I don't blame all yous who delight in seeing the Quran abused, and I don't believe the Quran is divinely inspired. Fact is, Islam is a religion that has tried before to militarily take over the western world and we narrowly escaped. If not for Charles the Hammerer in the battle of Constantinople (and the will of God) you and I would be pounding our foreheads on the carpet too.
But- what concerns me is that America is losing the ethics and philosophy that made us great. We used to believe in "regardless of race, creed or color." We didn't let our respect for the beliefs of others be hindered by politics or war. We were a more civilized, gentle and noble people than we are today.
Now, I understand that the war on terror directed at Islamists makes many people glad to disrespect that world religion. Okay, so whose next? Whose minority religion will be pilloried next time there are provocative circumstances?
TW2005 wrote: I don't fight for causes I don't agree with.
You don't fight for causes you agree with either, TW. You aren't military, and you're not a veteran....and you call others cowards?!
I don't agree with the war so why would I fight for it?
As an American citizen, it is your right to protest the war, and you don't have to serve in the military, since we are a citizen-soldier all-voluteer army. But you DO NOT have the right to fight against your own country's forces....that's treason.
Why aren't you suited up and fighting for your prophet Bush?
Bush is not my prophet, I don't like him any more than you do, but I support my country. If I don't like the way it's being run, I go to the polls and vote. If things don't go my way, that's because a majority of my fellow countrymen don't think my way. I don't desert my country or my ideals, I campaign for them and espouse them and then I vote again next election.
As for suiting up...I'm a 1st Lieutenant, I personally taught many of the pilots flying in war right now. My skills are keeping them alive and allowing my country to carry out it's policy. Whether you and I agree with that policy or not....the majority of our fellow citizens do. If everyone who did not get their way decided not to support their government, we would not have a country.
That's not democracy...it's anarchy.
You are the coward sir. And thats all I have to say.
That's pretty tough language from someone who has never been in combat, TW. I won't call you one back though, because courage takes many forms. You have a little courage just to be standing up for such deluded beliefs when you know for a fact that there are people like me on this board that have served their country and believe in it's ideals.
It's not trolling though, because however heinous I think your ideas are, you honestly believe them.
One last point....you compared the insurgents to the American Milita of the Revolutionary war.
Did any of the Minutemen cut off the heads of British civilians? No. The difference between Us and Them is very basic. We will not kill and destroy civilians. We try only to kill the insurgents. We wear uniforms to identify us as combatants. We do not wage war on noncombatants.
That's the difference between soldiers and criminals.
and you would support them...?
All the world's a stage and the men and women merely players...Shakespeare
[QUOTE=A Karenina]Wrong is wrong, and there is no justification for intentionally destroying something another person holds sacred.
You mean like life? Do you mean like the 3,000+ lives destroyed on September 11, 2001?
Do you truly believe Jesus is applauding these actions?
Are you referring again to the actions of September 11?
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price. ~Darrel Worley~ [/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
I don't blame all yous who delight in seeing the Quran abused, and I don't believe the Quran is divinely inspired. Fact is, Islam is a religion that has tried before to militarily take over the western world and we narrowly escaped. If not for Charles the Hammerer in the battle of Constantinople (and the will of God) you and I would be pounding our foreheads on the carpet too.
But- what concerns me is that America is losing the ethics and philosophy that made us great. We used to believe in "regardless of race, creed or color." We didn't let our respect for the beliefs of others be hindered by politics or war. We were a more civilized, gentle and noble people than we are today.
Now, I understand that the war on terror directed at Islamists makes many people glad to disrespect that world religion. Okay, so whose next? Whose minority religion will be pilloried next time there are provocative circumstances?
Er..Charles the Hammer was never near Constantinople. That was all in the Iberian peninsula back in the 8th century.
TW2005 wrote: "The truth of that matter is, if you listen carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he were the president of the United States, and the world would be a lot better off." â€â€George W. Bush, second presidential debate, St. Louis, Mo., Oct. 8, 2004 How about a FULL quote pal............Makes more sense......
