346 replies to this topic

[Korhend]

Should I point out that Canada is a party to these as well?

[Korhend]

I will contradict you, and BK because i know for a fact that America isn't a terroristic nation. It is a nation of life and prosperity.

Yeah, life is the word that comes to mind when I see this.
http://history.indep...2/raid/cb03.jpg

If you don't believe that war is not killing anybody, then what do you think war is?

"if you kill someone when you are in a war, it isn't killing."--Muscle E Mac

[Octorok]

The problem is that the terrorists in Iraq are not exactly enlisted in an army, nor are they a particularly organized. They depend on cowardly attacks, picking off our soldiers one by one, using roadside bombs or suicide attacks. The US faced a similar enemy in the Vietnam War. The difference was that the Vietcong never told any of their soldiers that the only way to get into heaven was to strap a bomb to their chest and run into the middle of a platoon of soldiers. The similarity is the utilization of surprise attacks.

[Korhend]

No. Korhend, what you said is incorrect. The bible says that killing during war is not a sin. War involves killing. There is no alternative to it. That's what war is, composed of killing. AM I RIGHT?

Not according to you you're not.

About that link, you said that's what you see in life? Well, you got a pretty sick mind if that's what you see in life. True life is America, feeling freedom. And no, don't even quote me on this but that's death, or WAR. ha, it's funny that you contradicted yourself.

See, that was something called deliberate irony

[Korhend]

The problem is that the terrorists in Iraq are not exactly enlisted in an army, nor are they a particularly organized. They depend on cowardly attacks, picking off our soldiers one by one, using roadside bombs or suicide attacks. The US faced a similar enemy in the Vietnam War. The difference was that the Vietcong never told any of their soldiers that the only way to get into heaven was to strap a bomb to their chest and run into the middle of a platoon of soldiers. The similarity is the utilization of surprise attacks.

True, my point is you cant make a black and white statement "This is a terrorist" or "This isn't". Every major power has supported terrorism at one point or another, Not Just the United State either. Canada, Australia and even poland have used terrorism.
Soldiers using those tactics but using them on americans could more accurately be described as partisans. The ancient strategy of death by 1000 cuts. Terrorists are attempting to make Iraq a bloodbath for everyone so the U.S. will pull out. Between the two there is a million shades of grey.

[Octorok]

Yes, every nation has used terrorism at some point (even Petoria, which was only a country for like twenty minutes)and the US is responsible for much of the terrorism that is going on in Iraq, but the terrorism perpetrated by the US is justified, as is the terrorism perpetrated by the Iraqis. In a way, the US and the Iraqis are very much alike, after all, American troops are convinced that they are doing justice, and the Iraqis have the same idea. Both are controlled by corrupt leaders, the only difference is that Bush is not bold enough to tell the soldiers to strap bombs to their chest. Islaam is a peaceful faith, but is ruled by corrupt, war-mongering religious leaders. Just as the US would be a peaceful nation, if it weren't for corrupt political leaders that try to increase their popularity by becoming a so-called "war president".

Let's just be thankful we don't live in biblical times, where soldiers, after conquering a city, would slaughter all the men, rape the women, bash the babies against walls, and take the children as slaves.

[Alakhriveion]

Let's just be thankful we don't live in biblical times, where soldiers, after conquering a city, would slaughter all the men, rape the women, bash the babies against walls, and take the children as slaves.

Hey, now, don't knock Biblical violence. That's the only think that keeps my ass going to services. Psalm 137, for example, is really inspirational. To paraphrase:

Great Babylon, you whore, doomed to destruction,
happy is he who repays you
for what you have done to us-
who burns your cities
and tears your walls to their foundations,
he who seizes your infants
and dashes them against the rocks.

[Wanchimaera]

(even Petoria, which was only a country for like twenty minutes)

Siezing the Swanson's pool is an act of terror? Or are you talking about him not paying for the beer?

[Korhend]

He did aid terrorists...with beer and hotdogs.

[Black Knight]

Not Just the United State either. Canada, Australia and even poland have used terrorism.

When, exactly, did Canada ever use terrorism?

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Yeah, I totally agree with Furious Octorok. Every country has committed terrorism, it's sad, but true. The U.S. thinks that we are doing right, but the Iraqis don't. And the Iraqis think that they are doing right, but we don't. One contradicts the other.
Korhend, you said that war isn't killing to me. Well, you said that I said that anyways. When did I say that? If I've ever said that, give me a quote to prove me wrong. But, I guarantee you don't find one.

What? How could you not see the quote at the end of his post?

"if you kill someone when you are in a war, it isn't killing."--Muscle E Mac

Here's the original quote, however, in its original context (but with the text we're talking about in bold, italics, underlined and in red).

Just because we supported Israel doesn't mean that we are terrorists. Your link Son of jor el, is the bible. Go and study the bible. Why would I publish my own bible BK? That doesn't make any sense. There is only one bible, THE BIBLE. okay, so you are saying that we are the terrorists here? Wait a second here. Just because USA is one of the best countries in the world, doesn't mean that we use terroristic actions. We do use military force, but we are not terrorists. The terrorists are those people who bombed the world trade center, that blew up the pentagon. We are retaliating. God doesn't promote killing, but if you read the bible, it says that if you kill someone when you are in a war, it isn't killing. If you don't believe me, read it. Writing tells no lies. Is Furious Octorok the only one that believe my reasoning here? Oh, did Bush say that? Maybe he did, and if he did, it's true. Now don't get me started with Bush.

I have one question, though. Sure, when we as a world fought against Afghanistan, in a way, we were retaliating against those that supported the attackers of 9/11. However, how can you be sure the Iraqis had anything to do with it? Where's the proof there? The only proof that Bush gave for the war was Weapons of Mass Destruction, which haven't turned up.

Plus, if there had been terrorists in Iraq during the war, why didn't they attack then? Why are they only just attacking now?

[Korhend]

When, exactly, did Canada ever use terrorism?

Dresden

[Alakhriveion]

Dresden

I propose that side in that theater of that war doesn't count. Oh course, Canada is really the only country whose slate is cleaned by that.

[Korhend]

What do you mean it doesn't count?

[Reflectionist]

But, America has stupid leaders, i.e. like Bush.

Oh, did Bush say that? Maybe he did, and if he did, it's true.

Awesome. So now Bush is a stupid leader, but everything that comes out of his mouth is True?

If you don't believe that war is not killing anybody, then what do you think war is?

if you kill someone when you are in a war, it isn't killing

Wow. And you thought John Kerry was bad.

I'm not defending Bush, or even like what he is doing. I like the war in Iraq,

now what the hell does this mean? "Oh, you know... I don't like that Bush guy... he is provoking every middle eastern country to start a war, but what the hell, I think I like that war in Iraq too"

but we are not terrorists. The terrorists are those people who bombed the world trade center, that blew up the pentagon.

Which would explain exactly why the U.S. Could possibly have known about 9/11 before it happened. Which would explain why Bush is sending kids barely out of High School to fight in a War they don't completely agree with, to get shot down by somebody they wanted to make peace with?

The bible says that killing during war is not a sin.

Remind me where it says that again? Because I know it isn't here...

21  Ye have heard that it was said by them of old time, Thou shalt not kill; and whosoever shall kill shall be in danger of the judgment: 22  But I say unto you, That whosoever is angry with his brother without a cause shall be in danger of the judgment: and whosoever shall say to his brother, Raca, shall be in danger of the council: but whosoever shall say, Thou fool, shall be in danger of hell fire.  23  Therefore if thou bring thy gift to the altar, and there rememberest that thy brother hath ought against thee;   24  Leave there thy gift before the altar, and go thy way; first be reconciled to thy brother, and then come and offer thy gift.  25  Agree with thine adversary quickly, whiles thou art in the way with him; lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the judge, and the judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into prison.  26 Verily I say unto thee, Thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing.

EDIT - I just wanted to let it be known that every quote unless stated otherwise in this post is something Muscle E Mac has typed and posted with his own fingertips.

[Korhend]

The answer to your question is this, Bush saw Saddam as an international threat. Maybe they did have them and took them out of Iraq, but there's no proof on that. Maybe there were terrorists in Iraq then, and Bush thought that they still might be in there. I do not like Bush on what he is doing. But, I do support the Iraqi war.

I just cant imagine this concept going on with any other war though.

"Maybe England bombed Pearl Harbor, Maybe they didn't"
"Maybe the russians were at Lexington and Concord"
"Maybe Zimbabwe seceeded from the Union, maybe they didn't"

Shouldn't we get the facts straight before going to war?

