It's finally appropiate to piss on a grave.
posted on May 6th, 2011, 6:25 pm
posted on May 6th, 2011, 6:26 pm
who said they were the same, i said they were more comparable. i think you missed that bit of my post.
innocent people died in the middle east in wars started by the west too. we in the west arent angels, we do bad things too.
many people think bush is evil for ordering torture of humans.
there are important difference between them, but one cannot ignore the bitter similarities between what the west does and the stuff those we accuse of being "the bad guys" do.
dont bring sham comparisons into this, thats just plain stupid and you know it. my cat killed a bird once, lets call it evil and nuke it
innocent people died in the middle east in wars started by the west too. we in the west arent angels, we do bad things too.
many people think bush is evil for ordering torture of humans.
there are important difference between them, but one cannot ignore the bitter similarities between what the west does and the stuff those we accuse of being "the bad guys" do.
Atlantisbase wrote:Myles, would you compare Winston Churchill to Hitler just because Churchill fought a war that killed millions of people?
dont bring sham comparisons into this, thats just plain stupid and you know it. my cat killed a bird once, lets call it evil and nuke it
posted on May 6th, 2011, 6:36 pm
posted on May 6th, 2011, 6:37 pm
Last edited by Atlantisbase on May 6th, 2011, 6:39 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Myles wrote:who said they were the same, i said they were more comparable. i think you missed that bit of my post.
innocent people died in the middle east in wars started by the west too. we in the west arent angels, we do bad things too.
many people think bush is evil for ordering torture of humans.
there are important difference between them, but one cannot ignore the bitter similarities between what the west does and the stuff those we accuse of being "the bad guys" do.
I don't dispute there exist similarities, but this is not necessarily anything new. The West has a dark side and always has. The only reason it's getting more attention is because of mass media and the internet; all of a sudden, people think that this dark side is something new. Notice however, that Bush doesn't go around using religion to justify killing those who are different.
Do you think it wrong that we went to war with an element whose sole goal was "Death to America". They started it. And had we not done anything, they would have kept attacking us. Hell, they have tried; at least twice now to blow up air planes.
Myles wrote:dont bring sham comparisons into this, thats just plain stupid and you know it. my cat killed a bird once, lets call it evil and nuke it
That's my point. It's stupid to compare Bush to Osama.
posted on May 6th, 2011, 6:48 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on May 6th, 2011, 6:56 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Myles wrote:who said they were the same, i said they were more comparable. i think you missed that bit of my post.
innocent people died in the middle east in wars started by the west too. we in the west arent angels, we do bad things too.
many people think bush is evil for ordering torture of humans.
there are important difference between them, but one cannot ignore the bitter similarities between what the west does and the stuff those we accuse of being "the bad guys" do.
dont bring sham comparisons into this, thats just plain stupid and you know it. my cat killed a bird once, lets call it evil and nuke it
Actually, I would say that his argument is perfectly valid, but we are not out to pick on other countries. Though his comparrison is the same as yours, it is time to pick on america right?
Anyway Bush did not torture anyone, infact our government isn't allowed to torture anyone(depending on your definition I guess, but that is another debate). As I said, the president doesn't really do any of this stuff anyway. He is little more than the face of america and a figurehead. In certain situations he will be forced to pick from certain options, but in the case of things like going to war, it was not his choice. Nor is it the presidents choice to end it. Nor is it really his choice who to kill. Sure, Obama may have given the kill order to shoot Osama, but does that make him evil? No, it certainly does not. You know why? Because Osama was evil and, though he may not have deserved to die(who am I to say so?) obama had little other options. In the same way, if Bush is responsible for any loss of innocent life, it is because his generals gave him few options and they did what was best. I am sure that any non-evil person will choose killing enemy combatants over innocents if they have the option. And again, it is silly to place the blame for a countrys actions completely on its representative. Sure, he represents the country and maybe even takes responsibility for their actions, I really don't know how bush felt on the matter, but either way, it doesn't make him an evil person, or like Osama bin Ladin.
As I said in my last post, there are very thin similaritys, but it is just as fair to compare bush to osama as it is to compare any other ruler to hitler or stalin, etc.
@Dom
yeah, if you are refering to the "Weapons of mass destruction thing" then I would simply say he was mis informed.
But either way, he would not be the first president that did stupid things and lied to the public, and he certainly will not be the last. And yeah, I disagreed with alot of what he did, but that doesn't justify comparing him to Osama.posted on May 6th, 2011, 6:49 pm
posted on May 6th, 2011, 6:58 pm
Adm. Zaxxon, Bush did order the torture of individuals, many of them innocent 
. Not only do the torture proceedings go against Geneva conventions, but conveniently the definition of enemy combatants was changed to 'terrorists' for just this purpose, so that torture would be allowed for anybody who was deemed a terrorist. That often included American citizens, many of whom were later released. Of course, there are also many who have NOT been released as well.
