Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 12/20/05 08:39 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Please elaborate on how they were unjustly started, and how they were unjustly ended.

Revolutionary war, so what you're saying is that taking land that doesn't belong to us, then complaining about how our king is treating us calls for the death of thousands? That and making our black and native american slaves to fight for a cause they don't don't believe in, so they can obtain freedom, if they don't die? that sounds peachy to me.

It really is funny your sitting on a around bitching about how you this country has no freedom, yet you don't even realize that your enjoying a sacred freedom that this country has, one many people have died to protect.

That's exactly it.... *ding ding ding* telll him what he won. All I have been fucking saying is, there has been no reason to die for those unjust causes. War is never the answer, things can be worked out in a more civial way!

So because of the actions of one man, a select individual, your going to assume that the whole religion is like that one person? So according to your logic I can say

I think I had just cause to renounce my faith. Yes I may be making that more of a personal issue. But lets say the shoe was on the other foot, lets say you were molested, I doubt you would be so willing to stand up for Catholics then. You can say actions of one man, but it has happened to hundreds of little boys, and I can't even imagine how they must feel, being betrayed by their priest... by their god.

And it's true. You I would just like to thank you for you closeminded steryotypical views, it's people like you who make the world a better place. Thank you so very much.

Ok, so when one world leader thinks "Hey, Jews are evil, lets kill them!" we should kill him for that? Well Hitler truely believed he was doing a good thing. So when others have different ideas we should kill them? if you say yes then you are a hypocrite. Every war has been started because of different beliefs and different ideas.

Like I keep one saying war is never the right idea. We should never kill.

All Africian Americans like chicken

All latinos are lazy
All Italians are mobsters
All Irishmen are drunks
All Jews are stingy with money
All Asains are bad drivers
All Muslims are terrorist
ect.

OMG! You are an idiot! God almighty!

You got it all wrong dude, here, lemme help:
All African Americans eat watermellon.
All latinos work landscaping
All Italians live with their parents
All Irishmen GET drunk and fight (slight difference)
All Jews love making money
All Asians eat fried rice (or flied lice)
All Muslims are extremists (not all necessary terrorists)

Ah, there, much better. I can sleep at night now.....

At 12/20/05 09:05 PM, Missileninja wrote: ... if you say yes then you are a hypocrite. Every war has been started because of different beliefs and different ideas.

I meant if you say no.

At 12/20/05 08:33 PM, deathofself wrote: Perhaps the Gulf War was unjust, and there are questions about the government knew about Peral Harbor, but how was the Revolutionary War unjust? Last I checked, that war was about the injustices that were being inflicted on us by the British.

Check what I posted already about that.

Why do Asians need there own channel? In fact, why does ANYONE need there own channel? Far as I can see, that's more segregation. If we're so big on unity, why do we need seperate things for people with different ethnic backgrounds?

True no one needs their own channels, and it's things like that, that do divide us. but the point I was making is, that here in the US, everyone is looked down upon if they aren't white. You can tell me till you're blue in the face that isn't true, but sadly it is. We fill quotas at jobs or colleges so as not to get sued.

Racism will probably be around forever. I'm not a racist personally, but it's something that's been around for as long as there have been different groups of people. Some people just can't get over it.

Yes it will be around forever. Even when everyone says "I'm not racist."

Well, your entitled to your opinion, but 5 bucks says you wouldn't move to Iraq or some other country that impose such rules. Remember that this country GIVES you the right to speak freely. It's not an automatic thing.

I'm not even going to lie and say I could stand living in Iraq instead. But the fact still remains, the United States is not as free as some believe, it's not as wonderful as some think.

Sorry for your loss, but by hating Catholics, aren't you falling prey to the things you were just preaching about two paragraphs ago? Prejudice doesn't just happen with race, you know. You saying you truly hate Catholics makes a mockery of the values you stated before.

That's different though. I was Catholic, I have Catholic family members. But to not like a certain religion because of something that happened to me.... to someone I loved. That's different. I will not tell someone to not be Catholic, I will not kill Catholics for that reason... and yes I sort of attacked the other guy for his religion and I do apologize.

At 12/20/05 09:05 PM, Missileninja wrote:

At 12/20/05 08:39 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

Revolutionary war, so what you're saying is that taking land that doesn't belong to us, then complaining about how our king is treating us calls for the death of thousands? That and making our black and native american slaves to fight for a cause they don't don't believe in, so they can obtain freedom, if they don't die? that sounds peachy to me.

