Total Posts:40|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

NATO is no different than ISIS

Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 10:36:16 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
and number one ever terrorist group are christians. if all of their victims are combined it will at least be twice more than all NaTO, Islam, Pagans have committed.

They even were against science, Islam was not, NaTO was not. no idea about pagans. Probably or as far as I am aware of, Xtianity is the only religion to have tortured someone for years for discovering, verifying scientific fact.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
matt8800
Posts: 2,077
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/22/2016 7:15:37 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

I can think of a couple differences:

1. NATO doesn't promote kidnapping and raping women.
2. NATO doesn't cut off people's head for believing in a different religion.
3. NATO doesn't purposely kill civilians.

I'm sure there are more differences but that's a good start. Both a saint and a serial killer eat food. Its the differences that matter.
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 12:32:22 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 7:15:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

I can think of a couple differences:
what differences? both kill, attack to spread their opinion. The only difference may ve in the way they kill.
1. NATO doesn't promote kidnapping and raping women.
yes but it does not change anything. as long as NATO has right to kill "certian people" to impose their opinion, so has iSIS to kidnap or rape to spread their opinion. if ISIS has no, nor has NATO
2. NATO doesn't cut off people's head for believing in a different religion.
but kills people for not being under their opinion (called democracy)
it is ok foe nato to kill people for being in a different ideology but it is not ok forisis to cut people's head for being in a different ideology?
3. NATO doesn't purposely kill civilians.
maybe they do not kill civilians according to the point of view of them, nor does ISIS kill innocents which are according the their viewpoint.
I'm sure there are more differences
and i am sure there are no any difference in their reasoning.
They are just doing the job in a different methodology
but that's a good start.
that was a weak start.
Both a saint and a serial killer eat food.
then, regarding this issue, they have no difference.
Its the differences that matter.
if they both eat food for being hungry or the sane reason, no difference between them regarding what they are doing it for.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Dogknox
Posts: 5,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:16:20 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 12:32:22 AM, Artur wrote:
At 8/22/2016 7:15:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

I can think of a couple differences:
what differences? both kill, attack to spread their opinion. The only difference may ve in the way they kill.
1. NATO doesn't promote kidnapping and raping women.
yes but it does not change anything. as long as NATO has right to kill "certian people" to impose their opinion, so has iSIS to kidnap or rape to spread their opinion. if ISIS has no, nor has NATO
2. NATO doesn't cut off people's head for believing in a different religion.
but kills people for not being under their opinion (called democracy)
it is ok foe nato to kill people for being in a different ideology but it is not ok forisis to cut people's head for being in a different ideology?
3. NATO doesn't purposely kill civilians.
maybe they do not kill civilians according to the point of view of them, nor does ISIS kill innocents which are according the their viewpoint.
I'm sure there are more differences
and i am sure there are no any difference in their reasoning.
They are just doing the job in a different methodology
but that's a good start.
that was a weak start.
Both a saint and a serial killer eat food.
then, regarding this issue, they have no difference.
Its the differences that matter.
if they both eat food for being hungry or the sane reason, no difference between them regarding what they are doing it for.

Artur You are wrong.. NATO protects the weak from the bullies!
If NO NATO then Russia would take over the Ukraine .. SO.. Mr. Autur Truth is: NATO is the PROTECTOR against real JERKS in the world!
bigotry
Posts: 1,068
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 1:42:37 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.
Do you have no frame of history in mind? Do you even have a clue as to what started NATO?
After WW2 there was a very looming threat of the war continuing of the allies vs the Russians. There was no solidarity between the European nations prior to WW2 and so this was a way of solidifying everyone's interest to prevent another world war while at the same time keeping this giant war machine Russia dissuaded from garnishing even more territory into the west. The Cold War shortly thereafter ensued. There were smaller countries within the alliance that simply could not defend themselves against a country like Russia and so with the backing of NATO found safety from the Russians. Eventually the Berlin wall collapsed and other previous iron countries became NATO territory. Ukraine for example recently made the move to the west and only because of the backing of NATO was able to keep Russia from taking the whole country back over. Russia annexed the Crimea and still is fighting a proxy war in the Dontesk and Luhansk regions as we discuss this topic right now. NATO has invaded no one. It merely keeps world powers in check. For example the NATO intervention in Yugoslavia resulted in an independent Kosovo.

