BF2S Forums Who is a true Muslim???

bogo24dk wrote:

CyrusTheVirus wrote:

True muslim, eh? Generally dressed in a blanket and a headnappy, toting an AK47, has about 10 kg of plastic explosives primed to blow strapped to his abdomen, treats women like shit and will do everything in his power to bring down western civilisation because he can't handle the fact that we're better than him.

If that was true the Israel wouldn't be on the map today.
And a true westerner is either a slave trader or a Nazi . Right ??

It is a fake account you are arguing with, calm down.

This is getting retarded.

wah1188 wrote:

We also have to bear in mind that Islam is a relatively new religion, compared to the rest. Countries and religions always will go through turbulent times with crazy shit happening. America's civil war, Protestants vs Catholics you know that stuff. Not saying it has to happen to such an extreme though.

Islam needs a Reformation.

GunSlinger OIF II wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

This is getting retarded.

Lancet is true, ITS FUCKING TRUE DAMN IT!!!! WAHHHHHHH!!!!!

oOh

Marinejuana wrote:

let me repeat: "A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred."  -washington post

Are you suggesting that coalition troops killed the 655,000 innocent civilians?  Or that a vast majority of them have been killed by sectarian violence? Or terrorism from foreign fighters?

Are we to assume, also, that Saddam would not have killed any more of his citizens during this time since the May 2003 invasion?  I mean didn't he gas 130,000 Kurdish men, women and children in 1993?

I think what you are suggesting is with our presence there antagonized the sectarian violence and foreign fighters to kill innocent Iraqi civilians. 

al-Qaeda encouraged sectarian violence when they bombed sacred sites.  And since violence begets violence sectarian violence escalated to what we have today.

If we went into Iraq with 400,000 troops instead of 150,000 we would had been out of Iraq 2 years ago - Rumsfeld was an idiot.

Marinejuana wrote:

And USmarine, you still wont even touch the fact that we bombed 4 million civilians in Vietnam.

I'm not sure about that number, but I would suspect that since we didn't have the technology today for precision bombings and artillery that the number seems plausible.  You may want to add the 3 million killed once we left ... the Vietcong Communists were vicious.

Marinejuana wrote:

Are you crazy enough to believe that we killed 4 million in Vietnam 30 years ago, but that in our current undeclared war, the enemy is merely killing itself on the order of 665,000? Stop trying to hide from obvious facts. Iraq is a real place, with real people, and the real United States military occupying their neighborhoods. You deny the facts of the conflict to the peril of Iraqis and the eventual peril of your own people.

I don't think we are 'occupying' necessarily, more patrolling the area.  We don't control their government, their natural resources, their police or military.  If we did then, yes I would agree with you that we are occupiers.  If anything we are doing are darndist to get out of there ("When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down.").

Marinejuana wrote:

Just because you were educated by the Marines to be good at taking orders and a good killer doesn't mean you know anything about America or our traditional beliefs.

I believe Marines and all our armed forces sacrifice their livelihood and sometimes their lives.  They know better, I think, than many in our society what it takes.  Freedom isn't free.  Hundreds of thousands of people died for us to have the right to have this discussion.

Marinejuana wrote:

Tell us: What does it mean to be a marine? Does it mean obeying our executive branch to any end or does it mean defending our constitution?
I suggest you apply to a University and study U.S. history before you seek to damage our nation any further with your regurgitated marine propaganda.

That Marine Propaganda has kept our country safe since its existence.  The hundreds of thousands of Men and Women who gave their lives for our freedom, we should take it for granted.  Hmm...so you are saying that someone who has gone to a University is a better person, more enlightened?  The fact that you seem to willingly denounce it lets me to believe that you have a case of BDS; I think the root cause of your angst is Bush Derangement Syndrome. 

There are avenues that we can follow if we do not agree with the administration.  We can lobby our congressmen to impeach Bush.  We can demonstrate.  We voted in a majority of Democrats in the last election.  If they had control of 67% of Congress they could stop the President, but they can't right now. 

