Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

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.

Swayside would you please stop using your blanket terms such as "Muslims" or "Arabs", this is not a matter of being PC, just C. Is the "modern age" a euphimism for America? Or can you actually define it? Would it be such ideas as say...not using capital punishment?

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by the term "ass-backwards" is that the manner in which it is practiced in the Middle east is over a thousand years out of date.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

Where is this intolerance of other cultures and other religions? Palestinians are both Christian and Muslim, yet they get along fine.

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.

Intent is a very big part of morality.

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.

I do not and never have supported OBL, do not try to put me on his side. I sit in a grey area thinking everyone is wrong.

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.

*cough* Yes, of course not!

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.

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)

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.

The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over THREE TIMES!

e took down an assemblage of corrupt fascists and helped to institute a democratic government. How can you call that a bad cause?

It is not a democratic government, however, I have little information on it due to the media blackout. Nice!

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

Hah, an election every four years really scares people!

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.

Well that's what happens when you arm people like that.

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.

No, my analogy is refering to the Middle East.

Nato dealt with them in two weeks in 93.

1991.

How long would it take this time with the just the United States....three weeks maybe four?

Speed is not indicitave of deaths. I'll have a look, but I think Iraq lost 150'000 people in the last war. Don't hold me to that figure though.

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.

Yes! That is what I want! I don't like Saddam, but I don't like unilateral US involvement! I want a Humanitarian Nation-building campaign. To set Iraq up properly.

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 1/24/03 10:19 AM, Slizor wrote:

In the United States the people control their government through elections

Hah, an election every four years really scares people!

Yes it scares the fuck out of politicians. If a politician does something truly against the will of the people he has no chance in hell of getting re-elected.

Well that's what happens when you arm people like that.

Yes they are armed with all sorts of lovely soviet made weapons.

You overestimate Iraq's power.

No, my analogy is refering to the Middle East.

I doubt that the entire Middle east would take up arms on behalf of Saddam Hussein. The Iranians hate him the Kuwatis hate him and everyone else in the middle east trust him even less than they trust the U.S.

Nato dealt with them in two weeks in 93.

1991.

Sorry, my mistake

How long would it take this time with the just the United States....three weeks maybe four?

Speed is not indicitave of deaths. I'll have a look, but I think Iraq lost 150'000 people in the last war. Don't hold me to that figure though.

I doubt it was that high. I wouldn't argue with 50,000 but 150,000 is a bit high.

At 1/19/03 05:08 PM, Jazz_Mazter wrote:

Jazz, I was hoping for swayside to answer on his own, but since you answered, I guess I'll address you instead... :(

I imagine he means most of the countries in the world. Prejudice will never be rid of, so consequently peace on a worldly scale will never be reached.

You have a very black and white view of the world my friend. To say that war exists purely because "people just want to kill people" is to simplify things to the point of idiotcy. Many people out there have REASONS for doing what they do, aside from the simple impulse to kill.

Iraqis killing Israelis and vice versa. Americans WANTING to kill most Arabs. North Koreans WANING to kill Americans, South Koreans, Japanese...

Are you suggesting that the majority of the populations wants this?!? I hope not, or else you'd be making a seriously flawed generalization.

At 1/19/03 07:13 PM, implodinggoat wrote:

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.

You're right, appeasement can be a useless strategy at times. For example, look at the United States, you can't possibly appease that country enough... they just keep coming back for more!

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

Rhetoric.

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

Let's not use the words terrorists to refer to people in the Middle East ok?

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

In case you didn't know, many of the facsist governments you are talking about were all SUPPORTED and MAINTAINED by the United States. In fact, the hate against American is partly due to this fact. If you don't believe, me then you should observe these fact.

Saudi Arabia is one of the most Religious Muslim states there is, who rules with an iron fist and does tons of human rights abuses, does public beheadings, and keeps women helpless. But do you know what? They are one of the United State's major allies in the Middle East. Why on earth our government allie itself with such a extreme regime?!? I'll let you answer that one yourself.

