Anyone here attend the protests?

[P-Chan]

Aside from myself, did any newgrounders here attend or even see any of the protests today? This was a world wide peace rally that was against any war in Iraq. It was BIG. I think the biggest in the world so far.

[swayside]

i'm all for world peace, but with the condition that the word is in, it's NOT going to get that way without a war. when you have any people trying to kill someone just because they're whatever, the world will not be at peace. peace does not just mean no war. it means the absense of militant ill will .

[Slizor]

i'm all for world peace, but with the condition that the word is in, it's NOT going to get that way without a war. when you have any people trying to kill someone just because they're whatever, the world will not be at peace. peace does not just mean no war. it means the absense of militant ill will.

Yeah, so basically you just don't have to piss off the militants! So a war on Iraq would be a bad idea!

No I didn't go to the protests yesterday. However, the net big one is on Feb 16th which I'm headed down to London for.

[P-Chan]

At 1/19/03 01:40 AM, swayside wrote: i'm all for world peace, but with the condition that the word is in, it's NOT going to get that way without a war. when you have any people trying to kill someone just because they're whatever, the world will not be at peace.

What group of people are you refering to when you say "people trying to kill someone just because they're whatever"?

peace does not just mean no war. it means the absense of militant ill will .

[TheloniousMONK]

I imagine he means most of the countries in the world. Iraqis killing Israelis and vice versa. Americans WANTING to kill most Arabs. North Koreans WANING to kill Americans, South Koreans, Japanese... Prejudice will never be rid of, so consequently peace on a worldly scale will never be reached.

[implodinggoat]

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.

[Zio-Shirai]

nope, here in costa rica and without an army, not much of this stuff happens, if there would be a big protest i would even think to attend to it

[evilshark27]

At 1/18/03 10:13 PM, P-Chan wrote: Aside from myself, did any newgrounders here attend or even see any of the protests today? This was a world wide peace rally that was against any war in Iraq. It was BIG. I think the biggest in the world so far.

No, I didn't but I sure wanted to. Tell ya the truth I would have drove up their but I didn't have any money so I would have been sleeping in my car with no gas money.

Please forgive me.I didn't mean to starttan arguent.In the biggest day of protest the world has yet seen against a war in Iraq, from Washington to Tokyo, Liverpool to Damascus, hundreds of thousands of demonstrators across four continents took to the streets yesterday.

The US was the scene of the biggest anti-war demonstration of George Bush's presidency, with tens of thousands of people braving freezing weather to join protests in Washington, San Francisco and other cities, despite the near-unanimous support for war on Capitol Hill and in the US media.

[ChocolateChipClock]

At 1/18/03 10:13 PM, P-Chan wrote: Aside from myself, did any newgrounders here attend or even see any of the protests today? This was a world wide peace rally that was against any war in Iraq. It was BIG. I think the biggest in the world so far.

i didnt attend the protest, but i do agree with them.

[Slizor]

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.

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).

[implodinggoat]

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.

[Slizor]

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.

Face it the United States is a scapegoat for the wrongs of their own corrupt, fascist governments.

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.

[implodinggoat]

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.

[FAdErCrUsAdER]

You might as well enlist for the army because the protest will not stop the war from happening. For instance people were going nuts when they were protesting against the war in Vietnam eventually they had a war.

[Slizor]

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.

Please explain how it is "ass backward".

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.

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

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.

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.

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

Why should their culture excuse their inhuman acts?

Does it? No, there has been condemnation by some countries in the Middle East.

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?

Yassar Arafat is not a terrorist, nor funds them. (Interesting side note, Henry Kissinger has a nobel peace prize.)

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.

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.

[implodinggoat]

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.

[Slizor]

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 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.

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

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.

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

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.

There are many ways of eroding cultures.

Yassar Arafat is not a terrorist, nor funds them.

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

Bhull-sheat.

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?

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.

No, he was given that gas and he used it on the Kurds.

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!

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.

We spend $500,000 a piece on laser guided bombs explictly with the purpose of reducing civilian casulties.

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

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.

and we got out of that war with very few civivilian casulties.

Do you have any stats on this, or is this a guestimate based on the amount of news coverage?

[Ununilium]

Dammit, I wish you could just see. Regardless of the important civilians in other countries, killing people is not right unless there is a just cause. I dont care if we kill an entire country over a good war, but I do care about the fact that terrorism killed 3000+ americans in the 9-11 Tragedy. 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. Do you think thats wrong? If you dont, then you yourself are a murderer.

[FreedomSlave]

No I didn't go to the protests yesterday. However, the net big one is on Feb 16th which I'm headed down to London for.

Myself and a few friend are attending the Feb 16th protests. see you there :)

[Slizor]

Dammit, I wish you could just see. Regardless of the important civilians in other countries, killing people is not right unless there is a just cause. I dont care if we kill an entire country over a good war, but I do care about the fact that terrorism killed 3000+ americans in the 9-11 Tragedy.

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?

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.

Do you think thats wrong? If you dont, then you yourself are a murderer.

What is it with this Bush logic!? "People who support terrorists are terrorists themselves." It doesn't make any sense!

[implodinggoat]

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.

[implodinggoat]

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.

[Slizor]

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.

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.

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?"

Because there are no statistics it does not give you free reign to make up them from what your hear from the American news.

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.

How so?

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

Strange, can't seem to find a source on that. All I can find is him calling for an end to military incursions and suicide bombings... Not that it matters anyhow, since you still haven't proved that he supports Hamas.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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

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.

[Slizor]

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.

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

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

Warped? Hah.

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.

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.

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.

Yes, of course they would! They wouldn't be run be American supported warlords!

[clownfish]

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:
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?

[implodinggoat]

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?

[implodinggoat]

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.

[implodinggoat]

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.

[clownfish]

Yes, the right of declaring war is the right of a country, but still it is so that Bush wants support from the UN. Of course his homey Blair immediatly said yes. This whole thing makes me think about what the other countries would do in the unprobable case, but a possibility none the less, that US started making their own rules about the world. How do you think Europeans felt when USSR and USA were deciding who would get what country? Oh, okay, if you give us half of Berlin, you can have Polen. This is exactly the same, US acts as if they own England, and England acts as if they own the world. What if Bush declares war on France, because they refuse to export wine to America, or Holland, because they don't want to export cheese?