Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 17

 

2006-03-08 09:23:42
Horseman 77
Banned
+160|7076

Marconius wrote:

Horseman 77 wrote:

Marconius wrote:

There's not enough evidence to prove it.  The fact is a US citizen has been detained with a gross lack of evidence, and is being held indefinitely, or at least until the government can come up with something to charge him with.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/17/padilla.hearing/
They may believe its better to punish 10 innocents than miss one guilty, but we owe it to ourselves if no one else to Raise the bar and achieve a higher standard.
Follow the rules we have in place for this and use the accepted procedure and current doctrine. If it means a couple guilty slip away. That's tragic but they were dumb enough to get caught, They will get them again if they are stupid enough to try anything. If they do Then they can go to Rahway N.J. prison like common criminals. They will wish they stayed in gitmo! At  the very least when the come out they will be much more sympathetic to women. Although I doubt Bush is actually personally involved,
Bush declared him an enemy combatant but denied him Due Process, thusly he didn't follow the "accepted procedure and current doctrine."  This was all based on extremely flimsy evidence which all was shot down by the court, and yet Padilla still stayed in detention for 3 years with all of his appeals denied.  Despite Padilla's criminal record, his rights were effectively taken away by the Bush merely by having Bush declare him an enemy combatant.  Due to what happened with Padilla, this could conceivably happen with any American.  All you'd need is Rumsfeld to go on a McCarthy-esque rampage and infringe the rights of "suspect" Americans and get Bush to throw them all in Gitmo "just in case."

Here are the Court Proceedings of Padilla vs. Bush, Rumsfeld, Marr
Its a slippery slope when things like this start, Even if everyone had pure intentions. you gotta admit, its still a posibility.

When justice is subverted, I always think " the next one is gonna be me "

If I was running things I know I would cheat and bend rules to get the job done, However its a big stage for the world to watch and judge. If he is Dirty and he is released, what could he possibly accomplish in the spotlight like he is?

The real root problem is that we  " Can't or won't address the Entire Problem as it began from day one. "

We only focus on certain Key events in the time line.

We are not even allowed to mention why they hate us.

We have to pretend its just a deep mystery.
2006-03-08 09:24:57
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

I agree even POW's have some human rights
Christ on a bike. These people are not POWs. POWs have a certain set of rights. Enemy combatants have another set of rights. These enemy combatants are in custody because they broke the rules of war.

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

What makes America think it is the world’s police anyway
Because it knows that no-one else is capable of doing the job for them.

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

David Hicks From my home town of Adelaide and has been detained for quite some time now
All because he fought for Afghanistan and is a Muslim and to say he will be tried by American law is bogus
Some Aussies are clever. Some are not. You have my sympathy. But the fact that you cannot work this out for yourself does not change the fact that David Hicks, as a jihadist, threatens US interests just as much as an Arab jihadist does. Hence, it is reasonable for him to be subject to US practices in dealing with their enemies.

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

He not a American citizen and has not committed no crime in America
'Not committed no crime'. So you admit he did commit a crime then?

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

And has not killed any Americans if anything his crime is against Australia
His crime is against all non-Muslims in actual fact.

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

International law should be used here
It is being used. The US are acting in accordance with international laws which deal with enemy combatants.
This is not WW2, in which soldiers wore uniforms and insignia and carried their weapons in public and could be held in POW camps until hostilities were over. This is a war waged by civilians against civilians. It is a different kettle of fish.

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

If America is the world police who will police them
And who will police the police who police America? And so on.