The Second Bush-Kerry Presidential Debate
SECOND PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATES' DEBATE
WASHINGTON UNIVERSITY, ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI
SPEAKERS:
GEORGE W. BUSH
PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES
U.S. SENATOR JOHN F. KERRY (MA)
DEMOCRATIC PRESIDENTIAL NOMINEE
CHARLES GIBSON
ABC ANCHOR
BUSH: He (KERRY) complains about the fact our troops don't have adequate equipment, yet he (KERRY) voted against the $87 billion supplemental I sent to the Congress and then issued one of the most amazing quotes in political history: "I actually did vote for the $87 billion before I voted against it."
Saddam Hussein was a risk to our country, ma'am. And he was a risk that -- and this is where we just have a difference of opinion.
The truth of that matter is, if you listen (TO KERRY) carefully, Saddam would still be in power if he (KERRY) were the president of the United States, "And the world would be a lot better off." (By KERRY's point of view)
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
BuckTurgidson wrote: Er..Charles the Hammer was never near Constantinople. That was all in the Iberian peninsula back in the 8th century.Whoops. Going from the top of my head. Thank you for the correction, Buck. Anyway, you all get the idea.
BabyRider wrote: You mean like life? Do you mean like the 3,000+ lives destroyed on September 11, 2001?
Are you referring again to the actions of September 11?Am I using words that are too big for you? I've re-read my post, and I can't find anything in it that would make you ask these questions in response.
I repeat - being a reactionary is not patriotic, just, or noble. Meaning, I don't believe we should react to what other people do - especially as blindly as you would have it. I do believe in acting, based on specific principles that do not change when someone else breaks your moral code.
Try to understand what I'm saying to you. You don't have to agree with it - but at least try to comprehend the concepts, or quit asking/urging people to explain their views to you. Fair enough?
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
I'm glad this thread was started so everyone is clear about where people are coming from. There are certain types of comments that really require no response as the comment contains it's own undoing.
So far I've heard that Islam is mostly made up of terrorists and that September 11th is justification for just about any action taken since that date. DID SOMEONE FORGET THAT IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WTC!!!????!!!! True propaganda at work. Who's been had? Anyone who actually thinks this war is about 9/11 should read a bit before they post.
this topic is not about iraq exclusively. please reread the first post. the war referenced is the war on terror.
please don't baldly mischaracterize what people are saying in this topic. nobody in this topic has suggested that 'islam is mostly made up of terrorists'. nobody has suggested that 'september 11th is justification for just about any action taken since that date'. if you're going to say something like that, then recognize that your all caps scream is misleading too.
try to remember that not just governments try to manufacture consent. the sites you are visiting, apparently exclusively (based upon the links you post), are manufacturing your consent as well.
A Karenina wrote: I repeat - being a reactionary is not patriotic, just, or noble. Meaning, I don't believe we should react to what other people do - especially as blindly as you would have it. I do believe in acting, based on specific principles that do not change when someone else breaks your moral code.
this statement, while fine in and of itself, ignores two very critical things:
1. moral codes, no matter the depth or breadth, are concepts applied to actions. unfortunately, actions are not always the same, are not always unambiguous, and do not always fit neatly within the confines of a moral code. moral codes can be so onerous that they themselves become tyranny.
2. i'll use a quote:
Without a sense of proportion there can be neither good taste nor genuine intelligence, nor perhaps moral integrity.
--Eric Hoffer
desecrating the koran/quran is wrong, and i don't think it should be done.
blowing oneself up, in order to kill as many infidels as possible, with the belief in mind that one's martyrdom will then take you to paradise where you will be surrounded with beautiful maidens to satisfy you (this concept being a blasphemy to 'orthodox' islam, but much cherished by jihadists) is wrong, and i don't think it should be done.
outlawing the bible, the crime of possessing one punishable by prison time in saudi arabia, is wrong, and i don't think it should be done.
beheading women suspected of adultery as was done in afghanistan under taliban rule is wrong, and i don't think it should be done.
all of these things are wrong. they are not wrong in the same degree. and the degree to which we decry them perhaps should be proportional as well.
koan wrote: I'm glad this thread was started so everyone is clear about where people are coming from. There are certain types of comments that really require no response as the comment contains it's own undoing.