Bush was not misinformed, and it would be wise if you would read his book, or at least excerpts (or even listen to what his advisers still state, including his vice president). He did not regret invading Iraq, and he STILL thinks there were weapons of mass destruction there. And he justified it all by saying it was his duty given by his god to invade.
. Not only do the torture proceedings go against Geneva conventions, but conveniently the definition of enemy combatants was changed to 'terrorists' for just this purpose, so that torture would be allowed for anybody who was deemed a terrorist. That often included American citizens, many of whom were later released. Of course, there are also many who have NOT been released as well.Bush was not misinformed, and it would be wise if you would read his book, or at least excerpts (or even listen to what his advisers still state, including his vice president). He did not regret invading Iraq, and he STILL thinks there were weapons of mass destruction there. And he justified it all by saying it was his duty given by his god to invade.
posted on May 6th, 2011, 7:11 pm
Dominus_Noctis wrote:Adm. Zaxxon, Bush did order the torture of individuals, many of them innocent
Bush was not misinformed, and it would be wise if you would read his book, or at least excerpts (or even listen to what his advisers still state, including his vice president). He did not regret invading Iraq, and he STILL thinks there were weapons of mass destruction there. And he justified it all by saying it was his duty given by his god to invade.
As Myles said, lets save the torture thing for another day and thread.(and tbh, I know little about it and don't want to argue with you when I am ill informed)
As to the weapons of mass destruction, believe that it is possible that there could be, 'nuculur' weapons there, but I have no reason to think there are or aren't. Just because we haven't found them yet does't mean they are there, but it also doesn't mean they are. I also prefer if you don't tell me what it would be wise for me to do, as I have no intention of reading his book, and don't believe it will make me any wiser.
I don't think he has any reason to regret invading iraq specifically, maybe other things he did, but invaiding in the first place was probably not the bigest mistake he made, if one at all. Being justified by God is something else, but when we pledge allegiance to "one nation under God" I wouldn;t really see anything wrong with him believing that his duty to this country was given to him, possibly by the same God that this nation is under, but to each his own. 
I don't see anything wrong with that. I don't think using God to justify ones actions is right at all, but believing that his duty was given to him by God is not something I would object to. He may believe what he wants, he just shouldn't use his beliefs to make excuses. posted on May 6th, 2011, 7:17 pm
The words "under god" were added in 1954 and were a terrible stupid decision, designed to set us oh-so-righteous Americans apart from the evil godless "communists". The same era that instituted Mccarthyism and other ludicrous witch hunts, which I have extremely big problems with, and you should as well. Bringing us back to torture again
Just because pink unicorns don't float into your bedroom doesn't mean they don't exist either, right?
There is a tremendous body of evidence indicating that not only did Iraq never have the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons, but they had no weapons of mass destruction at all for many years prior. Inspections post war proved beyond a doubt that the earlier intelligence on these carefully analyzed situations were absolutely correct. There were no weapons, and hadn't been, for many many years.
Just because pink unicorns don't float into your bedroom doesn't mean they don't exist either, right?
There is a tremendous body of evidence indicating that not only did Iraq never have the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons, but they had no weapons of mass destruction at all for many years prior. Inspections post war proved beyond a doubt that the earlier intelligence on these carefully analyzed situations were absolutely correct. There were no weapons, and hadn't been, for many many years.
posted on May 6th, 2011, 7:20 pm
posted on May 6th, 2011, 7:36 pm
Myles wrote:who started it? its not that simple, both sides have done bad things. it's far too easy to say "they're the bad guys and we are just and right". my point is that we need to take a long hard look at ourselves as well as our enemies, and realise that both sides have commited atrocities, both sides continue wasting this planets resources on pointless conflicts that only serve to hurt us as a race. this isnt black and white, there are no "bad guys", its not a comic, or an action movie. neither side is completely good or bad, or right or wrong.
It's not necessarily a question of who's right and who's wrong. America was attacked, America is defending itself (and probably several other countries) against Al Qaeda. Can you honestly say that if we just ignored them that Al Qaeda would just give up. I doubt it.
Myles wrote:this "god" he claims to be acting in the name of, is the same god osama bin laden is claiming to be acting in the name of. in fact neither religion supports killing innocent people, but religion being twisted into something different isnt something new either, sadly.
Using religion in that manner is wrong (though I care not for any religion; they can all go die in some nursing home for religions) and it's not going to die down on its own. And that is why someone has to stop them. I don't really care what justification we use to stop them, but allowing Al Qaeda run around killing others in the name of their God for absolutely no reason cannot stand. Bush may justify his actions using God (which is his belief, not necessarily that of Congress or the people) but we actually have a reason to kill Al Qaeda. Namely, they want to kill us.
Myles wrote:oh yeah, and successful transatlantic flame war started!
WOOH!
posted on May 6th, 2011, 7:37 pm
posted on May 6th, 2011, 7:40 pm
A lot of terrorist organizations (and other groups) would just as easily point fingers at the US and other countries as aggressors. The US has military deployed in over 150 countries around the world, and many of them are in the Middle East. Likewise, we helped prop up dictators for decades - that's considered a major sore point 
posted on May 6th, 2011, 7:45 pm
Last edited by Anonymous on May 6th, 2011, 7:48 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Dominus_Noctis wrote:The words "under god" were added in 1954 and were a terrible stupid decision, designed to set us oh-so-righteous Americans apart from the evil godless "communists". The same era that instituted Mccarthyism and other ludicrous witch hunts, which I have extremely big problems with, and you should as well. Bringing us back to torture again
Just because pink unicorns don't float into your bedroom doesn't mean they don't exist either, right?
There is a tremendous body of evidence indicating that not only did Iraq never have the capability to manufacture nuclear weapons, but they had no weapons of mass destruction at all for many years prior. Inspections post war proved beyond a doubt that the earlier intelligence on these carefully analyzed situations were absolutely correct. There were no weapons, and hadn't been, for many many years.
Yes, of course, but you can't deny that the country, weather you believe we have progressed past it or not, was originally found on those belifs. Yeah, they weren't all christian, deists, or whatever but we are talking about "God" given rights, not government given ones. If you take away "God" it makes it very easy to take away the Rights too. But again, another debate. For shame!
A moderator perpetuating off topicness. And yeah, just because I don't see the pink unocorns doesn't mean they don;t exist. It makes it highly implausable, espically the pink and flying part
but who's to say that unicorns never existed? Another genetic mutation right? Folk lore has to come from somewhere. You of all people should have an open enough mind to see that even though something is highly implausible doesn't mean that it doesn't, or never existed. We discover evidence of new species all the time....not saying I believe in unicorns btw. Just wanted to make that clear.
I just wouldn't discount the possibility of anything just because we haven't seen it. Seems awful arrogant to me.(to believe that we have already discovered everything and that if we haven't seen it it doesn't exist. Not meaning to call you arrogant Dom.
) Myles wrote:this "god" he claims to be acting in the name of, is the same god osama bin laden is claiming to be acting in the name of.
This^^ I disagree with. no more, just my opinion.
Myles wrote: but religion being twisted into something different isnt something new either, sadly.
you are absolutely right. But just because they twist their own beliefs doesn't mean they can use it as on excuse, and doesn't mean they are automatically evil either. I think Osama was evil for other reasons other than twisting his own religion.
Myles wrote:oh yeah, and successful transatlantic flame war started!
Hey, in my and Doms defence, I think we've managed to keep it quite civil so far. And...we are probably on the same continent right now. posted on May 6th, 2011, 7:59 pm
It's in the small topic section - I think a bit of offtopicness is fine, as it is still relevant to the overall discussion
I find there is a difference between an open mind, and one that is permeable to everything I go where the evidence takes me, and I don't see a need to invent some stuff to create convenient loopholes when it is so contradictory to strong evidence (especially when knowing the history behind these mythologies). New species are surely discovered all the time, but they are also just as surely linked genetically to their antecedents. Folk lore can come just as easily from the mind as it does from reality. Here be dragons.
There are plenty of secular nations which do not mention god, nor rights belonging to this god - and they are still egalitarian. This country was built on the secular separation of church and state, and to pretend it was not is a grave error I think. To justify that you need a god to have rights, is, well, limiting rights.
Alrighty, back to being the fingerless, wordless observer haunting the forums
I find there is a difference between an open mind, and one that is permeable to everything
I go where the evidence takes me, and I don't see a need to invent some stuff to create convenient loopholes when it is so contradictory to strong evidence (especially when knowing the history behind these mythologies). New species are surely discovered all the time, but they are also just as surely linked genetically to their antecedents. Folk lore can come just as easily from the mind as it does from reality. Here be dragons.There are plenty of secular nations which do not mention god, nor rights belonging to this god - and they are still egalitarian
. This country was built on the secular separation of church and state, and to pretend it was not is a grave error I think. To justify that you need a god to have rights, is, well, limiting rights.Alrighty, back to being the fingerless, wordless observer haunting the forums
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 20 guests