I think you just really proved how stupid you are. That fighting and dieing for the essential librties that every person should have is unjust, that looking to make ones self free from oppression is unjust. It's really quite funny, I do insist that you go on and speak of subjects you know nothing about.

That's exactly it.... *ding ding ding* telll him what he won. All I have been fucking saying is, there has been no reason to die for those unjust causes. War is never the answer, things can be worked out in a more civial way!

Right, all we had to do in WWII was sit Hitler down and give him a stern talking to something like this maybe?

Allies: Now Hitler, it's our understanding that you've been killing murdering all the Jews lately.

Hitler: So?

Allies: Well that's not really good you know? Could you please stop killing all the Jews?

Hitler: Okay, since you guys asked so nicely, I'll stop.

Yeah, not going to happen. The only way to stop Hitler was through war.

I think I had just cause to renounce my faith. Yes I may be making that more of a personal issue. But lets say the shoe was on the other foot, lets say you were molested, I doubt you would be so willing to stand up for Catholics then. You can say actions of one man, but it has happened to hundreds of little boys, and I can't even imagine how they must feel, being betrayed by their priest... by their god.

I wouldn't say all Catholics are bad, or that they're all sick and twisted people. Nor would I say the whole religion is sick and twisted. Hell the world trade center was attacked by people procailming they were doing it in the name of god. So what would it be like if all the people effected by that attack instantly assumed that all muslims were bad people based on the actions of a few. .

Ok, so when one world leader thinks "Hey, Jews are evil, lets kill them!" we should kill him for that? Well Hitler truely believed he was doing a good thing. So when others have different ideas we should kill them? if you say yes then you are a hypocrite. Every war has been started because of different beliefs and different ideas.

Like I keep one saying war is never the right idea. We should never kill.

People can have whatever ideas they want, they can talk about them, express their feeling on them, hey its a free country. But when they start acting on violent ideas and begin to hurt the innoccent that's were I draw the line. Then it's time to take action. I really want you to think hard and try to apply you logic to what Hilter did.. But because I know you have limited thinking capablity I'll provide you an example of how it goes.

Some person: Wow, Hilters killing millions of Jews, we should really put a stop to that

You: Oh no he's just expressing diffrent views form other people and we should do nothing, he dosen't need to stop if he thinks it's right.

No joke, that's your logic.

At 12/20/05 09:05 PM, Missileninja wrote:

Ok, so when one world leader thinks "Hey, Jews are evil, lets kill them!" we should kill him for that? Well Hitler truely believed he was doing a good thing. So when others have different ideas we should kill them? if you say yes then you are a hypocrite.

Hitler acted out of hatred, and acts of hate are never "doing a good thing". He believed the Jews to be of an "inferior race", i.e. racism.

Damnit, you can't have it all. Sometimes one must die for the good of the many. If you had the chance to kill Hitler and didn't, the blood of everyone that he killed or commanded to be killed would be on YOUR hands.

At 12/20/05 09:23 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

At 12/20/05 09:05 PM, Missileninja wrote:

Oh lets put this in a way you might be able to understand. Cause to be honest you are twisting my words, and the point I'm making is wizzing past you.

I have from the start said war is morally wrong. There is no reason to start a war, and there is no reason to fight a war. Things can be worked out in a more civial way, and if you doubt that, why haven't we killed each other...? why haven't I killed that kid at school the other day who stole my milk?

Voilence is a bad way to fix things. Killing is a worse way. If things can not be solved any other way cause of pig headed stubborn people like you, then kill. Kill who ever you want. Kill that guy who cuts in line, or that girl who spends too much time in the bathroom. Cause obviously death to all is the only thing you understand!

I never stood up for Hitler, I simply said he thought nothing he did was morally wrong. And it's people like him, and people like you that cause wars. It'll be people like you, that will never find non-voilent ways to fix the world's problems. We are doomed if you are truely our last hope.

I have nothing else to say to you, this has been mind numbly retarded and you have nothing more to say then "blah blah kill blah war is just blah blah."

Thanks for proving to me that this world is doomed. Peace can never be obtained, we will all be blown up when our enemies make more advanced weapons.

