Total Posts:36|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

The Muslims at our embassies.

williamcarter
Posts: 4
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 8:19:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Why are they there? One, they hate us. Two, Innocence Of Muslims. Three, it was planned by terrorists. What do you think? Are some of these not true, or are there more? Come on I want to here it.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/18/2012 8:27:59 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Because the US is forcing itself on the Middle East.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 8:15:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 8:27:59 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Because the US is forcing itself on the Middle East.

I agree in sentiment, but ironically in this instance the fact that these countries have access to youtube and a version of it which is build upon the premise of free speech it is their own problem.

I have heard statements from both the Turkish and Egyptian leaders that the US should take steps to not allow individuals to offend 1.5 billion muslims. Both countries do not allow the level of freedom of speech that the US affords.

The simple fact though, is that they control the companies that offer internet connectivity in their countries. They should be the ones responsible for inhibiting speech by not allowing that content in their countries.

At the root of it, is a cultural difference that people should not offend other people, versus the American strategy is that it is not our gov role to make sure you are not offended and oh yeah, by the way, if you are offended it does not give you the right to violate another individual's freedom, such as take their life away or destroy their property.

In other terms, Middle East, grow a pair and stop your insistent whining about being offended.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 1:51:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 8:15:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:27:59 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Because the US is forcing itself on the Middle East.

I agree in sentiment, but ironically in this instance the fact that these countries have access to youtube and a version of it which is build upon the premise of free speech it is their own problem.

I have heard statements from both the Turkish and Egyptian leaders that the US should take steps to not allow individuals to offend 1.5 billion muslims. Both countries do not allow the level of freedom of speech that the US affords.

The simple fact though, is that they control the companies that offer internet connectivity in their countries. They should be the ones responsible for inhibiting speech by not allowing that content in their countries.

At the root of it, is a cultural difference that people should not offend other people, versus the American strategy is that it is not our gov role to make sure you are not offended and oh yeah, by the way, if you are offended it does not give you the right to violate another individual's freedom, such as take their life away or destroy their property.

In other terms, Middle East, grow a pair and stop your insistent whining about being offended.

But this isn't really about that video. The video was just an excuse for the Muslim world to vent anger that has been building up for over fifty years. The real source of this outrage is the fact that the US is meddling in the Middle East, and the people of those countries want the US to leave. Thus, they are attacking the symbols of US presence in their countries, US embassies.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Chicken
Posts: 1,296
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 7:57:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

I am negative 1 votes for that.
Disciple of Koopin
Right Hand Chicken of the Grand Poobah DDO Vice President FREEDO

Servant of Kfc
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/19/2012 8:45:48 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

It's insane, but true. Nobody would dare attack each other then. As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads, then it would probably work.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Mirza
Posts: 16,992
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:29:05 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 8:45:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
It's insane, but true. Nobody would dare attack each other then.
Indeed. Not even those we refer to as suicide bombers. That's much more effective at killing people than blowing off nukes.
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:53:18 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 1:51:25 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:15:02 AM, slo1 wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:27:59 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Because the US is forcing itself on the Middle East.

I agree in sentiment, but ironically in this instance the fact that these countries have access to youtube and a version of it which is build upon the premise of free speech it is their own problem.

I have heard statements from both the Turkish and Egyptian leaders that the US should take steps to not allow individuals to offend 1.5 billion muslims. Both countries do not allow the level of freedom of speech that the US affords.

The simple fact though, is that they control the companies that offer internet connectivity in their countries. They should be the ones responsible for inhibiting speech by not allowing that content in their countries.

At the root of it, is a cultural difference that people should not offend other people, versus the American strategy is that it is not our gov role to make sure you are not offended and oh yeah, by the way, if you are offended it does not give you the right to violate another individual's freedom, such as take their life away or destroy their property.

In other terms, Middle East, grow a pair and stop your insistent whining about being offended.

But this isn't really about that video. The video was just an excuse for the Muslim world to vent anger that has been building up for over fifty years. The real source of this outrage is the fact that the US is meddling in the Middle East, and the people of those countries want the US to leave. Thus, they are attacking the symbols of US presence in their countries, US embassies.

You are right to a point, but it is so much more than that. It is not a one way street. The cultural and socio-political environment that has been created in the middle east is largely driven by fundamental, conservative, and radical interpretations of Islam. It took dictators who were cruel and used suppression to control the masses.

