Innocent Blood on Insurgents' Hands [Archive]

Viet Era Marine

12-27-2004, 01:56 AM

They don't want us there and they're trying to get us to leave.

Kaz,

I want to ask you something and I want you to think about the answer just a bit. What I don't want is the latest "PC Parrot" pronouncement.
Fair enough?

Here's the question:

Who is "they"?

Here's what I think:

"They" are the "cats-paw" of some very Terrified Middle East Monarchies, who see a Stable Democratic Government being established in Iraq as the greatest threat to their power base that they can possibly imagine.

Here's why:

Establishing a Stable Democratic Government in the Middle East will send a clear message to the people living in these "Kingdoms" that not only do they "not need a King", but that they can govern their own lives and enjoy a lot of the other "benefits" of Democracy. You know; Freedom of: the Press / Religion / Speech, etc.

So, what happens after this sinks in? Revolution is what.
And that friends is why Iraq is a battleground.

Id' like to hear your thoughts on this.
Thanks.

Regards,
VEM

Kazimierz

12-27-2004, 06:44 AM

Kaz,

I want to ask you something and I want you to think about the answer just a bit. What I don't want is the latest "PC Parrot" pronouncement.
Fair enough?

Deal :).

Here's the question: Who is "they"?

Insurgents, people (with or without ulterior motives) who are against us being in their country. (American revolutionaries once fit into this group).

The most radical revolutionary will become a conservative the day after the revolution.

"They" are the "cats-paw" of some very Terrified Middle East Monarchies, who see a Stable Democratic Government being established in Iraq as the greatest threat to their power base that they can possibly imagine.

Here's why:

Establishing a Stable Democratic Government in the Middle East will send a clear message to the people living in these "Kingdoms" that not only do they "not need a King", but that they can govern their own lives and enjoy a lot of the other "benefits" of Democracy. You know; Freedom of: the Press / Religion / Speech, etc.

You can't force democracy and revolution on people. You can't tell people: this is how your new government will be. I know you think that democracy is a superior form of government, but not all people do. Just like in eastern europe and russia, if socialist forms of government do not work, people will take them down from the inside.

Take this example: If Saudi Arabia was the most powerful country in the world, and they invaded the U.S. to create a monarchy, would you, living in the U.S. support it? No. The Saudis would, and would say it's better for America, etc. But the citizens here would likely protest, and become "insurgents" and "terrorists".

You can't assume to know what's better for people than they themselves.

PsiRedEye22

12-27-2004, 06:49 AM

You can't assume to know what's better for people than they themselves.

This is so infinately true it is amazing, but I have to play devil's advocate just for a bit:

If all these people know is an oppresive leadership, don't you think that they deserve a chance to see other forms of government, when it looks like the chance to revolt is moot? (I don't agree with the war in Iraq, but I would much rather these people be slightly more free than a Totalitarian government.)

Viet Era Marine

12-27-2004, 08:28 AM

You can't force democracy and revolution on people. You can't tell people: this is how your new government will be.

You can't assume to know what's better for people than they themselves.

OK, fair enough.

Now this:

1. I honestly don't have the balls to asume I know what's "best" for anyone but me.

2. It was my understanding that the Interm Government of Iraq was in place until the "People of Iraq" decided what form of government they wanted.
Is that not so?
So, that pretty much throws out the "forcing Democracy" argument.
To my knowlege, we aren't forcing any kind of government, they will decide what they want. Did I get that wrong?

These are just questions. If you confirming or disproving answers, I'm still listening.

Regards,
VEM

Decepticon902

12-27-2004, 12:32 PM

wasnt there even more innocent blood on there hands when they started decapatating people way back in may? that was so gross the video was on, and i left and i had to run across the road cause my sound was loud, and he was screaming for his parents. that poor guy :( having your head sawed off must really really suck.

and i gotta agree with kaz buddy on this , espiscially on his american revolution reference.

StinkyFinger

12-27-2004, 12:54 PM

How can an oppressed people that only know dictatorship not want to be free and govern themselves, which is what a democracy is? I met Iraqi's there, and they sure as hell hated Saddam. The ones that liked him either feared him totally or constantly benefited from his regime. All people everywhere want the basic things in life. To be free from fear, being oppressed, and to choose what type of government is best for them. Iraq hasn't had that choice. A government of the people, and by the people is what everyone should want. A kingdom? No way, unless you live in Camelot. :/

Kazimierz

12-27-2004, 01:37 PM

OK, fair enough.