At 12/20/05 09:24 PM, deathofself wrote: Damnit, you can't have it all. Sometimes one must die for the good of the many. If you had the chance to kill Hitler and didn't, the blood of everyone that he killed or commanded to be killed would be on YOUR hands.

So. I never said I wouldn't do it. I said it was morally wrong and it's something I would wish to avoid for as long as I live. If I had a clean shot on Hitler and I know he was about to/has killed a lot of people.... though technically he killed no one. I would certainally take that shot. But I would be blood guilty.

Death is death. The death of one or the death of millions, both is still wrong.

At 12/20/05 09:36 PM, Missileninja wrote:

I never stood up for Hitler, I simply said he thought nothing he did was morally wrong.

He didn't think about it. He didn't care. He HATED something, and tried to get rid of it. That's the exact base thinking that your trying to be against. How can you still support it?

Thanks for proving to me that this world is doomed. Peace can never be obtained, we will all be blown up when our enemies make more advanced weapons.

Peace can never work. Human nature is to want more than the other guy, to be the best. Some will kill for it. Others won't. Either way, fighting happens. Peace will never happen.

At 12/19/05 05:27 PM, peedee wrote: Coward, or brave?

Um, how bout stupid?

At 12/20/05 09:45 PM, Missileninja wrote:

Death is death. The death of one or the death of millions, both is still wrong.

Make the choice. Which would you rather be guilty for? Both suck, that's true, and killing should be avoided when possible, but sometimes the choice must be made.

At 12/20/05 09:36 PM, Missileninja wrote:

At 12/20/05 09:23 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote:

At 12/20/05 09:05 PM, Missileninja wrote:

Oh lets put this in a way you might be able to understand. Cause to be honest you are twisting my words, and the point I'm making is wizzing past you.

I have from the start said war is morally wrong. There is no reason to start a war, and there is no reason to fight a war. Things can be worked out in a more civial way, and if you doubt that, why haven't we killed each other...? why haven't I killed that kid at school the other day who stole my milk?

Since when have I said violence was the answer to everything? I do beleive it is you who seem to be twisting words. I've been disagreeing with your assumption that war is never justified. Violence and war are sometimes nessecary, yes in a perfect world they wouldn't be, but the world is far from perfect if you have yet to notice.

Voilence is a bad way to fix things. Killing is a worse way. If things can not be solved any other way cause of pig headed stubborn people like you, then kill. Kill who ever you want. Kill that guy who cuts in line, or that girl who spends too much time in the bathroom. Cause obviously death to all is the only thing you understand!

Since when have I said you should go about killing others over such trivial things as somebody using the bathroom to long? I've said that killing is justified when your life and freedom is at risk, and only when that is the only option. You have to realize, not all things can be solved diplomatically.

I never stood up for Hitler, I simply said he thought nothing he did was morally wrong. And it's people like him, and people like you that cause wars. It'll be people like you, that will never find non-voilent ways to fix the world's problems. We are doomed if you are truely our last hope.

People like me don't cause wars. People like myself fight and die in wars, so you have the freedom to get on the internet and bitch about how stupid we are and how we are all immoral people. People like myself preffer to see a diplomatic resolution rather then a violent one, but realize that sometimes violence is the only answer. People like yourself who think that everything can be solved without ever taking action are the kind of people who lead to the rise of Hitler, you preach a policy of appeasment.

I have nothing else to say to you, this has been mind numbly retarded and you have nothing more to say then "blah blah kill blah war is just blah blah."

It seems that my point appears to be wizzing by your head, and not the other way aroudn as you have previously stated.

Thanks for proving to me that this world is doomed. Peace can never be obtained, we will all be blown up when our enemies make more advanced weapons.

Of course peace will never be obtained, only the dead have seen the end of war. But it dosen't mean one should stop striving for it, and most unfortently sometimes for there to be peace there must first be violence. How does the old quote go? "If you want peace prepear for war"

At 12/20/05 09:05 PM, Missileninja wrote: Revolutionary war, so what you're saying is that taking land that doesn't belong to us,

And tell me, who did it belong to? The natives? They lost it the french and indian war.

That and making our black and native american slaves to fight for a cause they don't don't believe in, so they can obtain freedom, if they don't die? that sounds peachy to me.

The natives where employed by the english to fight against americans to retrieve their home. They didnt fight against their will.

