Pope's quote/comments on Islam

[JonInMiddleGA]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

LOL, hadn't seen that one before.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by CraigSca

...sigh...

It's quite easy to agree with Panel A, yet think Panel B is complete rubbish. Only a fool would consider what the Islamic extremists think is "deep" or correct, yet any sensible person would have to agree that the problem is much deeper than them simply hating democracy...

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by MrBigglesworth

WVUFAN, you previously said:

So when did your feelings change? Why must we now stay, and, I'm assuming, go to more places and kill people?

I never said my feelings changed. I don't agree with the war, but not for the reasons most of you have -- I akin this to another Vietnam, where the small minority of the people (Hippies before, liberals now) with venom and untruths cause the military to be unable to do their job effectively.

So since we can't do what is necessary -- the bleeding hearts are more concerned about Iraqi terrorists and sympathizers than our soldiers -- we need to get out and let the monsters rip each other apart. More innocents will die that way, but hey, I could care less. I said this before, and I fully believe it -- I'm more concerned about our Americans than anyone else.

Then again, we should have carpet bombed the damned country to the ground before we sent anyone in, but I digress...

[Buccaneer]

Originally Posted by illinifan999

Well seeing as how most Muslims in the Middle East are not speaking up against Al Qaeda......

and if you had read my post I said people will NOT forget about these events, what I am saying is that unlike Muslims using the Crusades as an excuse to be violent, black people (at least around me) are not using slavery as an excuse to be violent towards white people.

Says the dude born in 1988. You must have missed reading about the 1960s. The Civil Rights Movement was a direct reaction against the Jim Crow culture and racial bigotry, which was an outgrowth of the slave culture. Some of the militant groups sought to use violence, in the name of self defense, against the white racist governments of America. I really don't know if or when we'll see race riots again but I wouldn't say it would be impossible. The anger is still there is some sub-cultures but prosperity and more equal access does go a long ways to prevent violence.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Then again, we should have carpet bombed the damned country to the ground before we sent anyone in, but I digress...

OK, so cutting off an innocent civilian's head is worse than bombing every civillian in an entire country because of a minority of extremists & leaders who are also feared and despised by a majority of those same civillians?

Sorry, just trying to be clear on your position about these kind of things.

[JonInMiddleGA]

Well, on the bright side I guess, at least this thread has managed to provide me with some motivation to make sure I vote this November, and in most other opportunities. Even if it means holding my nose a little on some iffy choices
(no, I'm still not voting in the GA Gov's race, those choices are a lot worse than "iffy").

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

OK, so cutting off an innocent civilian's head is worse than bombing every civillian in an entire country because of a minority of extremists & leaders who are also feared and despised by a majority of those same civillians?

Sorry, just trying to be clear on your position about these kind of things.

Cutting off an single, solitary American's head is worse than bombing every civilian in an entire enemy country. Yes. I think I've said this before -- my only concern in situations like this is the health and welfare of OUR soliders and innocents. Period.

If a ruler is truly feared and dispised as you say, they would have done something about it. They didn't.

Bottom line: this is a WAR. In a war you do what you have to to reduce your own casulties, while inflicting enough on your opponent that limits or removes his ability to fight back. We bombed Tokyo, then destroyed two entire towns with atomic bombs so we could save our soldier's lives. Carpet bombing a city to eliminate resistance is exactly what we should have done. That is what is done in a WAR.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Cutting off an single, solitary American's head is worse than bombing every civilian in an entire enemy country. Yes.

Thanks for explaining. Now I can be sure to ignore any non-sport or non-gaming related post you ever make again.

*edit and retraction... I have a tendency to let these topics get to me as it's a sore point, as it has been a continous and fiery topic between me and a family member of mine who is involved in politics*

[ice4277]

Originally Posted by JonInMiddleGA

(no, I'm still not voting in the GA Gov's race, those choices are a lot worse than "iffy").

Not to threadjack (which I am) but you may as well be talking about the Michigan governor's race. Its Tweedledum vs. Tweedledumer in a race to see who can drive the state's economy into the ground the fastest.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Groundhog

Thanks for explaining. Now I can be sure to ignore any non-sport or non-gaming related post you ever make again.

That's entirely your option -- you have your opinion, I have mine. I have to say I'm disapointed that more people that live in this country aren't more concerned about OUR fellow citizens over the enemy.

Again, I doubt very much civilians at home during World War II were that concerned about the lives of German civilians when we were bombing their cities. Time have changed, and loyalty and patriotism no longer have any meaning. That's disapointing.

[cougarfreak]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

That's entirely your option -- you have your opinion, I have mine. I have to say I'm disapointed that more people that live in this country aren't more concerned about OUR fellow citizens over the enemy.

Again, I doubt very much civilians at home during World War II were that concerned about the lives of German civilians when we were bombing their cities. Time have changed, and loyalty and patriotism no longer have any meaning. That's disapointing.

Agree wholeheartedly.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Again, I doubt very much civilians at home during World War II were that concerned about the lives of German civilians when we were bombing their cities. Time have changed, and loyalty and patriotism no longer have any meaning. That's disapointing.

It has nothing to do with patriotism and loyalty. I love my country, and the next time we or an ally come under threat I fully support the use of armed force to put it down through whatever means possible. That's an unfortunate neccessity, and I support it 100%.

That does not describe what is going on right now with the United States and the middle East. War and the killing of civillians does not solve that problem, it only makes it worse and makes the US a larger target than ever before. You can invade Iraq, Afghanistan, Syria, etc. but you will never kill all the terrorists. In fact, you merely make them more populous and add more fuel to their fire.

Criticism of your country is not a lack of patriotism or an act of disloyalty; in fact, it is exactly the opposite. Being a simple yes-man and supporting your government no matter what idiotic choices they make is far more dangerous.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Cutting off an single, solitary American's head is worse than bombing every civilian in an entire enemy country. Yes. I think I've said this before -- my only concern in situations like this is the health and welfare of OUR soliders and innocents. Period.

I honestly don't see how you can sit there and say stuff like this and then in the same breath call Islamic extremists barbaric. Truly amazing.

If a ruler is truly feared and dispised as you say, they would have done something about it. They didn't.

Do you not know anything about how dictatorships work?

Bottom line: this is a WAR. In a war you do what you have to to reduce your own casulties, while inflicting enough on your opponent that limits or removes his ability to fight back. We bombed Tokyo, then destroyed two entire towns with atomic bombs so we could save our soldier's lives. Carpet bombing a city to eliminate resistance is exactly what we should have done. That is what is done in a WAR.

Except civilized nations don't torture enemy combatants in war. Did we torture the Japanese or Germans in World War II?

I'm not sure how many times one has to say this before it sticks, but here goes: The Iraqis didn't attack us. It was a terrorist organization that was responsible. How does carpet bombing Iraq fight terrorism? Quit trying to fight World War II. Or even World War III. This is a new type of conflict, and those ways won't work (as events in Iraq have shown).

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

This is a new type of conflict, and those ways won't work (as events in Iraq have shown).

I don't know that events in Babylon, I mean Iraq have shown that. There has been no attempt to fight in Iraq as if we were fighting WW2, or any other war for that matter.

The lessons of Iraq are not at all clear - to claim that they are is, to me, quite foolish.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I have to say I'm disapointed that more people that live in this country aren't more concerned about OUR fellow citizens over the enemy.

Again, I doubt very much civilians at home during World War II were that concerned about the lives of German civilians when we were bombing their cities. Time have changed, and loyalty and patriotism no longer have any meaning. That's disapointing.

Newsflash, chief. Everyone of us here is more concerned with our fellow citizens than we are with the terrorists. Why do you think we are so opposed to torture? Not just us dirty liberals but military leaders (gasp!)and even high ranking Republicans (double gasp!!). Oh my God! They all must care more about the terrorists and their rights, huh? How about we are concerned with the welfare of our troops. That's why we oppose torture (aside from the fact that it is immoral).

Since I wasn't around during World War II, I can't speak for the public's feelings towards bombing civilian centers, but there was outrage following the firebombing of Dresden. See, we like to think that we are better than the people we are fighting. If we bombed cities in World War II, it was okay as long as it had a military impact. But bombing just to bomb was wrong. That's what the Germans did. Same goes today. If we just start bombing and killing innocent Iraqis, how are we any better than the terrorists we are fighting?

It doesn't matter, you say. A billion Muslims dead is better than one American. That's an awfully dark path you are headed down, and I would be grateful if you wouldn't take me and the rest of this country that I love down with you.

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by Glengoyne

I agree with this post.

I don't think the analogy is particulary apt, though. The soldiers who did that are going to jail for a long time, and may face the death penalty.

The Islamic Extremists who perpetrate such deeds are considered heroes. So much for that comparison.

Islamic states are considerably more brutal when they catch Islamic Extremists. Why do you think the Bush administration likes to use extraordinary renditions to send detainees to places like Egypt and Pakistan. The only people who treat them like heroes are their own comrades. Big shocker there...

[-Mojo Jojo-]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Cutting off an single, solitary American's head is worse than bombing every civilian in an entire enemy country. Yes.

Finally! Another member for JIMGA's "I Heart Genocide" club!

[Warhammer]

Wow, I haven't been following this thread much, but all I can say is...wow...

First, in war you do everything in your ability to win. You have objectives and you fulfill those objectives. Then you have your ideas for the post-war situation. In Iraq, we won the first part of the war, but we had no clue what we were going to do in post-war Iraq. Sure, we were going to give help them form a government, but the American electorate and politicos lack the backbone to stick things out.

World War II started with a sneak attack that killed 2,388 people. We fought a war that saw over 300,000 US personnel killed/missing. The war lasted 3-1/2 years. We have lost far fewer people in Iraq and Afghanistan combined and we are talking about how much of a quagmire the war is. Vietnam saw 56,000 US soldiers killed/missing. Are we even to a tenth of that number in 3 years?

Dictatorships have been toppled by the people. It has happened all over the world. The US overthrew George III, France overthrew Louis XVI, Turkey overthrew the sultanate, Russia overthrew the Czars, etc. It can be done. What is necessary is that other nations must aid those seeking to overthrow the ruler. That was the tragedy of Bush I's dealings with the Kurds. We bailed on them.

Regarding Iraq and our purposes there. We had any one of several reasons why we could go into Iraq. Without 9/11, we still had justifiable reasons for invasion. However, after 9/11, we made a choice as a nation. We would go into Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Here was the great experiment. We were going to try and introduce a democracy into the Middle East. Why was this a great experiment? We thought that a new government would look to us for aid since we helped them overthrow Saddam. A democratic Arab nation would probably be more moderate in view (so we thought) than most of the dictatorships over there. Iraq was the best choice for this experiment. Has it worked? Unfortunately, we won't know for 10+ years.

Another thing, stuff like this happened in post-war Germany. Ex-Nazis were afraid of what would happen to them after the war so they resorted to violence. Eventually, this died down.

What is different here is that we are fighting an ideological war, but half the nation here does not realize it. Regardless of what the majority of Muslims believe, they are allowing the radical element call all the shots. If we had 1% of the population here going out and killing all the Asians, what would the other 99% of the population do? Would we allow them to continue the killings, or would we rise up and cast them out? What is happening in the Muslim world is the 99% is sheltering and harboring the 1%. If these were tried in a court of law, the 99% would be accessories to the crime. Yet, because the going is tough over there, we think that we should just turn our back on the situation.

What I find dispicable is how many people in this country are afraid of causing any harm to someone who may have information that could save lives in this country. A few weeks ago one of the WOR radio guys (can't remember the guy's name) was saying that our test should be that we should not do anything that we wouldn't want happening to our servicemen.

Let's apply this for a few minutes.

I don't think our soldiers should be shot. So should we not shoot our enemies?

I don't want our soldiers beheaded. Well, obviously our enemies don't care about how we feel about that.

I don't want our soldiers to suffer any discomfort. I guess we should be giving all of our prisoners 3 course meals.

Obviously, this premise is unworkable. Even if it was, who is the one to make the call? My tolerance threshold might be much higher than yours. What did the CIA use to get some information from some of the terrorists? We played music from the Red Hot Chili Peppers and turned down the thermostat. I hear much worse music from the car next to me on the drive into work in the morning. Regarding the thermostat, we subject many of our soldiers to the same during basic training or special forces training. So aren't we treating our own soldiers worse than some of these terrorists that we are interrogating?

I value our lives much more than those of our enemies. If you do not, how can you justify ever acting in self-defense? However, I am not for needless things. Murder, and much of the stuff that happened at Abu Grahib, is uncalled for. Even though much of the Abu Grabe stuff was child's play compared to what has happened elsewhere in the world during conflicts. My basic premise is if there is an imminent terror attack, and we have a guy that has information that can thwart the attack, I am for any means necessary to extract that information from him. If it costs one life to save many, so be it.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't know that events in Babylon, I mean Iraq have shown that. There has been no attempt to fight in Iraq as if we were fighting WW2, or any other war for that matter.

The lessons of Iraq are not at all clear - to claim that they are is, to me, quite foolish.

To fight the terrorists, invading nations isn't going to do anything except make things worse. If you want to fight the terrorists, you have to take out their organizations. The 1st Armored Division can't do this. Neither our navy nor our air force can do this. That's what I mean by saying this administration is trying to fight World War III (WVUFAN was the one with all the WWII analogies). You fight terrorists organizations with intelligence and clandestine operations, not full-fledged invasions.

And if you think the military can do all this, why is Al Qaeda still on the loose? Where is bin Laden? Why are there still attacks every day?

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

I don't know that events in Babylon, I mean Iraq have shown that. There has been no attempt to fight in Iraq as if we were fighting WW2, or any other war for that matter.

The lessons of Iraq are not at all clear - to claim that they are is, to me, quite foolish.

Actually these types of war have been fought before. What you need is a high ratio of force to area. You need to construct strongholds and be willing to stay in the area for many years. The English conquest of Wales is a good example of this. They basically built castles every few miles and used the castles to house troops that would make sweeps of the surrounding area, rooting out all dissidents.

The American Revolution was fought much the same way. Yes, we had more pitched battles, but the startegy was basically the same. The British lacked the manpower to effectively garrison the US.

The problem is that our military, electorate, and politicians lack the fortitude to see this strategy through. It's kind of like Scott's Anaconda plan for the Civil War. No one liked it at the time, but we won the war by accidentally following the rough outline of it.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

To fight the terrorists, invading nations isn't going to do anything except make things worse. If you want to fight the terrorists, you have to take out their organizations. The 1st Armored Division can't do this. Neither our navy nor our air force can do this. That's what I mean by saying this administration is trying to fight World War III (WVUFAN was the one with all the WWII analogies). You fight terrorists organizations with intelligence and clandestine operations, not full-fledged invasions.

And if you think the military can do all this, why is Al Qaeda still on the loose? Where is bin Laden? Why are there still attacks every day?

Wow, you mean you're actually buying the Bush line about why we invaded Babylon?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Newsflash, chief. Everyone of us here is more concerned with our fellow citizens than we are with the terrorists. Why do you think we are so opposed to torture? Not just us dirty liberals but military leaders (gasp!)and even high ranking Republicans (double gasp!!). Oh my God! They all must care more about the terrorists and their rights, huh? How about we are concerned with the welfare of our troops. That's why we oppose torture (aside from the fact that it is immoral).

High Ranking Republicans need to be re-elected. And only a few military leaders have publically come out against using taking further measures to extract information. Many people in the military seem to be fine with taking appropriate action to get information.

War isn't a popularity contest, and recent decades have shown that the best way an enemy can use to fight against us is to use our own people against us. It worked in Vietnam, it's working now. You want to beat the US -- get the bleeding hearts on your side, and they're create such a stink in the liberal media that the average American can't help but feel that we're the bad guys. The next step is already upon us -- in Vietnam it was Americans accusing soldiers of killing innocents -- "baby killing". That has already started in Iraq.

The parallels are eerie, and I blame those who are either uninformed as to what we're doing over there, or hate conservatives and the President so much they're willing to do anything, including pointing the finger at our troops, to bring him down.

By the way: It's not about following leadership blindly, I agree no one should do that. Nor should you disagree or try to make your leadership fail based solely on partisanship. That's what the Dems do.

Since I wasn't around during World War II, I can't speak for the public's feelings towards bombing civilian centers, but there was outrage following the firebombing of Dresden. See, we like to think that we are better than the people we are fighting. If we bombed cities in World War II, it was okay as long as it had a military impact. But bombing just to bomb was wrong. That's what the Germans did. Same goes today. If we just start bombing and killing innocent Iraqis, how are we any better than the terrorists we are fighting?

Bombing Iraq would have had military impact -- it lessens the ability of the enemy to defend itself, just like in any other war. That's why most bombing occurs. It lowers morale of your enemy also.

You say that Iraq isn't like World War II. I say it's not because bleeding heart liberals won't let it be. During that time, the military had the support and ability to do what was needed. If World War II was being fought today, we would lose the war because it's people (or rather a small part of them) would have never allows the US to do what we needed to.

It doesn't matter, you say. A billion Muslims dead is better than one American. That's an awfully dark path you are headed down, and I would be grateful if you wouldn't take me and the rest of this country that I love down with you.

Again, your opinion is your right. I feel bad for those who don't feel this way. I feel bad for those who have more compassion for Iraqis than they do for our own citizens. That's the dark path this country is heading down.

[illinifan999]

Originally Posted by Buccaneer

Says the dude born in 1988. You must have missed reading about the 1960s. The Civil Rights Movement was a direct reaction against the Jim Crow culture and racial bigotry, which was an outgrowth of the slave culture. Some of the militant groups sought to use violence, in the name of self defense, against the white racist governments of America. I really don't know if or when we'll see race riots again but I wouldn't say it would be impossible. The anger is still there is some sub-cultures but prosperity and more equal access does go a long ways to prevent violence.

Again, I am not talking about the 1200's, the 1960's, the dawn of time. I am talking about right now. Today, tomorrow, present day.

[Warhammer]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Since I wasn't around during World War II, I can't speak for the public's feelings towards bombing civilian centers, but there was outrage following the firebombing of Dresden. See, we like to think that we are better than the people we are fighting. If we bombed cities in World War II, it was okay as long as it had a military impact. But bombing just to bomb was wrong. That's what the Germans did. Same goes today. If we just start bombing and killing innocent Iraqis, how are we any better than the terrorists we are fighting?

I don't think there was any outrage over our firebombing of the Japanese cities of WWII. Much of the firebombing there had very little military impact. We fought WWII following the premise that we needed to break the will of the enemy's populace to fight (similar to the way the Central Powers collapsed in 1918). In Europe, we did very few bombings just for the sake of bombing civilians. On the Allied side, it was the Brits that did that. There was military justification for bombing Dresden as well.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bombing...n_World_War_II

If bombing civilians is wrong, are sanctions any better? Is it better to kill people quickly, or should we just starve them into submission? Is dropping an equivalent amount of TNT preferable to dropping one or two atomic bombs? Is it better to shoot to kill someone immediately, or should we use weapons that maime and kill people slowly?

I ask these questions because how we answer these questions dictate how we fight our wars. I believe that if we are involved in a war, we must use every advantage we have to win. If an atomic bomb is justified (invasion of Japan and over 1,000,000 casualties), we should use it. We should use propaganda. We should use every ethical means of extracting information from our prisoners. We should do whatever we can to weaken our enemy's population's will to fight. Simply put, we have to fight to win. We cannot fight wars without this. We should try to avoid civilian casualties if possible, but that should not be the overriding concern, and should not dictate our military policy.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

First, in war you do everything in your ability to win. You have objectives and you fulfill those objectives. Then you have your ideas for the post-war situation. In Iraq, we won the first part of the war, but we had no clue what we were going to do in post-war Iraq. Sure, we were going to give help them form a government, but the American electorate and politicos lack the backbone to stick things out.

The politicos didn't have a plan for post-war Iraq. They have no idea what they are doing over there and the American people are sick of it. No backbone? Try no plan.

World War II started with a sneak attack that killed 2,388 people. We fought a war that saw over 300,000 US personnel killed/missing. The war lasted 3-1/2 years. We have lost far fewer people in Iraq and Afghanistan combined and we are talking about how much of a quagmire the war is. Vietnam saw 56,000 US soldiers killed/missing. Are we even to a tenth of that number in 3 years?

What's your point? We lost more men in World War II? Of course we did. We were also fighting against a lot more men than we are today, and they had better equipment. Same goes for Vietnam.

Dictatorships have been toppled by the people. It has happened all over the world. The US overthrew George III, France overthrew Louis XVI, Turkey overthrew the sultanate, Russia overthrew the Czars, etc. It can be done. What is necessary is that other nations must aid those seeking to overthrow the ruler. That was the tragedy of Bush I's dealings with the Kurds. We bailed on them.

Yes, you need outside help to overthrow dictators (although George, Louis, and Nicholas weren't dictators, but monarchs), and I agree that what we did with the Kurds was horrible, but there were reasons behind that. Turkey was not interested in seeing a Kurdish nation forming on their border, and a lot of people believed that Saddam was good for keeping the rest of the Middle East in check.

Regarding Iraq and our purposes there. We had any one of several reasons why we could go into Iraq. Without 9/11, we still had justifiable reasons for invasion. However, after 9/11, we made a choice as a nation. We would go into Iraq and get rid of Saddam. Here was the great experiment. We were going to try and introduce a democracy into the Middle East. Why was this a great experiment? We thought that a new government would look to us for aid since we helped them overthrow Saddam. A democratic Arab nation would probably be more moderate in view (so we thought) than most of the dictatorships over there. Iraq was the best choice for this experiment. Has it worked? Unfortunately, we won't know for 10+ years.

What justifiable reason did we have to invade Iraq? For a freakin' experiment? Are you kidding? Seriously, the people that thought that this was a good idea have absolutely no idea how Arabs view the United States.

What is different here is that we are fighting an ideological war, but half the nation here does not realize it. Regardless of what the majority of Muslims believe, they are allowing the radical element call all the shots. If we had 1% of the population here going out and killing all the Asians, what would the other 99% of the population do? Would we allow them to continue the killings, or would we rise up and cast them out? What is happening in the Muslim world is the 99% is sheltering and harboring the 1%. If these were tried in a court of law, the 99% would be accessories to the crime. Yet, because the going is tough over there, we think that we should just turn our back on the situation.

Suppose China invades America. Suppose Americans start to resort to terrorist attacks against the Chinese. Would you turn in the Americans?

What I find dispicable is how many people in this country are afraid of causing any harm to someone who may have information that could save lives in this country. A few weeks ago one of the WOR radio guys (can't remember the guy's name) was saying that our test should be that we should not do anything that we wouldn't want happening to our servicemen.

Let's apply this for a few minutes.

I don't think our soldiers should be shot. So should we not shoot our enemies?

I don't want our soldiers beheaded. Well, obviously our enemies don't care about how we feel about that.

I don't want our soldiers to suffer any discomfort. I guess we should be giving all of our prisoners 3 course meals.

This is too silly to even respond to.

Murder, and much of the stuff that happened at Abu Grahib, is uncalled for. Even though much of the Abu Grabe stuff was child's play compared to what has happened elsewhere in the world during conflicts.

Is this our standard now? We're not as bad as the Russian gulags or the Nazi concentration camps? Sorry, I hold our country to a much higher standard than that. It makes me sad that so many of my countrymen are willing to give up what this country stands for so easily.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Warhammer

If bombing civilians is wrong, are sanctions any better?

No, I don't think sanctions are right, either.

I ask these questions because how we answer these questions dictate how we fight our wars. I believe that if we are involved in a war, we must use every advantage we have to win. If an atomic bomb is justified (invasion of Japan and over 1,000,000 casualties), we should use it.

This is how the terrorists think, too. They are willing to do whatever it takes to win. If flying planes into buildings weakens our morale, they're going to do it. Same for beheading captives and every other trick of theirs. Their advantage is that they can slip in with the civilian population and use them as shields. Of course, we then call them cowards and barbarians, but aren't they doing what we would do if we were in their position? If we didn't have a billion dollar war machine to fight invaders, wouldn't we resort to terrorist attacks?

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

No, I don't think sanctions are right, either.

Out of curiosity -- you don't agree with sanctions, and you don't agree with the invasion. What would be your solution to the Iraqi problem?

I'll betcha you're gonna say "There was no problem. We should have left Iraq alone entirely".

[Edward64]

st.cronin. Aside: I would like to congratulate Edward64 for moderating this discussion. He has done a terrific job, and I'd like to see more of him on this board.

WVUFAN. On a side note: St Cronin is right, and I also commend Edward64 in this thread. I also have to note that this is the most civilized political discussion I've seen here in a while. Proves we can discuss and disagree and not flame.

Hey guys, thanks for the kind words ... appreciate it.

My kudos to Warhammer and his postings.

[Edward64]

Alright everyone, lets try to calm down. Can we get back to a reasonable debate?

Jonathon and JonInMiddleGA. I'm calling both of you out and asking you to refrain from participating on this thread if you cannot stop your sarcasm and profanities. I don't care who started what first, but its pretty obvious this thread has degenerated because of you two (ex. please start your own thread Jonathon vs JonInMiddleGA if you wish). At the very least, ignore each other.

[Edward64]

Okay, lets try an IPL (initial program load) or a reboot. Here is a summary and my opinions, sorry if I've mistated anything ...

I believe we all agree that 'degree/scale' needs to be taken into consideration in our discussion. Comparing Chrisitian extremist in abortion bombings, gay assualts is not in the same scale as Muslim extremist actions. American GIs committing abuses in Iraq is not the same scale as the Muslim extremist actions.

There are differences in the participants whether history (ex. lets tentatively establish this as prior to 1950 ... as per the Green Lantern Theory debate in another thread ... as history) in this discussion. I believe most in this thread do not believe using historical abuses (ex. crusades) as a relevant rationalization to current Muslim extremist actions. However, there are some that disagree.

Disagreements on whether Muslims are a race. Not sure how this is relevant. My vote is no, Muslims (and Jews) are not a race.

Christian first vs American or Muslim first vs Iraqi/Iranian/Indonesian etc. I think this differs from culture. However, I do believe in America, most consider themselves American first before Christian. FYI. I have lived in the Bible belt most my adult life and this has been my experience, don't know why this differs from the experiences on this board. Also, suspect if we were to talk about the NE and West, most would consider themselves Americans before Christian.

Christians invading a Muslim country. Sure you can put it that way, however most Americans will say it was a not due the religious aspect, it was (pick a secular reason - oil, revenge, politics etc.) more than anything. I understand and appreciate the counterpoint that Muslims do not view it this way considering that Bush used the word 'crusade'.

Eliminating the Muslims and Muslim fanatics. I don't think anyone disagrees that eliminating the Muslim fanatics is a good thing. Devil is in the details as who/what is a Muslim fanatic. I think we all agree that Al Qaeda should be eliminated.

Christianity evolving vs Islam not yet there. As per the degree/scale above, I think most on this board believes that Chrisitanity has evolved past the Crusades (and other Christian historical extremes) and that Islam not yet. The counterpoints I've read has examples of current Christian abuses ... again, in my mind these arguments are not valid due to (1) scale/degree or (2) not done for sectarian, but secular, reasons or (3) actions of other Christian groups against the abuses.

Iraqis starting the war. Assuming we are talking about the Iraqi War II, don't believe it. No doubt the Iraqi government share the blame of playing bluff, but Bush clearly wanted this fight. This is not to say the war was wrong (I actually support it but hate how it is turning out), but IMO Bush started the war. I will add that Iraq definitely started Iraq War I and believe without War I, War II would not have happened.

Understanding motives of Muslim extremist to help resolve current tensions. Sorry, don't buy this at all. They are attacking America for primarily sectarian purposes (secular plays a role, but its mainly their jihad). No amount of understanding will eliminate this threat, it needs to be done surgically (ex. not en masse).

Torture. I know I'm being a hypocrite here, but its a don't ask don't tell. Officially, don't do it. Unofficially, there are certain times when it is needed ... do it if you have to, make sure it doesn't get public. I am okay with repatriating foreign nationals to their countries where they can get tortured there ... no problem. A side note, holding a US citizen without due process is wrong. Take him to trial, if we lose lets put a full time FBI tail on him.

The Pope quotation. I think (1) most believe the quote was okay and at most insensitive but does not rise to the level requiring mea culpa and (2) Muslims, possibly due to their insecurities of historical Christian abuses and current US/West policies, are oversensitive and take every opportunity to lash out.

Whew.

Again, can we all try to debate without getting profane and (too) sarcastic?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

High Ranking Republicans need to be re-elected.

You think John McCain is opposed to torture because he wants to get re-elected? It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he was a POW?

You want to beat the US -- get the bleeding hearts on your side, and they're create such a stink in the liberal media that the average American can't help but feel that we're the bad guys. The next step is already upon us -- in Vietnam it was Americans accusing soldiers of killing innocents -- "baby killing". That has already started in Iraq.

There it is, finally. Things are going poorly in Iraq, it must be those damned "bleeding hearts liberals" with their smelly "liberal media".

The parallels are eerie, and I blame those who are either uninformed as to what we're doing over there, or hate conservatives and the President so much they're willing to do anything, including pointing the finger at our troops, to bring him down.

You've got us all figured out. We hate the president so much that we are actually funding Al Qaeda and every other insurrection group over in Iraq, just to make Bush and the conservatives look bad. I can't believe you figured out our Master Plan. I guess I have to make a call in to Hollywood and tell them that the gig is up.

Bombing Iraq would have had military impact -- it lessens the ability of the enemy to defend itself, just like in any other war. That's why most bombing occurs. It lowers morale of your enemy also.

Who's morale are we trying to lower? The terrorists, or the innocent civilians who get killed? Do you honestly believe that carpet bombing cities is going to make the terrorist put down their guns?

You say that Iraq isn't like World War II. I say it's not because bleeding heart liberals won't let it be. During that time, the military had the support and ability to do what was needed. If World War II was being fought today, we would lose the war because it's people (or rather a small part of them) would have never allows the US to do what we needed to.

Let's not forget who was president during World War II. That's right, a "bleeding heart liberal". I guess that's the only reason he had the liberal support, eh?

You can't seem to get your head around this (I know it must be confusing because The Leader keeps trying to compare the "War on Terror" to WWII), but I'm going to try again. This current conflict is nothing like WWII. That time, Japan (a nation) attacked us. Germany (another nation) declared war on us. This time, Al Qaeda (a terrorist organization) attacked us. See the difference? It's subtle, but I have faith that you can pick it out.

Again, your opinion is your right. I feel bad for those who don't feel this way. I feel bad for those who have more compassion for Iraqis than they do for our own citizens. That's the dark path this country is heading down.

You must lack basic reading comprehension skills if you think I have more compassion for Iraqis than Americans.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

Out of curiosity -- you don't agree with sanctions, and you don't agree with the invasion. What would be your solution to the Iraqi problem?

I'll betcha you're gonna say "There was no problem. We should have left Iraq alone entirely".

I guess I should have made my stance more clear. I don't agree with sanctions that target civilian populations. Sanctions against weapons I have no problem with.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Okay, lets try an IPL (initial program load) or a reboot. Here is a summary and my opinions, sorry if I've mistated anything ...

I believe we all agree that 'degree/scale' needs to be taken into consideration in our discussion. Comparing Chrisitian extremist in abortion bombings, gay assualts is not in the same scale as Muslim extremist actions. American GIs committing abuses in Iraq is not the same scale as the Muslim extremist actions.

There are differences in the participants whether history (ex. lets tentatively establish this as prior to 1950 ... as per the Green Lantern Theory debate in another thread ... as history) in this discussion. I believe most in this thread do not believe using historical abuses (ex. crusades) as a relevant rationalization to current Muslim extremist actions. However, there are some that disagree.

Disagreements on whether Muslims are a race. Not sure how this is relevant. My vote is no, Muslims (and Jews) are not a race.

Christian first vs American or Muslim first vs Iraqi/Iranian/Indonesian etc. I think this differs from culture. However, I do believe in America, most consider themselves American first before Christian. FYI. I have lived in the Bible belt most my adult life and this has been my experience, don't know why this differs from the experiences on this board. Also, suspect if we were to talk about the NE and West, most would consider themselves Americans before Christian.

Christians invading a Muslim country. Sure you can put it that way, however most Americans will say it was a not due the religious aspect, it was (pick a secular reason - oil, revenge, politics etc.) more than anything. I understand and appreciate the counterpoint that Muslims do not view it this way considering that Bush used the word 'crusade'.

Eliminating the Muslims and Muslim fanatics. I don't think anyone disagrees that eliminating the Muslim fanatics is a good thing. Devil is in the details as who/what is a Muslim fanatic. I think we all agree that Al Qaeda should be eliminated.

Christianity evolving vs Islam not yet there. As per the degree/scale above, I think most on this board believes that Chrisitanity has evolved past the Crusades (and other Christian historical extremes) and that Islam not yet. The counterpoints I've read has examples of current Christian abuses ... again, in my mind these arguments are not valid due to (1) scale/degree or (2) not done for sectarian, but secular, reasons or (3) actions of other Christian groups against the abuses.

Iraqis starting the war. Assuming we are talking about the Iraqi War II, don't believe it. No doubt the Iraqi government share the blame of playing bluff, but Bush clearly wanted this fight. This is not to say the war was wrong (I actually support it but hate how it is turning out), but IMO Bush started the war. I will add that Iraq definitely started Iraq War I and believe without War I, War II would not have happened.

Understanding motives of Muslim extremist to help resolve current tensions. Sorry, don't buy this at all. They are attacking America for primarily sectarian purposes (secular plays a role, but its mainly their jihad). No amount of understanding will eliminate this threat, it needs to be done surgically (ex. not en masse).

Torture. I know I'm being a hypocrite here, but its a don't ask don't tell. Officially, don't do it. Unofficially, there are certain times when it is needed ... do it if you have to, make sure it doesn't get public. I am okay with repatriating foreign nationals to their countries where they can get tortured there ... no problem. A side note, holding a US citizen without due process is wrong. Take him to trial, if we lose lets put a full time FBI tail on him.

The Pope quotation. I think (1) most believe the quote was okay and at most insensitive but does not rise to the level requiring mea culpa and (2) Muslims, possibly due to their insecurities of historical Christian abuses and current US/West policies, are oversensitive and take every opportunity to lash out.

Whew.

Again, can we all try to debate without getting profane and (too) sarcastic?

That's a pretty nice summary. Where I depart from your doxy is that I totally reject torture as a valid path.

Also, my dispute with I-forget-who centered not on whether primary identity of a Christian was American or Christian, but rather his characterization of most Christians as only being part-time Christians. I believe that whoever said that was has known Christians, but has not known Christianity.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

You think John McCain is opposed to torture because he wants to get re-elected? It doesn't have anything to do with the fact that he was a POW?

I don't know what his rationale is. I can assure you getting votes for his re-election/possible Presidential campaign had a hand in it.

Who's morale are we trying to lower? The terrorists, or the innocent civilians who get killed? Do you honestly believe that carpet bombing cities is going to make the terrorist put down their guns?

First, it'll kill some of those terrorists. Secondly, it's ruin their infrastructure. Thirdly, it'll kill those who harbor them.

Let's not forget who was president during World War II. That's right, a "bleeding heart liberal". I guess that's the only reason he had the liberal support, eh?

FDR wasn't liberal in modern terms. If he were alive today, he would be a republican, or at the most a conservative Democrat. Oh, and the man who ENDED World War II would most certainly be a Republican if he were in office today.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Edward64

Alright everyone, lets try to calm down. Can we get back to a reasonable debate?

Jonathon and JonInMiddleGA. I'm calling both of you out and asking you to refrain from participating on this thread if you cannot stop your sarcasm and profanities. I don't care who started what first, but its pretty obvious this thread has degenerated because of you two (ex. please start your own thread Jonathon vs JonInMiddleGA if you wish). At the very least, ignore each other.

Have I used any profanities? If so, I apologize. That's not something I normally do. Sarcasm, yes. That is a side of my personality, I'm afraid. It comes across much nicer in person, I assure you.

[st.cronin]

I'm going to start referring to JonInMiddleGa as The Giant Peach.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

FDR wasn't liberal in modern terms. If he were alive today, he would be a republican, or at the most a conservative Democrat. Oh, and the man who ENDED World War II would most certainly be a Republican if he were in office today.

Are we talking about the same FDR? The man who gave us Social Security and other massive government programs under the New Deal?

[Buccaneer]

illinifan, you don't think it could happen again? Another LA? Right this minute, no, but the intent is still there and all it takes is a spark. Just like everywhere else.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by WVUFAN

I don't know what his rationale is. I can assure you getting votes for his re-election/possible Presidential campaign had a hand in it. .

I actually read (and believe) that it would hurt his election as the Rep candidate... maybe help has an Independant.

FDR wasn't liberal in modern terms. If he were alive today, he would be a republican, or at the most a conservative Democrat. Oh, and the man who ENDED World War II would most certainly be a Republican if he were in office today

I agree with this. Name tags have definitely changed.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Have I used any profanities? If so, I apologize. That's not something I normally do. Sarcasm, yes. That is a side of my personality, I'm afraid. It comes across much nicer in person, I assure you.

Okay. Thank you.

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

Also, my dispute with I-forget-who centered not on whether primary identity of a Christian was American or Christian, but rather his characterization of most Christians as only being part-time Christians. I believe that whoever said that was has known Christians, but has not known Christianity.

That would be I. And as I said, I grew up with Christianity. I was a devout Christian to the point of seriously considering joining the ministry. How can you say that I have not "known Christianity"? Because my experiences differ from yours? I can just as easily say that you don't know Christianity. But I won't. Because I'm nice.

[Edward64]

That's a pretty nice summary. Where I depart from your doxy is that I totally reject torture as a valid path.

St. Cronin.I am interested in knowing your definition of torture? There are degree's and would like to know a couple examples that (1) crosses the line and (2) is within bounds.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

That would be I. And as I said, I grew up with Christianity. I was a devout Christian to the point of seriously considering joining the ministry. How can you say that I have not "known Christianity"? Because my experiences differ from yours? I can just as easily say that you don't know Christianity. But I won't. Because I'm nice.

That's certainly fair. But I was genuinely astonished at your characterization, as, I believe, were some others in this thread. I can't concieve of a worldview which is valid on Sunday but invalid Monday through Saturday.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Jonathan Ezarik

Are we talking about the same FDR? The man who gave us Social Security and other massive government programs under the New Deal?

Fiscally, you have a good point, but what I'm talking about is the term I directly used: "Bleeding Heart Liberal" which really speaks for the most part to foreign relations, our topic in this discussion. In that respect, he was neither a bleeding heart nor a liberal.

But fiscally, yes you're absolutely right.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

St. Cronin.I am interested in knowing your definition of torture? There are degree's and would like to know a couple examples that (1) crosses the line and (2) is within bounds.

It's true that there are degrees and grey areas. To me, anything which goes farther than impeding the enemy's ability to resist should not be considered.

[WVUFAN]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I actually read (and believe) that it would hurt his election as the Rep candidate... maybe help has an Independant.

Not in the current time, where the President's popularity is so low. Many Repubs are stepping away from his shadow for fear it'll hurt their elections. I think McCain is trying to appear more moderate than strict conservative. It seems to appeal to a broader base, especially recently.

[Edward64]

Originally Posted by st.cronin

It's true that there are degrees and grey areas. To me, anything which goes farther than impeding the enemy's ability to resist should not be considered.

This seems to imply that imprisonment is also out-of-bounds. Does your definition go that far? Or imprisonment with 3 square meals, letters from home, daily exercise okay?

[Jonathan Ezarik]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe we all agree that 'degree/scale' needs to be taken into consideration in our discussion. Comparing Chrisitian extremist in abortion bombings, gay assualts is not in the same scale as Muslim extremist actions. American GIs committing abuses in Iraq is not the same scale as the Muslim extremist actions.

I disagree with this notion. A Christian bombing an abortion clinic is just as wrong as a Muslim bombing a cafe. Murder is murder is murder. It's all wrong.

Disagreements on whether Muslims are a race. Not sure how this is relevant. My vote is no, Muslims (and Jews) are not a race.

As an aside, I was reading the latest issue of Time tonight and in the Milestones section they had an obit for Oriana Fallaci. The piece ended with: "In recent years, she drew accusations of racism for referring to an "Islamic invasion" of Europe and declaring that "sons of Allah breed like rats."" Apparently, the editors of Time view Islam as a race. Take it for what's it worth.

Understanding motives of Muslim extremist to help resolve current tensions. Sorry, don't buy this at all. They are attacking America for primarily sectarian purposes (secular plays a role, but its mainly their jihad). No amount of understanding will eliminate this threat, it needs to be done surgically (ex. not en masse).

How do you prevent new recruits from joining the ranks of the terrorists? You have to take away their motivation to become an extremist. And to do this you have to understand their motives. Otherwise, we are fighting a long and costly battle that we will never win.

[st.cronin]

Originally Posted by Edward64

This seems to imply that imprisonment is also out-of-bounds. Does your definition go that far? Or imprisonment with 3 square meals, letters from home, daily exercise okay?

Imprisonment is absolutely ok in my mind. Even solitary imprisonment.

[Groundhog]

Originally Posted by Edward64

I believe we all agree that 'degree/scale' needs to be taken into consideration in our discussion. Comparing Chrisitian extremist in abortion bombings, gay assualts is not in the same scale as Muslim extremist actions.

That wasn't the point of my statement. I was defending the Islamic religion by pointing out that it's not the religion itself that preaches this violence, it's the people who use religion to justify their actions.

American GIs committing abuses in Iraq is not the same scale as the Muslim extremist actions.

No, it's worse in a lot of regards. The US military are official representatives of the United States (unlike the extremists, who are just representatives of their extremist faction), and anything like this that comes to air weakens their efforts and makes the US look horrific.

There are differences in the participants whether history (ex. lets tentatively establish this as prior to 1950 ... as per the Green Lantern Theory debate in another thread ... as history) in this discussion. I believe most in this thread do not believe using historical abuses (ex. crusades) as a relevant rationalization to current Muslim extremist actions. However, there are some that disagree.

The hatred between Islamic societies in the West has its roots in history. You can't get an understanding of how things have gotten to this point without considering history.

Disagreements on whether Muslims are a race. Not sure how this is relevant. My vote is no, Muslims (and Jews) are not a race.

Not really all that relevant IMO, as it's just a term anyway, but I'd say they aren't a race as well.

Christian first vs American or Muslim first vs Iraqi/Iranian/Indonesian etc. I think this differs from culture. However, I do believe in America, most consider themselves American first before Christian. FYI. I have lived in the Bible belt most my adult life and this has been my experience, don't know why this differs from the experiences on this board. Also, suspect if we were to talk about the NE and West, most would consider themselves Americans before Christian.

I should hope so.

Christians invading a Muslim country. Sure you can put it that way, however most Americans will say it was a not due the religious aspect, it was (pick a secular reason - oil, revenge, politics etc.) more than anything. I understand and appreciate the counterpoint that Muslims do not view it this way considering that Bush used the word 'crusade'.

In my opinion it was definately nothing to do with it being a Muslim country. It has just made it far easier to paint them as bad guys (a fact that has of course been helped by the actions of the extremists), and Bush continues to shoot himself in the foot by throwing around the name of god and mentioning words like 'crusade'.

Eliminating the Muslims and Muslim fanatics. I don't think anyone disagrees that eliminating the Muslim fanatics is a good thing. Devil is in the details as who/what is a Muslim fanatic. I think we all agree that Al Qaeda should be eliminated.

If all fanatics dissapeared of course it would be a good thing. That's like saying that it would be a good thing if the tooth fairy came tonight and gave me $50 for my tooth however... it'd be nice, but it's pure fantasy. It's not possible, because if you get rid of Al Qaeda there will just be another group with a different name.

This is not a problem you can solve with guns and bombs.

Christianity evolving vs Islam not yet there. As per the degree/scale above, I think most on this board believes that Chrisitanity has evolved past the Crusades (and other Christian historical extremes) and that Islam not yet. The counterpoints I've read has examples of current Christian abuses ... again, in my mind these arguments are not valid due to (1) scale/degree or (2) not done for sectarian, but secular, reasons or (3) actions of other Christian groups against the abuses.

Christianity evolved because it was robbed of power. Islam in these countries holds the same place Christianity did previously, and is being used in much the same way - as a political tool.

Iraqis starting the war. Assuming we are talking about the Iraqi War II, don't believe it. No doubt the Iraqi government share the blame of playing bluff, but Bush clearly wanted this fight. This is not to say the war was wrong (I actually support it but hate how it is turning out), but IMO Bush started the war. I will add that Iraq definitely started Iraq War I and believe without War I, War II would not have happened.

Look at the ease that the US took down Sadam and his military. There is no way they weren't aware of how weak he was. They knew that taking him down would be simple, and they did just that. What they didn't realise is that there is more to conquering a country than taking out its leader.

If there was no Iraq War 1, then of course there would be no War 2. But why was there a War 2? Did there need to be? I don't think there did.

Understanding motives of Muslim extremist to help resolve current tensions. Sorry, don't buy this at all. They are attacking America for primarily sectarian purposes (secular plays a role, but its mainly their jihad). No amount of understanding will eliminate this threat, it needs to be done surgically (ex. not en masse).

Impossible. I don't know if it's possible to do it by understanding and trying to ease tensions, either, but at least that way will prevent more US soldiers deaths, and prevent further hatred for the US spreading through other countries, as it is right now. People may not care about that, but lets discuss this again in another 20 years if nothing changes.

Torture. I know I'm being a hypocrite here, but its a don't ask don't tell. Officially, don't do it. Unofficially, there are certain times when it is needed ... do it if you have to, make sure it doesn't get public. I am okay with repatriating foreign nationals to their countries where they can get tortured there ... no problem. A side note, holding a US citizen without due process is wrong. Take him to trial, if we lose lets put a full time FBI tail on him.

We all know it happens, but as soon as any word of it gets out, you know that the extremists are going to use it as propaganda to recruit more extremists. It's a double edged sword, so if you are going to make your bed like that, than you had best be prepared to sleep in it.

The Pope quotation. I think (1) most believe the quote was okay and at most insensitive but does not rise to the level requiring mea culpa and (2) Muslims, possibly due to their insecurities of historical Christian abuses and current US/West policies, are oversensitive and take every opportunity to lash out.

Of course they are oversensitive to the comments, and of course the footage of it was going to get portrayed in a bad light and used as propoganda in Islamic countries, the same way that we are now seeing footage of rioting Islamic people burning pictures of the pope, rather than Islamics having civilised debates about it - which does indeed happen.

The pope should have known that this would occur. I can't imagine the resultant reaction surprising anyone.

Again, can we all try to debate without getting profane and (too) sarcastic?

Agreed.