Now this:

1. I honestly don't have the balls to asume I know what's "best" for anyone but me.

2. It was my understanding that the Interm Government of Iraq was in place until the "People of Iraq" decided what form of government they wanted.
Is that not so?
So, that pretty much throws out the "forcing Democracy" argument.
To my knowlege, we aren't forcing any kind of government, they will decide what they want. Did I get that wrong?

These are just questions. If you confirming or disproving answers, I'm still listening.

Regards,
VEM

Yeah, i'm sure if the entire country voted to become communist, we'd be right up there pushing and encouraging their right to do so.

Being a Vietnam veteran you must know that the United States pushes democracy as it's goal, above all else. I am not saying democracy is bad or good, i'm saying the United States pushes it, and it's end goal is to spread it.

The Dude 293

12-27-2004, 01:54 PM

They don't want us there and they're trying to get us to leave.

How many more "whole families" have U.S. airstrikes killed? In war, people die. It's a sad fact, and if you care so much about the lives of the innocents being killed in Iraq, maybe you should reconsider your stance on the war.

How many "whole families" Did saddam kill?

Chewy

12-27-2004, 02:11 PM

StinkyFinger

12-27-2004, 02:16 PM

You do know that it's not the job of any outside nation to decide what form of government should be in power.

You do know that it is the job of people who can to help people who can't right? :rolleyes: Are you kidding me? I guess we all should stop sending food to Africa since they should take care of themselves too. :rolleyes: :banghead:

Chewy

12-27-2004, 02:32 PM

droogsteve

12-27-2004, 02:50 PM

You do know that it is the job of people who can to help people who can't right? :rolleyes: Are you kidding me? I guess we all should stop sending food to Africa since they should take care of themselves too. :rolleyes: :banghead:

So when do we invade Rwanda? How about the Sudan? Since we "liberated" Iraq more that ONE MILLION innocents have died there. BEFORE we "liberated" Iraq, over 5 million died there. We watched and did nothing.

Know why? Because "liberating" people isn't our job. When I signed the oath to join the military, I swore to protect t and defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES.

Why are the Iraqis so deserving of our help? Why should Americans die to "liberate" them?

They're not, of course. In our great ally Saudi Arabia, women are beheaded for adultery. And the definition of adultery includes being raped. In so called "honor killings" , a woman's brother's or father is expected to kill her for "dishonoring" the family for being raped.

I'm so tired of this bullshit.

StinkyFinger

12-27-2004, 02:54 PM

So when do we invade Rwanda? How about the Sudan? Since we "liberated" Iraq more that ONE MILLION innocents have died there. BEFORE we "liberated" Iraq, over 5 million died there. We watched and did nothing.

Know why? Because "liberating" people isn't our job. When I signed the oath to join the military, I swore to protect t and defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES.

Why are the Iraqis so deserving of our help? Why should Americans die to

Guy, I'm in the Army right now as an MP, since '88, so keep the oath quotes to yourself since you failed to post the entire thing, or should I remind you of the entire thing troop? It would be nice that we had the resources to liberate every little country on this rock, but we can't, and I wouldn't want to, to be honest. It's not just our responsibility to help those who can't help themselves, but the rest of the free world points the finger at us to do everything. I didn't want us going into Iraq. I fucking hate that place. I hated it once, then twice, and sure as fuck wouldn't want a third tour. However, the debate here is about what good we're doing, and before we re-entered Iraq, too many people died again. It's our failure as a nation, as a people, that let it happen that long. You're right. We stood back and did nothing, and that pisses me off. We should've done this 12 years ago, but now we're there, Iraq will be better off in the long run.