At 12/20/05 09:58 PM, Blackhawkdown wrote: Since when have I said violence was the answer to everything? I do beleive it is you who seem to be twisting words. I've been disagreeing with your assumption that war is never justified. Violence and war are sometimes nessecary, yes in a perfect world they wouldn't be, but the world is far from perfect if you have yet to notice.

Sometimes war is justified, yes. But it is never morally right, that is what I have been screaming at a brick wall to for about an hour. If someone is trying to kill you, kill them Yes kill them, but that doesn't make it right, it justifies it, but it's still morally wrong. If god existed, you would still be blood guilty for it. He isn't going to say, you did good lad, carry on!

Since when have I said you should go about killing others over such trivial things as somebody using the bathroom to long? I've said that killing is justified when your life and freedom is at risk, and only when that is the only option. You have to realize, not all things can be solved diplomatically.

I was being sarcstic, wars have been started over lovers. Wars have been started over land. Those I think are stupid reasons to kill over.

People like me don't cause wars. People like myself fight and die in wars, so you have the freedom to get on the internet and bitch about how stupid we are and how we are all immoral people. People like myself preffer to see a diplomatic resolution rather then a violent one, but realize that sometimes violence is the only answer.

Then go and die for a country that doesn't give a rats ass about you. You would have died in vane casue another war will just start years from now, where even more will die "To keep freedom."

People like yourself who think that everything can be solved without ever taking action are the kind of people who lead to the rise of Hitler, you preach a policy of appeasment.

I never said action wasn't needed, I said it was never morally right. If a stand must be taken it should be, but does the life of another make an equivalent exchange? I'll give you that much, sometimes war is needed, but half the wars that have been started weren't nessicery, and people died for no reason. I just personally think words can prove a more useful tool. "The pen is mightier than the sword."

It seems that my point appears to be wizzing by your head, and not the other way aroudn as you have previously stated.

NO I stand by what I said. You aren't getting me, you don't understand, and you never will.

Of course peace will never be obtained, only the dead have seen the end of war. But it dosen't mean one should stop striving for it, and most unfortently sometimes for there to be peace there must first be violence. How does the old quote go? "If you want peace prepear for war"

That quote is so moronic. That's how Hitler felt... kill off all those you hate, then you will find peace.

At 12/20/05 06:59 PM, Missileninja wrote:

At 12/20/05 03:02 AM, Samuel_HALL wrote: I'm glad you did this. I can now proceed with your discredidation.

You're a fucking douche bag, I just want you to know that.

I never claimed to be anice guy.

You don't always need to kill someone to defend yourself.

Not always, no. But sometimes you don't have a choice.

No, even then you don't need to.

That's so ignorant. You're saying the taking of a life is never justified.

That shows what a naive child you really are. Don't worry...you'll feel different, as you gain some wordly experience.

If someone has a gun pointed at you, and you have one pointed at them, instead of dodging that bullet and running away to safety, you kill them, you committed murder. I don't care if it's war related or not.

Of course it's murder. It's the taking of a life.
And it'd be justified, too.

That's not justified you moron. Just cause someone is willing to take your life, doesn't mean you should take theirs.

Says who? Where do you get this stuff from?

You sound so fucking silly. 'Oh, you should just dodge the bullet and run away!"

Ok, fine bad example.

I'll say.

Instead of blowing that sick mother fucker away, and being as low and sick and twisted as that other guy. Shoot him in the fucking legs, blow out his knee caps and run for safety.

Why? A man who's willing to take my life deserves no better than his own will.

Violence is never the answer, there are always ways to settle something in a calm collected maner.

That's the mindset of a pacifist, and a coward.
Which are really synonoums for the same things, yes?

Life is precious,

That's nothing but your opinion. And frankly, I'm tired of hearing from everyone about the 'sanctity of life'.

So life isn't precious?

No, it's not.

ok, fine, you'll be the first person I ever kill, hows that sound? I will not sleep till you're dead, and when you are, I will just show your family what you said about life not being precious and how it's ok, cause I'm not a coward for taking your life.

Those who seek to murder their fellow man, in cold-blood, shall face the fate the dole out. Even if you kill me, my government would take your life for it.

You'd die either way. Either I'd kill you in self-defense, or you'd be executed by the state for premeditated murder. Your life would be snuffed, regardless.

I have nothing else to say to you. You obviously don't get it, so please kill all the people you want to.

I don't want to take a life. I've just said I would, if I had to (war, intruders in my home, someone looking to take my life, etc).

It's funny cause you laugh about it now.

No one's laughing at anything.

But wait till that time comes, lets see if you can pull the trigger.

Of course I would. I don't value the lives of the enemies of America (true enemies of America...not bullshit third-world countires who don't matter at all). I don't value the lives of those who seek to murder and rob my family. I don't value the lives of rapists, or habitual thieves, or racists.

They are not 'precious'. People like that aren't 'sacred'.

They're fucking scum, who deserve to be treated as such.

At 12/20/05 06:59 PM, Missileninja wrote:

Not always, no. But sometimes you don't have a choice.

No, even then you don't need to.

If someone has a gun pointed at you, and you have one pointed at them, instead of dodging that bullet and running away to safety, you kill them, you committed murder. I don't care if it's war related or not.

Of course it's murder. It's the taking of a life.
And it'd be justified, too.

That's not justified you moron. Just cause someone is willing to take your life, doesn't mean you should take theirs.

You sound so fucking silly. 'Oh, you should just dodge the bullet and run away!"

Ok, fine bad example. Maybe this sounds better to you, you fucking cum dumpster. Instead of blowing that sick mother fucker away, and being as low and sick and twisted as that other guy. Shoot him in the fucking legs, blow out his knee caps and run for safety.

This is just stupid. Plain and simple. He refutes all your points, you call him a cum dumpster. He is one hundred percent correct. If you have one shot, you go for the kill shot. Otherwise, don't bother shooting. To not kill an evil person to save lives is, in itself, evil. Despite your idiotic comment, there is not always an alternative to violence. You're looking at things from a childlike delusional view. Even in school, you couldn't neccessarily reason with a bully. They wanted to fight and they fought. You had two choices, fight back or get your ass kicked. So, now, in the real world, and not your fantasy, there are these same types of people who CAN'T be reasoned with. Bullies for one, evil people, insane or sick people. If you think you can reason with a crazy person, your comments are no longer worth listening to, they have no value. Only a fool puts a cop who shoots someone to save a life on the same level as a serial killer. That's childish and dangerous (if someone like you gets into making policy). Your comments show you have little understanding of what the real world is like. Only someone insulated from violence thinks theres "always an alternative". If someone threatens the lives of my family or friends, I'm not going to waste time "talking them down". If I have a gun, I take them down. That's real world, it's the right solution.
As for applying this to war: Hitler would not have stopped....ever. Nor would Saddam. Or the murderers in Rwanda. We see what happens when fools sit back and try to "reason" with insane or evil dictators and murderers. Innocent people die...by the thousands, tens of thousands, or even millions. Even from a religious perspective: ALL religions except for maybe Buddhism see war as a neccessary thing, and all understand that killing in self-defense is a neccessary thing, except for again maybe Buddhism.
Stop talking like a child and grow up.

...paragraphs please>.<

well yeah god is pretty fucked up if he calls you a murderer when you just saved the entire fucking human race from being blown to bits by a dictator with big red button which would launch enough nukes to fuck the world over twice. You killed him thus saved the human race but in the process becoming as bad as him, well all i could say if fuck you god where were you on that lazy ass of yours? i hate it when people envision god that way.....

Hitler did see the jews as inferior, that is how he morally saw them but there is a big difference i like to think alot of people would know. if i dislike pain and i can cause it to others yet i know others can do it to me, should i do it to them if i think it is morally right? yet as the same time if i am being hurt and bitch what is the difference?

i think there is a big difference between morally and just fucked up, hitler was fucked up no need to argue there.

War is never right in most cases but come on, if you have a hitler like dictator in charge doing what he did then yes it is right to strike back. Why is it right? well your pretty much saving the entire human race could be an awnser. Whats makes you better than the troops that are killing and raping if you kill one to end the suffering of those inocents? well for start it shows you have fucking humanity and morals, you are justified and better than the person you killed as you put an end to the suffering and pain by taking out its god damn cause as how could you reason with someone like that?

you could sit back and retain your morals while your little sister is being raped three ways infront of you and to others in the world by this force, or you can fucking take to arms and join other countries to prevent it from happening to more and your families.

your choice is that moral to declare war on that force?

At 12/21/05 09:11 AM, Jinzoa wrote: ...paragraphs please>.<

"War is never right in most cases but come on, [...]":

Whoa! Get some grammar lessons QUICK!!

:" you could sit back and retain your morals while your little sister is being raped three ways infront of you and to others in the world by this force, or you can fucking take to arms and join other countries to prevent it from happening to more and your families"

Sounds like someone was having a bit of a fantasy moment about their sister, which stirred them into a bit of a sexual frenzy of desire for war against the oppressors. Calm down!! Wars are never fought by the people who started them, so retaliation in the form of war, no matter how "justified" it might seem, always has an unjustifiable human cost. I think its much "stronger" to not retaliate, for example against terrorists in the form of wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but instead do the much less sexy thing (but perhaps more JUST thing) and track down the people who actually perpetuated the crimes, by legal means, and prosecute them, with the full cooperation of the International community. I personally think George W. Bush is far less interested in strengthening the World community's commitment to "justice" than using tanks and weapons as his own personal masturbation devises, which is sort of like a rape, since he's ejaculating on countries and people who have no interest in consenting to his advances. Just to put the whole debate in metaphorical terms. Best, h-d

At 12/21/05 10:39 AM, H-Dawg wrote:

At 12/21/05 09:11 AM, Jinzoa wrote: ...paragraphs please>.<

"War is never right in most cases but come on, [...]":

Whoa! Get some grammar lessons QUICK!!

" you could sit back and retain your morals while your little sister is being raped three ways infront of you and to others in the world by this force, or you can fucking take to arms and join other countries to prevent it from happening to more and your families"

Sounds like someone was having a bit of a fantasy moment about their sister, which stirred them into a bit of a sexual frenzy of desire for war against the oppressors. Calm down!! Wars are never fought by the people who started them, so retaliation in the form of war, no matter how "justified" it might seem, always has an unjustifiable human cost. I think its much "stronger" to not retaliate, for example against terrorists in the form of wars against Afghanistan and Iraq, but instead do the much less sexy thing (but perhaps more JUST thing) and track down the people who actually perpetuated the crimes, by legal means, and prosecute them, with the full cooperation of the International community. I personally think George W. Bush is far less interested in strengthening the World community's commitment to "justice" than using tanks and weapons as his own personal masturbation devises, which is sort of like a rape, since he's ejaculating on countries and people who have no interest in consenting to his advances. Just to put the whole debate in metaphorical terms. Best, h-d

Well, that was enlightened. So, tell me. We're killing and capturing al Quida members (and al Quida was the one that did 9/11), so tell me how we're not doing exactly what you said. Al Quida is heavy in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but whatever. You have no logical argument so you make childish little sexual remarks. Contribute something worthwhile or don't waste our time.

At 12/21/05 10:39 AM, H-Dawg wrote:

At 12/21/05 09:11 AM, Jinzoa wrote: ...paragraphs please>.<

"War is never right in most cases but come on, [...]":

Whoa! Get some grammar lessons QUICK!!

" you could sit back and retain your morals while your little sister is being raped three ways infront of you and to others in the world by this force, or you can fucking take to arms and join other countries to prevent it from happening to more and your families"

Sounds like someone was having a bit of a fantasy moment about their sister, which stirred them into a bit of a sexual frenzy of desire for war against the oppressors. Calm down!! Wars are never fought by the people who started them, so retaliation in the form of war, no matter how "justified" it might seem, always has an unjustifiable human cost.

Uh yeah sure just let me clarify that the force being another hitler regieme declaring war on weaker neighbouring countries and doing the whole raping our women and gassing people(jew style)(no offense to any jews if it sounds wrong) and have camps put up etc like world war two. Contemplate that force.

At 12/18/05 07:34 PM, PCHoliday wrote: Perhaps with today's technology, war is never moral under any circumstance. We have smart bombs today, but they still take innocent lives from time to time. Does that mean that any war in total is immoral, or are just the individual acts of killing civilians immoral?

Have you thought of the possbility that ancient holy scriptures are obsolete and ave no place in todays society?

At 12/18/05 07:34 PM, PCHoliday wrote: In the Qur'an, God okays war as long as it is for reasons of self-defense, but war is only okay under strict guidelines. For example: absolutely no innocents must die. Women and children must be spared under any and all circumstances. It doesn't say, "unless their is a stray bullet," or "unless it was a total accident." It says no women and children, at all, and no men if they are not combatants.

well, it looks like the palestinians are the kind, caring people that the american media portrays them as. they couldnt do anyhting like that, its against the Qur'an!

Back in the day, war was conducted mainly with swords, horses, jousts, perhaps a bow and arrow or a catapult. In World War II, it was fought with tons of bombs dropped by airplanes.

WW2 was entirely justified on the part of some of the allied powers. SOME. America was certianly right because we were sneak attacked.

Perhaps with today's technology, war is never moral under any circumstance. We have smart bombs today, but they still take innocent lives from time to time. Does that mean that any war in total is immoral, or are just the individual acts of killing civilians immoral?

War is still moral, but only the type of war that ends amazingly quickly. for instance, the war in iraq was over in a couple of weeks. There is a diffculty in defining a justified war. a holy war is not a good idea, because that leads to the slaughter of innocents (palestinian jihad).
mostly though, war by modern armies is alright because it is for a very good reason.

At 12/21/05 04:01 PM, Joodah wrote:

a holy war is not a good idea, because that leads to the slaughter of innocents (palestinian jihad).

Off topic perhaps, but I've got to do this: the Palestinians aren't fighting a holy war. Their struggle isn't referred to as a jihad, but as an intifada (uprising). It's about their land which was taken from them 57 years ago (longer when taking the Balfour declaration into consideration) and about the way they're being treated by the Israelis, not about the holiness of the land.

Even more of topic: props for naming Papa Roach as one of your favourite bands

At 12/18/05 07:46 PM, Jordannguyen wrote: I think that even with as many rules that one could cram into a war, someone innocent is going to die. In my opinion, I dont think there shouldnt be any form of war.

No war eh? Without war, the U.S.A. wouldn't exist, we would still be oppressed(SP?) by the English kings. There are some wars that need to be fought.

War is an inevitable thing. People will always have something to fight about, and if that person has enough power, wars will be started. You don't even have to leave the country to find wars, there are rival gangs that kill each other, Mafia territory fights, drug wars, etc. War is just another part of human existance, and it has to be dealt with as such. I'm not trying to say it's a good thing, but it's something that won't change.

Well, that was enlightened. So, tell me. We're killing and capturing al Quida members (and al Quida was the one that did 9/11), so tell me how we're not doing exactly what you said. Al Quida is heavy in both Iraq and Afghanistan, but whatever.

I'll tell ya: Bush's war is against "terrorism" in general, and "terrorists" in particular. How exactly do we define "terror" or "terrorists?" Nobody can: those terms are too emotionally loaded, and don't really mean anything in the end. An old adage: one person's terrorist is another person's freedom-fighter, or even another person's legitimate state-backed soldier. Take for example the U.S. This is the only nation in the world--and this is well documented and nothing new--that has been convicted by the World Court for terrorism against another nation. That was when the U.S. went against international law and invaded Nicaragua. The war in Iraq is also against International law, by the way. Noam Chomsky has made the point in several articles and books, most recently in _Power and Terror_, that the best way for the U.S. to stop terrorism is to stop participating in it. That may seem shocking, but think about all the innocent civilians that were bombed and killed in the U.S. led wars on Afghanistan, not to mention the unfolding disaster, both for Iraqi citizens and American soldiers, in Iraq. (Forget, for a moment, that Osama Bin Laden was for years funded and armed by the U.S., as was Saddam Houssein. Those two were created by the U.S.--kinda ironic, eh?) "Al Qaeda" as a group really means very little--anyone could throw a malotov cocktail and no one would even notice, but if they call themselves a member of Al Qaeda, every God-fearing U.S. citizen freaks out, and calls for an "orange alert." Come on, lets get over it! The war on terror is just a freak show which helped George Bush, a collosal disaster as a president and an evangelical nut, get elected for a second term by scarring the U.S. public into submission. The fact that the U.S. made the collosal mistake of going to "war" over it (whatever the hell IT is) just shows that the terrorists really won--we're all so terrified we can't see that the emperor (Bush--who really is the leader of a global Empire) doesn't have any clothes on, or any brains, or heart... /H-D out.

At 12/21/05 05:58 PM, deathofself wrote: War is an inevitable thing. People will always have something to fight about, and if that person has enough power, wars will be started. You don't even have to leave the country to find wars, there are rival gangs that kill each other, Mafia territory fights, drug wars, etc. War is just another part of human existance, and it has to be dealt with as such. I'm not trying to say it's a good thing, but it's something that won't change.