Why don't we see the 400,000 person rallies that we saw in the 60's protesting the Vietnam war? 

Marinejuana wrote:

You tout yourself as a patriot and a Marine, and yet you unflinchingly encourage our government to shelf the U.S. Constitution. You act like its patriotic to completely ignore the founding principles of our nation.

But our President is the Commander-In-Chief.  The opposition could had stopped funding the war, but they did not, so until President Bush is out of office, is impeached, or there are enough votes to veto him the undeclared war/police action will continue. 

Marinejuana wrote:

This country was founded on a belief that our foreign policy should encourage trade and avoid "the entangling alliances of other nations" -george washington.

I wonder how George Washington would handle extremist Muslims today?  Would he be a protectionist and withdraw all troops from all over the world inside the United States - the troops we have in Germany, Europe, Japan, Korea, and the Middle East?  Unlike when our country first started we now have a military where we can defend our allies and our interests.  And right now its within our interest that Iraq become a stable country that does not harbor terrorists.

Marinejuana wrote:

You are badly educated enough to believe that occupying a foreign nation is American. Nazis waged "preemptive" wars.

Are you suggesting that the United States or this administration are Nazis?  That we are trying to have a 'one race' to 'rule the world'?  I see what we are doing in Iraq as trying to help the 25 million Iraqis get on their own feet.  We could easily have taken control of their oil and used it for our own needs, but are we, No. 

Marinejuana wrote:

The ignorance of people like you will rob us of all civil liberties and whatever shred of democracy still exists.

You bring up a very good point.  How much freedom do we need to reliquish so we can stay safe?  When we fly on a plane why do we allow them to search our bags and our person?  Aren't we giving up our 4th Amendment right?  There's a balance that we need to adhere to.  That is why we have the Judicial Branch to override the will of the Legislature and Executive branches whenever they overreach. 

I think the most obvious right we have given up recently was the ability to know our calls to/from foreign countries are not monitored.  Or all the cameras that are being placed in cities like New York similar to the 'Ring of Steel' they have in the UK.  To me these are not a problem.

Marinejuana wrote:

You will clap your hands the whole way because you show an obvious capacity to accept any military action, regadless of its legality or purpose.

Who is the authority?  Who makes it legal?  If the U.N. says its ok then are we allowed to act militarily?  We are a sovereign country.  We have checks and balances.  We elect our officials. 

Marinejuana wrote:

I just want to know why there aren't more Americans speaking out against an illegal war. Are the American people are just sheep now? You can tell them anything if you are Fox news or the federal government and they will just look the other way. Just look at this thread full of thoughtless hate speech.

You're right, why aren't more Americans speaking against this war?  If more were speaking out then perhaps the Administration would had pulled out by now.  But of course you know what will happen if we pull out abruptly.  This last paragraph you gave pretty much lets us know that no matter what objection we have the we are pigionedholed into the 'governement/Fox News' corner.

Part of a debate is thoughtfully taking the point-of-view of people who you don't agree with you and trying to convince them of your point-of-view on the matter.  Calling them names and demeaning them does nothing to help your cause.

Here's a good book you may want to read:


How to Win Friends and Influence People

Last edited by Harmor (2007-07-19 18:08:43)

Okay well Harmor decided to go Defcon 5 on me and give me the 2000 words of propaganda reply, but i will stand by my call for open debate and actually present the counterpoint for all of claims he makes.

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

let me repeat: "A team of American and Iraqi epidemiologists estimates that 655,000 more people have died in Iraq since coalition forces arrived in March 2003 than would have died if the invasion had not occurred."  -washington post

Are you suggesting that coalition troops killed the 655,000 innocent civilians?  Or that a vast majority of them have been killed by sectarian violence? Or terrorism from foreign fighters?

the quote says these people would not have died had we not invaded.

Harmor wrote:

Are we to assume, also, that Saddam would not have killed any more of his citizens during this time since the May 2003 invasion?  I mean didn't he gas 130,000 Kurdish men, women and children in 1993?

based on the evidence i cited earlier, saddam killed 6,410 people per year during his reign. since our iraq war started, this escalated to an additional quantity of anywhere between 17,000 per year and 170,000 per year based on surveys. this is far beyond saddams previous activity. And beware that there is no evidence to support that the Anfal genocide, where up to 180,000 iraqis were gassed, even occured beyond the statements of our government and our government doesn't even keep its own body counts let alone body counts for far away nations. There is just as much evidence for WMD's in Iraq as there is evidence for the Anfal genocide. None of the witnesses claim to have seen more than one person die there. this would bring saddams yearly death count to about 10% of what can presently be claimed. On the other hand, all of the iraqi body counts for this war are being conducted by various independent parties that are not as biased as our federal government (in terms of financial interest) and are obviously open to public scrutiny, unlike the federal govt. all of the lancet criticisms apply to all demographic studies, while it may be to some extent inaccurate, it would be quite unlikely for their samples of 49 areas to be completely valueless. You are fooling yourself to think that sample size errors produced over 90% of the deaths counted and extrapolated.

Harmor wrote:

I think what you are suggesting is with our presence there antagonized the sectarian violence and foreign fighters to kill innocent Iraqi civilians. 

al-Qaeda encouraged sectarian violence when they bombed sacred sites.  And since violence begets violence sectarian violence escalated to what we have today.

i do make this suggestion, and are u aware that al-Qaeda only became active in Iraq after we arrived?

Harmor wrote:

If we went into Iraq with 400,000 troops instead of 150,000 we would had been out of Iraq 2 years ago - Rumsfeld was an idiot.

interesting how he will profit from this idiocy isnt it?

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

And USmarine, you still wont even touch the fact that we bombed 4 million civilians in Vietnam.

I'm not sure about that number, but I would suspect that since we didn't have the technology today for precision bombings and artillery that the number seems plausible.  You may want to add the 3 million killed once we left ... the Vietcong Communists were vicious.

well you should learn about those numbers because its your civic duty as an american to know who dies in your name. It must feel reassuring to know that technology has overcome the inhernet risks of collateral damage when using high-explosives at extreme distances. Since you know the weapons are so accurate, why not allow the police to use strategic missile attacks when they raid criminals on our soil? I mean you know the technology is good enough to bet lives right? Or would that be too much of a risk? its usually a war crime to join and support the military forces of an invader. many of the muslim police we are currently "training" will be killed for their support of a foreign invader. its quite sad the position they are in. election polls showed that ho chi minh was the chosen leader of the vietnamese people. He freed their country from the French before we arrived and prolonged their revolution by another 9 years.

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

Are you crazy enough to believe that we killed 4 million in Vietnam 30 years ago, but that in our current undeclared war, the enemy is merely killing itself on the order of 665,000? Stop trying to hide from obvious facts. Iraq is a real place, with real people, and the real United States military occupying their neighborhoods. You deny the facts of the conflict to the peril of Iraqis and the eventual peril of your own people.

I don't think we are 'occupying' necessarily, more patrolling the area.  We don't control their government, their natural resources, their police or military.  If we did then, yes I would agree with you that we are occupiers.  If anything we are doing are darndist to get out of there ("When the Iraqis stand up we will stand down.").

when there are fully armed soldiers in your streets, cutting off your electricity for most of the day, enforcing curfews, and ordering explosive attacks that cripple critical resources like water supplies, you can safely call yourself occupied. What would you call it if the Chinese were doing as much in your U.S. town? Just doin' some patrollin'? wake up. and yes we control their police and military are u kidding?

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

Just because you were educated by the Marines to be good at taking orders and a good killer doesn't mean you know anything about America or our traditional beliefs.