While NATO topples people it doesn't consider share the same world view and are oppressive according to themselves. They don't require anything of member states or states that are being protected. They are not governed and don't impose anything on the people. This is the difference. ISIS does impose things upon any territory it controls and any member states or territory. Its just another Caliphate.
To say you don't see a difference I think shows you need to brush up on your history a little better and get with current events. They are not even close to being in the same ballpark in a discussion
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:20:30 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:16:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/23/2016 12:32:22 AM, Artur wrote:
At 8/22/2016 7:15:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

I can think of a couple differences:
what differences? both kill, attack to spread their opinion. The only difference may ve in the way they kill.
1. NATO doesn't promote kidnapping and raping women.
yes but it does not change anything. as long as NATO has right to kill "certian people" to impose their opinion, so has iSIS to kidnap or rape to spread their opinion. if ISIS has no, nor has NATO
2. NATO doesn't cut off people's head for believing in a different religion.
but kills people for not being under their opinion (called democracy)
it is ok foe nato to kill people for being in a different ideology but it is not ok forisis to cut people's head for being in a different ideology?
3. NATO doesn't purposely kill civilians.
maybe they do not kill civilians according to the point of view of them, nor does ISIS kill innocents which are according the their viewpoint.
I'm sure there are more differences
and i am sure there are no any difference in their reasoning.
They are just doing the job in a different methodology
but that's a good start.
that was a weak start.
Both a saint and a serial killer eat food.
then, regarding this issue, they have no difference.
Its the differences that matter.
if they both eat food for being hungry or the sane reason, no difference between them regarding what they are doing it for.

Artur You are wrong.. NATO protects the weak from the bullies!
If NO NATO then Russia would take over the Ukraine .. SO.. Mr. Autur Truth is: NATO is the PROTECTOR against real JERKS in the world!

wrong, NATO protect their killer dolls. They protect the authorities who support NATO meanwhile NATO kill whoever against them.
In many case, NATO are the specialist bomber on wedding parties, markets, and hospitals.
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:52:07 AM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 1:16:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/23/2016 12:32:22 AM, Artur wrote:
At 8/22/2016 7:15:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

I can think of a couple differences:
what differences? both kill, attack to spread their opinion. The only difference may ve in the way they kill.
1. NATO doesn't promote kidnapping and raping women.
yes but it does not change anything. as long as NATO has right to kill "certian people" to impose their opinion, so has iSIS to kidnap or rape to spread their opinion. if ISIS has no, nor has NATO
2. NATO doesn't cut off people's head for believing in a different religion.
but kills people for not being under their opinion (called democracy)
it is ok foe nato to kill people for being in a different ideology but it is not ok forisis to cut people's head for being in a different ideology?
3. NATO doesn't purposely kill civilians.
maybe they do not kill civilians according to the point of view of them, nor does ISIS kill innocents which are according the their viewpoint.
I'm sure there are more differences
and i am sure there are no any difference in their reasoning.
They are just doing the job in a different methodology
but that's a good start.
that was a weak start.
Both a saint and a serial killer eat food.
then, regarding this issue, they have no difference.
Its the differences that matter.
if they both eat food for being hungry or the sane reason, no difference between them regarding what they are doing it for.

Artur You are wrong.. NATO protects the weak from the bullies!
If NO NATO then Russia would take over the Ukraine .. SO.. Mr. Autur Truth is: NATO is the PROTECTOR against real JERKS in the world!
I agree, NATO had benefits to the world. And I agree that if there was no NATo or The USA, the world would probably have been the slave of russia or more accurately of the USSR.

and I would have chosen the NATO over ISIS or any among I mentioned. what I am saying is, should I have said the usa?, when they start to attack, intend to attack a certian country just because they have no democracy, they are no different than ISIs.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Dogknox
Posts: 5,072
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:26:52 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 6:52:07 AM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:16:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/23/2016 12:32:22 AM, Artur wrote:
At 8/22/2016 7:15:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

I can think of a couple differences:
what differences? both kill, attack to spread their opinion. The only difference may ve in the way they kill.
1. NATO doesn't promote kidnapping and raping women.
yes but it does not change anything. as long as NATO has right to kill "certian people" to impose their opinion, so has iSIS to kidnap or rape to spread their opinion. if ISIS has no, nor has NATO
2. NATO doesn't cut off people's head for believing in a different religion.
but kills people for not being under their opinion (called democracy)
it is ok foe nato to kill people for being in a different ideology but it is not ok forisis to cut people's head for being in a different ideology?
3. NATO doesn't purposely kill civilians.
maybe they do not kill civilians according to the point of view of them, nor does ISIS kill innocents which are according the their viewpoint.
I'm sure there are more differences
and i am sure there are no any difference in their reasoning.
They are just doing the job in a different methodology
but that's a good start.
that was a weak start.
Both a saint and a serial killer eat food.
then, regarding this issue, they have no difference.
Its the differences that matter.
if they both eat food for being hungry or the sane reason, no difference between them regarding what they are doing it for.

Artur You are wrong.. NATO protects the weak from the bullies!
If NO NATO then Russia would take over the Ukraine .. SO.. Mr. Autur Truth is: NATO is the PROTECTOR against real JERKS in the world!
I agree, NATO had benefits to the world. And I agree that if there was no NATo or The USA, the world would probably have been the slave of russia or more accurately of the USSR.

and I would have chosen the NATO over ISIS or any among I mentioned. what I am saying is, should I have said the usa?, when they start to attack, intend to attack a certian country just because they have no democracy, they are no different than ISIs.

Again you are WRONG... Dictator is a worse evil... Puts the people as slaves to one man!!! , Democracy is a peoples government!
uncung
Posts: 3,454
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 4:59:42 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/23/2016 4:26:52 PM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:52:07 AM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 1:16:20 AM, Dogknox wrote:
At 8/23/2016 12:32:22 AM, Artur wrote:
At 8/22/2016 7:15:37 PM, matt8800 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

I can think of a couple differences:
what differences? both kill, attack to spread their opinion. The only difference may ve in the way they kill.
1. NATO doesn't promote kidnapping and raping women.
yes but it does not change anything. as long as NATO has right to kill "certian people" to impose their opinion, so has iSIS to kidnap or rape to spread their opinion. if ISIS has no, nor has NATO
2. NATO doesn't cut off people's head for believing in a different religion.
but kills people for not being under their opinion (called democracy)
it is ok foe nato to kill people for being in a different ideology but it is not ok forisis to cut people's head for being in a different ideology?
3. NATO doesn't purposely kill civilians.
maybe they do not kill civilians according to the point of view of them, nor does ISIS kill innocents which are according the their viewpoint.
I'm sure there are more differences
and i am sure there are no any difference in their reasoning.
They are just doing the job in a different methodology
but that's a good start.
that was a weak start.
Both a saint and a serial killer eat food.
then, regarding this issue, they have no difference.
Its the differences that matter.
if they both eat food for being hungry or the sane reason, no difference between them regarding what they are doing it for.

Artur You are wrong.. NATO protects the weak from the bullies!
If NO NATO then Russia would take over the Ukraine .. SO.. Mr. Autur Truth is: NATO is the PROTECTOR against real JERKS in the world!
I agree, NATO had benefits to the world. And I agree that if there was no NATo or The USA, the world would probably have been the slave of russia or more accurately of the USSR.

and I would have chosen the NATO over ISIS or any among I mentioned. what I am saying is, should I have said the usa?, when they start to attack, intend to attack a certian country just because they have no democracy, they are no different than ISIs.

Again you are WRONG... Dictator is a worse evil... Puts the people as slaves to one man!!! , Democracy is a peoples government!

That's why NATO kill people or everyone whoever opposes Democracy.
POPOO5560
Posts: 2,487
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 5:36:23 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

its all about profit. they forgot to help burma victims. they r snakes they bit wherever they like. check this guy - ishmahil blagrove who is a gaint on these issues like white supremacy wars propoganda this kind of stuff... he is a regular speaker at speakers corner hyde park in london watch him on youtube rare infomation u will get. its better than this sh1t religous stuff going here. heres check this https://www.youtube.com...
Never fart near dog
ken1122
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM
Posted: 3 months ago
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
ken1122
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 1:12:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

You haven't shown them to be the same. One could just as easily proclaim Hitler and Gandhi are the same as they were both people who did what they thought was right! That doesn't mean there is no difference between the two of them, what they stood for was different. If you know anything about NATO and ISIS, you will know there is a big difference between what they stand for; this is what makes them different.

Ken
ken1122
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say! I said nothing about acting on such a system. Now if you know of a case where NATO went around killing people because of what they believe and say, please provide an example.

Ken
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.
2. ok, let us omit engaging in.
NATo will still sentence me or penalise me for believing in an ideology that opposes theirs even if they do not kill me.
I said nothing about acting on such a system.
why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
as I said previously, they may have difference in their ideology.:
Now if you know of a case where NATO went around killing people because of what they believe and say, please provide an example.
If searched can be found I guess. but even if I fail, it does not change anythinh: they still kill for their.
Ken
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Silly_Billy
Posts: 644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:07:24 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

There is a very big difference between NATO and ISIS but with that said, I can see your point of view and I do think that NATO has no business to pre-emptively kill people who could be terrorists but which often results in the death of innocents as well. One can argue that the NATO (or actually US) forces do this to prevent terrorist attacks on US targets but even so, there can be no justification for the collateral loss of innocent lives and the policy itself is disastrous which will eventually lead to more terrorism instead of less.

A life is a life no matter whether that life is American, European, Arab, Pakistani, or whatever and as long as the west can not see that every human life equally matters, no matter where that human life may live, for that long terrorism will thrive.

It is unfortunate that you named your topic the way you did because by doing so, your message is doomed to be lost. I doubt that you will find many other people here agreeing with you. In fact, in spite seeing your point, even I don't agree with you.
rnjs
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:23:25 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 8/22/2016 10:36:16 AM, Artur wrote:
and number one ever terrorist group are christians. if all of their victims are combined it will at least be twice more than all NaTO, Islam, Pagans have committed.


Bovine scatology at its worst.

They even were against science, Islam was not, NaTO was not. no idea about pagans. Probably or as far as I am aware of, Xtianity is the only religion to have tortured someone for years for discovering, verifying scientific fact.

Christianity is not against science, the most vigorous opposition to Darwin came from scientists, not Christians. Who exactly was tortured for verifying scientific fact?
ken1122
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:38:52 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.

why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.

Ken
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:42:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:23:25 PM, rnjs wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:36:16 AM, Artur wrote:
and number one ever terrorist group are christians. if all of their victims are combined it will at least be twice more than all NaTO, Islam, Pagans have committed.



Bovine scatology at its worst.




They even were against science, Islam was not, NaTO was not. no idea about pagans. Probably or as far as I am aware of, Xtianity is the only religion to have tortured someone for years for discovering, verifying scientific fact.



Christianity is not against science, the most vigorous opposition to Darwin came from scientists, not Christians. Who exactly was tortured for verifying scientific fact?
good question. Galileo was sentenced to house arrest and tortured for years by church for discovering and announcing the earth rotates the sun.
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:51:01 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:38:52 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.
no, in terms of other things they have differences. but in terms of kiling and being announced terrorist for killing for your opinion, they are the same.
if you say Hitler and Gandhi are the same because of/interms of being ambitious for what they believed, yes I agree. they were the same.
NaTO and IsIS both kills for the opinion they believe to be true, if IsIs is terrorist for killing for the opinion they kill, so is NATO.
abot Hitler/Gandhi fallacy: the reason we call Hitler dictator/evil (while not calling Gandhi so) is not he worked hard for what he believed to be true, he is called dictator for another reasons.
when you base your entire response/defense on intellectual dishonesty and/or fallacious strawman fallacies I will just laugh at it and expose it.
why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.
if that makes sense for you then Hitler, Stalin and e.t.c were totally right in what they did. Because majority of German people agreed with Nazis when he killed homosexuals, when militarist Japan massacred chinese majority of japan agreed with them.
This arguement of your will only not work for IsIS but will work fro almost any genocide, massace in history.
Ken
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 3:58:04 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 1:12:42 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

You haven't shown them to be the same.
show me difference: they both attack,kill for their opinion. They may have different methodoly
One could just as easily proclaim Hitler and Gandhi are the same as they were both people who did what they thought was right!
yes, they both did what they believed to be right and in terms of this category they were "same ambitious people".
That doesn't mean there is no difference between the two of them, what they stood for was different.
yes, they have differences in different areas of life. I am not againsy that.
if "doing what you believe to be right" is called terrorist, they both are terrprist.
if it is called footballist, they both are footballist.
if it is called ambitipusnes, they are both ambitious.
If you know anything about NATO and ISIS, you will know there is a big difference between what they stand for; this is what makes them different.
they both attack/kill for what they believe to be right.
if figjtinh for what you believe ought to be called "terrorism" as we name ISIS, then so is NATO.
why do we call IsIS a terrorist group? because they terrorise people [for what they believe to be right]
wha does NATO do? they too terrorise people [of place where they attacck] for what they believe to be right. [and their opinion is they should kill those who is seen X by NATO just like ISIS' opinon is to kill those who is seen X by isis itself)
Ken
Artur
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer
ken1122
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:17:37 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 3:51:01 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:38:52 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.
no, in terms of other things they have differences.

Then you should have picked a different title

but in terms of kiling and being announced terrorist for killing for your opinion, they are the same.

If you wanted to make the point that they both make laws and have been known to kill those who have broken their laws, you should have made that point in the title; instead you implied in your title they were the same which you now seem to be admitting they are not.

if you say Hitler and Gandhi are the same because of/interms of being ambitious for what they believed, yes I agree. they were the same.
NaTO and IsIS both kills for the opinion they believe to be true, if IsIs is terrorist for killing for the opinion they kill, so is NATO.
abot Hitler/Gandhi fallacy: the reason we call Hitler dictator/evil (while not calling Gandhi so) is not he worked hard for what he believed to be true, he is called dictator for another reasons.
when you base your entire response/defense on intellectual dishonesty and/or fallacious strawman fallacies I will just laugh at it and expose it.

I used that absurd analogy to point out the absurdity in your title; thought you would have figure that one out by now.

why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.
if that makes sense for you then Hitler, Stalin and e.t.c were totally right in what they did. Because majority of German people agreed with Nazis when he killed homosexuals, when militarist Japan massacred chinese majority of japan agreed with them.
This arguement of your will only not work for IsIS but will work fro almost any genocide, massace in history.

Right and wrong are subjective; based on opinion. It is my opinion that in the case of NATO, majority rule is right. The case of Hitler and Stalin was not based upon majority rule, it was based on who had the power.

Ken
rnjs
Posts: 380
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:21:03 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
The thoughts of men's minds is only evil continually. Everyone, including the NATO nations has their own agenda, some good, some not so much.
Silly_Billy
Posts: 644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:27:22 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 4:17:37 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:51:01 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:38:52 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.
no, in terms of other things they have differences.

Then you should have picked a different title

but in terms of kiling and being announced terrorist for killing for your opinion, they are the same.

If you wanted to make the point that they both make laws and have been known to kill those who have broken their laws, you should have made that point in the title; instead you implied in your title they were the same which you now seem to be admitting they are not.

if you say Hitler and Gandhi are the same because of/interms of being ambitious for what they believed, yes I agree. they were the same.
NaTO and IsIS both kills for the opinion they believe to be true, if IsIs is terrorist for killing for the opinion they kill, so is NATO.
abot Hitler/Gandhi fallacy: the reason we call Hitler dictator/evil (while not calling Gandhi so) is not he worked hard for what he believed to be true, he is called dictator for another reasons.
when you base your entire response/defense on intellectual dishonesty and/or fallacious strawman fallacies I will just laugh at it and expose it.

I used that absurd analogy to point out the absurdity in your title; thought you would have figure that one out by now.

why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.
if that makes sense for you then Hitler, Stalin and e.t.c were totally right in what they did. Because majority of German people agreed with Nazis when he killed homosexuals, when militarist Japan massacred chinese majority of japan agreed with them.
This arguement of your will only not work for IsIS but will work fro almost any genocide, massace in history.

Right and wrong are subjective; based on opinion. It is my opinion that in the case of NATO, majority rule is right. The case of Hitler and Stalin was not based upon majority rule, it was based on who had the power.

Ken

Hitler was based on majority rule, he was elected in power and had the support of the majority of the German people before and during the war.
ken1122
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 4:33:11 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 4:27:22 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:17:37 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:51:01 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:38:52 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.
no, in terms of other things they have differences.

Then you should have picked a different title

but in terms of kiling and being announced terrorist for killing for your opinion, they are the same.

If you wanted to make the point that they both make laws and have been known to kill those who have broken their laws, you should have made that point in the title; instead you implied in your title they were the same which you now seem to be admitting they are not.

if you say Hitler and Gandhi are the same because of/interms of being ambitious for what they believed, yes I agree. they were the same.
NaTO and IsIS both kills for the opinion they believe to be true, if IsIs is terrorist for killing for the opinion they kill, so is NATO.
abot Hitler/Gandhi fallacy: the reason we call Hitler dictator/evil (while not calling Gandhi so) is not he worked hard for what he believed to be true, he is called dictator for another reasons.
when you base your entire response/defense on intellectual dishonesty and/or fallacious strawman fallacies I will just laugh at it and expose it.

I used that absurd analogy to point out the absurdity in your title; thought you would have figure that one out by now.

why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.
if that makes sense for you then Hitler, Stalin and e.t.c were totally right in what they did. Because majority of German people agreed with Nazis when he killed homosexuals, when militarist Japan massacred chinese majority of japan agreed with them.
This arguement of your will only not work for IsIS but will work fro almost any genocide, massace in history.

Right and wrong are subjective; based on opinion. It is my opinion that in the case of NATO, majority rule is right. The case of Hitler and Stalin was not based upon majority rule, it was based on who had the power.

Ken

Hitler was based on majority rule, he was elected in power and had the support of the majority of the German people before and during the war.

He may have had the support of the German people, but outside of Germany most people opposed him which is why so many countries were at war with him.

Ken
Silly_Billy
Posts: 644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 5:07:05 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 4:33:11 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:27:22 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:17:37 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:51:01 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:38:52 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.
no, in terms of other things they have differences.

Then you should have picked a different title

but in terms of kiling and being announced terrorist for killing for your opinion, they are the same.

If you wanted to make the point that they both make laws and have been known to kill those who have broken their laws, you should have made that point in the title; instead you implied in your title they were the same which you now seem to be admitting they are not.

if you say Hitler and Gandhi are the same because of/interms of being ambitious for what they believed, yes I agree. they were the same.
NaTO and IsIS both kills for the opinion they believe to be true, if IsIs is terrorist for killing for the opinion they kill, so is NATO.
abot Hitler/Gandhi fallacy: the reason we call Hitler dictator/evil (while not calling Gandhi so) is not he worked hard for what he believed to be true, he is called dictator for another reasons.
when you base your entire response/defense on intellectual dishonesty and/or fallacious strawman fallacies I will just laugh at it and expose it.

I used that absurd analogy to point out the absurdity in your title; thought you would have figure that one out by now.

why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.
if that makes sense for you then Hitler, Stalin and e.t.c were totally right in what they did. Because majority of German people agreed with Nazis when he killed homosexuals, when militarist Japan massacred chinese majority of japan agreed with them.
This arguement of your will only not work for IsIS but will work fro almost any genocide, massace in history.

Right and wrong are subjective; based on opinion. It is my opinion that in the case of NATO, majority rule is right. The case of Hitler and Stalin was not based upon majority rule, it was based on who had the power.

Ken

Hitler was based on majority rule, he was elected in power and had the support of the majority of the German people before and during the war.

He may have had the support of the German people, but outside of Germany most people opposed him which is why so many countries were at war with him.

Ken

In that case your argument that majority rule decides what is right and wrong becomes rather shaky as the majority of the world population is never asked about what they feel is right or wrong. For instance, i am quite certain that if the world population is asked if it right for the U.S. to use rockets to kill suspected terrorists on foreign soil which often results in innocent casualties, that they would say NO. And if someone than links those attacks as being perpetrated by NATO, well, i would say that that proves that Artur doesnt just have a point, but that your argument proofs him to be right as the majority of the world population does not life under Nato protection and would therefor be susceptible to calling it terrorism.
ken1122
Posts: 481
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 5:44:27 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 5:07:05 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:33:11 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:27:22 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:17:37 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:51:01 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:38:52 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.
no, in terms of other things they have differences.

Then you should have picked a different title

but in terms of kiling and being announced terrorist for killing for your opinion, they are the same.

If you wanted to make the point that they both make laws and have been known to kill those who have broken their laws, you should have made that point in the title; instead you implied in your title they were the same which you now seem to be admitting they are not.

if you say Hitler and Gandhi are the same because of/interms of being ambitious for what they believed, yes I agree. they were the same.
NaTO and IsIS both kills for the opinion they believe to be true, if IsIs is terrorist for killing for the opinion they kill, so is NATO.
abot Hitler/Gandhi fallacy: the reason we call Hitler dictator/evil (while not calling Gandhi so) is not he worked hard for what he believed to be true, he is called dictator for another reasons.
when you base your entire response/defense on intellectual dishonesty and/or fallacious strawman fallacies I will just laugh at it and expose it.

I used that absurd analogy to point out the absurdity in your title; thought you would have figure that one out by now.

why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.
if that makes sense for you then Hitler, Stalin and e.t.c were totally right in what they did. Because majority of German people agreed with Nazis when he killed homosexuals, when militarist Japan massacred chinese majority of japan agreed with them.
This arguement of your will only not work for IsIS but will work fro almost any genocide, massace in history.

Right and wrong are subjective; based on opinion. It is my opinion that in the case of NATO, majority rule is right. The case of Hitler and Stalin was not based upon majority rule, it was based on who had the power.

Ken

Hitler was based on majority rule, he was elected in power and had the support of the majority of the German people before and during the war.

He may have had the support of the German people, but outside of Germany most people opposed him which is why so many countries were at war with him.

Ken

In that case your argument that majority rule decides what is right and wrong becomes rather shaky as the majority of the world population is never asked about what they feel is right or wrong. For instance, i am quite certain that if the world population is asked if it right for the U.S. to use rockets to kill suspected terrorists on foreign soil which often results in innocent casualties, that they would say NO. And if someone than links those attacks as being perpetrated by NATO, well, i would say that that proves that Artur doesnt just have a point, but that your argument proofs him to be right as the majority of the world population does not life under Nato protection and would therefor be susceptible to calling it terrorism.

I never said right and wrong were based upon majority rule, I said right and wrong was subjective; based upon individual opinion and then I went on to express my personal opinion.

Ken
Silly_Billy
Posts: 644
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 6:00:50 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
At 11/6/2016 5:44:27 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 5:07:05 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:33:11 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:27:22 PM, Silly_Billy wrote:
At 11/6/2016 4:17:37 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:51:01 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 3:38:52 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 2:06:42 PM, Artur wrote:
At 11/6/2016 1:16:34 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 11/6/2016 12:37:58 PM, Artur wrote:
At 8/23/2016 6:38:36 PM, ken1122 wrote:
At 8/22/2016 10:33:22 AM, Artur wrote:
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.
no, in terms of other things they have differences.

Then you should have picked a different title

but in terms of kiling and being announced terrorist for killing for your opinion, they are the same.

If you wanted to make the point that they both make laws and have been known to kill those who have broken their laws, you should have made that point in the title; instead you implied in your title they were the same which you now seem to be admitting they are not.

if you say Hitler and Gandhi are the same because of/interms of being ambitious for what they believed, yes I agree. they were the same.
NaTO and IsIS both kills for the opinion they believe to be true, if IsIs is terrorist for killing for the opinion they kill, so is NATO.
abot Hitler/Gandhi fallacy: the reason we call Hitler dictator/evil (while not calling Gandhi so) is not he worked hard for what he believed to be true, he is called dictator for another reasons.
when you base your entire response/defense on intellectual dishonesty and/or fallacious strawman fallacies I will just laugh at it and expose it.

I used that absurd analogy to point out the absurdity in your title; thought you would have figure that one out by now.

why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.
if that makes sense for you then Hitler, Stalin and e.t.c were totally right in what they did. Because majority of German people agreed with Nazis when he killed homosexuals, when militarist Japan massacred chinese majority of japan agreed with them.
This arguement of your will only not work for IsIS but will work fro almost any genocide, massace in history.

Right and wrong are subjective; based on opinion. It is my opinion that in the case of NATO, majority rule is right. The case of Hitler and Stalin was not based upon majority rule, it was based on who had the power.

Ken

Hitler was based on majority rule, he was elected in power and had the support of the majority of the German people before and during the war.

He may have had the support of the German people, but outside of Germany most people opposed him which is why so many countries were at war with him.

Ken

In that case your argument that majority rule decides what is right and wrong becomes rather shaky as the majority of the world population is never asked about what they feel is right or wrong. For instance, i am quite certain that if the world population is asked if it right for the U.S. to use rockets to kill suspected terrorists on foreign soil which often results in innocent casualties, that they would say NO. And if someone than links those attacks as being perpetrated by NATO, well, i would say that that proves that Artur doesnt just have a point, but that your argument proofs him to be right as the majority of the world population does not life under Nato protection and would therefor be susceptible to calling it terrorism.

I never said right and wrong were based upon majority rule, I said right and wrong was subjective; based upon individual opinion and then I went on to express my personal opinion.

Ken

Good point, you are indeed right about that. You said that it was 'your opinion' that in the case of NATO, majority rule is right, but the thing ofcoarse is that you have absolutely no idea what this majority thinks to be right. You are simply assuming that the majority will be on NATO's side even though the total population of all NATO countries was 906 million in 2014 where as the total world population was over 7.2 billion.
Artur
Posts: 723
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
11/6/2016 6:29:45 PM
Posted: 1 month ago
They both fight, attack, kill for the idea they believe to be the best/true/perfect way for "non-they".

you can say "but there is a difference between their idea/reason", or "NATO's idea is better" and e.t.c which is offtopic regarding this topic. if NATO has right to kill, attack, damage others to "bring their idea" to them, so do the ISIS. if ISIS is terrorist for doing so, so is the NaTO.

Do we have numbers that shows who killed more? I have no doubt NATO surpasses at least twice. can anyone verify/refute me on this prediction of mine? which is a bigger terrorist group in termes of victims they created. I really believe NATO will be miles ahead even if AlQaeda, ISIS, Boko Haram combined. can someone verify/falsify me?

p.s: this post is not to support ISIS (or others) but to show to those who supports NATO and yet oppose terrorist groups. I am against all of them.

ISIS will kill because of what you believe and what you say; NATO does not.
NATO does and will.
if I believe in a system that opposes NATO's democracy opinion and engage in such a system, I will get killed by NATO just like many people that were killed by NATO

Please stick to the point I made without adding to it. I said ISIS will kill because of what you believe and say!
first: the same way I can ask you to stick to the point I made in my thread. My topic was "they both kill attack for their opinions". I hope you now understood what I mean.

Yes your original topic was that "they both kill for their opinions", but the title of the thread was NATO is no different than ISIS! If you are going to make such a claim, everything must be allowed on the table, to only focus on their similarities while ignoring their differences is intellectual dishonesty. (I think I made that point with the analogy of to claim Hitler and Gandhi were the same because they were both human; totally ignoring what they stood for) When you base your entire thread on intellectual dishonesty, someone like me will point that out to you.
no, in terms of other things they have differences.

Then you should have picked a different title
hmm, may be I should have if all I said was what was said in title only.
There are content which was enougj to describe the point. in any case, I can agree what i described may insufficient or misleading
but in terms of kiling and being announced terrorist for killing for your opinion, they are the same.

If you wanted to make the point that they both make laws and have been known to kill those who have broken their laws, you should have made that point in the title; instead you implied in your title they were the same which you now seem to be admitting they are not.
in my post I explainef allready " you may say but NaTO's idea is different/better to which I will not object"
if you say Hitler and Gandhi are the same because of/interms of being ambitious for what they believed, yes I agree. they were the same.
NaTO and IsIS both kills for the opinion they believe to be true, if IsIs is terrorist for killing for the opinion they kill, so is NATO.
abot Hitler/Gandhi fallacy: the reason we call Hitler dictator/evil (while not calling Gandhi so) is not he worked hard for what he believed to be true, he is called dictator for another reasons.
when you base your entire response/defense on intellectual dishonesty and/or fallacious strawman fallacies I will just laugh at it and expose it.

I used that absurd analogy to point out the absurdity in your title; thought you would have figure that one out by now.
There is no absurdity in the title. The character limit does not allow to explain the whole thing that is in your mind and everything does not need to be said within the title, that is why there a post section under the title.
why should NATO have right for preventing me from acting on such a system?
Because most agree with NATO, and most disagree with ISIS, and in most cases; majority rules.
if that makes sense for you then Hitler, Stalin and e.t.c were totally right in what they did. Because majority of German people agreed with Nazis when he killed homosexuals, when militarist Japan massacred chinese majority of japan agreed with them.
This arguement of your will only not work for IsIS but will work fro almost any genocide, massace in history.

Right and wrong are subjective; based on opinion. It is my opinion that in the case of NATO, majority rule is right. The case of Hitler and Stalin was not based upon majority rule, it was based on who had the power.
majority of whom? majority 26/27/28 nato countries? majprity of the world, e.g countries? what data do we have on this topic, e.g 200~ countries attending the survey ad voting on NATO's future actions and NATO actions being selected by majority?
if the 27~ NATO countries are the majority you are referring to, then many thing can be justified and claimed to be true. for ex: Al Qaeda denounced that ISIS is against islam. But if Al qaeda, taliban, boko haram and other terrrist groups likr that come together and vote to kill random innocent japanese in the name of jihad, majority of them will support it. if this scernario gets real, in this case it will be the same with NATO. The group makes a poll inside itself and does the result, then the najority supported us.
anyway:
Hitler came into power with the vote of majority and whatever he did up until 1942 or so was supported by the majority of his countr. Stalin was a member,inheritor of the leadership of the system that was built by majority (even though he may have achieved the leadership from Trotsy with coup)
NATO invaded IRAQ against majority I guess, UNO said that the invasion was illegal, before invasion they said NATO's invasion will be illegal. Considering the UNO represents more than what nATO represents we can presumably conclude NATO's invasion to IRAQ is against the majority [of the world]
"I'm not as soft or as generous a person as I would be if the world hadn't changed me" Bobby Fischer