Oppositions to Arabs

[Zero]

Originally posted by Traelin


Agreed. Don't bring the Spankees into this though, I hate them with a passion! You brought up the O's cuz you know I'm from this area!

Well I added Mets into the scenario cause I didnt wanna offend you too much

hate them yanks too... Flushing meadows!!!!

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Sonic
Traelin, well, imagine such a situation...

Arabs unites and conquer USA. They are from now on everywhere. They've already Arabised the eastern coast and in western side of former USA there is still American majority. However Arabs have full control there also. Arab army is marching on streets, "colonisers" are coming from Arabia and building their villages. Americans can't buy land. Everything is in Arabic - from road signs to CNN. American constitution is abolished, Shariat law applies everywhere. Americans are being killed for being at wrong place at wrong time. Many of your relatives and friends were also killed in that way. Recently your home was bulldozed. You have nowhere to live. And then some former friend comes and offers you to join his partisan organisation, which wants to remove the Arab government out of power and which also turns out to be a terrorist organisation. They offers you to do a terror act (it doesn't matters suicide or no) - to bomb one of major government targets in Arab king visit. King would be killed and obviously more countries would look to American problem. However, many innocent people, mostly Arabs, also would get killed - probably childs also.

So the question is, would you accept such an offer?

Well those are an awful lot of hypotheticals. That's almost like asking, "If the sky were polka-dot purple and it was 80 degrees outside, would you wear a jacket?" Kinda a random thought, but you get the gyst of it.

We're going to have to agree to disagree on your assessment of the Palestinian situation. But to answer your question: no, if I knew that civilians would die, that means I am knowingly committing an atrocity. And there's no way I'm facing God on Judgment Day when I've performed such an act. Most of the world doesn't think like that. Terrorists are nothing more than people whose brains function better in the Middle Ages than they do today. It's sad, but it's almost as if the leaders in the Middle East have oppressed their people so horribly, and have kept them from becoming "civilized" (i.e., educated, etc.), that they actually think it's right to do such deeds.

But seriously, let's get back toward the topic.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Sonic
BTW, Traelin, Israel is also murdering innocents.

C'mon, you and I both know they're not targetting innocents. If they wanted to target innocents, they'd roll their entire 4000 tanks squadron into the West Bank and butcher everyone, instead of bringing in a couple dozen and surrounding Arafat's HQ. It's silly to even suggest they are deliberately killing innocents when you and I know they could wipe the Middle East off the face of the Earth.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by sabrewolf
the problem is the definition of "good". who decides that? why is monogamy considered as bad? who gives us the right to say, what's good or bad?
if you say 99.9%, you're seeing bad in very narrow terms. but if you take the christian values (no theft, no murder, no children without marriage, no betraying, no lying, etc., etc., etc.), far more than the 0.1% are bad...

Well like I was saying, I'm Christian so I believe the definition of good is as the Bible teaches. But a really good definition of "good" was laid out by Kohlberg in his stages of moral development.

Everyone was born with a conscience, that's what separates us from the animals. We have the innate ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

And saying that people are inherently good does not mean that we won't occasionally mess up. After all, we're not divine. Good people can do bad things. It's whether or not you're sorry for it later that matters.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i believe at least one of your terms are wrong. either we are created in god's exact image and likeness OR god is good... i think the latter is more likely

Again, as a Christian I believe both are true, since both are directly mentioned in the Bible. There's no way to view those passages contextually.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
i agree, murder of innocents is one of the worst thing. but not as bad as MASS murder of innocents. do you get my point?
and to be honest: i consider soldiers as innocent. most of them don't want to be soldiers or at least don't want to kill and die. it's the fright of being executed and the greed for revenge that turnes them into killing machines...

I see your point about mass murder of innocents, but you agree with me that targetting even one innocent is evil, right?

Soldiers are not considered "innocent" by the rules of war. You know what I mean when I say that. I'm defining "innocent" in different terms.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
it's true, sometimes peace has to be enforced. sometimes it needs sacrifice of a few for the better of the other. but then again it's a choice to make: what sacrifice? and what would happen if the sacrifice wouldn't be made.

and here's where another problem lies: who has the right to decide? that's where i disagree with the bush administration. only because he's the current leader of the most powerful nation, does NOT give him the right to decide on his own what measures and sanctions are needed.

specially you as a religious person should no, that only god has the right to judge such things.

Honestly, the average American doesn't think himself/herself to be any better than any other country's average citizen. We don't have a superiority complex or anything like that. When it comes to Iraq, Bush is looking at Saddam for what he is: a brutal dictator who has committed heinous atrocities, and who could very well have weapons of mass destruction that could be used against innocents.

I think Saddam is so evil that he'll probably risk his own civilians in a war against us. He'll probably force them to stay in Baghdad, whereupon we'll have to fight an urban battle. Then the international community will make us out to be vicious.

Originally posted by sabrewolf
wait a second... you can't say bush's reaction is better than someone elses would be - because the others didn't have the chance.

Of course we can't absolutely guarantee what someone else would or would not do. But I base my philosophy on evidence of the prior administration. Gore was in that administration, and the evidence suggests he would botch up foreign policy and the military in much the same way Clinton did.

[roalan]

People

I did not think there were many if any Jews in Lithuania to meet. As far as Palintine Land ,what land? as I said before there was never a Palestine nation . Might as well give the world bvack to the Celtics Aztec's Franks, and don't forget the Goth's etc.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II


Well I added Mets into the scenario cause I didnt wanna offend you too much

hate them yanks too... Flushing meadows!!!!