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

xanthpi are insults really necessary we all have our own opinions’ and just because we might not agree with yours that does not make us inferior
Opinions do not matter in this case. Only facts matter. If your opinion makes you an obstacle in fighting this new world war, then you are indeed inferior in that regard

Bio-Hazzard wrote:

Being fooled into praying north instead of towards Mecca is totally wrong (ever herd of psychological torture)
Oh boohoo for those poor Muslims. How terrible for them to face the wrong direction when worshiping their non-existent moon god.
You're an idiot dude. You're just not up to the high standards needed in pwning me in a thread about Islam
2006-03-08 09:27:42
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6933|San Francisco
Possibility, maybe.  Yet the Justice system that Padilla is currently being denied access to is founded around the idea that people are Innocent until proven Guilty.  Plus Bush completely circumvented Habeas Corpus for Padilla under the nature of an unfounded assumption.

Removing the rights of Americans is not the way to attack threats of terrorism.
2006-03-08 09:27:53
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

terrorists are not human beings, therefore we should not treat them humanely
If I were fighting a war, I'd want you in my army.

My view is that the only thing which qualifies the jihadists as human is their DNA. In every other way, they are far from human.

It makes it easier to kill them if we dehumanise them and I can't encourage it enough.
2006-03-08 09:31:48
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

Horseman 77 wrote:

We are not even allowed to mention why they hate us.
We have political correctness to thank for that.

Imagine if you had an illness but you weren't allowed to say what was wrong for fear of upsetting someone. You'd die just so as not to hurt someone else's feelings.
2006-03-08 09:38:22
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6867|space command ur anus

xanthpi wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

terrorists are not human beings, therefore we should not treat them humanely
If I were fighting a war, I'd want you in my army.

My view is that the only thing which qualifies the jihadists as human is their DNA. In every other way, they are far from human.

It makes it easier to kill them if we dehumanise them and I can't encourage it enough.
so you see yourself as a Rambo just killing at will. every time the enemy gets dehumanized it ends up as a genocide
2006-03-08 09:38:30
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

Marconius wrote:

Possibility, maybe.  Yet the Justice system that Padilla is currently being denied access to is founded around the idea that people are Innocent until proven Guilty.  Plus Bush completely circumvented Habeas Corpus for Padilla under the nature of an unfounded assumption.

Removing the rights of Americans is not the way to attack threats of terrorism.
If it's not apparent to you, I'd like to point out that the US is fighting for it's life at the moment against an enemy which is sworn to the destruction of everything the US stands for. The laws which govern normal criminal activity do not apply in any way when judging an enemy fighter who wishes to put you and your entire country 6 feet under.

Americans who do not wish to destroy their own country are not going to have their rights taken away. Jose Padilla, as a true Muslim, a jihadist and possible enemy combatant should indeed have his rights taken away. The cost of not doing so may be the deaths of 1 or 5 or 500 or 500,000 people.

The lesson is simple - if you become a 'radical' Muslim (ie. committed to violence against non-Muslims), you get locked up. Fair enough? I think so.
2006-03-08 09:38:39
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6933|San Francisco

xanthpi wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

terrorists are not human beings, therefore we should not treat them humanely
If I were fighting a war, I'd want you in my army.

My view is that the only thing which qualifies the jihadists as human is their DNA. In every other way, they are far from human.

It makes it easier to kill them if we dehumanise them and I can't encourage it enough.
Let us define terrorism:

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

ter•ror•ism - noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

A terrorist is someone who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
From an Iraqi standpoint, could you then say that the "Shock and Awe" campaign was a direct terrorist action committed by the Bush administration?  You may not think so, but they sure seem to think the same way as GunSlinger...there are two sides to every coin.
2006-03-08 09:41:14
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

herrr_smity wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

terrorists are not human beings, therefore we should not treat them humanely
If I were fighting a war, I'd want you in my army.

My view is that the only thing which qualifies the jihadists as human is their DNA. In every other way, they are far from human.

It makes it easier to kill them if we dehumanise them and I can't encourage it enough.
so you see yourself as a Rambo just killing at will. every time the enemy gets dehumanized it ends up as a genocide
No I don't see myself as a Rambo. I do not have huge muscles, I do not slur my words, I cannot take down a gunship with an arrow and I do not wear a bandana on my head.

