• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

epr64 says, "Terrorists = WWII French Resistance"

gordontravels said:
If you want to discuss Atilla the Hun or Alexander the Great then start another thread. I believe those were direct wars and not insurgents on a terror campaign. Not that there isn't terror in war but there is a difference in terror, all out war and resistance. No, you say:

(Before you read this, please know that I support this war & the USA, 110%. I'm just saying how I can see how comparing the French resistance & the Muslim Extremeists makes sense to me.)

Since I don't see how this can make sense; meaning it is not a reasonable way to look at things, I say you don't understand. This is closer to fantasy than reality and that is what Hitler's mind was all about. "If Hitler had won!" Some will confuse fantasy with a political agenda but I certainly try not to be one of them. Believe what you want. I know that when someone with your take on history or "understanding" says:

"I'm not playing word games, you're just reading and interpreting things the wrong way."

I'm doing exactly what I should be doing and your opinion is to build a defense or explanation after the fact. I will repeat, I read your words and respond. So I'm not only interpreting wrong but reading wrong as well? Gosh, I'd better be more careful when reading and interpreting what you write; especially when comparing Osama to Atilla or Alexander the Great.

Have Christians and Muslims killed each other in history? Of course. Do Christians say it is a tenet of their religion to convert or kill? Do Muslims say it is a tenet of their religion to convert or kill? One answer is no and one is yes. Then comes the terrorism. Iraq has a government and everyone, including the terrorists, could work within that government as a means to their end. That is democracy. Terrorists want to impose, not debate. Hitler wanted to impose, not to debate. Alexander tried to debate, then imposed.

Your last paragraph makes absolutely NO sense to me, as we are still a target for Fundamentalists. As for where they are taken care of...Better there than here (though that has nothing to do with this debate.)

Really? Didn't you say you support the war 110%. I expressed what I thought was a good reason to support that war. Let's tie up the terrorists in Iraq or Afghanistan and kill them there rather than having to kill them here. What's your reason for supporting the war?

On a totally different note, How were you shot & which war were you in? (Not to be mean, but even if you were in a war, it has no bearing on this debate either...Just because you may have been, doesn't mean you have all the answers....Look at Kerry & McCain....totally clueless about most things.)

You won't ever find me saying I have all the answers, far from it. I want to debate and I always hope that debate leads to more learning on my part either from being taught or by realizing my own purpose and determination.

You asked me to "breathe, breathe" in a post acting as if I were out of control. I referenced being shot in Vietnam because that's what the medic was saying to me on the battlefield. Because I actually fought in war doesn't give me more "understanding" than you. It may give me a different perspective on where that understanding comes from, that's all. Those that don't go to war are just as important as those who do. The term is "keeping the home fires burning".

Otherwise, I read what you write and only interpret what I read; your words. Your history and understanding of it is bogus in my eyes being based on "ifs". Terrorism and all out war are two different things. Terrorists and resistance fighters are two different things. Islamic Fundamentalists interpreting the Koran and what the Koran actually says are two different things. You thinking it makes sense and any agreement from me are two different things. Your cohort in agreement says I only see things in Black and White. I say "good". :duel :cool:
Click to expand...


First off, I forgot to say in my last post that I completely & totally respect anyone who has gone to war for this country (willingly or otherwise), so I thank you & my hat's off to you.

I wasn't "discussing" Atilla the Hunn or Alex the great, just making comparisons...both senselessly murdered women, children & people having nothing to do with their war. (From that aspect, you could say the same of the American Gov't VS. the Native Americans during the Manifest Destiny expansion, as another example.) My point was that war is constant. 2/3 rds of the last 500 years have been racked with war.

I agree that this is not a "responsible" way to look at things, especially for an American, and again, I do not look at the situation this way....but I can see how OTHERS would/could.

As for your "convert of kill" comment.....How many Christian Crusades were there, again????

Tone, influction, and expressed meaning are completely lost when putting pen to paper, that's just the way things go....Why do you think that in every English class you were in, the bulk of the work you had to do was "interpret what the author is saying"....and notice how there was never 1 right answer? That's because you can draw your conclusions from casual or artistic writing...If this were a specification manual or instructions of some sort, then I'd agree with you, there's no other way to interpret what I meant.

No, you don't see things in black and white, because if you did, You would UNDERSTAND both opinions, choose one and argue for it.....Instead you have your opinion and refuse to hear the other opinion or the basis of it, and you just counter with "that doesn't make sense", or say "that's not a reasonable way of looking at things." To some people (NOT ME) it is.