So far I've heard that Islam is mostly made up of terrorists and that September 11th is justification for just about any action taken since that date. DID SOMEONE FORGET THAT IRAQ HAD NOTHING TO DO WITH THE WTC!!!????!!!! True propaganda at work. Who's been had? Anyone who actually thinks this war is about 9/11 should read a bit before they post.Koan...........I challenge you to read the UN Resolution 1284 against Iraq:
(Just 1 of MANY..........) How many Resolutions in total did the UN lodge against Iraq before we straightend him (Sadaam) out? You tell me before YOU post again..........
koan said:
"should read a bit before they post."
...(as you suggested)....OK? Might make you see why we percieved a dire threat from Godaam Insane
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
nobody in this topic has suggested that 'islam is mostly made up of terrorists'. nobody has suggested that 'september 11th is justification for just about any action taken since that date'.
nobody?
perhaps I should have singled out who, specifically, I was thinking of...but I thought that to be in poor taste. I guess the way of addressing those comments tactfully eluded me.
BTS.
your link was bad. I looked up the resolution in question and ended up at a different site that showed a number of similar resolutions. How many other countries refuse to comply with UN "demands"? Not just Iraq. My understanding is that Hussein had reason to believe that the weapons inspections program was being used to spy. It is also my understanding that Hussein made efforts to negotiate with the US prior to the attack. That is just my understanding...the truth is so hard to determine. Regardless, using UN decrees to justify a war that the UN also did not approve of seems...strange.
perhaps I should have singled out who, specifically, I was thinking of...but I thought that to be in poor taste. I guess the way of addressing those comments tactfully eluded me.
disingenuous. neither of the posts you cite say what you claim they were saying.
anastrophe wrote: disingenuous. neither of the posts you cite say what you claim they were saying.
I disagree. I think that is what they say, though I would be relieved if the poster restated her opinion to correct my misunderstanding.
Was wondering why my "caps scream" that Iraq had nothing to do with the WTC is misleading. Do you have a link to show that Iraq was behind the terrorist attack in New York. I'd be quite interested.
anastrophe wrote: this statement, while fine in and of itself, ignores two very critical things:
1. moral codes, no matter the depth or breadth, are concepts applied to actions. unfortunately, actions are not always the same, are not always unambiguous, and do not always fit neatly within the confines of a moral code. moral codes can be so onerous that they themselves become tyranny.
2. i'll use a quote:Without a sense of proportion there can be neither good taste nor genuine intelligence, nor perhaps moral integrity.
--Eric Hoffer Agreed; and anything taken to extremes can become tyranny. If we really want to nitpick, I can also point out that my sentence assumes all Americans have a somewhat similar code.
However, in this case, we are only considering the purposeful destruction of a holy book, and people's reactions to that.
Just about anything I say can be ripped apart and misconstrued, if one wants to do it. It doesn't change the intent of my post, or the principle I'm trying to put forth.
Good quote, btw.
anastrophe wrote: desecrating the koran/quran is wrong, and i don't think it should be done.
blowing oneself up, in order to kill as many infidels as possible, with the belief in mind that one's martyrdom will then take you to paradise where you will be surrounded with beautiful maidens to satisfy you (this concept being a blasphemy to 'orthodox' islam, but much cherished by jihadists) is wrong, and i don't think it should be done.
outlawing the bible, the crime of possessing one punishable by prison time in saudi arabia, is wrong, and i don't think it should be done.
beheading women suspected of adultery as was done in afghanistan under taliban rule is wrong, and i don't think it should be done.
all of these things are wrong. they are not wrong in the same degree. and the degree to which we decry them perhaps should be proportional as well.Agreed again - they are all wrong, and they are not proportional to each other. Had the thread asked how I feel/think about terrorism and the actions of the terrorists, my answer would've been a different thing.