I believe Marines and all our armed forces sacrifice their livelihood and sometimes their lives.  They know better, I think, than many in our society what it takes.  Freedom isn't free.  Hundreds of thousands of people died for us to have the right to have this discussion.

it is their prerogative to take orders while engaging in war. the constitution explicitly directs that our military should be controlled democratically through our president and congress. Therefore regardless of the respect you may have for soldiers, I stand by our constitution in holding our military democratically responsible. They may take an impressive risk in their job, but their job can't be for the sole purpose of the risk alone. The soldier can only be allowed to fight when it is absolutely necessary. In the present case, only a small group of our leaders can influence the military. This bypasses the critical democratic control over the military written into our constitution. I would say the U.S. as a whole knows more about our country and the world than the tiny percentage of Americans that are in the military or the presidents cabinet. Thats just obvious statistical logic.

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

Tell us: What does it mean to be a marine? Does it mean obeying our executive branch to any end or does it mean defending our constitution? I suggest you apply to a University and study U.S. history before you seek to damage our nation any further with your regurgitated marine propaganda.

That Marine Propaganda has kept our country safe since its existence.

How does waging war in the other hemisphere keep us safe? If we were attacked by an army, we would all enlist. how can you claim that all the years we lived without attacks were the result of our military conflicts when we almost only attack places that obviously pose no immediate threat to us due to distance and lack of resources for travel. fighting in world war 2, or our revolution, or any time that we were somehow threatened makes sense. Thats why the people wanted to engage in these wars, and why congress declared war as our constitution provides. But you completely fail to make the argument that constant unconstitutional war in any region against any foe somehow protects us. It would be assinine to suggest it would save more american lives than we have killed in other countries considering nobody has ever even attacked us. we are an ocean or desert away from all possible enemies. realize the fact of our isolation. look at australia, they hardly have a military history and just like us they dont have to defend themsleves because they are oceans away from their enemies. its almost laughable how many americans will believe their lives are at risk when they live a thousand miles from their border and oceans away from "the enemy." If you hadn't obvoiusly been exposed to a lifetime of propaganda, I would probably invoke Paranoid Schizophrenic here.

Harmor wrote:

The hundreds of thousands of Men and Women who gave their lives for our freedom, we should take it for granted.  Hmm...so you are saying that someone who has gone to a University is a better person, more enlightened?

i wouldnt say either. but i would say that most universities in the U.S. offer classes where you could learn the parts of U.S. history that the Federal Board of Education need not explicitly set forth.

Harmor wrote:

[The fact that you seem to willingly denounce it lets me to believe that you have a case of BDS; I think the root cause of your angst is Bush Derangement Syndrome.

i hope thats just a joke. i assume you wouldnt be so outright in completely discrediting yourself after writing the wall of text that u just assigned to me.

Harmor wrote:

There are avenues that we can follow if we do not agree with the administration.  We can lobby our congressmen to impeach Bush.  We can demonstrate.  We voted in a majority of Democrats in the last election.  If they had control of 67% of Congress they could stop the President, but they can't right now.

Yes despite allegations that Bush stole the race, is waging an unconstitutional war, and has passed laws that violate our bill of rights, we have had no success in controlling him through any other governmental means. how frustrating.

Harmor wrote:

Why don't we see the 400,000 person rallies that we saw in the 60's protesting the Vietnam war?

Because there are that many of us using the internet to spread our ideas. And additionally, because the press no longer shows footage at length of US and "enemy" dead bodies piled up like they did in the 1960's.

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

You tout yourself as a patriot and a Marine, and yet you unflinchingly encourage our government to shelf the U.S. Constitution. You act like its patriotic to completely ignore the founding principles of our nation.

But our President is the Commander-In-Chief.  The opposition could had stopped funding the war, but they did not, so until President Bush is out of office, is impeached, or there are enough votes to veto him the undeclared war/police action will continue.

its an unconstitutional war, it violates your rights as a citizen. Freedom isnt free? practice what you preach. once bush illegally sent our military into iraq, we were left debating the "moral issue of pulling out" it doesnt change the fact that Bush made the decision to place us in iraq with no democratic input. now hes used the same war to take away the rights of U.S. citizens with the "patriot act" that are guaranteed in the constitution. I'm sorry you are so indoctrinated that you can't see how the war against iraq and terror has also become a war against your own rights and democracy. you have to wake up before this goes any further.

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

This country was founded on a belief that our foreign policy should encourage trade and avoid "the entangling alliances of other nations" -george washington.

I wonder how George Washington would handle extremist Muslims today?  Would he be a protectionist and withdraw all troops from all over the world inside the United States - the troops we have in Germany, Europe, Japan, Korea, and the Middle East?  Unlike when our country first started we now have a military where we can defend our allies and our interests.  And right now its within our interest that Iraq become a stable country that does not harbor terrorists.

you dont have to sit around wondering about this.

"It is our true policy to steer clear of entangling alliances with any portion of the foreign world." -George Washington

You can find the same quotes from Benjamin Franklin and Thomas Jefferson. Almost all of the orginal authors of U.S. policy were against any attempts to colonize or militarily control any foreign land.

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

You are badly educated enough to believe that occupying a foreign nation is American. Nazis waged "preemptive" wars.

Are you suggesting that the United States or this administration are Nazis?  That we are trying to have a 'one race' to 'rule the world'?  I see what we are doing in Iraq as trying to help the 25 million Iraqis get on their own feet.  We could easily have taken control of their oil and used it for our own needs, but are we, No.

I'm only pointing out that the Nazi's also waged pre-emptive wars forcing new ideologies on their victims. Those of you in this post trying to quesiton the average Muslim's character based on the acts of a a few extremists are also racist, which is Nazi ideology. Hitler talked a lot about "Homeland Security" and passed laws that restricted personal rights in the name of homeland security. And yes, we do have control of their oil now, this is one article, but you can research the 'Federal Oil and Gas Council" elsewhere: http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Middle_East/IB28Ak01.html

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

The ignorance of people like you will rob us of all civil liberties and whatever shred of democracy still exists.

You bring up a very good point.  How much freedom do we need to reliquish so we can stay safe?  When we fly on a plane why do we allow them to search our bags and our person?  Aren't we giving up our 4th Amendment right?  There's a balance that we need to adhere to.  That is why we have the Judicial Branch to override the will of the Legislature and Executive branches whenever they overreach.

you miss the point that airlines are private property where you can choose to go only with consent of the airline. You are literally not "free" to go hop on their planes the same way you arent "free" to walk in your neighbors back door to pawn the TV.

the constitution protects our rights to property and privacy in public and at home. under the patriot act, all of our land is now essentially private property belonging to the government where they have the right to search and seize anything under that legislation. so in answer to your question of how much freedom do we stand to lose: these rights have already been lost, and it now remains up to the goodwill of our "elected leaders" not to abuse this power.

Who knows if things will stay pleasant for us, if you had any knowledge of our foreign debt, you would realize that the people controlling the stability of the dollar through constant lending arent even american (mostly chinese and european) so once again you are depending on the goodwill of some isolated and disinterested parties for most of our future prosperity. in times of wealth it may seem like your rights arent even challenged, but u would be happy to have them during the chaos of an economic depression.

Harmor wrote:

I think the most obvious right we have given up recently was the ability to know our calls to/from foreign countries are not monitored.  Or all the cameras that are being placed in cities like New York similar to the 'Ring of Steel' they have in the UK.  To me these are not a problem.

You no longer have a right to privacy and it is up to the whoever holds the presidency to decide how much of your life is observed. Don't fool yourself into thinking that bypassing your constitutional rights can not lead any further than some insignificant surveillance. When National ID cards are released in 2008 we will literally all be carrying around govenrment papers that will literally track your every move with radio ID chips. Oh sure, they could use this technology for fun and rainbows, but you should be alarmed at the fascist potential for control our government now has.

Don't you realize how terribly unpatriotic it is to just totally deny the importance of our constitutional rights? Don't you see how thats the only thing that makes the U.S. unique and free?

Don't convince yourself that having an army full of soldiers sacrificing their lives makes you free. This is one asset that can be found in every single violent, fascist dicatatorship throughout all of history. It is in no way whatsoever a guarantee of your freedom. the only guarantee is the U.S. constitution which many of you obviously don't give a damn about.