Many countries just shrugged off oppressive dictatorial regimes and now there is a fundamental power struggle. You can argue that we are too interventionist, which puts a target on our back. However, you can't forget one of the best ways for a group to come to power is to create an enemy.

Republicans and Democrats and US teach us that fact every day. What is happening right now, is a struggle for power in these countries. The protests against America are just as rooted in lack of economic opportunities, being oppressed by governments, and now being the sheeple of leaders trying to gain power. While we are too interventionist in the middle east, that is not what this is about.

Here is a great article on Bloomberg about a guy who wrote how moderate clerics are being displaced by more radical Salifi clerics in Tunisian mosques.

http://www.bloomberg.com...
InsertNameHere
Posts: 15,699
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 9:19:02 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

The problem with that is that the west would never allow it. Just look at all the sh*t Iran is getting and they don't even have nukes.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 11:33:08 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
But this isn't really about that video. The video was just an excuse for the Muslim world to vent anger that has been building up for over fifty years. The real source of this outrage is the fact that the US is meddling in the Middle East, and the people of those countries want the US to leave.
Some people take a killer at their word about why they are killers. Other people project motives onto them, and will be disappointed if they ever get their way.

As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads
Assad just saw what happened to Gaddafi.

He's doing exactly what Gaddafi did.

Iran, strangely enough, can probably be trusted with nukes. Maybe Saudi Arabia. But every country in the Middle East?
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 3:34:19 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 11:33:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But this isn't really about that video. The video was just an excuse for the Muslim world to vent anger that has been building up for over fifty years. The real source of this outrage is the fact that the US is meddling in the Middle East, and the people of those countries want the US to leave.
Some people take a killer at their word about why they are killers. Other people project motives onto them, and will be disappointed if they ever get their way.


Have fun denying simple cause and effect. I assume that that's what you're doing anyway, I could be misunderstanding your response. Anyway I strongly advise that you read about the term Blowback.

As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads
Assad just saw what happened to Gaddafi.

He's doing exactly what Gaddafi did.


There's a MASSIVE difference between fighting for the survival of your government and indirectly nuking yourself.

Iran, strangely enough, can probably be trusted with nukes. Maybe Saudi Arabia. But every country in the Middle East?

I can't think why not, as long as the nukes stay exclusively in the hands of the militaries of those countries and require the authorization of the highest authorites in the countries to fire. The point is that the only countries that anyone would nuke would be those without nukes, otherwise the fear of retaliation would be a deterrent. So if everyone has nukes, then it will be the ultimate deterrent.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Veridas
Posts: 733
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 4:47:35 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
I think this is going to make for some interesting lessons/conversations in the future.

I can see it now.

"And in 2012, a variety of attacks on Western Embassies by ordinary Muslims sparkled some tensions in the region"
"Please sir, why did these attacks happen"
"The attacks took place because of The Innocence of Muslims"
"Wait...what?"
What fresh dickery is the internet up to today?
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:10:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 3:34:19 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:33:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But this isn't really about that video. The video was just an excuse for the Muslim world to vent anger that has been building up for over fifty years. The real source of this outrage is the fact that the US is meddling in the Middle East, and the people of those countries want the US to leave.
Some people take a killer at their word about why they are killers. Other people project motives onto them, and will be disappointed if they ever get their way.


Have fun denying simple cause and effect. I assume that that's what you're doing anyway, I could be misunderstanding your response. Anyway I strongly advise that you read about the term Blowback.
Human cause and effect is rarely as simple as that involved in pushing a watermelon off a building. Humans vary and have free will.


As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads
Assad just saw what happened to Gaddafi.

He's doing exactly what Gaddafi did.


There's a MASSIVE difference between fighting for the survival of your government and indirectly nuking yourself. '
Governments are not the ultimate concern of most. He survives, or not.
The proposition that he might win a nuclear war is not that much harder to believe than the proposition that he'll be better at not getting executed than Gaddafi was-- plenty of people don't believe that a nuclear strike is appropriate to retaliate against in kind, all he has to do is hope whoever he nukes is among them and their allies think that whoever is expendable (The reason the US put missiles in Europe is to call the Soviets on their ridicule of the idea that it was credible the US would risk New York and such by retaliating after the fact of a strike on London or something).


