Heh. Are you serious?galenrox said:Alright, I haven't read the above yet, but I feel I probably don't need to.
I'm going to let you in on a secret. You don't know why we starting killing Iraqis. Unless you can provide evidence that you do know the real reasons behind those in power's decision. You cannot.We did not decide to start killing Iraqis based on their religion. For one, if we're gonna attack a nation just for being muslim, why didn't we attack Indonesia, or Iran, or Saudi Arabia, or Sudan, or Egypt, or Jordan, or Lebanon, or Syria, or any of the other nations that are hugely muslim?
I don't need to, because that was not my claim. it was derived from Calm2Chaos's post about bush and his christian morals, it was a logical extension. No, I happen to not think religion was a "primary" motive for the war.Even if you've managed to prove that religion played a role in our decision making, which I doubt, you absolutely have not proven that that is the reason we went to war (namely due to the fact that that is impossible).
Say what you will about Iraq, but for the love of God use some sense. If you honestly believe what you've said, then you're quite firmly in the tin foil hat club. Right or wrong, Bush went into Iraq because he legitimately believed it was the right thing to do in the interest of our nation's security.
Calm2Chaos said:Incorrect - I don't recall the president ever saying that he is killing anyone in the name of christianity or god. I don't recall him ever saying anything concerning pushing his religion or religious beliefs on Iraq, as the reason for the attack.
Untrue. If this dumb fu.cking statement was true we would be carpet bombing mecca. This sounds like more anti-US anti-bush babble of made up facts. If this country wanted to just wipe tem out because of the religion we would be able to do it without ever putting a soldier in harms way. And we would be targeting a much larger area, like the whoile ME. Then follow it up with the large population in this country of muslims. Sorry but another assanine statement, im betting there more
...Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq for no apparent reason with the full knowledge that many Iraqi civilians would be killed by American forces.cam2chaos said:He is a christian, so he says. He derives his morals from his religion which is what most people do it seems. These morals he supposedly uses to make decisions.
Bush probably told you this one too, right?The Americans are not the ones doing the killing, the vast majority of deaths in this country are from terrorist and Iraqi's.
Calm2Chaos said:I don't remeber the last time any war was ever waged against the citizens of a country.
JUST ONCE!!!!! ONE TIME PLZZZZZZZZZZZZ
Instances of ethnic cleansinghttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ethnic_cleansing
[edit] Early instances
The St. Brice's Day massacre of all Danes living in England on the orders of the Anglo-Saxon king Ethelred the Unready.
The Edict of Expulsion, given by Edward I of England in 1290, exiled the Jews from England for 350 years. [11]
The Alhambra decree, issued by Isabella of Castile and Ferdinand II of Aragon, ordered the expulsion of all Jews from Spain and its territories and possessions by July 31, 1492. [12]
Spain's large Muslim minority, inherited from that country's former Islamic kingdoms, was expelled in 1502, while Muslim converts to Christianity, called Moriscos, were expelled between 1609 and 1614.[13]
[edit] Colonial period
Expulsion of Acadians by British between 1755 and 1763.
The invasion of Gibraltar by Britain in 1704 led to an ethnic cleansing of the local Andalusian population, who were expelled from the territory in 1704[14]
In the United States in the 19th century there were numerous instances of relocation of Native American peoples from their traditional areas to often remote reservations elsewhere in the country, particularly in the Indian Removal policy of the 1830s. The Trail of Tears, which led to the deaths of about 2,000 to 8,000 Cherokees from disease, and the Long Walk of the Navajo are well-known examples. [15] [16][Quote from source requested on talk page to verify interpretation of source]
Expulsion of Turkish, Muslim, and Jewish populations from Balkans following the independence of Balkan countries (e.g., Serbia, Greece, Bulgaria) from Ottoman Empire from early 1800s to early 1900.[17]
Expulsion of Muslim populations in Northern Caucasus by imperial Russia throughout 19th century. Particularly, expulsion of Circassians to Anatolia in 1864.[18] (see Muhajir (Caucasus) for more details)
[edit] 20th century
The Armenian Genocide and the Pontian Greek Genocide perpetrated by the Young Turks during 1914–1922.[19]
The Assyrian genocide also perpetrated by the Young Turks in collaboration with the Kurdish people between 1915 and 1918.