And can you tell me what is wrong with utterly annihilating a swathe of enemy fighters who will not stop until you are dead? I thought not.
2006-03-08 09:44:47
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6933|San Francisco

xanthpi wrote:

If it's not apparent to you, I'd like to point out that the US is fighting for it's life at the moment against an enemy which is sworn to the destruction of everything the US stands for. The laws which govern normal criminal activity do not apply in any way when judging an enemy fighter who wishes to put you and your entire country 6 feet under.

Americans who do not wish to destroy their own country are not going to have their rights taken away. Jose Padilla, as a true Muslim, a jihadist and possible enemy combatant should indeed have his rights taken away. The cost of not doing so may be the deaths of 1 or 5 or 500 or 500,000 people.

The lesson is simple - if you become a 'radical' Muslim (ie. committed to violence against non-Muslims), you get locked up. Fair enough? I think so.
It's only fair if there is solid proof and evidence.  In Padilla's case, this is not so.  He was labelled an Enemy Combatant after the FBI accused him of al Qaeda connections and couldn't prove it.

THERE IS NO PROOF OF HIM BEING AN ENEMY COMBATANT.  Yet he is STILL in Gitmo. 

You are saying that all Muslims, even US Citizens like Padilla, or ANY US Citizen for that matter are suspects and can just have their rights stripped off under assumption?  What the hell type of America are you defending?
2006-03-08 09:47:47
herrr_smity
Member
+156|6867|space command ur anus
so your tactic at fighting an enemy that is hidden among the general population is to kill them all, I'm not able to see that it is helping fore every one you kill you get 2 new ones being recruited and now they are sneakier then ever.
2006-03-08 09:49:11
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

Marconius wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

terrorists are not human beings, therefore we should not treat them humanely
If I were fighting a war, I'd want you in my army.

My view is that the only thing which qualifies the jihadists as human is their DNA. In every other way, they are far from human.

It makes it easier to kill them if we dehumanise them and I can't encourage it enough.
Let us define terrorism:

Oxford Dictionary wrote:

ter•ror•ism - noun
the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.

A terrorist is someone who uses terrorism in the pursuit of political aims.
From an Iraqi standpoint, could you then say that the "Shock and Awe" campaign was a direct terrorist action committed by the Bush administration?  You may not think so, but they sure seem to think the same way as GunSlinger...there are two sides to every coin.
Oh you're trying to play the old 'moral equivalence' card I see.

It may come as a shock to you, as left as you are, but not everyone's 'opinions' and 'standpoints' are equal.
Deciding 'what is right' is up to those who are able to do so. If everyone was able to do that then the world would be a peaceful place would it not.

Since the Iraqis were not able or not willing to rid us and thmeselves of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, it is up to right-minded people to do that for them. If any of them in particular don't like not living without a murderous psychopath then it is very much their problem and no-one else's.

When going into battle is it common practice to 'terrorise' your enemy so that you may defeat them. But I have noted your concern and the next time I have tea with Donald Rumsfeld and his buddies I will be sure to pass on your concerns that the US terrorises it's enemies so that next time they may invade with bunches of flowers instead of weapons.
2006-03-08 09:55:56
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6948|Charlie One Alpha
Jesus fucking christ, you people make me fucking sick.

First off, a guy with an RPG on his shoulder is not a terrorist, he is a combatant. Therefore, POW. Therefore, geneva convention.

Second, no mattter what happens anywhere else, that is NO excuse for what happens in guantanamo bay, EVER.
You people can't seem to understand this.

Third, there is hardly any evidence against anybody in there.

Fourth, even if there was, so the fuck what? Human rights still apply.

Fifth, stop dividing the world into Muslim/non-Muslim.

