Kev316
Member
- Joined
- Dec 7, 2010
- Messages
- 232
- Reaction score
- 41
- Location
- North Central Illinois
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
The war was defined as being against terrorist organizations with a gloabl reach. You can certainly destroy organizations and kill their members. :shrug:
Sure, but no one has ever seriously understood it to be a war on the feeling of terror.
If we're 'the ultimate creation' then God needs to find a new hobby!
We wage wars - killing MILLIONS at a time, rape the earth and piss in each other's Wheaties (if we're not just taking the wheaties away) - and much of this was done IN the name of religion no less.
He must be so proud. :roll: His little derelict troublemakers of the Universe. So impish and cruel - we're adorable and precious!
Move over Rubicante! Man's a comin.
I think we need to keep in mind here that the war on terror is an analogy and not a literal war. Like the war on crime and the war on drugs.
The only people against you are the ones actually fighting you - most countries are Neutral when it comes to many issues that go on.
I think we need to keep in mind here that the war on terror is an analogy and not a literal war. Like the war on crime and the war on drugs.
to be neutral in this kind of endeavour is to serve as an enabler, and thus, not to be neutral. it's like saying i'm not supporting a criminal gang, i just let them use my house for their meetings and my cars to get to and from their heists.
certainly it is ill-named, but that is by necessity. this is a 4Gen war against Islamist Fundamentalism.
So because one big, wealthy country decides one day to wage war on a ghostly group (eventhough it's a legitimate country-concerned issue) means that everyone else has to throw their selves, citizens and resources into it headlong?
Sure feels like a damn war to me.
to be neutral in this kind of endeavour is to serve as an enabler, and thus, not to be neutral. it's like saying i'm not supporting a criminal gang, i just let them use my house for their meetings and my cars to get to and from their heists.
It is also another one of the standards the United States herself cannot live up to. Because quite frankly, the United States doesn't seem to mind terrorism a lick when they agree with the cause. We call those guys Freedom Fighters.
And so Bush is the only one who's ever crossed the line?
As far as I'm aware everyone IN CONGRESS crossed the line when they knew what was going on and they permitted it to happen, anyway.
In order for it to be considered unconstitutional - it first must be declared as 'torture' by the Supreme Court. You can't just decide that "this is torture . . . that is not" because *you* feel that way. In order to punish someone there must be a defined law which is broken or a regulation which is determined to be violated.
Bush wasn't some Monarch gone crazy like Vlad the Impaler.
He wasn't the only say-so in this decision.
Many had the knowledge and power to speak out against him or to try to stop his decisions from going through - and some did try - but many did not and no one actually took necessary steps to stop him.
Actually, I would argue that theoretically, genocide would be justifiable in defense of oneself or one's country under certain circumstances. If you were fighting an enemy who refused to surrender, and would continue to be a threat as long as any of them were alive, then genocide would be the only option. This is unlikely to come up in real life though.
You sure are naive about the world, warfare and have no comprehension about what constitutes a crime or even first degree murder.
I bet you probably think we should apologize to the Japanese for dropping atomic bombs on them and for putting the lives and safety of our troops ahead of the civilians in Japan.
Oh, well if some random internet dude says so, it MUST be true! After all, the world obviously operates in black and white.
Fun fact: At least 70% of people say that torture is justified in some circumstances:
If this were expanded beyond "suspected terrorists," I think the numbers would be even greater.
If there was an enemy that was committed to fighting to the death and to the last person, then yes.
I guess those of us that consider it will be alive and you wont.
Only because we passed laws making it so, all we have to do is change those laws and it would no longer be illegal...
Unless you are torturing an evil person that wants to kill you and your innocent loved ones for no reason other than hatred, so that you can get information that will help you stop others of like mind.
Every person in America is in the position to stop it... through the power of voting. So, in essence, you are condemning tens of millions of people to first-degree murder with capital special circumstances. Pretty silly...
No, this is the Internet and why don't you go spend some time with the Taliban and see if that changes your perspective at all...
Ahhh... those were the days. I remember the look on that one ladies face as she was just starting to burn at the stake... pure comedy.
These are absolutely dumb questions.
Winning justifies anything.
History is quite clear that anything is forgiven if you win.
How quickly did the entire Pacific and the U.S. cheer when Japan surrendered unconditionally?
How easy was it for Germans to dismiss their own history of treatment towards people as long as all of Europe was under the Swastika?
With Al-Queda an organizational wreck, how many people actually care about the three terrorists that were waterboarded?
Philosophy is for the classroom.
Actually, I would argue that theoretically, genocide would be justifiable in defense of oneself or one's country under certain circumstances. If you were fighting an enemy who refused to surrender, and would continue to be a threat as long as any of them were alive, then genocide would be the only option. This is unlikely to come up in real life though.
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?