The persecutions and expulsions of Jews in Germany, Austria and other Nazi-controlled areas prior to the initiation of mass genocide in 1941.[20]
Nazi Germany wiped out entire populations of Jews, Roma people and Sinti ("Gypsies") during World War II (see also the Holocaust).[21] [22]
Genocide and ethnic cleansing by Hungarian, German and Croatian Axis troops against Serb, Jewish and Roma civilians in Vojvodina province of Serbia between 1941 and 1944 (See: Crimes of the occupiers in Vojvodina, 1941-1944).
Killings by Yugoslav communist partizans against ethnic Hungarians and Germans in Vojvodina province of Serbia in 1944-1945 (See: 1944-1945 Killings in Bačka).
Direct Action Day, in which Hindus were massacred as part of the Muslim League's demands for an independent Pakistan.
Mass expulsions of Hindus and Sikhs from Pakistan to India. This was to create an Islamic state in an area which was historically related to the origins of Hinduism and Sikhism. The controversy surrounding this move resulted in the killings of Muslims, Hindus and Sikhs in riots. This was known as the partition of British India in 1947.[23]
The mass deportation of ethnic minorities from their homelands, including East Timor and Papua, by the Indonesian government, beginning with Indonesian independence in 1949 (and subsequent occupation and annexation of Papua until the present day and of East Timor until 1999).[24][25]
Displacement of Kashmiri Hindus living in Kashmir due to the ongoing and anti-Indian insurgency. Some 500,000 Hindus have been internally displaced from Kashmir due to the violence. [26]
The removal of the entire population of the Chagos Archipelago (including Diego Garcia) by the United Kingdom and United States in the 1960s and 1970s. [27][28]
Forced removals of non-white populations in South Africa under Apartheid.[29][30]
The mass expulsions of Greek Cypriots from northern Cyprus and of Turkish Cypriots from southern Cyprus in 1974-1975.[31]
Massacre of 3000 tamils and diaspora of over half a million in Sri Lanka
The widespread ethnic cleansing accompanying the Yugoslav wars from 1991 to 1999, of which the most significant examples occurred in eastern Croatia and Krajina (1991-1995), in most of Bosnia (1992-1995), and in the Albanian-dominated breakaway Kosovo province (of Serbia) (1999). Large numbers of Serbs, Croats, Bosniaks and Albanians were forced to flee their homes and expelled.[32]
The forced displacement of some 200,000 Georgians and other non-Abkhazians from Abkhazia in 1993. [33]
The 1994 massacres of Tutsis by Hutus, known as the Rwandan Genocide [34]
[edit] 21st century
Attacks by the Janjaweed Arabs, Muslim militias of Sudan on the non-Arab African Muslim population of Darfur, a region of western Sudan. [35][36]
Mach said:So, you're writing to say you believe this:
A politician involved in something that would not be popular, or perhaps even ethical, or illegal, will describe their actions, and motives for doing so, voluntarily, to the public.
Mach said:You have got to get a new hobby if you really think that's a healthy statement.
Mach said:Yes, but that's just derived from your statements!
Again thats your opinion on why he went to war. I think he thought he had a justifiable reason(s) to do so. Wether you or I agree with his reasons are another story, but anything else is assumptionMach said:...Bush made the decision to go to war with Iraq for no apparent reason with the full knowledge that many Iraqi civilians would be killed by American forces.
Mach said:That's your claim, not mine. In fact, I don't think there is much evidence (or any?) that religion was a primary motive for Bush's war with muslims...err...Iraq. Seriously.
Mach said:2. America chose to kill them based on their religion (from above)?
Mach said:Bush probably told you this one too, right?
Point in fact, no one has clear death numbers, or their cause, not our government, by admission, not Iraq's government, by admission.
Mach said:Darfur
Serbia/Croatia/Bosnia
WWII Nazis
-Mach
Calm2Chaos said:Course its about Bush bashing. It's what you do and all you seem to do. He is a christian, so he says. He derives his morals from his religion which is what most people do it seems. These morals he supposedly uses to make decisions. None of this is out of the ordinary. It's when you start strapping bombs to your chest, hijacking planes, blowing up busses, planes, trains, cars, bikes, skateboards and any other form of public transportation, when you target your own people and innocent ones. when you decide that everyone must belive in what you do or die. When you belive God has given you the right to dictate who should live and die. Not a single person but a group, a large group or faction with in that religion believes and supports the out right murder of innocent men woman and children.... I know you don't see the difference... I wouldn't expect you to
Calm2Chaos said:I said no such thing. I am not actually sure where you go tthis or how you got off into this tangent. I said what I said, and you tried to infer that the President was killing in the name of his religion. You were wrong and you tried to twist things to be more favorable to you
Originally Posted by Calm2Chaos
Incorrect - I don't recall the president ever saying that he is killing anyone in the name of christianity or god. I don't recall him ever saying anything concerning pushing his religion or religious beliefs on Iraq, as the reason for the attack.