Sixth, and I cannot stress this point enough: it is AGAINST the muslim faith to kill somebody.
The Jihad does NOT EXIST. The term Jihad (or Holy War) was a metaphor for the internal struggles every man faces in order to stay true to his faith, NOT killing Americans. Therefore, anyone who claims to kill for Allah, is automatically NOT A MUSLIM, or at least a very bad one. MUSLIM DOES NOT MEAN TERRORIST.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're not supposed to kill people as a Christian either, "Thou shalt not kill"? How would you feel if people started murdering in the name of Christ? That's right, you'd say they are the worst Christians ever.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2006-03-08 09:56:36
Marconius
One-eyed Wonder Mod
+368|6933|San Francisco

xanthpi wrote:

Deciding 'what is right' is up to those who are able to do so. If everyone was able to do that then the world would be a peaceful place would it not.

Since the Iraqis were not able or not willing to rid us and thmeselves of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, it is up to right-minded people to do that for them. If any of them in particular don't like not living without a murderous psychopath then it is very much their problem and no-one else's.
Ready everyone?  This is called FASCISM.  Say it with me now.  FASCISM.  Can we also say TOTALITARIAN REGIME?  Complete subservience to a force "that believes they are right in any and every way?"

I ask again, What the hell type of America are you attempting to defend?
2006-03-08 10:01:31
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

Marconius wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

If it's not apparent to you, I'd like to point out that the US is fighting for it's life at the moment against an enemy which is sworn to the destruction of everything the US stands for. The laws which govern normal criminal activity do not apply in any way when judging an enemy fighter who wishes to put you and your entire country 6 feet under.

Americans who do not wish to destroy their own country are not going to have their rights taken away. Jose Padilla, as a true Muslim, a jihadist and possible enemy combatant should indeed have his rights taken away. The cost of not doing so may be the deaths of 1 or 5 or 500 or 500,000 people.

The lesson is simple - if you become a 'radical' Muslim (ie. committed to violence against non-Muslims), you get locked up. Fair enough? I think so.
It's only fair if there is solid proof and evidence.  In Padilla's case, this is not so.  He was labelled an Enemy Combatant after the FBI accused him of al Qaeda connections and couldn't prove it.

THERE IS NO PROOF OF HIM BEING AN ENEMY COMBATANT.  Yet he is STILL in Gitmo. 

You are saying that all Muslims, even US Citizens like Padilla, are suspect and can just have their rights stripped off under assumption?  What the hell type of America are you defending?
If Jose Padilla is deemed to be of no risk whatsoever then I will be happy to see him released. But since the US Government deems him to be a security threat then I am happy to go along with, and not moan about, their decision. It is highly likely that they know alot more about his situation than you and I.

About stripping the rights of Muslim citizens. We ought to start a new thread but whatever.

I'm almost certain that you know very little, if anything, about Islam so I'll make a few key points.

To be a Muslim you must: hate all non-Muslims, think that it is a god-given right to rape non-Muslim women who belong to a country or entity which has not submitted to Islamic control, work to subvert all non-Muslim systems of governance, not believe in any personal freedoms, etc, etc.
Don't believe me? Go read the Qur'an - it's all in there.
People who call themselves Muslim but do not have the necessary beliefs to actually be a Muslim, are simply not Muslim and therefore the following does not necessarily apply to them.

I would say that it was common sense, not to mention a matter of survival, to rid society of these people, whether by incarceration or deportation.

To make it easier to understand, if someone was to walk around town shouting that they want to rape all the women and kill everyone else, would it be a smart move to arrest them or not? Hmmmm. Tough one, that
2006-03-08 10:04:13
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

herrr_smity wrote:

so your tactic at fighting an enemy that is hidden among the general population is to kill them all, I'm not able to see that it is helping fore every one you kill you get 2 new ones being recruited and now they are sneakier then ever.
No, I never said that did I? You simply made it up so that I could point out that you are a liar. Whatever floats your boat I suppose.