You want my opinion on what needs to be done? Finish up operations in Iraq & afgh. Let the CIA find Osama, Leave the people of these countries to their own devices, bring the troops home, Close the borders to ALL foreigners immigrants, and set up walls @ canada & mexico, and ocean fences miles off each shore (with gates, of course) & have both types deterants patrolled regularly (creating many, many jobs here to boot.) The military is fro a "strong national defense", not offense....we've done our job, we brought democracy to 2 countries with prior brutal regimes. at the end of the day, we can be proud. now we can end it, and "provide for the common defense" at home (For now anyways.)


"Iraq has a government and everyone, including the terrorists, could work within that government as a means to their end. That is democracy. Terrorists want to impose, not debate."


I totally agree with you on this, but as seen by liberals, we're terrorists according to your last sentence there. We debated nothing before "shock & awe, and "imposed" democracy on a country that's never known it.....how could we be so sure it was the best thing for them & would work? THIS WOULD BE A LIBERAL's POINT OF VIEW< NOT MINE!!!
 
QUOTES in Black are ILikeDubyah's - First off, I forgot to say in my last post that I completely & totally respect anyone who has gone to war for this country (willingly or otherwise), so I thank you & my hat's off to you.

Thank you but it makes me no worthier of respect than those who didn't go at all. Some were lucky, some in school, some went to Canada, some cheated, some had completely legal reasons for not serving and some served and didn't have to go. My respect extends to those who agree and disagree with me because if we all had the same opinion we would have been like the Iraqis in Iraq during Saddam. I live in America.

I wasn't "discussing" Atilla the Hunn or Alex the great, just making comparisons...both senselessly murdered women, children & people having nothing to do with their war. (From that aspect, you could say the same of the American Gov't VS. the Native Americans during the Manifest Destiny expansion, as another example.) My point was that war is constant. 2/3 rds of the last 500 years have been racked with war.

You may not have been "discussing" Atilla the Hun or Alexander the Great but you prefaced their mention with "What about". So I answered. You are talking hundreds and thousands of years ago. Even the U.S. vs the Native Americans was based on racism.

To think that war is constant is fine since there is war somewhere nearly all the time but that doesn't mean a particular country is involved so constant is quite broad in it's own definition. I think if the U.N. did it's job you would see much less war in the world except where governments commit genocide and harbor terrorists. As far as comparing the wars of Atilla and Alexander the Great to our Indian wars, sorry, no comparison in either culture, reason or prosecution.

I agree that this is not a "responsible" way to look at things, especially for an American, and again, I do not look at the situation this way....but I can see how OTHERS would/could.

This is where you and I disagree the most. I refuse to be sucked in by somebody looking at something their way and seeing how they could. If you mean their perversion of religion or history or facts then I would agree with you but I know you don't mean that. Responsibility not only goes for how they look at it but how we look at them and their way of looking at it. If you don't see that then just tell me that you understand why Hitler or Atilla or Allexander or Hadrian did what they did and why you can see their way of looking at things. Don't expect me to "see how OTHERS would/could.

As for your "convert of kill" comment.....How many Christian Crusades were there, again????

And where were they from and what was their philosophy and what was their motivation and how wrong were they? I say just as wrong as the terrorists today. The ones that pervert Islam for their own agenda of "convert or kill".

As for my "convert or kill" comment? Sorry, that's not me, it is predominant in the current Islamic Fundamentalist's dogma. Read your Koran and then understand how the terrorist interprets it. If you don't understand that then you don't understand why there will never be peace in Israel or freedom from terrorist acts. The Koran says, "bring them to Allah or put them to the sword." Otherwise the Crusaders were as wrong as anyone else who kills in the name of religion, race or political philosophy. Like Saddam attacking Kuwait. He asked for what he got. Crusaders/Islamic Fundamentalist terrorists? Both of them were/are wrong.

Tone, influction, and expressed meaning are completely lost when putting pen to paper, that's just the way things go....Why do you think that in every English class you were in, the bulk of the work you had to do was "interpret what the author is saying"....and notice how there was never 1 right answer? That's because you can draw your conclusions from casual or artistic writing...If this were a specification manual or instructions of some sort, then I'd agree with you, there's no other way to interpret what I meant.

I don't want to sound flippant here but my days in an english class are far behind and I either read from pleasure, to gain insight or I interpret what I am reading such as in a forum. You don't write something and then tell me what you mean. I have to read what you write and figure out, interpret, what you mean. As for the rest of this english enlightened explanation you provide; we certainly went to different universities.

No, you don't see things in black and white, because if you did, You would UNDERSTAND both opinions, choose one and argue for it.....Instead you have your opinion and refuse to hear the other opinion or the basis of it, and you just counter with "that doesn't make sense", or say "that's not a reasonable way of looking at things." To some people (NOT ME) it is.

