Terrorists 'use Down's syndrome suicide bombers' to kill

[FUBAR69]

ever read the quran? or have you just read a biased translation of it. at least post about something u know about!

Yes mate I have read it, and you can try and muddy the waters all you want but trust me you aint foolin anyone here.

 

[zhinkler]

I don't have to, looks like you've already been fooled.
anyway I can see you've already made your mind up so thats fine we'll leave it here.

 

[janobi]

Well I must say that this has caused some discussion amongst members. I would just like to clarify a few things. Firstly @topdog. Nato is not the US mate. Nato is several powerful countries that have aligned to create an army that could help in war torn countries. I believe there are several countries in Nato, including France, UK, Germany, Canada.

http://www.nato.int/

The UN is the united nations, and consists of virtually every country within the world. Some have more power than others, and this includes the VETO vote, which is so important.

http://www.un.org/english/

With regards to suicide bombers of any kind, its wrong. Killing an innocent, for publicity for a cause is wrong. Yet it is not only Islamics who have used these tactics. Kamikazee pilots for one, is another example of the extremes people will go to for a cause they believe in.

As someone had posted earlier, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Yasser Arafat I believe is the person who coined that phrase. A freedom fighter for the palestinians, yet a terrorist to the israeli's.

I wonder how many people remember the war that Russia fought with Afghanistan. And how the British Army (SAS/SBS) trained the afghans in counter terrorism, and other methods, that would allow them to fight the Russians. I also seem to remember them being supplied arms, by the French in the war against Russia. And many politicians, felt they were taking the moral high ground in helping the Afghans. Yet a few years later, were invading them, for our own reasons, and Russia is helping the Afghans. What a turn around.

The problem with War, is only the winner can write the history of what happened. That is why the world view of the world wars is so abstract. Most people in the US believe they won both wars single handedly. But it was Hitlers in ability to conquer the Red army in Winter that actually turned the war in our favour.

Religion has and always will be a reason for war, and for that reason it should be banished. People have mentioned the crusades, where the Christian knights, went to the holy land, and butchered all who would not pledge to the Church. They killed millions in the name of there god. Yet now they are considered heroes, again he who wins the war, gets to write history.

I will leave you with one more question. "Why if you kill someone during a war, are you a hero. Yet if you kill someone whilst not at war, your a criminal. Is there any difference??"

 

[mozr]

Well I must say that this has caused some discussion amongst members. I would just like to clarify a few things. Firstly @topdog. Nato is not the US mate. Nato is several powerful countries that have aligned to create an army that could help in war torn countries. I believe there are several countries in Nato, including France, UK, Germany, Canada.

http://www.nato.int/

The UN is the united nations, and consists of virtually every country within the world. Some have more power than others, and this includes the VETO vote, which is so important.

http://www.un.org/english/

All true

With regards to suicide bombers of any kind, its wrong. Killing an innocent, for publicity for a cause is wrong. Yet it is not only Islamics who have used these tactics. Kamikazee pilots for one, is another example of the extremes people will go to for a cause they believe in.

Also true. Any rudimentary knowledge of the psychology of martyrdom will know it is not only a Muslim (radical islamist) concept.

As someone had posted earlier, One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. Yasser Arafat I believe is the person who coined that phrase. A freedom fighter for the palestinians, yet a terrorist to the israeli's.

Now. Yes there is a moral equivalence argument, rooted in relativism, that can argue the two sides of the coin. However, we do not live our lives, and our leaders do not conduct their politics, in a moral vacuum where we can afford to dismiss good and evil in favour of random sequences of events.

We are human,a nd human beings co exist by a contract, hegemony. Hegemony suggests that Al-Qaeda are scum, and need wiping out. Now, there is a time when for the sake of the greater good, and when a terrorist (such as Arafat) lays his weapons down (and more importantly pulls his henchman back), then dialogue can occur. Does that mean he should have got the Nobel peace prize. Hell no! we shou;d just not have killed him in exchange for peace (albeit not a very successful one).

I wonder how many people remember the war that Russia fought with Afghanistan. And how the British Army (SAS/SBS) trained the afghans in counter terrorism, and other methods, that would allow them to fight the Russians. I also seem to remember them being supplied arms, by the French in the war against Russia. And many politicians, felt they were taking the moral high ground in helping the Afghans. Yet a few years later, were invading them, for our own reasons, and Russia is helping the Afghans. What a turn around.

It is the very nature of human interaction. you are not describing an earth shattering hypocrisy, just a description of human nature. Self interest is what we do. Sometimes sadly so.

The problem with War, is only the winner can write the history of what happened. That is why the world view of the world wars is so abstract. Most people in the US believe they won both wars single handedly. But it was Hitlers in ability to conquer the Red army in Winter that actually turned the war in our favour.

I am paraphrasing Aristolte here but, The only people to see the end of war are the dead. It is aomethign we will have to live with. People are not inherently good. Indeed, some are bad, and the self interest that is part of our genetic make up insists that we will never have absolute truth. I doubt many serious US historians ignore the doomed Barbarossa campaign. It is only the ignorant people that do not know. It will always be so.

Religion has and always will be a reason for war, and for that reason it should be banished. People have mentioned the crusades, where the Christian knights, went to the holy land, and butchered all who would not pledge to the Church. They killed millions in the name of there god. Yet now they are considered heroes, again he who wins the war, gets to write history.

I am an atheist msyelf. But if you ban religion you are more intolerant than the fundamentalists. You have to encourage reason, whilst allowing belief. I aslo agree about Christianity, but Christians are not the problem now. We need to kill the Jihadists. Simple.

I will leave you with one more question. "Why if you kill someone during a war, are you a hero. Yet if you kill someone whilst not at war, your a criminal. Is there any difference??"

Another relativistic argument. for example, let me offer a proof:

Do you agree with the following comment: 'If you have sex with a minor in ancient Greece you are a normal citizen, but if you have sex with a minor today you are a paedophile? Is there any difference?'

You need to understand that morality is yes fluid, but is based upon a contractual understanding by the majority (hegemony). You need to ask yourself an important question here. 'Am I moral?' 'Do I believe in right and wrong?' What I am trying to get at, is that it is ok to judge!

You can still be a philosophical existentialist - like me -, and still take a side, without having to feed of your own tail.

 

[Munkey]

ban the lot of it, and we'll all have a munch and a huge orgy, problem solved and everyones happy roud:

I agree with your post in theory but..

Why ban peaceful religions like Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddism? They don't preach any hatred towards other man, in fact they preach the opposite? These religions believe in equality between sexes and mankind plus they dont build barriers between other religions. I don't think a ban is needed on religions at all, if we did decide to ban we would just fight over something else as its human nature. Plus banning religion is not very practical, we having been praying to mythical gods from pretty much the beginning of time.

Some religions preach hatred and some don't, we cant tar them all with the same brush. One of the most important things to look at is how a particular religion treats people that are not of the same religion. That gives you a very good idea about what it is all about.

I'm all for a big munch and orgy but I already have 5 wives so I'm a little knackered and shall not be able to make it

 

[topdog1965]

Well I must say that this has caused some discussion amongst members. I would just like to clarify a few things. Firstly @topdog. Nato is not the US mate. Nato is several powerful countries that have aligned to create an army that could help in war torn countries. I believe there are several countries in Nato, including France, UK, Germany, Canada.

It's meant to be but in reality America is the only player along with the UK, what has France or even Germany ever done for nato.

I will leave you with one more question. "Why if you kill someone during a war, are you a hero. Yet if you kill someone whilst not at war, your a criminal. Is there any difference??"]

What sort of a question is that?

 

[digidude]

I agree with your post in theory but..

Why ban peaceful religions like Hinduism, Sikhism and Buddism? They don't preach any hatred towards other man, in fact they preach the opposite? These religions believe in equality between sexes and mankind plus they dont build barriers between other religions. I don't think a ban is needed on religions at all, if we did decide to ban we would just fight over something else as its human nature. Plus banning religion is not very practical, we having been praying to mythical gods from pretty much the beginning of time.

if one was to be banned, then theyd all have to m8, no favouritism etc, i know itd never happen, but to only ban some would cause more problems than banning none or all

Some religions preach hatred and some don't, we cant tar them all with the same brush. One of the most important things to look at is how a particular religion treats people that are not of the same religion. That gives you a very good idea about what it is all about.

this is NOT an attack on any religion, but ones that say to kill non believers etc cant be right

I'm all for a big munch and orgy but I already have 5 wives so I'm a little knackered and shall not be able to make it

hows about we all come round your place then m8, im sure 5 wifes could cook up quite a feast

lol

 

[janobi]

It's meant to be but in reality America is the only player along with the UK, what has France or even Germany ever done for nato.