That sounds pathetically synical. Would the world be less "human" without slaughter, carnage and violent arrogance? I think war could be meaningfully outlawed, or kept drastically in check, except that governments see too much profit in it to stop it, which is stupid. We as a species need an ethical overhaul that doesn't accept a cold, calculated neoliberal, neocapitalist "realism"--the bottom-line $ or death--as the "unseen hand" "naturally" guiding human affairs. Lets pick some better founding principles. I'd rather watch war in the movies, then come home to a comfortable bed and my family still alive and intact, thank-you. /H-D out.

At 12/21/05 09:16 PM, H-Dawg wrote:

That sounds pathetically synical. Would the world be less "human" without slaughter, carnage and violent arrogance?

I think so. Arrogance, hatred, and such other things that cause war are human flaws. "Human" doesn't always add up to "humane".

:I think war could be meaningfully outlawed, or kept drastically in check, except that governments see too much profit in it to stop it, which is stupid.

I agree with you that wars for profit are stupid and should be stopped. But I don't think that war on the whole can be outlawed, or kept in check. There are laws against rape and murder too. They still happen. When prohibition came around, MORE people drank than they did when there was no ban on alcohol.

:We as a species need an ethical overhaul that doesn't accept a cold, calculated neoliberal, neocapitalist "realism"--the bottom-line $ or death--as the "unseen hand" "naturally" guiding human affairs. Lets pick some better founding principles.

Would that be nice? Yes, it would be nice where war was something that wouldn't happen, for any reason. Do I see it ever happening? Nope. There will always be someone willing to rise to power and use that to further their own gains, often in the form of a warlord or some other militant faction.

:I'd rather watch war in the movies, then come home to a comfortable bed and my family still alive and intact, thank-you.

Wouldn't we all. But luckly, most of us aren't enlisted in any sort of military, so we do get to come home to our families.

Perhaps you're right. Of course you're right--war is a part of humanity, and makes "peace," "love," and such things possible by serving as their orienting opposites. But maybe its also important to think idealistically, maybe even utopically, and completely reject (and thereby really embrace) such things, in such a way that by not accepting them as truly human--instead showing them to be what they are: merely the arbitrary binary opposites of our equally flawed and screwed up concepts of peace and freedom--that we might truly change democratic and humanistic thinking for the better. This will probably involve throwing out our flawed, outdated ideas about "freedom" and "democracy," even "humanity," because they obviously are really linked with perpetual war and evil. For example, George Bush's concept of "freedom" translates into the bombing of innocent Iraqi citizens and families, and the animalization/dehumanization of those even suspected of terrorism, whatever that means. This is all part of humanity, and democracy as we know it. So "democracy" and "humanity" are really code-words for Western hegemony and violent control: in other words, those who don't conform to "democratic principles," or fall within a narrowly U.S. defined concept of acceptable "humanity" (and religions that don't conform to basic evangelical Christian values don't fit this criteria, nor do homosexuals, women who want to have voluntary abortions, non-U.S. friendly "freedom fighters"--all of these are essentially not a part of acceptable humanity, or livable life, according to George Bush). No universal concept like "humanity" really characterizes any of its members accurately. How could it? Every individual is, well, individual, and their singular "humanity" exists really to the extent that they are not a part of any general classification or universalized concept that would rob them of their individuality. Maybe the horrors of war are a result of the limitations and paradoxes of what we call "peace" and "humanity." /HD

You are forgetting a major flaw in your argument. The Bible also tells of the Wall of Jericho and how God commanded Joshua to kill EVERYONE inside the walls of the promised land.

http://www.christian../q-abr/abr-a011.html

http://biblia.com/jesusbible/joshua3d.htm

It is simply not logical to say "All war is immoral" or "All war is ..." because in some cases it is and in others it is not.

At 12/20/05 12:04 AM, Missileninja wrote: If someone has a gun pointed at you, and you have one pointed at them, instead of dodging that bullet and running away to safety, you kill them, you committed murder.

Yeah? And how the fuck you plan on dodging something that is moving in the range of 1000 m/s? Fuckin ninja tricks?

Jeez, bro. You make no sense. This shit we call life isnt Hollywood. You aint Vin Diesel. You aint Schwernzeneger. You aint Bruce Willis.

You WILL die if a bullet is shot at you from point blank range.

Yeah, and your views are completly ridiculous. Go hug a tree you wackjob.