals to live within the borders of my country.

I even said "people within those borders that support the ideology"

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I'm not sure that being a libertarian is involved

It is. Thanks.


Either way, aside from me being an aethiest, pro-choice and have a semi-leftist view on environmental issues, I'm a right-winger to the core.

We won't agree on much if you're a libertarian, but we don't need to belittle each other at a personal level, unless that's where you like to take your adult debates and discussions.

If so... congratulations?

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

You're over stretching (on purpose perhaps) what I've said. Big Time.

It was certainly a reduction to the absurd.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

I never said any of what you suggested in this

Sure you did.

-Schoolgirl thinks Americans are invading her holy land against the wishes of Allah

-Schoolgirl is burned by members of the Taliban that don't want them to learn non-religious principles in school

-You have no compassion or respect for her because she's on the same team

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

It is. Thanks.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Either way, aside from me being an aethiest, pro-choice and have a semi-leftist view on environmental issues, I'm a right-winger to the core.

We won't agree on much if you're a libertarian

On what issues do you disagree with libertarians?

Would you agree with me more if I was a socialist?

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

we don't need to belittle each other at a personal level, unless that's where you like to take your adult debates and discussions.

It's not my intention to belittle you on a personal level, but I'm not going to soft-ball my critiques of your stated worldview.

Refusing to accept critiques of worldviews leads to stuff like this: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-16522447

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by Gozer

It was certainly a reduction to the absurd.



Sure you did.

-Schoolgirl thinks Americans are invading her holy land against the wishes of Allah

-Schoolgirl is burned by members of the Taliban that don't want them to learn non-religious principles in school

-You have no compassion or respect for her because she's on the same team

Who do you blame for the acid face and the schoolgirl burnings? It's not very clear since you're focusing too much and trying to be a smart ass.

If you're suggesting that people are being burned is the fault of the US/Canada and not the Taliban, then I can no longer continue this debate with you (no offense).

It sounds like you are suggesting that I have no compassion for burning children because they want to be liberated and that's not allowed under Taliban rule. Is this correct?

Or are you suggesting that they are being burned because they support the Taliban but are being forced by US/Canada to go to school, resulting in their torture?

If it's the latter... then yes, you got it right. I have no compassion for them.
I have compassion only for those that embrace a Western definition of freedom and equal rights for women.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

You're over stretching (on purpose perhaps) what I've said. Big Time.

I never said any of what you suggested in this. If there are people within those borders fighting to be liberated or fighting for the kind of freedoms we enjoy, then of course I have compassion for them and I welcome THOSE kind of individuals to live within the borders of my country.

I even said "people within those borders that support the ideology"

Well what's the ideology? Islam?

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Refusing to accept critiques of worldviews...

Well you are correct, as my worldview, as delivered in my examples is EXTREMELY hypocritical.

But like I said in a previous post with respect to my selfishness. I'm comfortable in it because I know who's side I'm on.


Anyways, to continue this (from my end) will just end up with me typing out the same thing a dozen different ways.
Agree to disagree. Fun thread.

Time to go pick up the wife from work, make dinner and ignore the internet for the evening.

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Who do you blame for the acid face and the schoolgirl burnings? It's not very clear since you're focusing too much and trying to be a smart ass.

I was exploring your views, not offering my own.
I blame the religious zealots.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

It sounds like you are suggesting that I have no compassion for burning children because they want to be liberated and that's not allowed under Taliban rule. Is this correct?

It was not my intention to presume your motive.

I'm unsure of how to answer your question, but I will say this:
My compassion for the acid-burned schoolgirl is not dependent on her desire to be free of her religion or her devotion to a belief-system that executes deserters.

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Or are you suggesting that they are being burned because they support the Taliban but are being forced by US/Canada to go to school, resulting in their torture?

That was not my intended assertion.
I do not consider that hypothetical to be very common.
The schools these girls attend do not have anything resembling the type of resources that compulsory attendance would require.

They are trying, at great risk to themselves, to become informed members of the world community that will not need to rely on fear and ignorance.

[FlamingLonghorn]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Only attacking people that deserve it is not pacifism.



Ghandi and Einstein were pacifists - the word has meaning.

Well there are different levels of pacifism. It's a much more complicated philosophy than violence or no violence. However, I don't think that Caged Great's belief system is aligned with any of them, maybe Conditional Utilitarian Pacifism. However, you would be wrong in saying a girl who is getting raped and fights back is not a pacifist, because in many interpretations she still can be. There are people who are national pacifists that believe war is never necessary but don't hold those beliefs for individual people.

Also, Gandhi said that standing and fighting was better than running away, but standing and fighting through nonviolent means was the best.

[RougeUnderoos]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

I have compassion only for those that embrace a Western definition of freedom and equal rights for women.

Wow. And before we get into a discussion of what I mean by wow, I mean this: Wow, what a stupid thing to say.

[burn_this_city]

Hans Landa is a perfect example of what watching the news and doing no research does to an impressionable mind. "They hate us because we're free", no they hate us because we ####ed them over continuously.

One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist. Like it or not, the West deserves a lot of credit for creating these people. The US empowered and cemented the Saudi royal family, who in turn exported the most fundamental and ridiculous form of Islam to countries like Pakistan. We created Israel out of guilt for the holocaust and WW2, without considering the consequences. During the colonial era Europe created countries in the Middle East and Africa without considering whether or not the very tribal inhabitants would get along. We pandered to brutal dictators and regimes out of convenience, which radicalized segments of their populations. We overthrew elected governments and installed puppets who were eventually overthrown by brutal fundamentalists. We engaged in proxy conflicts against the Soviets then abandoned the friendly actors when their usefulness had expired. If the US had helped rebuild Afghanistan after the Soviet/Afghan conflict I doubt we would be there today. A lot of what is happening now is the results of numerous mistakes made over the last hundred years or so.

[Makarov]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

We won't agree on much if you're a libertarian, but we don't need to belittle each other at a personal level, unless that's where you like to take your adult debates and discussions.

I can't tell whether or not, when you say "libertarian", you in fact mean "liberal".

In any event, I'll just add my two cents to this thread:

In 2005, I spent roughly 5 months in western and northwestern Pakistan and Afghanistan. I took the Khyber Pass through Pakistan's tribal regions to Kabul (the area on which these drone attacks are largely focused.) I can say unhesitatingly that the vast majority of people who live in this region (primarily Pashtuns of course) are, although fiercely loyal to their families and "tribes", some of the warmest, most generous people that I have ever met. I am the whitest, most obviously foreign person who could have possibly been wandering about in the mid-day sun, and yet I found myself embarrassed by the kindness and nearly hourly invitations to visit homes and feast (in one of the poorest regions of the world.)

I only tell this story to make my point more emphatic: Killing people (yes, people) on a basis as arbitrary as funeral attendance is a crime against decency and humanity. Its appalling. It is every bit as horrific as killing people because they work in a World Trade Center tower.