What sort of a question is that?

Obviously one that you cannot answer. For someone so out spoken I would of expected some answer, but yours is only a question.

@Mozr, you have diseceted my post with great grace, and I must say that I am impressed by your knowledge and also your thought process. All of us will have differing opinions, this is human nature.

Although I must say that you have a very philosophical view on things in general, and have tried to use that to justify what goes on in the world. I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said, and its nice to see an intelligent response. Not saying others haven't made intelligent repsonses, but some are just unfounded opinions.

 

[mozr]

@Mozr, you have diseceted my post with great grace, and I must say that I am impressed by your knowledge and also your thought process. All of us will have differing opinions, this is human nature.

Although I must say that you have a very philosophical view on things in general, and have tried to use that to justify what goes on in the world. I agree wholeheartedly with what you have said, and its nice to see an intelligent response. Not saying others haven't made intelligent repsonses, but some are just unfounded opinions.

Thanks.

I think your arguments were just as philosophical as mine, and that we agree in most parts.

I really like what Martin Amis had to say on this subject. Please read it, if you have not already done so.

LINK

It is very akin to where we are I think. To surmise. Yes our ancestors have been bad, and America has not been the most gracious in its foreign policy, BUT we need to kill those who want to kill us.

We are the Kafir scum remember, the unbelievers. We should kill first, to stop them blowing up crowds of people.

 

[janobi]

Thanks.

I think your arguments were just as philosophical as mine, and that we agree in most parts.

I really like what Martin Amis had to say on this subject. Please read it, if you have not already done so.

LINK

It is very akin to where we are I think. To surmise. Yes our ancestors have been bad, and America has not been the most gracious in its foreign policy, BUT we need to kill those who want to kill us.

We are the Kafir scum remember, the unbelievers. We should kill first, to stop them blowing up crowds of people.

But if we kill first, does that not make us worse than those trying to kill us? I dont agree with kill first, ask questions later.

And thanks for the compliment, I tried to be as neutral as possible, and didnt expect my veiled answer to be as disected as well.

 

[mozr]

But if we kill first, does that not make us worse than those trying to kill us? I dont agree with kill first, ask questions later.

Not ask questions later. The questions have been asked, and the facts ascertained. If a group of people focus their attention on the killing of another group, should the group to be killed allow themselves to die or intervene?

For example, do the Jews need to let Ahmadinejad attain a weapon to obliterate them to be moral? Or can they intervene, and stop him doing so.

WWII is full of instances where procrastinated diplomacy led to the slaughter of many more people than was needed, before intervention took place. The Americans being a prime example.

There have been, and will be more mistakes, including insidious political manoeuvring that may cost innocent lives, and the questioning of that is healthy.

But, Radical Islamic fundamentalists want to convert us or kill us. Me, I don't like the beard, the fashion, and I am not going to let some religious nuts take over western secular society by force or sermon.

 

[janobi]

Not ask questions later. The questions have been asked, and the facts ascertained. If a group of people focus their attention on the killing of another group, should the group to be killed allow themselves to die or intervene?

For example, do the Jews need to let Ahmadinejad attain a weapon to obliterate them to be moral? Or can they intervene, and stop him doing so.

WWII is full of instances where procrastinated diplomacy led to the slaughter of many more people than was needed, before intervention took place. The Americans being a prime example.

There have been, and will be more mistakes, including insidious political manoeuvring that may cost innocent lives, and the questioning of that is healthy.

But, Radical Islamic fundamentalists want to convert us or kill us. Me, I don't like the beard, the fashion, and I am not going to let some religious nuts take over western secular society by force or sermon.

That is a better explanation, but history also shows us what devistation can be caused when other sides do step in. A big decider for WW2 was the atomic bomb, if this had not been developed and dropped, then things may not of been over as early.

Are we saying that it is ok to kill, as long as your right? Surely all parties feel that they are correct, and fighting for what they believe is right. Again, I say that only the winners of war can write the history.

 

[FUBAR69]

I don't have to, looks like you've already been fooled.
anyway I can see you've already made your mind up so thats fine we'll leave it here.

