You say your as if I'm on a personal crusade. Actually, your wrong in that, at least from the perspective of what the US and allies are directly responsable for.
'You' includes all supporters of the destruction and chaos.
The Europeans can talk about that because we all know that your own governments killing millions of their own citizens doesn't count.
Hold on now, it's not Europeans that accuse you of being barbarians for using capitol punishment, it's the entire world outside of some nations like China, Iran, etc.
now we are in the later in which you don't understand where a base line could be drawn from
Christianity is not where we will find it. Keep in mind, I'm not looking for a base line for myself, I'm saying that if we are going to go around the world forcing people to act civilized, we need to decide what civilized is.
The war in fact attempt to go after the people and assets that are being used to perpetrate the crimes which is the exact same thing that stops your government from being a terrorist when they use or threaten the use of violence to stop someone else from killing or injuring people.
Your war on terror has killed and injured far more innocent people than the people who you are trying to fight ever did. Exactly the opposite of what you say is the goal is happening.
I'm not talking about any specific implementation of religion but rather the values that brought us out of the bad times. I'm talking about the motivators that stopped the Inquisition and the crusades and the corruption of the church.
So which is it, they were good times, or bad times? One minute you wish we could return to their system of morales, the next you are celebrating our departure from them.
Religion got us into this mess. If it weren't for religion we would not have a problem in the middle east. It is amazing to me that you think it might be a solution of some kind.
Would you suggest that we allow terrorist to commit acts or terror just because they use religion to justify it?
How would you come to the conclusion that I do? You already accused me of advocating self rule. The problem is that the "war on terror" is in fact a terrorist act. It is the use or threat of violence to achieve political goals. So we have a double standard when we talk about those people committing terrorist acts. You say we should be able to do so because our goal is righteous. They believe theirs is, so what's it going to be?
I'm talking historically, throughout the year, even back to the beginning but more focusing on the later 18th-19th century.
You keep saying that religions have gone in different directions, and at some point in the past they must have been the same, or very similar. I wonder if you are saying that in that timeframe societies behaved in a morale and just way. Historically the Christians don't have a very good record of tolerance and compassion. People got killed for being homosexual. People got killed for blasphemy. Only recently have heretics been allowed to speak openly. Slavery has been popular in the past as well.
As far as this decline in morality thing goes, I have no doubt that the so called decline in morality is a fiction which does not exist. The further back in history you look the more oppression and violence you find. If Jesus had been able to speak his mind, you would be out a martyr though I suppose, so it's probably in your best interest to see things that way.
You would use your morals as a baseline because it is what you understand and know and it is what makes you who you are that shapes how you see the world.
Fine, you follow your rules, and I'll follow mine. But where's the part where you start bombing villages come in? People get upset when the war on terror is compared with the crusades, but they really aren't very different when you get down to what they are about.
they've got no business criticizing countries that kill people after a trial. They are not more just or civilised, it's hypocritical.
Which is how we got to talking about this. The hypocritical nature of the "war on terror".
Do you think the corruption of individual policemen is the same as the justice system itself condoning murder? In a courtroom setting the victim is already incarcerated and poses very little danger. At this point you are just killing him to satisfy your own morbid retaliatory nature.
So yes, we are more just and civilized in this regard.
The opposite of recklessness isn't chickenshit. This war will not make people give up Islam, nor will it stop extremists, it only emboldens them. If you think we should continue this course merely to punish these people for not following our values then you are sick.
What people are saying is, it's wrong to lock people up against their will for 20 years for "blasphemy".
I agree with those people. I do not agree that waging an unwinnable war will do anything but kill thousands/millions of people, and people will still get locked up for years for stupid things like blasphemy. There's a whole bunch of them sitting in Guantanamo bay right now.
Fine, just don't use that to try to claim that the world is better off because you spent money on a new stapler. If it weren't for you, they wouldn't need a new stapler. Fixing what you broke isn't humanitarian aid, it's *the very least* you can do.
I admitted that religion isn't valid any more because of the different directions they have gone and the extremes they have moved away.
How long ago are you remembering back? You're talking the time period when Jesus was supposed to have walked the Earth? Or prior to that?
As for who's you would use as your baseline, well, of course you would use yours because it is what you know.
That would be good, except mine is centered on the elimination of suffering, whereas most others seem to promote it. Either way, people in predomenantly Islamic countries probably won't accept either of our religions, or their morals, as seems to be the case here.
I said that the absolute morals were a moving target but that wasn't the point.
I think it is the point. We are judgeing the Islamic world based on what is acceptable in our society, and telling them that their morales are corrupt and unacceptable. We are willing to kill innocent civillians to convince them of that. My morales do not allow that.
it still isn't right to kill or imprison someone for what he said.
It isn't right to kill someone because they happen to live near a target of the "war on terror" regardless of whether they even said anything at all either.
Tyranny of the majority to kill the individual, is still a tyranny.
Tell that to the non violent drug users sitting in U.S. prisons. Tell that to the people in Guantanamo. Do you think the U.S. government should be the ones deciding what is tyranny and what is not?
So what exactly did you mean by "Nobody has the right to infringe upon the rights of others"?
Would that also include bombing a villiage which may or may not have "terrorists" in it? I still don't understand how we're supposed to hold Afghanistan up to a standard that we don't meet ourselves.
No country has abolished capital punishment.... Criticising countries that have the death penalty is hypocritical, especially when there are people that want it restored anyway.
You're kidding right? You figure it is the same thing if a police officer kills somebody in the line of duty, or if a penal system uses death as a punishment?