Like I said in the previous paragraph, we apparently have different educations or have certainly studied in other arenas. Why can't I tell you that you don't make sense when you don't. Why can't you say the same to me if that's what you think.

I never said I see things in Black and White. epr64 said that about me. Now you disagree with him while agreeing with me but blame me for something he said and now ascribe it to me. You know what I'm going to say don't you? That doesn't make sense; that's not a reasonable way of looking at things. So you see how reasonable may not be reasonable when you don't see my side or as you say, when "you have your opinion and refuse to hear the other opinion or the basis of it". If I do that don't you?

You want my opinion on what needs to be done? Finish up operations in Iraq & afgh. Let the CIA find Osama, Leave the people of these countries to their own devices, bring the troops home, Close the borders to ALL foreigners immigrants, and set up walls @ canada & mexico, and ocean fences miles off each shore (with gates, of course) & have both types deterants patrolled regularly (creating many, many jobs here to boot.) The military is fro a "strong national defense", not offense....we've done our job, we brought democracy to 2 countries with prior brutal regimes. at the end of the day, we can be proud. now we can end it, and "provide for the common defense" at home (For now anyways.)

This one is easy. Absurd. Ignore our own Constitution. Leave our commitment unfulfilled. Isolationism. Racism. Be proud of bringing democracy to a country and then turn our back with the sink or swim attitude. Give up the "offensive" against the terrorists.

The only thing that isn't absurd in your paragraph is the simple comment with pure truth behind it, "(For now anyways.)".

YOU QUOTE ME - "Iraq has a government and everyone, including the terrorists, could work within that government as a means to their end. That is democracy. Terrorists want to impose, not debate." END QUOTE

I totally agree with you on this, but as seen by liberals, we're terrorists according to your last sentence there. We debated nothing before "shock & awe, and "imposed" democracy on a country that's never known it.....how could we be so sure it was the best thing for them & would work? THIS WOULD BE A LIBERAL's POINT OF VIEW< NOT MINE!!!

If you "totally agree with" me on this you really went to different english classes than I did. We imposed nothing on anyone. Democracy is choice. We didn't even impose anything on Saddam. His ambassador sat right there in the U.N. and was told by multiple governments what he would have to do. We led and others followed. We DID debate on the floor of the U.N. Our congress debated before they gave President Bush their vote. Saddam was warned by 17 Resolutions as his ambassador sat there listening.

How could we be so sure that democracy would work in Iraq? We made a commitment. If we had done that in Korea and Vietnam we wouldn't have the problems we do there. Now in Iraq we have our administration that has made a commitment unlide the administrations that prosecuted the Korean and Vietnam wars. Maybe you don't understand that. An American President that is willing to finish something he started. I see nothing Liberal about that. And if you don't understand the difference then, you don't. After reading your words they don't bother me. Nor should they.

I suggest you read the Koran and then just simply try to interpret it from the standpoint of a terrorist. Then you will see why it makes sense to them and not at all to me. I could care less what they think. Son of Sam heard it from a dog. Osama hears it from God right?
 
gordontravels said:




You may not have been "discussing" Atilla the Hun or Alexander the Great but you prefaced their mention with "What about". So I answered. You are talking hundreds and thousands of years ago. Even the U.S. vs the Native Americans was based on racism.

Just making the point that people have been bent on world domination since it's beginning, you're the one who said that the Nazis were an aberration, remember?

To think that war is constant is fine since there is war somewhere nearly all the time but that doesn't mean a particular country is involved so constant is quite broad in it's own definition. I think if the U.N. did it's job you would see much less war in the world except where governments commit genocide and harbor terrorists. As far as comparing the wars of Atilla and Alexander the Great to our Indian wars, sorry, no comparison in either culture, reason or prosecution.

The UN is U---seless. we should drop out, they do us much more harm than good.

This is where you and I disagree the most. I refuse to be sucked in by somebody looking at something their way and seeing how they could. If you mean their perversion of religion or history or facts then I would agree with you but I know you don't mean that. Responsibility not only goes for how they look at it but how we look at them and their way of looking at it. If you don't see that then just tell me that you understand why Hitler or Atilla or Allexander or Hadrian did what they did and why you can see their way of looking at things. Don't expect me to "see how OTHERS would/could.

This is where you're wrong....I do mean that they have a warped view of things, as I do not agree with them, but I also have the ability to look outside of my own viewpoint....does this make me superman? NO, any informed person would look at BOTH SIDES, understand them or at least try to (Not say "I have my opinion, so I don't have to try to understand one that differs")

Will finish this later.
Click to expand...
 
QUOTES in Black are from ILikeDubyah - Just making the point that people have been bent on world domination since it's beginning, you're the one who said that the Nazis were an aberration, remember?

As to you making a point? When you do it as a question why shouldn't I answer? Why not point out that Hitler attacking on a mechanized scale against democratic countries is not how war was either formed as an objective or prosecuted by Rome or Alexander the Great? Tell me please. What, and you may take any of the first five Emperors of Rome, was their intent for war? Any one of the five will do. You cite them to bolster your position so I'd like to know what you really know. Inform me please.

The UN is U---seless. we should drop out, they do us much more harm than good.

Some truth here but then we would lose a voice too. Fits right in there with your isolation though and just at the time that we have a European Union and China's economy is coming on line. See any problem with that?

This is where you're wrong....I do mean that they have a warped view of things, as I do not agree with them, but I also have the ability to look outside of my own viewpoint....does this make me superman? NO, any informed person would look at BOTH SIDES, understand them or at least try to (Not say "I have my opinion, so I don't have to try to understand one that differs")

So I'm the one that's wrong again? Black and White? Here's a previous paragraph from you which you don't answer:

QUOTE FROM YOU: No, you don't see things in black and white, because if you did, You would UNDERSTAND both opinions, choose one and argue for it.....Instead you have your opinion and refuse to hear the other opinion or the basis of it, and you just counter with "that doesn't make sense", or say "that's not a reasonable way of looking at things." To some people (NOT ME) it is.

Again, I never said I saw things in Black and White as I was accused by epr64who sees things closer to your way, which is why I think I have an excellent UNDERSTANDING. I have heard the other side and I dismiss it as idiocy, pure perversion of the Islamic religion and I UNDERSTAND that quite well. Never have I said I don't know what these monsters want to do and why. I say they are perverting their religion to accomplish murder and you think I should try to understand why they would do that? Why should I? It won't change a thing.

If Osama bin Laden had tried to work through any government or the United Nations, and he would have found voices in the United Nations to help him, there would be 3000 people alive today that aren't. Perversion of Islam is his mantra and that I understand. I have no understanding for someone or their cause or their reason when they kill innocents You go talk to them. You tell them you understand. I'll stay here and proudly pay my taxes so our military and those with the guts to stand up can kill them in Iraq and Afghanistan. I have no problem with that.

Will finish this later.

Please, if it's more of the same why not do us both a favor and don't.:duel :cool:
 
Starting fresh with no quotes, then I'll drop this, first, because you don't wish to hear any more & second, because this is no longer a debate, you're just trying to pick apart even the WORDING of the things I say. You can't accept & won't hear any opinion, other than your own, so what's the use. Here goes. (If you reply with some civility, I may consider posting on this thread again.)

Mainly I just wanted to finish stating & defending my opinion about what should happen. I wrote:

Finish up operations in Iraq & afgh. Let the CIA find Osama, Leave the people of these countries to their own devices, bring the troops home, Close the borders to ALL foreigners immigrants, and set up walls @ canada & mexico, and ocean fences miles off each shore (with gates, of course) & have both types deterants patrolled regularly (creating many, many jobs here to boot.) The military is fro a "strong national defense", not offense....we've done our job, we brought democracy to 2 countries with prior brutal regimes. at the end of the day, we can be proud. now we can end it, and "provide for the common defense" at home (For now anyways.)


Absurd, you say?

1) Finishing up operations doesn't mean "turn tail & run". It means that as of last January, We did what we set out to do militarily. We toppled 2 evil regimes and set up democratic governments in their places. The military has no place in these countries anymore. If these are truly free-standing democracies, and not puppet regimes, our only ties to the people and governments of these countries are diplomatic, and nothing more. Bombs, not bullets are the #1 killer of US troops in Iraq. I believe one of the main reasons that these bombings are still going on is simply because we're there, not fighting a war, but doing the iraqi military & police forces jobs for them. Remove our troops, and I'd bet you that these bombings would taper off, if not cease all together. Remember, we're "infidels", and what do Muslim Extremists to to infidels?

2) Let the CIA find Osama...That's precisely why we have the CIA. 4 years of our troops strolling around in the mountains & desert have yeilded nothing... aside from more bodies that they can report on the evening news.

3) Closing the borders is not a "racist" thing to say....it's a nationalist thing to say, provide for the common defense...can't think of a better way. This can't be too absurd, as the first 167 miles of a 30 ft. wall between the US & Mexico is slated to begin construction as early as the 1st of the year. Isolationism is a great idea, theoreticaly, however highly impractical. I'm aware of this, and it's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting we control who's entering & leaving this country, down to the person, not just the Plane or Boat load. (This would also deter criminals from getting across the border after comitting their crimes.)

That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. You're very hard headed & never even got the original point I was trying to make. Hope the rest of your posts aren't like this, as I enjoy having someone with a strong opinion to debate (which you certainly have), it just seems that in this thread, you were looking to pick a fight with anyone, about anything. I'm not even the person who originally posted the message in question, which is why I find the fact that you argued with me tooth & nail about something that I simply said that I could UNDERSTAND ....is twice as funny.

Ta.
 
ILikeDubyah said:
Starting fresh with no quotes, then I'll drop this, first, because you don't wish to hear any more & second, because this is no longer a debate, you're just trying to pick apart even the WORDING of the things I say. You can't accept & won't hear any opinion, other than your own, so what's the use. Here goes. (If you reply with some civility, I may consider posting on this thread again.)

Mainly I just wanted to finish stating & defending my opinion about what should happen. I wrote:

Finish up operations in Iraq & afgh. Let the CIA find Osama, Leave the people of these countries to their own devices, bring the troops home, Close the borders to ALL foreigners immigrants, and set up walls @ canada & mexico, and ocean fences miles off each shore (with gates, of course) & have both types deterants patrolled regularly (creating many, many jobs here to boot.) The military is fro a "strong national defense", not offense....we've done our job, we brought democracy to 2 countries with prior brutal regimes. at the end of the day, we can be proud. now we can end it, and "provide for the common defense" at home (For now anyways.)


Absurd, you say?

1) Finishing up operations doesn't mean "turn tail & run". It means that as of last January, We did what we set out to do militarily. We toppled 2 evil regimes and set up democratic governments in their places. The military has no place in these countries anymore. If these are truly free-standing democracies, and not puppet regimes, our only ties to the people and governments of these countries are diplomatic, and nothing more. Bombs, not bullets are the #1 killer of US troops in Iraq. I believe one of the main reasons that these bombings are still going on is simply because we're there, not fighting a war, but doing the iraqi military & police forces jobs for them. Remove our troops, and I'd bet you that these bombings would taper off, if not cease all together. Remember, we're "infidels", and what do Muslim Extremists to to infidels?

2) Let the CIA find Osama...That's precisely why we have the CIA. 4 years of our troops strolling around in the mountains & desert have yeilded nothing... aside from more bodies that they can report on the evening news.

3) Closing the borders is not a "racist" thing to say....it's a nationalist thing to say, provide for the common defense...can't think of a better way. This can't be too absurd, as the first 167 miles of a 30 ft. wall between the US & Mexico is slated to begin construction as early as the 1st of the year. Isolationism is a great idea, theoreticaly, however highly impractical. I'm aware of this, and it's not what I'm suggesting. I'm suggesting we control who's entering & leaving this country, down to the person, not just the Plane or Boat load. (This would also deter criminals from getting across the border after comitting their crimes.)

That's pretty much all I have to say on the matter. You're very hard headed & never even got the original point I was trying to make. Hope the rest of your posts aren't like this, as I enjoy having someone with a strong opinion to debate (which you certainly have), it just seems that in this thread, you were looking to pick a fight with anyone, about anything. I'm not even the person who originally posted the message in question, which is why I find the fact that you argued with me tooth & nail about something that I simply said that I could UNDERSTAND ....is twice as funny.

Ta.
Click to expand...

What is absurd is to read what you write, respond to it and then have you come back and tell me what you meant. Debate, straight forward debate should be someone, you or me, sticking to what they believe You seem to think that my arguement is funny. I think yours is absurd. let's agree on that and move on. I won't respond to your expansion of things I've already responded to. That isn't the way debate works. I also use a strong opinion and you see a fight being picked. I see nothing wrong with that, either me seeming that way or you thinking that's the way it is. Perception. Think me twice as funny. I care not. See you on another thread. This one's done. :duel :cool:
 
Originally Posted by gordontravels:
What is absurd is to read what you write, respond to it and then have you come back and tell me what you meant.
Click to expand...
What is so absurd, hypothetically speaking, about that if you didn't get the point in the first place. If anyone would know the point, it would be the one making it.

I can tell right away by someones response that they didn't understand my point. And if you didn't understand my point, which means you don't know what your responding too, which means you don't know what your talking about, so why are you responding to it all?

Again, hypothetically speaking.

Do you think you can state my point back to me to my satisfaction before making yours? Because if you can, there is no doubt that you do understand, and do know what your talking about, of which, at that point, you may then me have it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom