Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 1/24/03 10:13 AM, Slizor wrote: Where is this intolerance of other cultures and other religions? Palestinians are both Christian and Muslim, yet they get along fine.

They hate the Jews....not just the Israelis all the Jews. Also I pointed out the earlier example of the Taliban blowing up those ancient Buddhist statues. Buddhist statues....what the fuck have the Buddhists ever done to anyone?

Intent is a very big part of morality.

Adolph Hitler believed he was ridding the world of a "degenerate race" does that make him right?

Saddam holds elections, is he a popularly elected government? Ariel Sharon is popularly elected, is he not corrupt?(If you don't agree with this, imagine it is any of Italy's leaders)

Saddams elections are a joke....he got 100% of the popular vote in his last election. You know there is something flawed in a system like that. As for Sharon his militant ways have pissed off enough Israelis that he probably won't get re-elected when his term is over.

The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over THREE TIMES!

I have to call bullshit on that one.

At 1/23/03 07:38 AM, Ted_Easton wrote: But let's sto debating this and try to get some momentum on this club.

Agreed

At 1/23/03 11:13 PM, Spike_J_Wolfwood wrote:

At 1/23/03 02:57 PM, T_ConX wrote: No dumb fuck ever won a war by dying for his country...

He won the war by making the other dumb fuck die for his country...

Patton right?

Yes thats Patton, but the actual quote is "No poor dumb bastard ever won a war by dying for his country...He won the war by making the other poor dumb bastard die for his country."

At 1/23/03 04:35 PM, clownfish wrote: Slizer and ImplodedGoat, of both you I can say you have a very reasonable point. But... ImplodedGoat, how come you are so pro-America? You are a nationalist, but most people are, both in America and Iraq. But there is one more reason why I agree more with Slizor:

I dislike much of what Bush has done recently in particular the powers he has given to track down terrorists which I feel take away from the American people's right to fair trial. I am pro American merely because the side I am argueing against is represented by Saddam Hussein and Osama Bin Laden. I would like to see Saddamn Hussein removed from power for the benefit of the Iraqi people.

You don't look on the negative side of America. Sure, 3000+ people were kill in the WTC (as you told us almost as muc times as there were casualties), but there have also been countless Iraqi victims, and that's most likely to be over a million. Where is your justice? And why doesn't your corrupt regime respect the UN?

A million...thats a pretty fucking high estimate. and What Iraqi victims are you talking about? We haven't dropped a bomb on them since 93.

Why doesn't the UN respect a country's right to govern itself? Every Nation has the right to declare war. The U.N. is a nice forum for diplomacy but it isn't entitled to tell any Nation what to do.

At 1/23/03 03:27 PM, Slizor wrote:

If Bush was murdering his own citizens and paying suicide bombers $20,000 a piece then yes you would.

No I wouldn't. It is the people of a country who must bring about change.

In the United States the people control their government through elections but in countries like Iraq the people lack this power and their only means of governmental change is revolution. In the modern age revolutions are very difficult when the government is infinently better armed than the populous.

Now, Imploded_Baby, I 100% Agree with you about everything said thus far. But, Slizor, you are as bad as anyone who advocated pure killing. You think we shouldnt kill Sadaam Hussein? In the future, he'll kill thousands of people.

So, to stop him possibly killing thousands of people, you want to go in and definatly kill thousands of people. Hmm.

Look at the long term. Over the past twenty years Hussein has killed tens of thousands of his own people over the next twenty years he will likely kill tens of thousands more.

What could this war on Iraq unleash though? Imagine, you see some hornets attacking someone...so you go and hit the hornet nest. Lovely idea.

You overestimate Iraq's power. Nato dealt with them in two weeks in 93. How long would it take this time with the just the United States....three weeks maybe four?

I'm not for the war that Bush and Co are pushing for, because I know how it will end. People dead and another Dictator. I'm against Saddam, but it doesn't mean I'm for a unilateral American invasion.

I would prefer if we just shot the bitch in the head personally. Someone would take his place but hopefully they wouldn't be as big a psychopath as Saddam.

At 1/23/03 03:17 PM, Slizor wrote:
You know the phrase "A person of their time"? Like the founding fathers of America had slaves...because they were people of their time? These are people of their culture.

A person of their time is an excellent phrase. I ask you why are Muslims unwilling to be people of their time and join the modern age? They feel secure within their own ignorance.

What I mean by the term "ass-backwards" is that the manner in which it is practiced in the Middle east is over a thousand years out of date.

How so?

Subjugation of women, stonings, intolerance of other cultures, intolerance of other religions, etc, etc.,

Oh thats great he was attacking the building. Thats some great logic there Slizor. So if I nuked the Vatican I could claim I was protesting the Catholic stance on birth control and that the million casulties were just an unfortunate side effect. You really are a jackass.

So, he strikes the WTC, the Pentagon and attempted to attack Congress....hmm, economic, military and political....strange that. Of course he could have just attacked a more populas place than the WTC.

I'm not saying that he wasn't trying to make a point by where he attacked. But I don't see how his intent affects the fact that he murdered thousands of innocent people. If he really wanted to make a statement he could have attacked the statue of liberty which is as powerful a symbol of America as there is and he wouldn't have killed nearly as many people. But instead he turned full passenger jets into bombs and used them to attack targets filled with innocents. Face it the man is a sick son of a bitch, far from the hero to his people that you seem to think he is.

Indeed, I apologise. But the Daisy Cutter is an indiscriminate weapon along with the cluster bombs dropped...

Both the cluster bomb and the Daisy Cutter have a very large radius of destruction however they aren't used near civilian populations.

You had no right to. Like Britain has no right to remove your corrupt government.

If the Taliban was a popularly elected government you would be right. However they took power through military force and didn't hold free elections.

Heh, you try to put me on bin Laden's side. I seek not to apologise for what he did, but to point out what you did. And you have tried to avoid what I said. There is a dubious link between bin Laden and the Taliban.

The link between the two was dubious however we gave the Taliban the chance to continue their existence if they let us search for Bin Laden. They refused and they fucked themselves over. We took down an assemblage of corrupt fascists and helped to institute a democratic government. How can you call that a bad cause?

At 1/23/03 06:49 AM, Slizor wrote:

Eye for an Eye.....

Makes the whole world blind.

How so? Please explain how killing off some murderers "makes the whole world blind".

At 1/23/03 06:42 AM, Slizor wrote:
A good war? There is no such thing as a good war. And taking out Saddam is not a just cause. Would it be right for Britain to take out Bush? Because we don't like/agree with him?

If Bush was murdering his own citizens and paying suicide bombers $20,000 a piece then yes you would.

Also you should realize Slizor that not everyone in England shares your warped view on the world.

Now, Imploded_Baby, I 100% Agree with you about everything said thus far. But, Slizor, you are as bad as anyone who advocated pure killing. You think we shouldnt kill Sadaam Hussein? In the future, he'll kill thousands of people.

So, to stop him possibly killing thousands of people, you want to go in and definatly kill thousands of people. Hmm.

Look at the long term. Over the past twenty years Hussein has killed tens of thousands of his own people over the next twenty years he will likely kill tens of thousands more.

If he is removed from power his people will have a much better quality of life and they will be free from his fascist regime. While you may not value freedom Slizor most people do.

At 1/22/03 03:05 PM, Slizor wrote:

Please explain how it is "ass backward".

How about the way that they subjegate their women? How about the stonings?

You judge from your cultural perspective. They can look down on your society because you make money from loans. Something Islam is against. And again, we are talking about the religion, not the societies in which the religion is prevalent.

I am judging the society, not the religion. The religion is fine, but its interpretation is flawed.
If you are going to use societal perspective as an excuse then you can excuse pretty much anything and you have no right to criticize anyone because they are entitled to their perspective no matter how warped.

What you say, from your extremely inexperenced view of Middle Eastern religion and society, is of little consequence, especially if you estimate your statistics.

Oh really I wasn't aware that they were taking a census of Muslim Clerics going door to door asking them "Are you an extremist?" or "Do you advocate terrorism?"

Either you are inarticulate, or use doublethink. You said Islam is "ass-backward".

What I mean by the term "ass-backwards" is that the manner in which it is practiced in the Middle east is over a thousand years out of date. Imagine if all world religions were acting the same way they were over a thousand years ago? Women would be throwing themselves on their husbands funeral pyres in India, and the Catholic church would still be holding inquisitions.

Really? I don't see Americans taking bazookas to ancient Buddhist statues.

There are many ways of eroding cultures.

Like what? Modernization? We supported modernization of Islamic countries throughout the 20th century and what did the Islamic people do? They turned to religous fanatics like the Ayatollah. One does not have to abandon advancement to retain ones culture. If you cling too tightly to tradition then progress is impossible.

Here is a little quote from the peace loving Yassar Arafat.

"With God´s help, next time we will meet in Jerusalem, because we are fighting to bring victory to our prophets, every baby, every kid, every man, every woman and every old person and all the young people, we will all sacrifice ourselves for our holy places and we will strengthen our hold of them and we are willing to give 70 of our martyrs for every one of theirs in this campaign, because this is our holy land."

And when was it said?

December 18, 2001 at a rally in Ramallah

I might remind you that those tall buildings had fifty thousand people in them, over three thousand of whom were killed, jackass!

I've never heard that there was 50 thousand people in the buildings, not that it matters. His target was not the people, but the building itself, what it symbolises.

Oh thats great he was attacking the building. Thats some great logic there Slizor. So if I nuked the Vatican I could claim I was protesting the Catholic stance on birth control and that the million casulties were just an unfortunate side effect. You really are a jackass.

Yet they also used the "Daisycutter".....a carpet bomb.

The daisy cutter is very large bunker buster weapon. Carpet bombing is when one drops thousands of bombs across a large area. Get your terms straight.

The only country linked to terrorism that we have bombed is Afghanistan

A dubious link it was indeed. The fact is OBL did what the US claimed to do. Bombed a country of terrorists.

We removed a corrupt government. Bin Laden accomplished nothing except misery, death and suffering. We also targeted military targets, while you could defend his attack of the Pentagon if you supported his warped beliefs, only someone with no ethics and no respect for human life could defend the destruction of the World Trade Center and the 3000+ lives that were extinguished with it.

At 1/22/03 12:49 PM, RandomFreak wrote: Personally I'm in favor of Roe v. Wade. I don't support abortion in and of itself but I support a woman's choice to have it done safely if she chooses.

I think the original Roe V. Wade decision is correct. The original decision allowed first trimester abortions. I feel that since the world is so overpopulated there is no need in filling it with more children who's parents either can't or don't want to support them.

I do however feel that 2nd and especially 3rd (or partial birth abortions) are brutal and should be outlawed.

At 1/22/03 10:08 AM, Slizor wrote:

Please explain how it is "ass backward".

How about the way that they subjegate their women? How about the stonings?

I am not religous but I have nothing against most religions. Islam however (note Islam is not as radical in the West) has some serious flaws. While the Koran itself is fine their clerics instruct them to go out and kill the infidel and that there is a zionists plot to destroy them.

No that is extremists, not every muslim cleric.

Not every Muslim cleric but a great number of the clerics in the middle east are extremists. (I'd say over 50%) These cleics then poison the midns of their followers and propogate hatred and ignorance.

America tolerates the Christians....anyhow, on a different note, Islam is practised fanatically in Britain and especially where I live. The majority of people in every school that I went to have been Asian, and a lot of them are Muslims. Hell I lived next to a mosque.

As I said the manner in which Islam is practiced in the west is different from how it is practiced in the Middle East. The religion itself isn't flawed it is the manner in which it is interpreted.

This coming from an American. Hah! America seems to systematically try and wipe cultures out. As you seem to be condoning in your post.

Really? I don't see Americans taking bazookas to ancient Buddhist statues.

Yassar Arafat is not a terrorist, nor funds them.

He supports both Hamas and the Al-Aqsa Martyrs Brigade.

Here is a little quote from the peace loving Yassar Arafat.

"With God´s help, next time we will meet in Jerusalem, because we are fighting to bring victory to our prophets, every baby, every kid, every man, every woman and every old person and all the young people, we will all sacrifice ourselves for our holy places and we will strengthen our hold of them and we are willing to give 70 of our martyrs for every one of theirs in this campaign, because this is our holy land."

We are a bigger criminal than Saddam Hussein who decorates his palaces with the toil of his exploited followers and who gases anyone with the courage to stand up to his fascist regime?

Considering you gave him that gas...yes, yes I do.

He made that gas himself and used it on his own people.

We are a bigger criminal than Osama Bin Laden who takes his blind agression out on innocent men, women, and children?

Yes, he may strike a tall building of yours and reduce it to rubble. But you carpet bomb countries because they are linked to terrorists. And may I remind you, this carpet bombs would kill the innocent men, women and children that you so care about.

I might remind you that those tall buildings had fifty thousand people in them, over three thousand of whom were killed, jackass!

We spend $500,000 a piece on laser guided bombs explictly with the purpose of reducing civilian casulties. The only country linked to terrorism that we have bombed is Afghanistan and we got out of that war with very few civivilian casulties.

At 1/21/03 08:37 PM, FAdErCrUsAdEr wrote: No. It is not right to kill at all. 'Though shall not kill'

Eye for an Eye.....

At 1/22/03 12:33 AM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: just because we haven't figured out what the ideal is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. If this is not true, then there are many systems that are just as good as any other, and this makes discussion and comparison a waste of time.

Each person is unique to believe otherwise is foolishness. You will never be able to satisfy everyone it is not possible. One man's dream is another man's nightmare. Take communism for example if you are uneducated and making minimum wage it would be of great benefit to you, but if you are a rich intellectual the idea is horrifying to you.

Its a good idea....I just finished filling out my favorite authors but you still need to make a link to it under the Grounds Gold Menu. Of course you probably know that.....

The world is overpopulated and jailing prisoners is expensive.

The truth is lifes a bitch. Innocent people die every day before their time why should murderers be kept alive at the expense of others while innocents are not?

Execute every murderer and I would say good riddance. Mercy is overrated.

At 1/16/03 07:41 PM, Dr_Arbitrary wrote: 3. There is an ideal ethical/political/etc and we are comitted to figuring out what it is.

I agree with most of what has been said except this. For example I have been arguing with Slizor for a long time and neither of us will ever come to an agreement on an ideal system. However it is always good to hear other ideas for even if you don't accept them one must acknowledge that other views exist and that if you are planning your ideal government then you must take into account these varying views.

At 1/21/03 11:46 AM, Slizor wrote:

Oh yes we do so much to harm the poor terrorists. We buy fucking oil from them and make them filthy rich.

Haha. I see you have taken your propaganda pill which blurs your entire vision of the Middle East, and Islam.

I see you have taken your political correctness pill which blurs your entire vision of the Middle East and Islam. Saying that Islam is an assbackwards religion may make me look like a backwoods gun toting hick but its still true. I am not religous but I have nothing against most religions. Islam however (note Islam is not as radical in the West) has some serious flaws. While the Koran itself is fine their clerics instruct them to go out and kill the infidel and that there is a zionists plot to destroy them.

You wouldn't tolerate a religion such as this if it was being fanatically practiced in your country but since its in the middle east you would claim that "While we might not agree with them, its their culture and we have to respect their views.". I ask you why? They don't respect our culture or any other culture except their own and they take their agression out on the scapegoats their clerics claim are the source of all their ills. Why should their culture excuse their inhuman acts?

To an extent the United States's actions have been magnified, but the wrongs of the United States in the Middle East are many and the US is by far the biggest criminal.

We are a bigger criminal than Yassar Arafat who accepts a Nobel Peace Prize (interesting side note Ghandi doesn't have a Nobel Peace Prize) as he is funding suicide bombings on Israel? We are a bigger criminal than Saddam Hussein who decorates his palaces with the toil of his exploited followers and who gases anyone with the courage to stand up to his fascist regime? We are a bigger criminal than Osama Bin Laden who takes his blind agression out on innocent men, women, and children? That is quite a claim my friend.

At 1/20/03 08:04 PM, Ted_Easton wrote: If Britain hadn't kept on fighting likeit did, the US would be German, too. Both countries played pivitol roles in the War.

True...The British fought as hard as anyone in World War II. Its just that I have many family members who fought in that war and I think that they need to get the fucking recognition they deserve.

At 1/20/03 11:00 AM, Slizor wrote:
You really should do some History then I wouldn't have to correct you. Britain saved itself from Hitler, they won the battle of Britain, there was no way Hitler would invade. The majority of Hitler's armies were sent to fight the USSR, who, if any single country won the war, it would be them. They killed 80% of all German soliders. And the US did indeed screw Britain over, especially on the issue of the A-bomb. Where British science and information was sent to America, along with the German jewish element to build an A-bomb. The Americans knew very little at the time, after the war ended the Americans said they would not tell Britain how to build an A-bomb. I could go into more detail if you wish, but I fear I will only embarass you with your ignorance.

If we hadn't come in and invaded with operation overlord then the war would have continued with you Brits holed up on your island and the Russians making very little progress in pushing the the Germans back since the Germans wouldn't have had to fight a two front war since England lacked the power to launch an offensive on its own.

Aside from the U.S. the Germans were the only ones close to building a nuclear bomb. While you and the Russians might have managed to beat the Germans by around 1950 without us but by then London and Moscow would be radioactive craters.

You know where you would be without the U.S.?

Probably enjoying myself since you and the ignorance that surrounds you and most of your countrymen would not exist.

You would be a fascist pawn under Hitlers boot, instead of a socialist pawn conquered by nothing but his own foolishness.

At 1/20/03 10:46 AM, Slizor wrote: You do realise the territorial ambitions of Hitler are nothing like the ambitions of the "terrorists". Hitler wanted to take what was not his, which would be considered a wrong, terrorists want to stop America wronging them(well, the ones we are talking about).

Oh yes we do so much to harm the poor terrorists. We buy fucking oil from them and make them filthy rich.

Face it the United States is a scapegoat for the wrongs of their own corrupt, fascist governments. The Muslims blame all their problems on us and the Jews...hmmm perhaps Hitler is an appropriate comparison.

At 1/20/03 10:41 AM, Slizor wrote: I don't trust the government because A) we have a weak form of democracy, unlike that of a socialist one and B) they have been proven untrustworthy many times.

Ahhhh so you want a stronger form of Democracry.....one with more power and the ability to crush its citizens.

You know there is nothing I love more than having the government tell me how to live. It will be so great if there was a powerful socialist system in place. I wouldn't have to think any more. The government could start by telling me where to live and where to work and then they could move on to telling me what to feel and what to think....that would truly be a Utopia.

At 1/19/03 01:56 PM, Ghaleonx5z wrote: What part of the govenment? I trust the magority but not the hole thing.

P.S. did I spell magority right?

majority....are you learning disabled or is English not your first language?

At 1/17/03 12:08 PM, Slizor wrote:

also grown more powerful than them in everything from politics to culture to economy. When we did that, we forever gained their respect.

Actually America stole most of Britain's markets during World War 1 and 2. They also totally screwed us on the whole A bomb thing.

You ingrateful little bitch! We fucking save your ass from the fucking Germans and you have the nerve to complain that the U.S. screwed you over?

Ever hear of the Marshall plan mother fucker? We rebuilt your god damned island after World War II along with the rest of Europe. You know where you would be without the U.S.? You'd be goosestepping down Downing street you herpes postule!

At 1/16/03 03:02 AM, Perseph0ne6 wrote: I think everything said here is true, but hey we're ushually the same way - defending countries from tyrants that have our oil, while China is our best buddy. That's just politics really, its survival. :\

China our best buddy?.....Yeah fucking right. They hate us and do whatever they can against the U.S. short of starting a war or getting sanctions layed on them. They are corrupt totalitarians the only reason that we don't rank them with Iraq or North Korea is because we need their trade.

At 1/19/03 05:57 AM, Slizor wrote:
Yeah, so basically you just don't have to piss off the militants! So a war on Iraq would be a bad idea!

Yes lets appease the wolves brilliant idea! Its worked so well in the past....like when that wonderful Prime Minister of yours Neville Chamberlain tried it.

Militants are pissed off by definition...leaving them alone only gives them breathing room to plan their next attrocity.

At 1/19/03 05:14 AM, TheEvilOne wrote: Damn, I was beginning to think that I was the only conservative here. My views tend to reflect the general views of the Republican party, with a few exceptions (I think marijuana should be legalized, for example).

Yes people need to realize that smoking pot and being a Republican are not mutually exclusive.

I am irritated by the Democrats, who don't seem to have a solution for anything. All they ever seem to say is "Everything sucks because of Bush". Well, tell me what YOU think you should do!

Damn straight. All I ever hear from the Democrats is "the Republicans are doing this for the rich". If they had even the slightest understanding of economics then they would realize that dumping your entire taxcut into the pockets of the poor does shit for economic stimulus.

At 1/19/03 05:40 PM, Slizor wrote:
I didn't say I don't trust government. I said I don't trust THE government. As in the current government. And I didn't say it take a lot of trust.

If you don't trust the current government why would you be willing to follow one that is entrusted with much more power (and thus control) than the current system?

At 1/19/03 02:03 PM, Slizor wrote:
Clearly my answer does not warrent this pre-prepared response. Your question was more transparent than what's in Dubya's skull.

Yes my intent was quite apparent. I guess it doesn't speek highly of you that you fell so easily for such an obvious ploy.

Do you think that people should implicitly trust their government or should they attempt to limit their government's power over them whenever possible?

At 1/18/03 06:53 PM, Slizor wrote:

Do you think that people should implicitly trust their government

I think people should trust their government until it is obvious they are untrustworthy.

As for the question of the topic. No, I do not trust the government.

Its funny that you are willing to entrust them with so much power then, because thats exactly what social engineering and socialist programs do. They give the government more and more power at the expense of the people.