As for you Chewy, and the occupation comment. Read some history before saying that. Seriously. Another WWII analogy? OK. After the war ended inGermany wanna know how long we stayed there? Last I checked we're still there. Not needed now, but when any conflict ends you can't just up and leave even though it would be nice. We'll be in Iraq for years, maybe decades, who knows. We still have troops in Bosnia, so ya never know when that tour will cease and desist. :/

Saladin06

12-27-2004, 03:45 PM

So when do we invade Rwanda? How about the Sudan? Since we "liberated" Iraq more that ONE MILLION innocents have died there. BEFORE we "liberated" Iraq, over 5 million died there. We watched and did nothing.

Know why? Because "liberating" people isn't our job. When I signed the oath to join the military, I swore to protect t and defend the Constitution of the UNITED STATES.

Why are the Iraqis so deserving of our help? Why should Americans die to "liberate" them?

They're not, of course. In our great ally Saudi Arabia, women are beheaded for adultery. And the definition of adultery includes being raped. In so called "honor killings" , a woman's brother's or father is expected to kill her for "dishonoring" the family for being raped.

I'm so tired of this bullshit.

Yeah especially that coming from your mouth. First get your facts right idiot. Adultery is defined as having sex after you are married with someone who isnt your spouse willingly, which by the way goes both ways. Second it needs to be well known, their needs to be four witnessess. I know what you are thinking thats so brutal. Well you know what it is brutal, but so is commiting adulteray. It totally destroys moral values, tehn americans wonder why their society is heading down hill. YOu break the law you pay for it besides its almost like Americans agree with adultery, which by the way is a huge taboo in all societies. Before you tell me ISlam is against women, When has the US had a female leader, general, and women figuire who is admored for her personality and not body. I hate it when people always argue "the poor women of Saudi Arabia" or "they have no rights." Well that is bullshit. True some women where a veil and stuff, but the point is that you dont know ANYTHING besides that. If you only knew the respect shown to women you would shut the hell up and not mention Saudi Arabia when its not even the topic, hmm let me just throw this in " Israel is evil and we should bomb them"

Chewy

12-27-2004, 04:25 PM

As for you Chewy, and the occupation comment. Read some history before saying that. please explain this comment as it make very little sense. Having an AFB or Navel Base in some Foreign lands near what is perceived as a enemy of the US serves to protect the US not that Nation.

We still have troops in Bosnia, so ya never know when that tour will cease and desist. :/ I'm not too sure what your getting at here, many nations are stationed there.

droogsteve

12-28-2004, 08:08 AM

Yeah especially that coming from your mouth. First get your facts right idiot. Adultery is defined as having sex after you are married with someone who isnt your spouse willingly, which by the way goes both ways. Second it needs to be well known, their needs to be four witnessess. I know what you are thinking thats so brutal. Well you know what it is brutal, but so is commiting adulteray. It totally destroys moral values, tehn americans wonder why their society is heading down hill. YOu break the law you pay for it besides its almost like Americans agree with adultery, which by the way is a huge taboo in all societies. Before you tell me ISlam is against women, When has the US had a female leader, general, and women figuire who is admored for her personality and not body. I hate it when people always argue "the poor women of Saudi Arabia" or "they have no rights." Well that is bullshit. True some women where a veil and stuff, but the point is that you dont know ANYTHING besides that. If you only knew the respect shown to women you would shut the hell up and not mention Saudi Arabia when its not even the topic, hmm let me just throw this in " Israel is evil and we should bomb them"

First of all, if you cannot post without resorting to calling people idiots, please don't post at all. Secondly. it goes WAY beyond "some women where (sic) a veil and stuff". Women must wear a burka or face arrest by the Saudi religious police. They are not allowed to drive. In courts of law, their testimony is worth only half that of the testimony of men. As for adultery laws, they are only enforced against women, as are the “zina” - the laws against sex outside of marriage. These are the laws used to punish rape victims. Girls are property and can be given or sold into arranged marriages as young as nine years old, which can only be described as obscene.

In March of 2002 there was a fire at a girl's school in Mecca. Girls trying to flee the fire were beaten and forced back into the burning building by Saudi religious police because they were not wearing the burkas required in public. The religious police also blocked efforts of Civil Defense officers to rescue the girls, beating the CD officers who ignored their orders to stay away and attempted to rescue the girls. Fourteen girls died.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/saudischool.htm

Is that your idea of showing respect to women?