In many cases muslims have every right to blame Americans for there fascist governments, BECAUSE THE AMERICANS EITHER PUT THEM THERE OR HAVE MADE SURE THEY STAYED THERE.

Let's take another example. Indonesia is one is THE largest Muslim country in the world. And you know what? Surharta, the right winged dictator guy did tons of human rights abuses, mass-murders with direct help from the United States.

Did I teach you something new today?!?

The Muslims blame all their problems on us and the Jews...hmmm perhaps Hitler is an appropriate comparison.

If you truely understand the implications of American Foreign policy in the Middle East, then you would understand why many Muslims dislike the United States.

No, I didn't attend the protests. Since I go to college in Washington, DC, I have seen many others.

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.

You would really have to qualify this jews thing. I can understand why Palestinians hate Zionists....them having stolen their land and all. That's not an intolerance of culture or religion.

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?

How was he doing it? By killing people. Therefore he had the intent to kill in cold blood, doesn't seem very right to me.

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.

Indeed, like you know a system is flawed because there are only two major parties which get all of the votes and all of the seats(together).

As for Sharon his militant ways have pissed off enough Israelis that he probably won't get re-elected when his term is over.

Ahem

The Taliban offered to hand bin Laden over THREE TIMES!

I have to call bullshit on that one.

Did you not read the papers? They said they would hand him over to a neutral country, but the US rejected!

In the United States the people control their government through elections

Hah, an election every four years really scares people!

Yes it scares the fuck out of politicians. If a politician does something truly against the will of the people he has no chance in hell of getting re-elected.

Unless he does it early on in his term, or the opposition is weak, or he spends more money than them.

Well that's what happens when you arm people like that.

Yes they are armed with all sorts of lovely soviet made weapons.

And US made chemical weapons.

You overestimate Iraq's power.

No, my analogy is refering to the Middle East.

I doubt that the entire Middle east would take up arms on behalf of Saddam Hussein. The Iranians hate him the Kuwatis hate him and everyone else in the middle east trust him even less than they trust the U.S.

While sections of the Middle East may not like Saddam, they like him more than the US. Especially the Iranians.

How long would it take this time with the just the United States....three weeks maybe four?

Speed is not indicitave of deaths. I'll have a look, but I think Iraq lost 150'000 people in the last war. Don't hold me to that figure though.

I doubt it was that high. I wouldn't argue with 50,000 but 150,000 is a bit high.

Sorry, my number was from Bill Hicks in 1991. The estimate now a days is about 100'000, but they can never be sure. The US lost 79.

I am not going to bother to comment on the actions of Palestine, Israel, and their respective leadership. The situation is too far gone to sit and complain "well they started it!" They are both guilty of delaying peace.

As to wanting peace, I would enjoy world peace. But that is a wishy washy dream. If the U.S. can show that Saddam has WoMD, and ties to Al Queda then I say go on in. Bush needs to have convincing evidence like Kennedy had to support his blockade of Cuba. We can only wait and see what evidence will be presented by Powell in a week or two.

While sections of the Middle East may not like Saddam, they like him more than the US. Especially the Iranians.

I must disagree with this statement. The Iranians do despise the U.S. since they celebrate "Death to America Day" once a year but they despise Iraq more than any other country in the Middle East (with the possible exception of the Kuwatis). The Iranians fought a very bitter war with the Iraqis back in the 80s (70s? I don't feel like looking it up) and still despise them and Saddam Hussein to this day.

I must disagree with this statement. The Iranians do despise the U.S. since they celebrate "Death to America Day" once a year but they despise Iraq more than any other country in the Middle East (with the possible exception of the Kuwatis). The Iranians fought a very bitter war with the Iraqis back in the 80s (70s? I don't feel like looking it up) and still despise them and Saddam Hussein to this day.

The Iran-Iraq war(80s) did produce some animosity towards Saddam, but more to America(to be fair, in this case, America has been scapegoated(not totally though).) The West, especially America, provided arms, intelligence and biological weapons to Iraq, as they wanted to end the fanatical regime in Iran. But at the same time America also sold weapons to Iran, so were seen as masterminding the whole war.