I don't have a total solution for fighting a campaign against armed men who hide amongst women and children. I have a few ideas, but no solution.
2006-03-08 10:04:18
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7016

Marconius wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

Padilla went to a terrorist training camp in Afghanistan. Ergo he is an enemy combatant.
There's not enough evidence to prove it.  The fact is a US citizen has been detained with a gross lack of evidence, and is being held indefinitely, or at least until the government can come up with something to charge him with.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/02/17/padilla.hearing/
"In 1985, as a 15-year-old gang member in Chicago, Illinois, Padilla was convicted of murder and served four years in a juvenile jail. After he was released, Padilla was convicted of assault and battery and later arrested for marijuana possession."

Marconius, you disgust me.  You leave off facts that do not serve your purposes.  You spin all situations to your viewpoint.  You claim you're tolerant of all yet you will never tolerate Christians.
2006-03-08 10:05:12
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6948|Charlie One Alpha
About stripping the rights of Muslim citizens. We ought to start a new thread but whatever.

I'm almost certain that you know very little, if anything, about Islam so I'll make a few key points.

To be a Muslim you must: hate all non-Muslims, think that it is a god-given right to rape non-Muslim women who belong to a country or entity which has not submitted to Islamic control, work to subvert all non-Muslim systems of governance, not believe in any personal freedoms, etc, etc.
Don't believe me? Go read the Qur'an - it's all in there.
People who call themselves Muslim but do not have the necessary beliefs to actually be a Muslim, are simply not Muslim and therefore the following does not necessarily apply to them.

I would say that it was common sense, not to mention a matter of survival, to rid society of these people, whether by incarceration or deportation.
Jesus Christ, somebody ban this guy RIGHT NOW.
This is quite simply the biggest bullshit I have read, EVER. I don't know where you get your information, buddy, but what you just said is a blatant lie, and a dangerous one at that. You seriously make me want to come over to your house and rape you in the name of Christ, and then I'll just say I thought it was in the bible. Fuck you. No, FUCK YOU.
"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2006-03-08 10:07:09
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7016

jonnykill wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

Are you aware that more than a dozen of those released went straight back to their terrorist buddies and rejoined the jihad? Some have even been killed in fighting.
Yup . Perhaps they were once innocent and now after being tourtured we created an enemy . Some of these people don't want to go back to their country because they will just be thrown into another jail , or murdered .


"and it's no wonder that mistakes were made. (A man with a severe head wound known as "half-head Bob" was sent to Guantanamo despite his obvious inability to provide useful intelligence.) Detainees who've been released from Guantanamo -- including farmers, kidnapped taxi drivers, a man in his 90s, and a deaf man who couldn't understand his interrogators -- have consistently told reporters that they are innocent and that they were handed over by local Afghan commanders keen to appease the Americans or to settle personal scores."

http://www.motherjones.com/news/outfron … 2_400.html
Try asking a local patrolman how often they hear those they arrest say they're innocent.
2006-03-08 10:09:15
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7016

Marconius wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

The requirements for proof when dealing with an enemy combatant are somewhat different than those for dealing with common criminals.

When dealing with enemy combatants/ terrorists it does not pay to apply 'beyond reasonable doubt', as you end up having to release almost all the terrorists you have in custody, so that they may come back another day and hurt you, a la what leftists want.
Well, they didn't officially call him an enemy combatant when they first imprisoned him.  The enemy combatant spiel came in after they couldn't prove that he was going to use a dirty bomb, and then when evidence fell way short of proving him wanting to blow up an apartment building.  They are using the term "enemy combatant" to continuously hold him in custody, and now the document the FBI is saying proves that he Is a combatant is proving to be more dubious than hard fact.
I bet Marconius wanted tookie spared.
2006-03-08 10:15:44
LaidBackNinja
Pony Slaystation
+343|6948|Charlie One Alpha

xanthpi wrote:

About stripping the rights of Muslim citizens. We ought to start a new thread but whatever.