Actually I'm an A's/Raiders/Warriors/Kings fan above all else, but I still follow the O's, Wizards, Skins and Caps.

[Sonic]

I doubt if USA would even invade Iraq with ground troops, most likely they will just use air force, this way killing even more innocents.

Also, Saddam isn't that ad in my opinion.

[Sonic]

Roalan, 0.1% of Lithuanian population is Jewish as last census shown. That means there are 3500 Jews out of 3500000 people. This is not much, but I've met several.

Also, you are very wrong by saying that there is no Palestinian nation. This is same as to think Lithuanians are Russians (as some people still thinks) or Americans are British. Palestinians already formed into a nation because of living long time at the same place, even if they speaks Arabic. Also, it is no matter if they are nation or part of Arabic culture, they are certainly not Jewish so they should get independence.

[Zero]

Originally posted by Traelin

Everyone was born with a conscience, that's what separates us from the animals. We have the innate ability to distinguish between right and wrong.

What the... When did we acquire this awesome ability? Was I not there when K-mart was giving out free morality giveaway day?

And saying that people are inherently good does not mean that we won't occasionally mess up. After all, we're not divine. Good people can do bad things. It's whether or not you're sorry for it later that matters.

We are inherently good? Hmm thats strange, I thought it was otherwise

Again, as a Christian I believe both are true, since both are directly mentioned in the Bible. There's no way to view those passages contextually.

True Your religion is your, but you shouldn't apply your doctrine to govern everyone's morality. Lets keep religion outta this.

I see your point about mass murder of innocents, but you agree with me that targetting even one innocent is evil, right?

Define Innocent.

Soldiers are not considered "innocent" by the rules of war. You know what I mean when I say that. I'm defining "innocent" in different terms.

No I don't. I don't know what you are thinking when you use the word innocent. Words sometimes do have different meanign for each people.

Honestly, the average American doesn't think himself/herself to be any better than any other country's average citizen. We don't have a superiority complex or anything like that. When it comes to Iraq, Bush is looking at Saddam for what he is: a brutal dictator who has committed heinous atrocities, and who could very well have weapons of mass destruction that could be used against innocents.

Oh yes we do. Maybe not people here (I have high expectation of ppl in these threads i guess) but avg. American? Def. Yes. Media? YES

I think Saddam is so evil that he'll probably risk his own civilians in a war against us. He'll probably force them to stay in Baghdad, whereupon we'll have to fight an urban battle. Then the international community will make us out to be vicious.

It doesnt take evil leader to do evil deeds, you need much more than that. But thats another story. He doesnt really need to force people to stay, in any case with any side there are always civilians who get caufght up in urban battle since they have no where to go.

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Sonic
I doubt if USA would even invade Iraq with ground troops, most likely they will just use air force, this way killing even more innocents.

Also, Saddam isn't that ad in my opinion.

The point of war is to win while simultaneously taking as few casualties as possible. Any country in its right mind will risk as few of its own people as possible, and will also minimize civilian casualties.

You're the only person I've ever heard that doesn't think Saddam is evil. He used chemical weapons on his own citizens, innocents I might add. The coalition has done a good job of maintaining the no-fly zone so that he cannot harm the Kurds any worse than he already has. This is undeniable, according to the U.N., the U.S., and Europe.

His human rights violations against women and anyone who disagrees with him is also well documented. So your opinion of him doesn't alter the facts.

[Zero]

I suck double post

[Traelin]

Originally posted by Calc II
What the... When did we acquire this awesome ability? Was I not there when K-mart was giving out free morality giveaway day?

Actually Kohlberg did a lot of interesting psychoanalysis on this subject, while leaving religion out of it.

Originally posted by Calc II
We are inherently good? Hmm thats strange, I thought it was otherwise

Absolutely. To believe otherwise, IMHO, is being pessimistic and is capitulatory in nature.

Originally posted by Calc II
True Your religion is your, but you shouldn't apply your doctrine to govern everyone's morality. Lets keep religion outta this.

Morality is a word that is oft-misused. Morality doesn't necessarily apply to religion. It encompasses the very principles of right and wrong, with which we were instilled at birth. However, there is an environmental component to it as well. Again, Kohlberg had some cool writings on the subject.

[Zero]

Where are u getting this thing that we are born with morality?

[Zero]

There's a Simple proof. It's a classic in psychology. Girl was raised preventing communication with other humna beings. She acted no different than any other animals. Morality is therefore a learned trait.

EDIT: wait a min, kohlberg himself disproves idea that we are born morally. Notice he states we go thru stages of moral development. And some never go beyond the next stage?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Traelin
Actually Kohlberg did a lot of interesting psychoanalysis on this subject, while leaving religion out of it.

Kohlbergs statement about development of morality is more like a philosophical approach not that of a scientific. It's his opinion.

Absolutely. To believe otherwise, IMHO, is being pessimistic and is capitulatory in nature.

Never said world was a happy go lucky place... neither does realizing this harsh reality ruin my plan for picnic either.

Morality is a word that is oft-misused. Morality doesn't necessarily apply to religion. It encompasses the very principles of right and wrong, with which we were instilled at birth. However, there is an environmental component to it as well. Again, Kohlberg had some cool writings on the subject.

Of course person can be moral and atheist. But instilled at birth? check above. Righ and wrong? If I gave you a situation I bet you you can't be 100% sure if your decision would be right.