Nocturnal

12-28-2004, 08:19 AM

2. It was my understanding that the Interm Government of Iraq was in place until the "People of Iraq" decided what form of government they wanted.
Is that not so?

VEM

just to comment on that one, do you really think that if they pick an anti western theocracy we will let their chosen govt. run it's course?

if that happens we are in a worse posistion than we ever were when sadahm was in power. we won't and can't let that happen.

Viet Era Marine

12-28-2004, 02:50 PM

In March of 2002 there was a fire at a girl's school in Mecca. Girls trying to flee the fire were beaten and forced back into the burning building by Saudi religious police because they were not wearing the burkas required in public. The religious police also blocked efforts of Civil Defense officers to rescue the girls, beating the CD officers who ignored their orders to stay away and attempted to rescue the girls. Fourteen girls died.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/saudischool.htm

Is that your idea of showing respect to women?

You beat me to it Droog! This clown is sooo full of it. I truly think he's a Riki incarnation with another IP address.

OK Saladin. Let's hear all about how letting little girls burn is showing respect!

Regards,
VEM

Viet Era Marine

12-28-2004, 02:52 PM

just to comment on that one, do you really think that if they pick an anti western theocracy we will let their chosen govt. run it's course?

if that happens we are in a worse posistion than we ever were when sadahm was in power. we won't and can't let that happen.

Why not? It's their country!

Regards,
VEM

Saladin06

12-31-2004, 07:06 AM

First of all, if you cannot post without resorting to calling people idiots, please don't post at all. Secondly. it goes WAY beyond "some women where (sic) a veil and stuff". Women must wear a burka or face arrest by the Saudi religious police. They are not allowed to drive. In courts of law, their testimony is worth only half that of the testimony of men. As for adultery laws, they are only enforced against women, as are the “zina” - the laws against sex outside of marriage. These are the laws used to punish rape victims. Girls are property and can be given or sold into arranged marriages as young as nine years old, which can only be described as obscene.

In March of 2002 there was a fire at a girl's school in Mecca. Girls trying to flee the fire were beaten and forced back into the burning building by Saudi religious police because they were not wearing the burkas required in public. The religious police also blocked efforts of Civil Defense officers to rescue the girls, beating the CD officers who ignored their orders to stay away and attempted to rescue the girls. Fourteen girls died.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/saudischool.htm

Is that your idea of showing respect to women?

First of all, if you cannot post without resorting to going off topic, please don't post at all. The religious police dont have the right to arrest so what are you talking about, they just dont want their daughters dressing like whores like in the US. About the driving care to explain this picture?
http://www.nationalgeographic.com/photography/galleries/womenbehindtheveil/images/primary/NGM1987_10p450-1.jpg (http://)

The whole thing was blown out of hand. The religious police or hai'a werent exactly sure of what was going on eventually they let up. They didnt beat back any girls, the door was locked. Yeah it was bad but it was a one time thing, that is like saiying look at the oklahoma bombing is that a picture of Americas youth? The laws are NOT only enforced against women and why do you keep trying to make it seem like it happens so much, the rates of adultery or pre marital sex are basically non existant. Women arent sold into marrige, what the hell are you talking aboiut. Just because people dont fornicate before marrige doesnt mean they are sold into marrige (Where in the US women marry men fr money, good looks, or fame and call it love, lol). As are those of aids, STD's, divorce, and single mothers. Where in the US thjese things are rampant. So stop trying to make Saudi Arabia seem so horrible when you clearly have no idea of what goes on over their.

Kazimierz

12-31-2004, 07:10 AM

In March of 2002 there was a fire at a girl's school in Mecca. Girls trying to flee the fire were beaten and forced back into the burning building by Saudi religious police because they were not wearing the burkas required in public. The religious police also blocked efforts of Civil Defense officers to rescue the girls, beating the CD officers who ignored their orders to stay away and attempted to rescue the girls. Fourteen girls died.
http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/saudischool.htm

All the more reason to keep religion out of government.

Danimal87

01-02-2005, 08:07 PM

All the more reason to keep religion out of government.
And people that beat back girls into a fire are somehow equivalent to religious charities supported by the government? This reminds me of the liberal arguement, that the NRA is irrational in what it chooses to defend, simply because they believe that any attempt at gun control will somehow lead to the end of the second amendment. At the same time, some also think that banning partial birth abortion would also lead to the end of legal abortion. But supporting a religious charity through federal funds is not going to lead to a theocracy in America.

Kazimierz

01-02-2005, 08:25 PM

And people that beat back girls into a fire are somehow equivalent to religious charities supported by the government? This reminds me of the liberal arguement, that the NRA is irrational in what it chooses to defend, simply because they believe that any attempt at gun control will somehow lead to the end of the second amendment. At the same time, some also think that banning partial birth abortion would also lead to the end of legal abortion. But supporting a religious charity through federal funds is not going to lead to a theocracy in America.

Well, it's good we can trust you to draw the line where the interaction of religion and government should stop. I mean, it'd be easier for all of us if there was no interaction, but since you in all your wisdom and glory have volunteered to keep watch, we can rest soundly in our beds tonight!

droogsteve

01-03-2005, 02:06 AM

First of all, if you cannot post without resorting to going off topic, please don't post at all. The religious police dont have the right to arrest so what are you talking about, they just dont want their daughters dressing like whores like in the US.

LOL, what are their powers then? Do they roam the nation making polite suggestions? :rolleyes: From Amnesty International:

Women who breach the strict dress code for women also face arrest. Margaret Madill, a Canadian nurse working in Saudi Arabia in 1993, took a taxi home with a female friend after a shopping trip in Riyadh. Suddenly a mutawa' jumped into the taxi and forced the driver to go to the headquarters of al-Mutawa'een. When they arrived, the women were locked in the taxi in the extreme heat for up to six hours. They screamed for help and were then beaten. They were accused of indecent dress and public intoxication. They were then transferred to al-Malaz prison and held for two days, before being released without charge.

http://www.amnesty.org/ailib/intcam/saudi/briefing/4.html

About the driving care to explain this picture?

You are either lying to attempt to defend that medieval nation or simply in denial.

Inside Saudi Arabia, women are forbidden to drive, a ban made official in 1990 by a Fatwa issued by the Council of Senior 'Ulama.

The whole thing was blown out of hand. The religious police or hai'a werent exactly sure of what was going on eventually they let up.

You're right, it was blown out of hand. After all, in a nation where women are property, losing 14 is hardly worth getting upset over.

They didnt beat back any girls, the door was locked.

Not according to the Saudi Civil Defense Officer or the Saudi journalist:

"Whenever the girls got out through the main gate, these people forced them to return via another. Instead of extending a helping hand for the rescue work, they were using their hands to beat us," Civil Defense officers were quoted as saying. The officers also said they saw three people beating girls who had evacuated the school without proper dress. A Saudi journalist told Human Rights Watch that the mutawwa'in at the scene also turned away parents and other residents who came to assist.

http://www.hrw.org/press/2002/03/saudischool.htm

Since they were on the scene and you weren't, guess who I'm going to believe?

Yeah it was bad but it was a one time thing, that is like saiying look at the oklahoma bombing is that a picture of Americas youth?

Huh? Unless US government agents bombed Oklahoma City, there is absolutely no comparison.

The laws are NOT only enforced against women and why do you keep trying to make it seem like it happens so much, the rates of adultery or pre marital sex are basically non existant.

Because it does happen so much:

Some laws are applied in a discriminatory fashion. The offence of khilwa (being alone with a male who is not an immediate relative), for example, is punishable for both men and women, but it appears to be more frequently enforced on women.

Women arent sold into marrige, what the hell are you talking aboiut. Just because people dont fornicate before marrige doesnt mean they are sold into marrige (Where in the US women marry men fr money, good looks, or fame and call it love, lol). As are those of aids, STD's, divorce, and single mothers. Where in the US thjese things are rampant. So stop trying to make Saudi Arabia seem so horrible when you clearly have no idea of what goes on over their.

I know exactly what goes on there, despite the Saudi attempt to hide it from the world. As for the low rates of single mothers, divorce ect., that's no big surprise. Slaves obey their masters.

Danimal87

01-03-2005, 05:45 AM

Well, it's good we can trust you to draw the line where the interaction of religion and government should stop. I mean, it'd be easier for all of us if there was no interaction, but since you in all your wisdom and glory have volunteered to keep watch, we can rest soundly in our beds tonight!

