I absolutley *HATE* to say this, but the attacks are good, and we need more

[Datajack Franit]

Having 99% less mosques

[Pekka]

I smell trolling in the OP.. but I'll bite

I don't think it's good, even small series of attacks. Because, that's exactly what we need to avoid, getting the group feeling that we must kick their ass. Because their ass means arab ass. And that ass is different from terrorist ass.

It doesn't make it a good situation where we all become nazis and the persecuted ones are arabs and muslims. Because it'll be the common feeling, some are all for it, some are OK with it, some hate it but know 'it has to be done', and only few will be actually thinking what the hell are people thinking, if we get like say 9/11 ten times in ten countries. Or 50 times. The worst we can ever do is set up them camps again. Why? Because.. then we ain't what we are now. Then we do what we are supposed to avoid doing. Then we aren't democracy anymore, then we are nothing but criminals ourselves. SO no. It's not good. And we don't 'need to wake up'. Professionals go do their job. THat's it. Soldiers, cops, special forces, investigators, courts, they do the job. That's it. Or we become just like them. And then I have to ask, what was the point to begin with? I don't feel like disrespecting all the veterans of several wars whose life were stolen, the millions of them all together, just so that us westerners could have the freedoms we now have, and then just **** it all up and make their deaths meaningless. No way if you ask me.

[Barinthus]

Originally posted by Dis
I would give out my address, but I don't want the women of the forum coming and hitting on me. I have trouble fending off the ladies as it is.

Well I'm sure I can get my unwanted guest to do it

[Imran Siddiqui]

Ves just wants WW3. We bomb Arab countries, people in those countries say, 'Hey, maybe Al Queda has a good point' and voila.

[Pekka]

Imran, but you do, and they do also?
But I reckon if it gets wider, more open, and it'll be two sides, we must go hard and we must win. I don't care about mumbling philosophers at that point, they can go cry to some dark basement and write a book about it but it's going to be free killing zones with my approval.

BUT THEN AGAIN we must avoid that ever happening. What what what?

[Wiglaf]

I think, when all the clerics and heads of all the muslim states condemn terrorism, then it would be unethical to attack them. (Assuming of course they are not providing logistical support)

Trouble is, there has not been a true universal condemnation of any terror attack among Muslims and their leadership.

If Christians started killing thousands of people, in the modern age, the Church would condemn it outright. I'd credit that to our reformation, a movement that it seems muslims worldwide could use right about now.

Short of that, there's reason to consider bombing complacent countries if these attacks persist, unfortunately.

[Dis]

I'm tired of hearing this condemnation. Where is the condemnation of U.S. senators and congressman for the Iraq war?

I always thought it was corny when some religious leader offered a condmenation after a bombing. Like they are going to come out and support it. stupid.

[Wiglaf]

So the Iraq War was a terrorist act, and all muslims and their religious leaders oppose terrorism.

[Last Conformist]

Stupid thread. It needs to be hijacked.

[mrmitchell]

Usually when people say "I hate to say this" or "I hate to do this" then I just tell them, "then don't."

Why do something you hate to do? It just doesn't make sense.

[Dis]

Originally posted by Wiglaf
So the Iraq War was a terrorist act, and all muslims and their religious leaders oppose terrorism.

technically speaking the Iraq war was not a terrorist act.

Only because we have the means to use overwhelming force to accomplish our objectives (though we are failing at those).

But the results of the war are clear. We have brought terrorism to the country of Iraq.

[BlackCat]

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Stupid thread. It needs to be hijacked.

Originally posted by Last Conformist
Stupid thread. It needs to be hijacked.

I like your tools to hijack a thread - very nice.

Though Lady Di (his shortening of his name makes me ) has a point.

What about the blame of all these congreesmens and senators, not to talk about all the other governments and common people that supported the liberation of Iraq ?

The bloddy trail is scrutinized by http://www.iraqbodycount.net/ and it does not look good.

According to their summings, the liberation forces are to blame for approx 10,000 civilian losses out of 25,000 the last two years. Most of these though was pre invasion, so civilian killings by military post invasion is very low.

One thing puzzles me though - it seems that 18 % of the killings of civilians are done by unknown forces.

This do sound bad - 25,000 deaths in two years, but strangely the page doesn't mention that Saddam on average killed 37,000 civilians a year.

How come that I don't think it's that bad that instead of 74,000 deads, there has only been 25,000 ?

Sorry if I destroy what could be a great thread LC

[Pekka]

logic extraordinaire.. hey, I kill only 2000 women and 2000 children a year, so I must be the best choice for Iraq.

Hooray for me!



I mean, if we are able to kill less than Saddam, while he could do all he wanted and we call him a murderer, what does that make of us? Right, so that logic won't work now will it. Somehow I predict you refuse to understand the point though. Go on, Chewbacca now.

[BlackCat]

Dear Pekka, I really your lack of logic and incohenrent thinking - why don't you take a stroll in your garden, make a pee and tell us about it in one of your threads ?

[Pekka]

Naturally your difficulties in mathematics is hindering you from understanding simple things like the statistics on that website. Of course while I explained why your little theory is weird, you could only provide what I required, the Chewbacca. Thank you and good night.

PS. Jesus hates you.