[Wanchimaera]

Or should we have even bothered? Going into Afghanistan and tearing up the Taliban is where it should've stopped. That is where our full attention should be. We should be concentrating our full effort to rebuild what we destroyed there and let it serve as an example to nations like North Korea that if we are attacked, that we will remove the force that attacked us. I can't help but think that without this conflict in Iraq, we could be putting much more effort into the tsunami relief effort. Those kinds of things win respect in the worldwide community. War only brings fear and resentment.

[Wolf O'Donnell]

Okay, you found me saying that, but did you read before that? It said IN BIBLICAL TIMES. This is not biblical times anymore, this is the 21st century. I'm not saying that, that's what the bible says. I'm not going to argue what the bible says or not, but if that's what it says, then that's what it says.
The answer to your question is this, Bush saw Saddam as an international threat. Maybe they did have them and took them out of Iraq, but there's no proof on that. Maybe there were terrorists in Iraq then, and Bush thought that they still might be in there. I do not like Bush on what he is doing. But, I do support the Iraqi war. Don't even get me started on the Bush administration.

Firstly, why is that aimed at me? I never said that's what you believed in. I just pointed out the quote to you.

Also, by making that argument, you were implying that you believed that to be true, or I'm guessing that's what the others thought...

[Reflectionist]

Hey, muscle e mac... since killing in war isn't murder.... i should be able to walk down the street in Baghdad (hypothetically) and just waste any dude with a turban I saw down there, and I wouldn't get penalized?

By your logic, i could do that, could I not? Careful with this statement, because you could very easily contradict yourself... again...

[Wanchimaera]

Arguing with someone with the fact that they've contradicted themselves? You're bordering on a "You, too" fallacy, you know. Heaven forbid someone change their mind.

[Reflectionist]

Frankly, I don't see what you're talking about.

I wasn't arguing that they've contradicted himself. That's more than obvious.

The first post where I pointed out where he contradicted himself had three purposes. 1. to show exactly where the Bible says that he claims says the opposite. 2. To show that he has no room to claim Korhend and others are contradicting himself.

And, Wanchimaera, when have I contradicted myself in this thread?

[Wanchimaera]

In some circles (of debate) Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (referred to as the "you too" fallacy) includes the act of concluding that person A makes claim X, person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X, therefore X is false (which the claim may very well be, but not for that reason). It's considered an improper argument.

And I never said that you've contradicted yourself. Sorry if it sounded like that. I shouldn't have bothered (or at least used the Latin).

[Octorok]

now what the hell does this mean? "Oh, you know... I don't like that Bush guy... he is provoking every middle eastern country to start a war, but what the hell, I think I like that war in Iraq too"

That you like or dislike Bush has nothing to do with whether or not you support the War in Iraq. Bush has done other things that people may find are a reason to hate him (i.e., No Child Left Behind, the Patriot Act, etc.) If you disagree with the majority of Bush's decisions, you may still support some of them.

Which would explain why Bush is sending kids barely out of High School to fight in a War they don't completely agree with, to get shot down by somebody they wanted to make peace with?

The US has a volunteer army. They did not force anyone into it, so obviously, the majority of the people there agree with it.

Hey, muscle e mac... since killing in war isn't murder.... i should be able to walk down the street in Baghdad (hypothetically) and just waste any dude with a turban I saw down there, and I wouldn't get penalized?

No, because that is not an act of war, seeing as you are not an enlisted man or an officer in any of the coalition forces.

[Alakhriveion]

The US has a volunteer army. They did not force anyone into it, so obviously, the majority of the people there agree with it.

Poverty draft.

[Octorok]

The people that volunteered for that reason should support the war, as it gives them a job.

[Korhend]

In some circles (of debate) Ad Hominem Tu Quoque (referred to as the "you too" fallacy) includes the act of concluding that person A makes claim X, person B asserts that A's actions or past claims are inconsistent with the truth of claim X, therefore X is false (which the claim may very well be, but not for that reason). It's considered an improper argument.

And I never said that you've contradicted yourself. Sorry if it sounded like that. I shouldn't have bothered (or at least used the Latin).

No, its good to see someone use proper debating tactic. However, despite it being faulty like all ad hominim, it does create the problem that at least one of the thing must be false. If I say, "The dog is red" and "The dog is blue" at least one must be false.
It grows annoying when someone wont clarify however, which claim was wrong.