The thread instead flaunted the "I don't care" attitude about destroying the Koran, stating, I assume, that 2 wrongs can make a right...and BR has repeatedly asked why some of us aren't screaming about other people's wrongs. In this context, no way I'm gonna say whatever we do is fine because the other guy started it.
My reply should be taken in context as well. She well knows my first-born is going off to fight terrorism. She knows as well that I fully support him. The argument on this thread is not about whether terrorism is wrong in my eyes; I think I've answered that one elsewhere.
The question here was simply why don't I justify any action an American takes based on what terrorists have done. I've tried to reply to that, and I'm getting cranky because she seemingly insists on misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Et tu, Anastrophe? :p
I'm in an italics mood today. Just because I can be. LOL.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
A Karenina wrote: she seemingly insists on misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Nope, not at all. I just posted an article I like, and agree with. I DON'T care what happens to the Koran, not even a little. If people want to look at me and say "She's no better than they are," I can live with that. I know it's not true. I don't pretend to be as fully educated as others here about the war. What I DO know is, I really don't care about their "holy" book. Plain and simple.
[FONT=Arial Black]I hope you cherish this sweet way of life, and I hope you know that it comes with a price. ~Darrel Worley~ [/FONT]
Bullet's trial was a farce. Can I get an AMEN?????
TW2005 wrote: About 20% of those asked answered with, "Well, because he's Christian." How sad is that?
well, if you're a pessimist, it is sad. the optimist in me says "80% didn't vote for him because of his religious affiliation". that's great!
Voting for someone based on religious beliefs. A truly sad thing if you aske me.
whatever. kerry's ostensibly a christian too. so, bush, kerry - vote for a christian, or a christian. big choice.
bush isn't even a christian conservative, for that matter. he said some not so nice things about the christian conservatives in those phone conversations a friend taped then released before his book came out. bush also isn't as hostile to gays as he's made out to be either.
he's not exactly a champion for them either, but that won't come until harvey fierstein become president.
Scrat wrote: Another voice of dissent is going to point out the stupidity of this. Not that it hasn't already bee through the muck. Like it or not in a war you have to win the hearts and minds of people. One way to do that is to show respect for their beliefs, the best way to alienate them is to not.
Abu Ghraib was the best recruiting poster we could have given to Al Quaida.
Why do we have to keep making the same mistakes?
Are we stupid?
who's this 'we', whiteman? lots of pointy-headed folks are convinced that the mistreatment at abu ghraib came straight from the top. the bush-cheney-rove-rice-wolfowitz-rumsfeld cabal decreed that the folks running abu ghraib were to build human pyramids to humiliate them.
some folks suspect that while it likely wasn't just a bunch of miscreants deciding to do this on their own, it probably was some misguided mid-level schmuck who wasn't aware that they make cameras now that take di-gi-tal-whatever-that-means pitchurs.
those who believe everything flows from the bcrrwr cabal believe every bad thing that happens came straight from them, and any progress or success was purely accidental. if we are to believe some of our pointier headed folks, nick berg was either beheaded, or his beheading was staged, by agents of the government working at the behest of the bcrrwr cabal, to distract from abu ghraib. must be pretty cool to have such ever ready, rapid response teams.
then again, there are those who are convinced that the bcrrwr cabal *purposely* leaked the abu ghraib photos, to let the jihadists know that it wasn't going to be all duck a'la orange and volleyball if taken into custody.
and still *others* believe that the abu ghraib photos were set up purposely to inflame the jihadists - iraq appears to have turned into one big 'honey pot' for terrorists, where they blow themselves up (unfortunately taking innocent people with them). but it ain't happening in duluth, that's for sure.
A Karenina wrote: The question here was simply why don't I justify any action an American takes based on what terrorists have done. I've tried to reply to that, and I'm getting cranky because she seemingly insists on misunderstanding what I'm saying.