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

You will clap your hands the whole way because you show an obvious capacity to accept any military action, regadless of its legality or purpose.

Who is the authority?  Who makes it legal?  If the U.N. says its ok then are we allowed to act militarily?  We are a sovereign country.  We have checks and balances.  We elect our officials.

the authority is congress and the president. because we have sovreignty the U.N. cannot dictate our policy. This is all from the constitution, which you obviously haven't read. and not to splash you with any cold water but there is evidence that suggests elections have been stolen. all the checks and balances we have to protect from tyrannical use of our military were bypassed.

Harmor wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

I just want to know why there aren't more Americans speaking out against an illegal war. Are the American people are just sheep now? You can tell them anything if you are Fox news or the federal government and they will just look the other way. Just look at this thread full of thoughtless hate speech.

You're right, why aren't more Americans speaking against this war?  If more were speaking out then perhaps the Administration would had pulled out by now.  But of course you know what will happen if we pull out abruptly.  This last paragraph you gave pretty much lets us know that no matter what objection we have the we are pigionedholed into the 'governement/Fox News' corner.

You just cant get it through your skull that we went to Iraq illegally, so regardless of the fact that withdrawl has to be slow, you are completely accepting the illegal action of our president. Just like the Germans accepted the radical moves of Adolph Hitler. Whether Iraqis slowly die with our presence, or masacre eachother a few times while reestablishing their own leadership, free of us, either way people are going to die now that Bush broke the law and started a war. You can't turn around and blame the Iraqis for a war they didn't start, or blame the American people years after they were forced into a very difficult situation. It would certainly help if the U.S. had more activism, but a lack of activism didn't cause the president to break the law. realize that we are setting up a government that allows us to buy oil at great prices. we wont leave until the iraqi people allow this government to simply exist on their land. so unless they overthrow us they are essentially being pillaged. the only thing that can save the iraqi people's wealth is to leave their country and cease this attempt to control the resources beneath their soil. i know u guys like to think that we are bringing them a democracy, but you cant sell a nations wealth to foreigners and then claim to give them a voice. they are now free to be poor forever.

Harmor wrote:

Part of a debate is thoughtfully taking the point-of-view of people who you don't agree with you and trying to convince them of your point-of-view on the matter.  Calling them names and demeaning them does nothing to help your cause.

debate is about clearly weighing the significance of facts. propaganda is about "taking the point-of-view of people who you don't agree with you and trying to convince them of your point-of-view on the matter." I am only demeaning when you try to participate without providing facts, or any logical analysis of facts.

I wish you had chosen to conclude your post with something that relates to the OP, but let me reiterate that the so-called double standard, whereby Muslims allow terrorist violence but only speak out against other cultures, is a complete reversal and bastardization of the real double standard: whereby we use massive spending that kills thousands of foreigners and then dedicate half of our foreign affairs media on the occasional terrorist attack that pales in comparison to our military action. The radio host is completely backwards in the standards that he holds. If violence was cause for "speaking out" then this stupid radio host should be speaking out against our military that does more damage than some terrorists ever have.

Marinejuana wrote:

debate is about clearly weighing the significance of facts.

Get over yourself.  This is a video game forum, not a Harvard debate site.  Some of us come here just for the hell of it.  This is not a structured debate forum by any means.

Bubbalo wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

Marinejuana wrote:

debate is about clearly weighing the significance of facts.

Get over yourself.  This is a video game forum, not a Harvard debate site.  Some of us come here just for the hell of it.  This is not a structured debate forum by any means.

Besides which a debate is about the presentation of the facts as much (or more so) than the facts themselves.

A debate would also mean sticking to the thread subject, which he has not by any means.

I think we all should come together and sing "we shall overcome".

someone that hasn't blown themsleves up yet

usmarine2005 wrote:

I am here for fun, not serious debate.

That explains a lot.

sergeriver wrote:

usmarine2005 wrote:

I am here for fun, not serious debate.

That explains a lot.

God help you if you are not here for that.