As for a base line for morality, there in lies one of the biggest problems. It used to be that religion provided the most guidance there but it seems that some religions moved into different directions then others and the rest of the world has moved away from them.
Bad example. We're talking about these people wanting to kill this man for conflicting with their religion. Who's religion would you use? Mine, yours, or theirs?
where instead of having the firm set in stone morals,
Don't pretend that ever happened. The Christians can't even agree, and they're all reading from the same book.
Slashdot Mirror
The same thing that should be done when your country does it.
Your the ones doing the murdering dumb ass.
What a world you live in.
'You' includes all supporters of the destruction and chaos.
Hold on now, it's not Europeans that accuse you of being barbarians for using capitol punishment, it's the entire world outside of some nations like China, Iran, etc.
Christianity is not where we will find it. Keep in mind, I'm not looking for a base line for myself, I'm saying that if we are going to go around the world forcing people to act civilized, we need to decide what civilized is.
Your war on terror has killed and injured far more innocent people than the people who you are trying to fight ever did. Exactly the opposite of what you say is the goal is happening.
Which of course is why the U.S. justice system works so well, and you have the lowest crime rates in the world.
So which is it, they were good times, or bad times? One minute you wish we could return to their system of morales, the next you are celebrating our departure from them.
Religion got us into this mess. If it weren't for religion we would not have a problem in the middle east. It is amazing to me that you think it might be a solution of some kind.
How would you come to the conclusion that I do? You already accused me of advocating self rule. The problem is that the "war on terror" is in fact a terrorist act. It is the use or threat of violence to achieve political goals. So we have a double standard when we talk about those people committing terrorist acts. You say we should be able to do so because our goal is righteous. They believe theirs is, so what's it going to be?
You keep saying that religions have gone in different directions, and at some point in the past they must have been the same, or very similar. I wonder if you are saying that in that timeframe societies behaved in a morale and just way. Historically the Christians don't have a very good record of tolerance and compassion. People got killed for being homosexual. People got killed for blasphemy. Only recently have heretics been allowed to speak openly. Slavery has been popular in the past as well.
As far as this decline in morality thing goes, I have no doubt that the so called decline in morality is a fiction which does not exist. The further back in history you look the more oppression and violence you find. If Jesus had been able to speak his mind, you would be out a martyr though I suppose, so it's probably in your best interest to see things that way.
Fine, you follow your rules, and I'll follow mine. But where's the part where you start bombing villages come in? People get upset when the war on terror is compared with the crusades, but they really aren't very different when you get down to what they are about.
Which is how we got to talking about this. The hypocritical nature of the "war on terror".
Do you think the corruption of individual policemen is the same as the justice system itself condoning murder? In a courtroom setting the victim is already incarcerated and poses very little danger. At this point you are just killing him to satisfy your own morbid retaliatory nature.
So yes, we are more just and civilized in this regard.
Yes, you caught the inference. Collect your gold star at the desk. ;)
The opposite of recklessness isn't chickenshit. This war will not make people give up Islam, nor will it stop extremists, it only emboldens them. If you think we should continue this course merely to punish these people for not following our values then you are sick.
I agree with those people. I do not agree that waging an unwinnable war will do anything but kill thousands/millions of people, and people will still get locked up for years for stupid things like blasphemy. There's a whole bunch of them sitting in Guantanamo bay right now.
Fine, just don't use that to try to claim that the world is better off because you spent money on a new stapler. If it weren't for you, they wouldn't need a new stapler. Fixing what you broke isn't humanitarian aid, it's *the very least* you can do.
And I suppose you don't think it's relevant when the United States is in the process of enforcing their corrupt morales on a nation of people?
It's not your job to bring free thought and tolerance, if you haven't attained it yourself.
How long ago are you remembering back? You're talking the time period when Jesus was supposed to have walked the Earth? Or prior to that?
That would be good, except mine is centered on the elimination of suffering, whereas most others seem to promote it. Either way, people in predomenantly Islamic countries probably won't accept either of our religions, or their morals, as seems to be the case here.
I think it is the point. We are judgeing the Islamic world based on what is acceptable in our society, and telling them that their morales are corrupt and unacceptable. We are willing to kill innocent civillians to convince them of that. My morales do not allow that.
It isn't right to kill someone because they happen to live near a target of the "war on terror" regardless of whether they even said anything at all either.
Tell that to the non violent drug users sitting in U.S. prisons. Tell that to the people in Guantanamo. Do you think the U.S. government should be the ones deciding what is tyranny and what is not?
Because thats what the U.S. government does. Prop them up, do the same in Iraq, give billions of dollars to Israel every year, but punish Cuba.
It doesn't make any sense to justify doing it, but it never stops happening.
So what exactly did you mean by "Nobody has the right to infringe upon the rights of others"?
Would that also include bombing a villiage which may or may not have "terrorists" in it? I still don't understand how we're supposed to hold Afghanistan up to a standard that we don't meet ourselves.
Does it apply to the folks who have been sitting in Guantanamo for 5 years?
You're kidding right? You figure it is the same thing if a police officer kills somebody in the line of duty, or if a penal system uses death as a punishment?
Bad example. We're talking about these people wanting to kill this man for conflicting with their religion. Who's religion would you use? Mine, yours, or theirs?
Don't pretend that ever happened. The Christians can't even agree, and they're all reading from the same book.
So, basically you are saying that anyone who didn't move away from Iraq and Afghanistan years ago deserves to die?