Fooled ?... seriously mate you should sell that stuff your smoking, you would make a fortune !!

I suppose all the Muslims that are fighting have all been fooled by YOUR religion reading YOUR book in YOUR language ? or have they simply not read it properly ?


I will be honest, I see "Islam" as a fundementaly flawed religion having built its religion on an outdated script that has no place in the modern world, I do believe that the majority of Muslims are very good people but find it hard to understand why the "Good Muslims" spend most of their time defending Islam and arguing with Christians, Hindus etc and very little time facing the evil elements within their own religion.

To try and distance 1000's of Muslims as "just some extremists" is to say the least naive, and a glaring denial of the obvious truth. Just like the Catholic community in Belfast/Northern Ireland who allowed the IRA/INLA etc to operate in their estates and villages, Muslims must accept that if they are not willing to push these people into the cold light of day but to harbour or foster them even if only by their silence or cheek turning then they will/are be painted with the same brush.

Like I have said in other threads, PERCEPTION is everything and the current perception is that even "moderate muslims" are very quick to get on their soap box, but very little time trying to actively stop the acts of terror that we are all sick and tired of hearing about.

 

[mozr]

That is a better explanation, but history also shows us what devistation can be caused when other sides do step in. A big decider for WW2 was the atomic bomb, if this had not been developed and dropped, then things may not of been over as early.

Are we saying that it is ok to kill, as long as your right? Surely all parties feel that they are correct, and fighting for what they believe is right. Again, I say that only the winners of war can write the history.

Have you ever seen the episode of that Mitchell and Webb look when Mitchell asks Webb 'Are we the baddies?' when referring to the skulls on their hats? Always reminds me of Sartre's 'Altona'.

You make a salient, and very philosophical, point relating to the very nature of morality. Indeed I think you have probably read Foucault's 'Archives of Pain' and understand that power drives humanity, therefore history.

However, if you think that all people believe they are doing right when fighting a war for a country (therefore how can anyone kill another person who believes they are doing right), then the logical conclusion of that is to lay down and let the flotsam and jetsam of humanity wash over you, because you are coming from a position yourself of inalienable 'right'.

Lets start on more fertile ground, with quick questions and answers.

1. Is it ever 'right' to kill?

 

[Munkey]

But, Radical Islamic fundamentalists want to convert us or kill us. Me, I don't like the beard, the fashion, and I am not going to let some religious nuts take over western secular society by force or sermon.

They stand a fair chance through sermon as modern Britons don't practice their religion any more and thus are completely out of touch with religion. We can take a look around us and see Mosques popping up everywhere but our churches are being converted into fancy studio flats for the rich. British youth are more inclined to convert to the currently hip islam just like rappers and other leading youth figures making it acceptable to convert to islam without knowing anything about the actual teachings.

So far as force goes a good example of this is the situation in Lebanon. An aggressive minority who are armed heavily are more than capable of overthrowing the government. I'm sure that the good citizens of Lebanon would love to get rid of Hezbollah, but by force they seem to be inching their way into power regardless of what the people may want.

With muslims having very high migration figures and the highest birthrate in the world isn't it just a question of time before you have no choice but to sport that beard?

 

[digidude]

With muslims having very high migration figures and the highest birthrate in the world isn't it just a question of time before you have no choice but to sport that beard?

there will be a tipping point, and the backlash will be immense. The minority who always get their own way so theyre not discriminated against will become the majority, who will still get their own way due to sheer numbers and extreme actions against those who oppose them

i still stand by what ive said for the last few years, britain WILL be at war, with itself, a number of factors will come (are coming) together that will push the everyday joe over the edge, taxes, cost of living, having no voice, feeling persecuted and pushed out

i cant wait to win the lottery and get the hell off this sinking island

 

[FUBAR69]

there will be a tipping point, and the backlash will be immense. The minority who always get their own way so theyre not discriminated against will become the majority, who will still get their own way due to sheer numbers and extreme actions against those who oppose them

i still stand by what ive said for the last few years, britain WILL be at war, with itself, a number of factors will come (are coming) together that will push the everyday joe over the edge, taxes, cost of living, having no voice, feeling persecuted and pushed out

i cant wait to win the lottery and get the hell off this sinking island

Very well said Digidude, :Clap: I agree there will be a breaking point and it's not in the too distant future either.