Which is the more ridiculous: giving aid to a religious organization to help feed the hungry and give shelter to the homeless, or to deny them that simply out of your own paranoia of some sort of evangelical theocracy? And I never said where the line should stop, I suggested where I thought the line would stop. This whole post is nothing but an attempt to call me a narcissist.

Kazimierz

01-03-2005, 06:46 AM

Which is the more ridiculous: giving aid to a religious organization to help feed the hungry and give shelter to the homeless, or to deny them that simply out of your own paranoia of some sort of evangelical theocracy? And I never said where the line should stop, I suggested where I thought the line would stop. This whole post is nothing but an attempt to call me a narcissist.

Correct, i think you are a narcissist, and you are doing nothing to disprove this fact by claiming religious and moral superiority over the rest of the world. Should we give aid to organizations that feed the hungry or shelter the homeless? Here's a question, why does are government have hungry and homeless they can't support themselves? There is nothing stopping you, citizen, from supporting these charities. But you think that the government should supply them? From tax payer dollars, some of which come from persons of differen't religious ideology than the Protestant Christian ones? You believe that with government support, religious organizations will help the homeless, feed the hungry, and not evangelize? They already do it now, and you wan't the government to pay them to do it?

Danimal87

01-03-2005, 08:09 AM

Correct, i think you are a narcissist, and you are doing nothing to disprove this fact by claiming religious and moral superiority over the rest of the world. Should we give aid to organizations that feed the hungry or shelter the homeless? Here's a question, why does are government have hungry and homeless they can't support themselves? There is nothing stopping you, citizen, from supporting these charities. But you think that the government should supply them? From tax payer dollars, some of which come from persons of differen't religious ideology than the Protestant Christian ones? You believe that with government support, religious organizations will help the homeless, feed the hungry, and not evangelize? They already do it now, and you wan't the government to pay them to do it?
Narcissism Definition (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=narcissist&x=0&y=0)
If I thought that myself, personally, was better than everyone else based on my views and ideals, than I would be a narcissist. But I simply don't do that. What I actually think is that conservatism is better than liberalism, and that Christianity is the one true religion in the world. I hold these ideas to be correct, not myself as being supreme. If you have a problem with me because I believe these ideas are correct and others' are not, than you have a problem with everyone on this forum, including yourself.
Of course I want the government to help these faith-based organizations. If they're keeping people from starving and freezing on the streets, then it shouldn't matter that they have a cross, a jewish star of david, or a muslim crescent on the wall. Letting people rot in the street just because you don't want them to possibly hear something Christian is ridiculous.

Chewy

01-03-2005, 08:24 AM

Narcissism Definition (http://www.webster.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=narcissist&x=0&y=0)
If I thought that myself, personally, was better than everyone else based on my views and ideals, than I would be a narcissist. But I simply don't do that.

Just a point here there are a number of definitions of narcissism, one called NPD

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html

b0b0

01-03-2005, 08:32 AM

I have no sympathy for the insurgents. The best way to lead a revolution is through pacifist practices. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. have proven this at the cost of their lives. Also, does anyone remember Tiananmen Square, 1989? Do you remember the horrific image of that kid holding up five tanks by himself? If these people protested nonviolently, they would have global sympathy in a matter of microseconds, and the American occupation in Iraq would be seen as blatant tyranny. However, by resorting to guerilla tactics and shameless murder, they will accomplish absolutely nothing. Attempting to fight the United States Army rather than proudly protesting its presence, even at the cost of their own lives, is the most ineffective way.

Kazimierz

01-03-2005, 08:43 AM

If I thought that myself, personally, was better than everyone else based on my views and ideals, than I would be a narcissist. But I simply don't do that.

What I actually think is that conservatism (your belief) is better than liberalism, and that Christianity (your belief) is the one true religion in the world.

So you, personally, believe that your beliefs are superior. You believe you have chosen the right religion, and that your views are correct and others are worse. How is that not narcissism?

If you have a problem with me because I believe these ideas are correct and others' are not, than you have a problem with everyone on this forum, including yourself.

How do i have a problem with myself? Because i respect the faiths and ideas of other people?

Of course I want the government to help these faith-based organizations

Instead of the government paying private religious organizations to help the people, why doesn't the government help the people to begin with. It would be cheaper, and more effective.

Saladin06

01-03-2005, 10:45 AM

So explain to me how the "religious police" are part of the government when you said yourself the police were trying to get through. Yeah it was a one time thing and I personally know someone who was on the scene so... Their was a fire and their was confusion its not like the girls burned to death what happened was they got ran overe when they were rushing towards the exit which was locked then it was opened. How are women sold as property please tell me since this is obvioulsy not true. Just because our women dont dress up as whores doesnt mean they are slaves, it actually seems like the opposite.

Danimal87

01-03-2005, 11:19 AM

Just a point here there are a number of definitions of narcissism, one called NPD

http://www.mentalhealth.com/dis1/p21-pe07.html
I looked at your link, and I don't think that any of these things apply to me. This whole "arguement", which is nothing but an attempt by Kazimierz to defame me, is getting really old.
So you, personally, believe that your beliefs are superior. You believe you have chosen the right religion, and that your views are correct and others are worse. How is that not narcissism?
How do i have a problem with myself? Because i respect the faiths and ideas of other people?
And how is this any different than the way you view your own beliefs? Doesn't everyone here believe that they're party ticket, religion, etc., is better than the competition? Don't you, Kazimierz, believe that your opinions and ideas are better than mine? Otherwise, why would you possibly be debating me, and championing your own causes? This has gone on far enough, Kazimierz, and your bad attempts at name calling are growing old. Stick to the arguement, if you can, please.
Instead of the government paying private religious organizations to help the people, why doesn't the government help the people to begin with. It would be cheaper, and more effective.
Churches, synagogues and mosques, as well as just generally religious organizations, do a much better job than government bureaucracies. These people are motivated through their faith to help people. Having the government taking on the entire task of these charities will in no way be more cost-effective to giving them different benefits and federal aid.

Kazimierz

01-03-2005, 01:51 PM

And how is this any different than the way you view your own beliefs? Doesn't everyone here believe that they're party ticket, religion, etc., is better than the competition? Don't you, Kazimierz, believe that your opinions and ideas are better than mine? Otherwise, why would you possibly be debating me, and championing your own causes? This has gone on far enough, Kazimierz, and your bad attempts at name calling are growing old. Stick to the arguement, if you can, please.

You are assuming that i am like you, a narcissist, with the difference being viewpoints. I do not believe in party or religious superiority, which is exactly why i am championing the cause of everyone collectively, not a select few. I'm championing the rights of every person of every religion, while you believe your christian values are superior and all in America should be subject to them. I am firm in my beliefs, and i hold my own values, but i do not believe others should be subject to following them, while you do. You think that the nation as a collective should be bound by the moral principles of christianity, and that self-righteous belief is narcissism in it's purest form.

Churches, synagogues and mosques, as well as just generally religious organizations, do a much better job than government bureaucracies. These people are motivated through their faith to help people. Having the government taking on the entire task of these charities will in no way be more cost-effective to giving them different benefits and federal aid.

These people are also motivated through their faith to evangelize, which is wrong. Becoming religious, or converting faiths should be a decision made by the person themselves after personal reflection and study, not done through convincing and evangelizing. I know, i know you think your religion is superior to all, but if anything, you need to let others find that out for themselves.

droogsteve

01-03-2005, 02:10 PM

I have no sympathy for the insurgents. The best way to lead a revolution is through pacifist practices. Ghandi and Martin Luther King Jr. have proven this at the cost of their lives. Also, does anyone remember Tiananmen Square, 1989? Do you remember the horrific image of that kid holding up five tanks by himself?

Yes, that kid showed unbelievable courage, as did the rest of the Tiananmen Square protesters. My admiration and respect for them is boundless.

By the way, how'd that work out? Freedom? No. Death and horrible retribution for all involved as well as their families. Non violence usually fails against oppression. I was a big IRA supporter, and as such this situation seems sickeningly familiar to me. We are unwanted occupiers in a foreign land. Like the British troops in Northern Ireland, our soldiers are blameless. They believe they are simply serving their country, and they are. It is OUR fault for putting them there in the first place.