Iran, strangely enough, can probably be trusted with nukes. Maybe Saudi Arabia. But every country in the Middle East?

I can't think why not, as long as the nukes stay exclusively in the hands of the militaries of those countries and require the authorization of the highest authorites in the countries to fire.
If that theory had been followed with Gaddafi, somewhere would already be a smoking crater.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2012 7:11:11 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
Basically, MAD theory only works where you assume a rational actor.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
slo1
Posts: 4,324
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 8:14:33 AM
Posted: 4 years ago
Is this still about hatred of the US?

Pakistan police open fire on crowds protesting anti-Islam video; At least 5 killed
http://www.cbsnews.com...

Or is this about uneducated masses who have been oppressed by the leadership of the country and manipulated by religious zealots?

Even though we should not be as deep in the middle east, I see it as the latter of the two.
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 2:05:07 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/20/2012 7:10:18 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/20/2012 3:34:19 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/20/2012 11:33:08 AM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
But this isn't really about that video. The video was just an excuse for the Muslim world to vent anger that has been building up for over fifty years. The real source of this outrage is the fact that the US is meddling in the Middle East, and the people of those countries want the US to leave.
Some people take a killer at their word about why they are killers. Other people project motives onto them, and will be disappointed if they ever get their way.


Have fun denying simple cause and effect. I assume that that's what you're doing anyway, I could be misunderstanding your response. Anyway I strongly advise that you read about the term Blowback.
Human cause and effect is rarely as simple as that involved in pushing a watermelon off a building. Humans vary and have free will.


I don't understand how that is supposed to refute Blowback. Could you explain a bit more?


As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads
Assad just saw what happened to Gaddafi.

He's doing exactly what Gaddafi did.


There's a MASSIVE difference between fighting for the survival of your government and indirectly nuking yourself.
Governments are not the ultimate concern of most. He survives, or not.
The proposition that he might win a nuclear war is not that much harder to believe than the proposition that he'll be better at not getting executed than Gaddafi was-- plenty of people don't believe that a nuclear strike is appropriate to retaliate against in kind, all he has to do is hope whoever he nukes is among them and their allies think that whoever is expendable (The reason the US put missiles in Europe is to call the Soviets on their ridicule of the idea that it was credible the US would risk New York and such by retaliating after the fact of a strike on London or something).


I highly doubt that any country would not retaliate with equal force if they were nuked. In the end any 2 countries that fight with nukes will both get bombarded. The point is that in a nuclear war, Syria would get flattened as soon a they got off a few missiles. That is pretty much a given. Whereas the war in Syria is currently a clear 2 sided fight in which the government is holding it's ground. They are very different situations, and while the Syrian government will no doubt fall eventually, Assad at least has a chance at living. In a nuclear war, it's all over for him as soon as it starts.


Iran, strangely enough, can probably be trusted with nukes. Maybe Saudi Arabia. But every country in the Middle East?

I can't think why not, as long as the nukes stay exclusively in the hands of the militaries of those countries and require the authorization of the highest authorites in the countries to fire.
If that theory had been followed with Gaddafi, somewhere would already be a smoking crater.

No, Gaddafi would still be in power, there would never have been a war in Lybia (for better or for worse), and no missiles would have been fired. Nukes are only a deterrent so long as you DON'T USE THEM. I think that even a maniacal dictator can understand that.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 7:39:31 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
If you play it off as a few angered people they will just go away.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 7:42:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/19/2012 8:45:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

It's insane, but true. Nobody would dare attack each other then. As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads, then it would probably work.

The only problem with that is that the religion of Islam has no regard for human life. You can be stoned to death or executed for nearly anything if the wind is blowing in the right direction.
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 7:47:56 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 7:42:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:45:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

It's insane, but true. Nobody would dare attack each other then. As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads, then it would probably work.

The only problem with that is that the religion of Islam has no regard for human life. You can be stoned to death or executed for nearly anything if the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Same applies to Judaism and in many instances Christianity.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 7:50:45 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/18/2012 8:27:59 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Because the US is forcing itself on the Middle East.:

Yes and no. You forget it is also the other way around, particularly in Europe. Some Muslims will never cease until the entire world is converted. Switzerland has had a genuine non-interventionist policy since 1815, a timeline of peace totally inconceivable to every other nation. Yet, the Muslim population asserts itself.

So, no, I don't buy that US intervention is the only reason. Is it a major, contributing factor? Absolutely. But Islam is every bit as complicit as the US is.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 8:12:20 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 7:47:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/21/2012 7:42:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:45:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

It's insane, but true. Nobody would dare attack each other then. As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads, then it would probably work.

The only problem with that is that the religion of Islam has no regard for human life. You can be stoned to death or executed for nearly anything if the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Same applies to Judaism and in many instances Christianity.

For example in the last 30 years... Name 5 instances
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
sadolite
Posts: 8,837
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 8:17:03 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 8:12:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/21/2012 7:47:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/21/2012 7:42:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:45:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

It's insane, but true. Nobody would dare attack each other then. As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads, then it would probably work.

The only problem with that is that the religion of Islam has no regard for human life. You can be stoned to death or executed for nearly anything if the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Same applies to Judaism and in many instances Christianity.

For example in the last 30 years... Name 5 instances

And by that I mean a crowd of 100 or more of Christian or Jewish people faith killing a person for some senseless reason and dragging their dead body through the streets. Not just some single individual acting on their own
It's not your views that divide us, it's what you think my views should be that divides us.

If you think I will give up my rights and forsake social etiquette to make you "FEEL" better you are sadly mistaken

If liberal democrats would just stop shooting people gun violence would drop by 90%
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 8:39:46 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 7:42:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:45:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

It's insane, but true. Nobody would dare attack each other then. As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads, then it would probably work.

The only problem with that is that the religion of Islam has no regard for human life. You can be stoned to death or executed for nearly anything if the wind is blowing in the right direction.

It doesn't matter what they think of the lives of others, because if they were to launch nukes they would be effectively killing themselves because of the retaliation.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
Frederick53
Posts: 1,037
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 8:43:05 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 7:50:45 PM, PARADIGM_L0ST wrote:
At 9/18/2012 8:27:59 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
Because the US is forcing itself on the Middle East.:

Yes and no. You forget it is also the other way around, particularly in Europe. Some Muslims will never cease until the entire world is converted. Switzerland has had a genuine non-interventionist policy since 1815, a timeline of peace totally inconceivable to every other nation. Yet, the Muslim population asserts itself.

So, no, I don't buy that US intervention is the only reason. Is it a major, contributing factor? Absolutely. But Islam is every bit as complicit as the US is.

But the reason why Islam in general is radicalized today is because of Western intervention. If it weren't for things like the 1953 coup in Iran, the rigging of the Lebanese elections in 1957, and US support of Israel, the Muslim populations in Europe would be much more docile. The anger from those instances has radicalized Islam all over the world.
In 1975, the Second Vietnam War began -1Historygenius

Like no wonder that indian dude rejected you.- Darkkermit to royalpaladin

Social Darwinism is a justification- 1Historygenius

Equal opportunity exists, so there is no problem- EvanK
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/21/2012 8:50:18 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 8:17:03 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/21/2012 8:12:20 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/21/2012 7:47:56 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
At 9/21/2012 7:42:45 PM, sadolite wrote:
At 9/19/2012 8:45:48 PM, Frederick53 wrote:
At 9/19/2012 7:36:27 PM, MattDescopa wrote:
all middle eastern countries should be given access to nuclear weapons. That would make peace.

It's insane, but true. Nobody would dare attack each other then. As long as the countries were run by people with basic survival mechanisms in their heads, then it would probably work.

The only problem with that is that the religion of Islam has no regard for human life. You can be stoned to death or executed for nearly anything if the wind is blowing in the right direction.

Same applies to Judaism and in many instances Christianity.

For example in the last 30 years... Name 5 instances

And by that I mean a crowd of 100 or more of Christian or Jewish people faith killing a person for some senseless reason and dragging their dead body through the streets. Not just some single individual acting on their own

Whether it's 1 or 100, you're committing the fallacy of composition. You're equating the actions of some to not only the actions of all, but also the actual doctrine.

In any event, I was referring to actual doctrine. If Islam somehow doesn't value human life, then, basically, neither do Judaism or Christianity.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 12:51:25 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/21/2012 2:05:07 PM, Frederick53 wrote:

I don't understand how that is supposed to refute Blowback. Could you explain a bit more?
You're treating a particular possible human response as though it is inevitable in every case and unstoppable and there are no other factors worth considering for no reason. If it were true, rational strategy would be complete disarmament, ain't no one gonna get mad at ya right? They'll just have it blow up in their faces if they do.

I highly doubt that any country would not retaliate with equal force if they were nuked.
It doesn't matter whether it's true, only whether a person with nukes believes it to be both true that they would retaliate and true that retaliation would be successful (instead of, say, doing a ghost dance and declaring that Allah has cursed Israeli nukes into uselessness or something).

In the end any 2 countries that fight with nukes will both get bombarded. The point is that in a nuclear war, Syria would get flattened as soon a they got off a few missiles. That is pretty much a given. Whereas the war in Syria is currently a clear 2 sided fight in which the government is holding it's ground. They are very different situations, and while the Syrian government will no doubt fall eventually, Assad at least has a chance at living. In a nuclear war, it's all over for him as soon as it starts.
Assad's best shot at living is stepping the f*** down and striking a deal, like many dictators have done before him.

No, Gaddafi would still be in power, there would never have been a war in Lybia (for better or for worse), and no missiles would have been fired.
Um, nukes can't deter civil war.

Nukes are only a deterrent so long as you DON'T USE THEM. I think that even a maniacal dictator can understand that.
Maniacal dictators often misunderstand important things. And all it takes is one.
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Zetsubou
Posts: 4,933
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/22/2012 10:00:41 PM
Posted: 4 years ago
At 9/22/2012 12:51:25 PM, Ragnar_Rahl wrote:
At 9/21/2012 2:05:07 PM, Frederick53 wrote::
In the end any 2 countries that fight with nukes will both get bombarded. The point is that in a nuclear war, Syria would get flattened as soon a they got off a few missiles. That is pretty much a given. Whereas the war in Syria is currently a clear 2 sided fight in which the government is holding it's ground. They are very different situations, and while the Syrian government will no doubt fall eventually, Assad at least has a chance at living. In a nuclear war, it's all over for him as soon as it starts.
Assad's best shot at living is stepping the f*** down and striking a deal, like many dictators have done before him.
I've been following the civil war closely and it's regressed into a simple insurgency now. Assad's chances increase with every passing day and have been doing so for the 5 months. The arming of the rebels by Sunni Arabs, countries like Qatar and Saudi Arabia, have made a short war a lot longer that it should have been. Aleppo Governorate and Homs are the final zones that can be described as being in the status of war.

Assad has tried to reason with Kurd and Liberal opposition with mixed success. Do not mistake political liberalisation with this sectarian driven insurgency. These were two events which occurred at about the same time. The people who protested are not the same people who have taken up arms.

At 9/21/2012 8:50:18 PM, DetectableNinja wrote:
Whether it's 1 or 100, you're committing the fallacy of composition. You're equating the actions of some to not only the actions of all, but also the actual doctrine.

In any event, I was referring to actual doctrine. If Islam somehow doesn't value human life, then, basically, neither do Judaism or Christianity.
In that case you mistake the doctrine of the faiths. Islam, Judaism and Christianity are not identical. In simple things Islam is by far more zealous of the three. Islam is the only one that places a capital punishment on apostasy, Islam forbids the drawing of animate beings, Islamic law is also most sensitive to violation. If we look at Muhammad and the "Rashidun", the four "rightly guided" Muslim role models: all were jihadists, all partook in genocide and all instigated imperialist wars on people who did not know them. By doctrine it's a no contest, warfare in the Torah, Bible Chapters and other Hebrew books is presented as a history, in Islam in described as a means to act, companied with a guide on how to enslave the enemy.

For the sake of argument I'm going ignore the Christian doctrine of anti-thesis, why Christians have always only followed an abridged version of the Mitzvot law. http://en.wikipedia.org... The Shar'ia is an Islamic reiteration of the same Hebrew and Christian document.

History of religion aside, where Christianity and Judaism have secularised were Islam has not. The only present day theocracies, outside the Holy See, are Islamic ones. Almost half of Eastern Islamic states have Islamic law written into their constitutions.
'sup DDO -- july 2013