Et tu, Anastrophe? :p
I'm in an italics mood today. Just because I can be. LOL.
my only rejoinder is that Not Caring is not the same as Endorsing.
what desecration has taken place has been minor. the army's own investigation came up with something like two dozen incidents, several of which were reported first by army staff assigned to monitoring for such things, and when the prisoners in whose presence the desecrations took place were interviewed, they said variously that they hadn't noticed or weren't offended until it was pointed out to them.
proportion. yes, desecration is wrong. when it happens, the aggrieved should be apologized to. further than that, what more can be done anyway?
BabyRider wrote: Nope, not at all. I just posted an article I like, and agree with. I DON'T care what happens to the Koran, not even a little. If people want to look at me and say "She's no better than they are," I can live with that. I know it's not true. I don't pretend to be as fully educated as others here about the war. What I DO know is, I really don't care about their "holy" book. Plain and simple.Notice I didn't respond to the article you like until you asked for an explanation of why people aren't yelling about what the terrorists do.
I'm pretty familiar with your viewpoints by now, and I have no issue with the fact that we disagree more often than not.
It seems you are just asking questions so you can re-assert your own position, since you show little interest in the actual answer. I'll keep that in mind when I read future postings from you.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
anastrophe wrote: my only rejoinder is that Not Caring is not the same as Endorsing.
I disagree. More on that at your request.
anastrophe wrote: proportion. yes, desecration is wrong. when it happens, the aggrieved should be apologized to. further than that, what more can be done anyway?
Oddly, I hadn't even thought of apologizing. I thought we could simply stop desecrating holy books. Very simple in my eyes ~ we did a wrong thing, made a mistake, let's stop making it, and move on.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
A Karenina wrote: I disagree. More on that at your request.
i know what you're getting at. but they aren't the same. it depends, curiously, on the 'intent' of not caring. there is malign 'not caring' and benign 'not caring'.
the world is filled with troubles. there's only so much each of us can care about. i'm distressed by the desecration of the koran. further than that, i'm not going to drop everything and begin writing my congressmen, hiring lawyers to sue on behalf of those aggrieved, starting websites decrying the desecration, and setting up to caterwauling at every turn about it. As sentient beings imbued with Free Will, we can, and do, choose what battles we're going to fight. i know that if I Don't Care, someone else does. One can pretend To Care about every hurt that ever happens. One can even claim To Care about every hurt that ever happens.
self-delusion is one of the world's most popular sports.
Oddly, I hadn't even thought of apologizing. I thought we could simply stop desecrating holy books. Very simple in my eyes ~ we did a wrong thing, made a mistake, let's stop making it, and move on.
i'm talking about what is done *when it happens*. or are you saying you don't think that an apology should be tendered if it happens? i know that's not what you're suggesting, but brushing aside the comment on the grounds it shouldn't have happened in the first place is disingenuous. one of the first steps in righting a wrong is in acknowledging the wrong. an apology is a good thing, is it not? apologies were tendered to those agrieved by the desecration. that, of course, is rarely noted.
if the world were perfect, people would never make mistakes in the first place. the world isn't perfect; therefore, *when* mistakes are made, as they surely will be, have the good grace to at least allow that an apology is a good thing, rather than castigating because the wrong should never have happened, therefore the apology should never have happened either.
anastrophe wrote: i know what you're getting at. but they aren't the same. it depends, curiously, on the 'intent' of not caring. there is malign 'not caring' and benign 'not caring'.
I have to think about this one. I'm not seeing a difference in the end result at this point, but a few days reflection might give me a better perspective. So (puffing up chest) I'll be back!
anastrophe wrote: the world is filled with troubles. there's only so much each of us can care about. i'm distressed by the desecration of the koran. further than that, i'm not going to drop everything and begin writing my congressmen, hiring lawyers to sue on behalf of those aggrieved, starting websites decrying the desecration, and setting up to caterwauling at every turn about it. As sentient beings imbued with Free Will, we can, and do, choose what battles we're going to fight. i know that if I Don't Care, someone else does. One can pretend To Care about every hurt that ever happens. One can even claim To Care about every hurt that ever happens.
self-delusion is one of the world's most popular sports.
It seems that you are supporting part of my point. Cool. We are limited in the battles we can fight, and are limited in battles we have a hope of winning as well. (That sentence looks weird, but onwards)
Picking and choosing what we will fight is crucial. Having me scream and point fingers at a group of people with no conscience isn't going to make them stop killing. Waste of time and breath. This battle requires something far more aggressive than mere words.
At the same time, it's possible I can influence those who do have a conscience and probably did something wrong from temporary spite, anger, fear, environment, whatever. While I can understand how things can happen in these circumstances, like the Koran or Abu Ghraib, I can't be silent and say it's ok to behave that way. I feel that if we don't speak up, then we are condoning this behavior, and it will probably lead to much worse.
Pick your battles, absolutely. And pick the most effective way to fight them, as well as keeping it all in perspective.
anastrophe wrote: i'm talking about what is done *when it happens*. or are you saying you don't think that an apology should be tendered if it happens? i know that's not what you're suggesting, but brushing aside the comment on the grounds it shouldn't have happened in the first place is disingenuous. one of the first steps in righting a wrong is in acknowledging the wrong. an apology is a good thing, is it not? apologies were tendered to those agrieved by the desecration. that, of course, is rarely noted.
if the world were perfect, people would never make mistakes in the first place. the world isn't perfect; therefore, *when* mistakes are made, as they surely will be, have the good grace to at least allow that an apology is a good thing, rather than castigating because the wrong should never have happened, therefore the apology should never have happened either.
Hmmmm. This is interesting stuff to ponder. Personally, I'm much more concerned with what happens after an apology is made. I can hurt someone, say I'm sorry with grace and sincerity, but if I continue doing it, then the apology is meaningless. Acknowledging a wrong occurs internally first.
I have to point out that "castigating" is a strong word to use as relates to this thread. If you're implying that I've castigated anyone in regards to the terrorist/soldier issue, then I think I've been mis-read.
We have, quite simply, two separate trains of thought going on. One group says the soldiers can behave in certains ways and are justified because of what the terrorists have done. Another group says that 2 wrongs do not make a right (and this does not begin to measure the weight of wrong/right).
Stating a philosophy is not remotely the same as castigating. Not one person in this thread has said that they have actually done anything about these issues - from calling congressmen to writing scathing articles, etc. So at this point, it's a free speech and exchange of ideas kinda thing.
As for apologizing to imprisoned terrorists, I don't think I would. At first pass, it comes across as weakness to me. We don't have to explain ourselves to them; we need only behave in ways we know are right, and to keep trying to do that even when we initially mess up. Maybe that's cold, but I have no warm fuzzies towards people who brutally kill thousands of people in order to get their way. I do, however, have a great concern for who we (Americans) are and how we conduct ourselves.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
flopstock wrote: No need to overreact scrat. She liked the article. It reflects the thinking of a lot of 'good' people since 9/11. And it says what a lot of people feel. But it doesn't mean that she doesn't care that our men and women are in harms way. If that had been in the article i'd be willing to bet she wouldn't have liked it much.
But it is a well written opinion piece. even if I don't agree with the premise.
I totally disagree with the premise of the article, but the piece is hilarious in a sarcastic way.
For the record, My frustration and bad-tempered posts in this thread relate to the IDEAS BR is defending, not BR herself.
We are what we repeatedly do. Excellence, then, is not an act but a habit.
TW2005 wrote: "For seven and a half years Ive worked alongside President Reagan. We've had triumphs. Made some mistakes. We've had some sex ...uh...setbacks."
- George BushI like this here George Bush quote moe better.........
GREAT MOMENTS IN POLITICAL DEBATES:
Walter Mondale: George Bush doesn't have the manhood to apologize.
Bush: "Well, on the manhood thing, I'll put mine up against his any time."
You know they say the Repubs are better in the bed.........Who Knows?
"If America Was A Tree, The Left Would Root For The Termites...Greg Gutfeld."