I'm almost certain that you know very little, if anything, about Islam so I'll make a few key points.

To be a Muslim you must: hate all non-Muslims, think that it is a god-given right to rape non-Muslim women who belong to a country or entity which has not submitted to Islamic control, work to subvert all non-Muslim systems of governance, not believe in any personal freedoms, etc, etc.
Don't believe me? Go read the Qur'an - it's all in there.
People who call themselves Muslim but do not have the necessary beliefs to actually be a Muslim, are simply not Muslim and therefore the following does not necessarily apply to them.

I would say that it was common sense, not to mention a matter of survival, to rid society of these people, whether by incarceration or deportation.

To make it easier to understand, if someone was to walk around town shouting that they want to rape all the women and kill everyone else, would it be a smart move to arrest them or not? Hmmmm. Tough one, that
Dude, what you just said is unbelievable. It is an offensive and VERY dangerous lie. You're lucky there are hardly any muslims on this forum (at all?) but if there were I bet they'd rip you a new one for that bullshit.
What you just said infuriates me beyond comprehension. Imagine if I came on here, and said that to be a good Christian, you have to rape non-christians, hate non-christians etc. etc. YOU'D BE FUCKING PISSED, BECAUSE IT'S UTTER BULLSHIT. And the fact that there are no islam people on this forum to defend themselves makes your offense even worse. People might actually BELIEVE what you just said, while it is actually complete nonsense. People, please DON'T believe what he just said, I imagine it was this sort of thing that caused the Germans to hate the Jews. What xanthpi just said is NOT TRUE. The muslim faith is a faith of peace and love much like christianity. The Qur'an FORBIDS you to kill other people, just like the bible does.

Last edited by LaidBackNinja (2006-03-08 10:16:54)

"If you want a vision of the future, imagine SecuROM slapping your face with its dick -- forever." -George Orwell
2006-03-08 10:24:03
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Jesus fucking christ, you people make me fucking sick.
I hope you got to the bathroom in time.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

First off, a guy with an RPG on his shoulder is not a terrorist, he is a combatant. Therefore, POW. Therefore, geneva convention.
No, you are mistaken. To be a POW and therefore governed by the rules with cover such, you must wear a uniform, an identifiable insignia, carry your weapons openly and abide by the laws and customs of war.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Second, no mattter what happens anywhere else, that is NO excuse for what happens in guantanamo bay, EVER.
You people can't seem to understand this.
Perhaps we would be better off not fighting this war and just let the terrorists subdue us under Islamic Law.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Third, there is hardly any evidence against anybody in there.
But on Planet Earth there is plenty of evidence. I don't know which planet you are on.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Fourth, even if there was, so the fuck what? Human rights still apply.
And those rights are being applied as per the rules.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Fifth, stop dividing the world into Muslim/non-Muslim.
As far as Muslims are concerned there are only two parts to the world - Dar ul Islam (Land of Islam) and Dar ul Harb (Land of War).

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Sixth, and I cannot stress this point enough: it is AGAINST the muslim faith to kill somebody.
You are a downright liar.

Examples of Qur'an excerpts:

...fight in the way of Allah
[3.152]...you slew them by His [Allah's] permission [during a Jihad battle]...
...the messenger, in your rear, was calling you (to fight)...that which ye missed [war spoils]...
[4.71] ...go forth in detachments or go forth in a body [to war].
[4.74] Therefore let those fight in the way of Allah, who sell this world's life for the hereafter; and whoever fights in the way of Allah, then be he slain or be he victorious, We shall grant him a mighty reward.
Fight then in Allah's way...rouse the believers to ardor maybe Allah will restrain the fighting of those who disbelieve
...slay the idolaters wherever you find them...take them captives and besiege them and lie in wait for them in every ambush...

