Discussion in 'Ethics, Morality, & Justice' started by S.A.M., Mar 3, 2010.
Yeah cutting off the toe hasn't done anything to change the serial killing has it?
Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.
I love it when you guys go toe to toe.
I'm trying to communicate here. I think the imagery of a killer howling about his cut off toe as he continues to push broken bottles into vaginas and slice off breasts with wires, effectively communicates how I feel. A bit graphic, but nowadays people want imagery over reality.
I wanted to avoid this discussion, in fact, I tried to, because it will just be another excuse to ban me. So I guess I have only myself to blame for feeding the trolls.
I'm trying to point out that if you look upon US civilians as collateral damage don't be surprised when people in the West do the same and vice verse.
When you speak of the twin towers as mere 'buildings' you speak with the same desensitized tone as the americans you think of as monsters...or toes.
If you don't want others to think all muslims as terrorists then why do you think of all americans as serial killers? Surely the toe of a serial killer is just as guilty as the rest of the man? Or do you consider the toe of a serial killer an innocent 'member'? No pun intendedPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So by your equation the toe is a part of the whole the way every muslim is part of Islam. Since there is an ideological and actual war with Islam then I am to assume what exactly?
That all muslims are terrorists, condone it even if they don't act on it?:shrug:
I mean does this guy speak for you too?
"It is a certain fact that not all Muslims are terrorists, but it is equally certain, and exceptionally painful, that almost all terrorists are Muslims," he wrote in the London-based Arab daily newspaper Al-Sharq Al-Awsat."
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Do I consider American citizens to be separate from their country? No they produce the people, train, fund, arm and support them. If the nation is a killer and its a democratic nation ruled by law and representation, who is accountable for its acts if not its people?
Like a broken toe, maybe there are parts of it which don't support or condone the acts. But they are small enough to be largely impotent and entirely irrelevant. Americans are not under dictatorship, unlike Israelis they don't even have compulsory military service. They volunteer for this and are considered heroes by their country for doing so.
Since when have you feared bans?
Anyway you referring to americans as the 'toes of a of a serial killer' really doesn't touch the heart of the matter which is whether you would include the deaths of innocent civilians as just as horrific as the deaths of those in cross fire. They are not the same and both are unfortunate I'm sure you agree.
Who pray you are the trolls? Last I heard it was you:shrug:
Ah so the Taliban who harbored suicide bombers and allowed for training camps in their country are as guilty as those innocent ones you call victims in Afghanistan? I mean are they not also 'toes' are they not?
You mean as irrelevant a broken toe as muslims who denounce terrorism?
Should I consider moderate muslims as 'Like a broken toe, maybe there are parts of it which don't support or condone the acts. But they are small enough to be largely impotent and entirely irrelevant.'?
Can you see the error in your reasoning?
I'm saying they are all collateral damages. The broken toe as much as the cut off breasts and the shredded vaginas and arseholes. Even though the broken toe is less likely to be fatal.
Since they obstruct my ability to post. I also have to consider the possibility that you, like James, would try to precipitate such an event
And so both guilty? I mean the Afghan people are the toes of the Taliban who harbored terrorists and should be held responsible for their government and the actions of their government which allowed terrorist camps to find haven in their country?
And so should it follow that one should consider moderate muslims who speak out against terrorism as 'Like a broken toe, maybe there are parts of it which don't support or condone the acts. But they are small enough to be largely impotent and entirely irrelevant.'? :bugeye:
I think you may be confused.
Am I? I tend to weigh all things equally.
Well if all things are equal then both victims from both camps are simply the 'toes' of a larger unit. This being the case I wonder why you would consider the victims of US bombings as such a big deal? I mean they are all just toesPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Well yes based on your own equation they are. They invested themselves when they help train the terrorists of 9/11 on their soil. How do you know the investment of the average american in foreign policy (they don't vote on foreign policy), or government (they didn't get to vote on the war) or the troops (they go where they are sent)?
I would say that if the average american is a toe then the Afghans must be a toe with a hang nailPlease Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Is that a serious question? Do you realise that the Taliban still operates under a system of jirga law for all its decisions?
That they subordinate their acts to legal opinions? How do you think they maintain control over 80% of Afghanistan after 8 years of war with the Americans?
Anyway, see this:
The Taliban did not train anyone. They banned all terror related activities and forbid Osama from conducting any as well
From the lips of Osama bin Laden:
This was an interview he gave to Ummat, a Pakistani newspaper immediately after 9/11
Investment of the average American? They vote for the representatives, pay taxes to enable them to carry out their activities and volunteer as soldiers to perpetrate the acts. They also support their troops and their government.
The Taliban protected them, they allowed al-quaeda to operate and train from Afghan soil and protected Bin Laden. The US gave them the chance to hand over Bin laden and threatened to invade if they didn't. Well....
No they did not:
They also agreed to hand over Osama, even before 9/11, it was Bush who rejected them
Taliban agreed Bin Laden handover in 1998
Bush rejects Taliban offer to hand Bin Laden over
Since when is 'strict isolation' the same as giving him up? The men of 9/11 were trained in Afghanistan and Pakistan but Pakistan didn't have the golden cow called bin laden.
"Al-Masri had a unique knowledge of the subject, because he worked closely with both bin Laden and the Taliban during the period. He was a member of bin Laden's Arab entourage in Afghanistan, but became much more sympathetic to the Afghan cause than bin Laden and other al Qaeda officials from 1998 through 2001."
"Mullah Omar's willingness to allow bin Laden to remain in Afghanistan was conditioned from the beginning, according to al-Masri's account, on two prohibitions on his activities: bin Laden was forbidden to talk to the media without the consent of the Taliban regime or to make plans to attack U.S. targets."
But he bin laden did anyway though 'strictly isolated'.Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
So why didn't they just give him up when asked? I mean he did break their terms and conditions?
Interesting that its always this Omar, who was so close to bin Laden that you keep bringing up. Is it corroborated? I mean why should I believe it?
Also the article claims this:
"The Taliban leader, Mullah Mohammed Omar agreed three years ago to hand over Osama bin Laden, but changed his mind after US cruise missile attacks, the former head of Saudi Arabian intelligence said yesterday."
It says he changed his mind it didn't say that Bush wouldn't let him. Be honest.
Your second article says this:
"Returning to the White House after a weekend at Camp David, the president said the bombing would not stop, unless the ruling Taliban "turn [bin Laden] over, turn his cohorts over, turn any hostages they hold over."
Well they didn't.
Since when is strict isolation training in terrorism? By that standard, the US is training Gitmo detainees in terrorism.
See my edit.
Because the training camps were there and the Afghans allowed them to be there
Ironically its India who identifies them:
September 19, 2001
NEW DELHI, India (CNN) -- India has been working with the United States in the days following last week's hijacking attacks by sharing the locations of what it said are terrorist training camps.
Indian intelligence officials said that for more than a decade Islamic militants have been training in Afghanistan and Pakistan for a jihad, or holy war.
Sources told CNN that more than 120 camps are operating in the two countries. The camps are small, they are easy to move, and they can be difficult to track by satellite because of the region's rough terrain.
Some Indian defense officials predicted it could take a decade for the United States to root them all out.
Since India are also complicit in US actions would you say that the citizens are also 'toes' to be cut off? Well the Pakistani militants who bombed mumbai probably would agree with you.
Oh please, you believe RAW information? They are as bad as the CIA. If anything, the camps were conducted by the ISI if at all, the jirga system in Afghanistan is more effective, being local, than the useless government in Pakistan The Taliban are hardly equipped to train Saudis to fly airplanes into towers. Have you seen where and how they live? What did they do? Run their horses into caves as simulation?
Its too ludicrous to take seriously
As for the toes analogy, Rajiv Gandhis assassination is probably closer to the mark. He paid for Indian intervention in Sri Lanka with his life.
Separate names with a comma.