• 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.

Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism

Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't know why you can't have the common courtesy stop calling me that at my request. It seems like the majority of your posts are not even aimed at an interesting or worthwhile discussion, but aimed at a frustrating and stressful discussion. I have not made such remarks toward you.

You said: “While possibly represented by a terrorist organization, this man/woman is not terrorism.”

I see no reason not to interpret such a statement any other way, and I call it like I see it.

My only purpose in coming on this message board after the hurricanes caused me so much stress was for one reason and one reason only, and I considered it the most important issue if not the one affecting me the most:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpost.php?p=58573&postcount=1

To me the most frightening response was: “there is only one rule and the most important rule is NOT TO LOOSE at any cost.”

The discussion about civilian disguise is the only reason I am still in this futile topic, and G>B, I did not come on here to entertain you or to agree with you. But, now that I know your health is bad, I can quit. I am not that cruel.

I think fighting honorably is more important than success, even if it does not relieve stress.

Gandhi>Bush said:
Would you not agree that two neighbors have a contract between themselves? Surely if one perpetrates violence toward the other it is a violation of this contract? Would you not say that such a violence is in itself is the violation and that the clothes of the perpetrator, if at all relevant, are second to the initial violation of the contract?

Just because one part of a contract is violated—the damn Gestapo Communist Government makes me get an approved color permit to paint my house when it was pink during World War II—does not mean the whole contract is necessarily violated. The same goes for all of the greedy usurers that attacked without mercy after the hurricanes, while it was raining in my living room, harassing me mercilessly during the reconstruction, and still keep calling after being paid their damn money: “[2.280] And if (the debtor) is in straitness, then let there be postponement until (he is in) ease; and that you remit (it) as alms is better for you, if you knew.” The {insert foul language here} New Yorkers make part of me look forward to dancing a jig in the street like a Palestinian, just to relieve my stress. Yes, when my wife almost committed suicide due to the stress, I understood them G>B, just like I always have understood my own limitations; after I was broken, and blurted out a unthinking threat, the detective showed up quicker than snot. The clothes are the most important part of any contract because it identifies the neighbor and the intent of the neighbor. If one neighbor puts on the disguise of another neighbor it is a greater violation of contract, and an even a greater violation of contract must be hiding intent by putting on peaceful civilian disguise as it is abusing more than one person. A neighbor claiming responsibility after a sneak attack using civilian disguise does not compensate all civilians for the abuse committed in their name. Civilian disguise has the same effect as a blanket party. A blanket party is where the neighbor sneaks over to your house and throws a blanket over you while you sleep and beats the hell out of you with a baseball bat. The natural reaction to a blanket party is not to trust anyone. For peace to work as the goal there must be some trust that hostilities are over, we must believe in the honor of our opponent. It all boils down to identification friend or foe. There can be no trust in a future peace if your neighbor’s civilian clothes cannot be trusted as friendly. Can we trust the use of the word “peace” by the dishonorable, when any future hostile intent may be disguised by civilian clothes?

Gandhi>Bush said:
Palestinians have a government.

Of Savages:

“GAZA CITY, March 17. — The Islamic Hamas plans to go it alone next week with its new Palestinian government after talks with other Palestinian factions failed to produce a single partner, a development almost guaranteed to lead to international isolation and a severe cash crunch.
Hamas leaders had one more round of talks with other parties yesterday, but none, not even the radical Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, could co-exist with the harsh principles of the militant Islamic group.”
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.news.php?clid=8&theme=&usrsess=1&id=109995

Gandhi>Bush said:
To do so, would mean defeat. It would mean yet another loss to people who already have no hope.

So what? Isn’t the goal peace? The ability to accept defeat is a must for anyone to have people. Those that cannot be trusted in civilian clothes should be exterminated or preferably caged. Take your pick.

Gandhi>Bush said:
When you donned your uniform, you and your country had a better chance of success than those who would fight in uniform for Palestine would have.

I thought it was OUR country? The ability to accept defeat is a must for anyone to have peace. If success is the goal and peace cannot come without it, and we cannot trust their civilian clothes, then we must cage them or preferably exterminate them.

To have peace there are times when we all must accept some defeat. I accept the defeat that I can no longer get on a plane without having my crotch searched, but I draw the line at the pizza parlor.

Gandhi>Bush said:
If you want them to be butchered, you should not have such high hopes for how their desires for you.

You just go tell those animal rights terrorists that I will not give up my sausage pizza, nor will I peacefully submit to a probe of my body due to their actions to save the pigs.

Gandhi>Bush said:
I don't think you can argue that these men are without political motive. I don't think you can argue that a political motive is all that is needed to be a martyr either.

I wear civilian clothes now. If the thing becomes one of their “martyrs” by killing while using civilian disguise to facilitate the killing, which is associating the killing with my civilian clothes, they have put me in danger and they are my enemy. If the enemy cannot be reasoned with so as to wear a uniform, then the enemy must be caged or killed so that the children may wear civilian clothes in peace.

Gandhi>Bush said:
As a matter of fact for the past months I've been through alot of stress regarding my health. Thank you for your concern, but I'd rather avoid the topic of my brain switching off.

Hopefully it is not your brain that is shutting down. As long as you can think, use a fork, and wipe your own rear end you are probably better off than someone else at any local house of pain. Someone has always got it worse.

Let us just call this debate off. And go dance in the street.

“Care for us! True, indeed! They ne'er car'd for us yet. Suffer us to famish, and their storehouses cramm'd with grain; make edicts for usury, to support usurers; repeal daily
any wholesome act established against the rich, and provide more piercing statutes daily to chain up and restrain the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and there's all the love they bear us.” http://shakespeare.thefreelibrary.com/Tragedy-of-Coriolanus/1-1
 
Back
Top Bottom