And your full of ****. You stated were killing people because of there religion. Please don't try and lie or distort what you said.
Again thats your opinion on why he went to war. I think he thought he had a justifiable reason(s) to do so. Wether you or I agree with his reasons are another story, but anything else is assumption. As does happen in any war or conflict. He did not however go to war against the population of this country as was explained earlier. If you choose to ignore what I wrote thats fine.
Please show me exactly were I said this. I already showed you were you said it. Again it seems like your trying to twist meaning, words and sentences
10-26-06 09:17 AM
Originally Posted by cam2chaos
He is a christian, so he says. He derives his morals from his religion which is what most people do it seems. These morals he supposedly uses to make decisions.
I never said it had anything to do with religion whatsoever ... If I recall your the one that said that
Your now talking about ethnic cleansing which is:
the elimination of an unwanted ethnic group or groups from a society, as by genocide or forced emigration
This is not warring against an entire population. It is the genocide of a specific portion of a population.
WWII was not ethnic cleansing, it was partly the result of it but that was not what it was about.
You are trying to equate the expulsion of the jews (Ethnic cleansing) to a nation going to war aginst the entire population of another nation. I don't see the correlation
You stated
Originally Posted by Mach
Iraqis as a population were not terrorising anyone, but now american is clearly killing them.
What your trying to say is that the US is attempting to perform genocide. And you are comparing the US to Nazi's. Both statements are ludicrous
Both the White House and Palestinian leader Mahmoud Abbas, who was also present at the meeting, deny that Bush ever made such a statement.tecoyah said:George Bush is a Christian Conservative......does this point to State Sponsored Killing? And, if so, Does it not denote Christians are indeed.....Killing People?
"In Elusive Peace: Israel and the Arabs, a major three-part series on BBC TWO (at 9.00pm on Monday 10, Monday 17 and Monday 24 October), Abu Mazen, Palestinian Prime Minister, and Nabil Shaath, his Foreign Minister, describe their first meeting with President Bush in June 2003.
Nabil Shaath says: "President Bush said to all of us: 'I'm driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, "George, go and fight those terrorists in Afghanistan." And I did, and then God would tell me, "George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq …" And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, "Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East." And by God I'm gonna do it.'"
http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2005/10_october/06/bush.shtml
That said....there is a profound difference between one man deciding to inflict death in Warfare.....and an entire sect of religion doing so as individuals.
Hatuey said:I would think a man sending 140,000 soldiers to war because of his religious beliefs would be the equivalent of one man strapping c4 to his chest because of his religious beliefs. Semantics if you will. Killing 5-6 kids with a bomb thrown from a plane because some guy's god told you it was the right thing to do is exactly the same as another guy strapping c4 to his chest and killing 5-6 other kids because his god told him to. If you dont understand the similiraties, I think it's you who has the intelligence defficit.
Mach said:Once again, read my quotes, they are logical extensions of what you wrote.
What you wite and quote are distortions, you should at least find a solid argument you can stand behind instead of trying to edit other peopl
es responses to fit yours
LOL... You made this very aqusationMach said:There is no need to introduce a strawman that I claim they are intentionally attacking civilians.
-Mach
Ive opted not to respond to the lies and distortion you again wrote. You lied again, and I am not going waste time showing you everytime you contradict yourself, which seems to be over and over again. You don't seem actually capable of having your own thoughts. You make statements, then you take responses and twist them or edit them to make your argument.
Sorry ... You have nothing
Mach said:Calm2Chaos.
Just reading about WWII today, wouldn't you know it:
WWII allied fire bombing directly targeting civilian population with incendiary and HE bombs. Some estimates show the firebombing of cities like Tokyo caused more deaths than the also intentional civilian targets of the atomic bombs. That's like half of LA or NY being obliterated.
http://www.commondreams.org/headlines02/0310-01.htm
To debate why, was it justified, or was it a crime, is one thing. To deny it happened or to argue it didn't, for shame.
-Mach
Calm2Chaos said:Carpet bombing was standard practice in the day to destroy infrastructure. Destruction of infrastructure reduces your enemies ability to resuply, rearm and continue to mobilize a warring state. People died in these attacks, thats obvious, this does not however point to the premise you set forth of warring against the population of a country
Lets just say that we are defining things differently. I am seperating civilian deaths in a war unless targeted specifically as collateral damage..
Calm2Chaos said:Mach said:What you wite and quote are distortions, you should at least find a solid argument you can stand behind instead of trying to edit other peopl
es responses to fit yours[/COLOR]
You make statements, then you take responses and twist them or edit them to make your argument.
Sorry ... You have nothing
I believe anyone can read the quotes and make a decision for themselves on why your argument is flawed. I realize you don't believe it is, I can't really do much more to change that.
-Mach
Calm2Chaos said:Let me ask you Gunny, maybe I am completely off base on this:
DO we fight wars against the entire population of a country or against the government , ideas and ideals of our enemy.
Calm2Chaos said:Do we now or did we target civilians when we bombed cities in WWII, or were we looking to destroy infrastructure to reduce our enemies effectiveness. Or would it be acceptable IYO that by doing this we were trying to wpe out as mush of the civilian population as possible?
GySgt said:We fight other governments and militaries. Today, we fight those in uniform and those out of uniform that fight for terror or ideal. Our enemies may be an entire civilization (Radical element who cater to martyrs and raise terrorists), but we fight only those that pick up the gun.
Our moral fiber is what gives our current enemies their certain advantage. Our enemies only need to drop their weapons to become that helpless, defensless civilian the media parades around.
We do not target civillians. We target infrastructure and structures that our enemies use (and may use) to cause harm to us and we allow him no safe harbor or ambush sites. Civilians caught in the fray are unfortunate and impossible to miss, but they are not the target.
There are many despicable things in war that are very much "acceptable." Our enemies in Germany and in Japan surrendered, because they were convinced of their defeat. We didn't drop a few precise bombs and tell them they lost. We reduced them to total destruction and broke their will to fight. Today, we are to busy looking for the morality in war where it doesn't belong. In the long run, we will have killed more and sufferred more than we will have to, because we have simply forgotten how to fight wars and prolonged the inevitable. The nature of war hasn't changed since the begining of time. It is always the goal to kill the enemy. Today, we look for ways to defeat a determined enemy by not shedding his blood for the media cameras.
Mach said:Calm2Chaos said:I believe anyone can read the quotes and make a decision for themselves on why your argument is flawed. I realize you don't believe it is, I can't really do much more to change that.
-Mach
Please show me my flawed argument. I want to see any of my quotes, in there entirelty not edited like you like to do. Taken in context not out of context like you like to do. And show me were the flaws are, other then the ones you made up by twisting what I said.
Mach said:Please read up on the subject. Yes, the fire storms were specifically deisgned to take out as many civilians in large cities as possible to break the morale of the population. Terrorism, just with a heck of a lot more deaths.
America, and other countries (Britain, for example), learned from the experience that not only is it unethical, but has the reverse effect in most cases, the opposition is even more determined because of the horror inflicted on their population. In that respect, they are even more justified to resist.
There is no confusion on definitions. America, Britain, Germany, Russia, have all particpated in targeting civilian populations specifically for the horror it inflicts. I'm not even debating if it was justified, it's simply a FACT.
-Mach
That would make you an idiot then. Please show me were he says that he is fighting this war for god, or in the name of christianity, or to further chritianity? I don't knowmaybe he did say this, and I missed it, If He did then I apologize. If he didn't then it isn't simantics, your just plain wrong. I'll wait for the inevitable quote
The WoT is without doubt a battle against radical Islam. I don't judge all Iranians on the statements and actions of Ahmadinejad. Are ordinary Iranians less sensible than I?As the Face of the United States, Bush has placed us into the realms of Fanaticism by pretty much proclaiming his own Jihad. We can use whatever words we want to explain what this "War on Terror" is, but pretending its not a War on Islamic Fundamentalism will not change the reality of it. Many here complain that Those Guys want us all dead, and hope to take over the world (yes this is an exageration to an extent), but if you are a muslim in say...Iran, what perception will you have of America in the light of President Bushs' statements, and actions.
To the average Muslim.....we are no better than what we fight.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?