LaidBackNinja wrote:

The Jihad does NOT EXIST.
Perhaps not on Mars, but here on Earth it is alive and well.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

The term Jihad (or Holy War) was a metaphor for the internal struggles every man faces in order to stay true to his faith, NOT killing Americans.
The lesser Jihad means to kill for the sake of Allah, to spread Islam by the sword.
And you, sir, are a liar.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Therefore, anyone who claims to kill for Allah, is automatically NOT A MUSLIM, or at least a very bad one. MUSLIM DOES NOT MEAN TERRORIST.
A Muslim is someone who does their best to live the way Allah wants them to. And part of that is to be prepared to fight and kill infidels.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

Correct me if I'm wrong, but I think you're not supposed to kill people as a Christian either, "Thou shalt not kill"?
The original language that 'thou shalt not kill' was written in, should be translated as 'thou shalt not murder'. Just so you know.

LaidBackNinja wrote:

How would you feel if people started murdering in the name of Christ? That's right, you'd say they are the worst Christians ever.
And it would be reasonable to question their beliefs and to fight against them, would it not.



For those who are interested, LaidBackNinja has engaged in something called 'taqiyeh', which is the Islamic concept of lying to infidels in order to confuse them so that the Muslims may gain an advantage. Poor LaidBackNinja. He wasn't to know that this particular infidel is not dumb enough to fall for it

LaidBackNinja, you got owned today, this day of our non-existent lord, Wednesday March 8th 2006.
2006-03-08 10:28:57
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

Marconius wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

Deciding 'what is right' is up to those who are able to do so. If everyone was able to do that then the world would be a peaceful place would it not.

Since the Iraqis were not able or not willing to rid us and thmeselves of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, it is up to right-minded people to do that for them. If any of them in particular don't like not living without a murderous psychopath then it is very much their problem and no-one else's.
Ready everyone?  This is called FASCISM.  Say it with me now.  FASCISM.  Can we also say TOTALITARIAN REGIME?  Complete subservience to a force "that believes they are right in any and every way?"

I ask again, What the hell type of America are you attempting to defend?
'Believing' you are right has nothing to do with it. 'Being' right is what counts. People on the hard left are at a great disadvantage when claiming to be correct, as they think with their feelings and are totally idealistic.
2006-03-08 10:31:23
wannabe_tank_whore
Member
+5|7016

Marconius wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

Deciding 'what is right' is up to those who are able to do so. If everyone was able to do that then the world would be a peaceful place would it not.

Since the Iraqis were not able or not willing to rid us and thmeselves of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, it is up to right-minded people to do that for them. If any of them in particular don't like not living without a murderous psychopath then it is very much their problem and no-one else's.
Ready everyone?  This is called FASCISM.  Say it with me now.  FASCISM.  Can we also say TOTALITARIAN REGIME?  Complete subservience to a force "that believes they are right in any and every way?"

I ask again, What the hell type of America are you attempting to defend?
What the hell type of america have you been living in the past 21 years?  Have you ever created a law?  Members of Congress introduce laws that are then voted on.  They are deciding what is right for us.
2006-03-08 10:31:48
xanthpi
Banned
+11|6959

Marconius wrote:

xanthpi wrote:

Deciding 'what is right' is up to those who are able to do so. If everyone was able to do that then the world would be a peaceful place would it not.

Since the Iraqis were not able or not willing to rid us and thmeselves of the tyrant Saddam Hussein, it is up to right-minded people to do that for them. If any of them in particular don't like not living without a murderous psychopath then it is very much their problem and no-one else's.
Ready everyone?  This is called FASCISM.  Say it with me now.  FASCISM.  Can we also say TOTALITARIAN REGIME?  Complete subservience to a force "that believes they are right in any and every way?"

I ask again, What the hell type of America are you attempting to defend?
'Believing' you are right has nothing to do with it. 'Being' right is what counts. People on the hard left are at a great disadvantage when claiming to be correct, as they think with their feelings and are totally idealistic.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 … 17

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard