Leave it to either the Jets or the Steelers...

[RobertWeathers]

In defense of synovia (and I debated with him on another point) all he said was that he didn't think it was right to celebrate the death of another human being. It had nothing to do with morals, etc.

 

[Synovia]

Well said. If Synovia feels he has the moral ground and ability to judge others on this then more power to him. I for one, do not claim to have this moral high ground over others especially on this topic.

Again, calling someone a hypocrite is not a judgment. Its a descriptive statement. Everyone is a hypocrite in one way or another.

Hypocrite: a person who acts in contradiction to his or her stated beliefs or feelings

If you state that you believe in Christ and the tenants of Christianity, and then go out in the streets and cheer someone's death. You are a hypocrite. There is no judgement there. It is a statement of fact.

 

[BradyManny]

I defense of synovia (and I debated with him on another point) all he said was that he didn't think it was right to celebrate the death of another human being. It had nothing to do with morals, etc.

I don't think Synovia's viewpoint is one without merit. I think it's one that is interesting to debate, and while I ultimately disagree 100% with him, I can see how someone could try and argue that point, and he's done a decent job showing how.

I just think that he's stretching it and giving Mendenhall too much credit if he thinks piousness triggered that series of tweets.

 

[Synovia]

In all sincerity, what more do you need to know about the guy other than the fact that he killed thousands of innocent people and spent his days plotting how to do it again?

I say this mostly in Jest, but so did George Bush.

 

[RobertWeathers]

I say this mostly in Jest, but so did George Bush.

...and every other US President since the American Revolution. Nothing new here.

The difference is that did their reasoning align with the likes of Stalin or Franklin Roosevelt.

 

[Synovia]

...and every other US President since the American Revolution. Nothing new here.

The difference is that did their reasoning align with the likes of Stalin or Franklin Roosevelt.

Of course. Should we celebrate their deaths? Would you consider it offensive for someone to hold a "George Bush died today" party?

If not, then its really not about killing lots of innocent people, is it? Its about it being close to home. Its about us not understanding the reasoning behind it. I don't think there's any way you can be morally right in killing a million people*


*George Bush killed (according to wiki) somewhere from 98,000 to 1,033,000 iraqi civilians.

 

[ivanvamp]

In defense of synovia (and I debated with him on another point) all he said was that he didn't think it was right to celebrate the death of another human being. It had nothing to do with morals, etc.

Saying "it's not right" to celebrate (insert XYZ here) *IS* a moral stance. It's making a statement about morality.

 

[Synovia]

Saying "it's not right" to celebrate (insert XYZ here) *IS* a moral stance. It's making a statement about morality.

I didn't say it wasn't right. I've been very careful to try not to say anything about that.


I said that :

A) Celebrating the killing of a murderer is hypocritical, especially in the case of Christians, who purport to believe that *ALL* life is sacred.

B) Mendenhall's tweets aren't really saying anything all that controversial, and there's no real need for uproar.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Of course. Should we celebrate their deaths? Would you consider it offensive for someone to hold a "George Bush died today" party?

Very offensive but I wouldn't characterize myself as a big supporter of GW either.

If not, then its really not about killing lots of innocent people, is it? Its about it being close to home. Its about us not understanding the reasoning behind it.

Correct. This country has a long history of slaughtering innocent people that fell into harms way during war and also wiping out leaders and influencers that held strong anti-US positions. Is the latter any different than what Bin-Ladin did? Yes as they were singular targets. The former? Yes.

I don't think there's any way you can be morally right in killing a million people*


*George Bush killed (according to wiki) somewhere from 98,000 to 1,033,000 iraqi civilians.

I agree. But I do believe that it is morally right to take out one- especially someone who orders the hyjacking of planes with the intent to kill thousands of people who have nothing to do with a political agenda. My opinion only.

 

[Synovia]

Correct. This country has a long history of slaughtering innocent people that fell into harms way during war and also wiping out leaders and influencers that held strong anti-US positions. Is the latter any different than what Bin-Ladin did? Yes as they were singular targets. The former? Yes.

Airstrikes on Baghdad are singular targets? Bush killed (up to) a million people to further his (objectionable to them) socio-political goals. Osama killed at tops 10,000 to further his (objectionable to us) socio-polito-religious goals.

I think going in and killing bin Laden was a good thing. He's clearly a terrible human being, and everyone is safer now that hes gone. I just don't think celebrating int he streets helps anyone, and honestly, I think its just another thing America is doing thats going to engender hate from a whole bunch of the world.

Honestly, I wish the government would handle problems like this more often. If Bush really wanted to get rid of Hussein, just having him shot probably would have been a much more effective path.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Airstrikes on Baghdad are singular targets? Bush killed (up to) a million people to further his (objectionable to them) socio-political goals. Osama killed at tops 10,000 to further his (objectionable to us) socio-polito-religious goals.

You misread. Singular targets are Obama. Civilian casualties of war are what you are referring to. Doesn't make it right though.

Honestly, I wish the government would handle problems like this more often. If Bush really wanted to get rid of Hussein, just having him shot probably would have been a much more effective path.

Bush didn't want to just wipe out Hussain. He wanted to make a statement for every Arab country that messed with the US- right or wrong.

If I had it my way I'd increase funding by 50% for the CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, and the other 10 or so intelligence agencies- including Special Forces and Navy SEALs.

 

[Synovia]

Bush didn't want to just wipe out Hussain. He wanted to make a statement for every Arab country that messed with the US- right or wrong.

I thought he was looking for WMD

Still, the point stands, is killing (up to) a million iraqi civilians to make a political point really all that different (besides the scale) from killing 3000 american civilians to make a polito-religious point? Its two men with very different political and religious beliefs killing a whole lot of innocent people because they believe its the right thing to do.


I think they're both a bunch of asshats, but I think the major difference between the two isn't anything moral, but more of an issue of proximity, and alignment of beliefs.





Why the hell is this thread not in the politics/religion forum?

 

[RobertWeathers]

I thought he was looking for WMD

Still, the point stands, is killing (up to) a million iraqi civilians to make a political point really all that different (besides the scale) from killing 3000 american civilians to make a polito-religious point? Its two men with very different political and religious beliefs killing a whole lot of innocent people because they believe its the right thing to do.


I think they're both a bunch of asshats, but I think the major difference between the two isn't anything moral, but more of an issue of proximity, and alignment of beliefs.

Well, I think we've debated the differences. Personally, I don't think GW's direct intent was to kill millions of Iraqi citizens but rather he deferred to Tommy Franks and the other military strategists to decide how best to neutralize anti-aircraft guns, StoA missiles, government intelligence HQs, etc- all with the intent of preserving ground forces. I do think that US Presidents care about human life. Generals care about winning a war- no matter what.

Call me gullible. GW was many things, but I don't think he was a genocidal maniac.

Why the hell is this thread not in the politics/religion forum?

Good question. I'd like to think we are having a mature discussion/debate. Maybe the mods look more favorably on us than others.

 

[PATRIOTSFANINPA]

Political forum has moved??

 

[PATSNUTme]

Now that religion has been brought into the FOOTBALL FORUM, here is my prayer:

I have had to kick a couple of people off this thread for posting links to some not so football stuff. And some of the post here are way beyond the original subject of the thread.

But it's the off season and I don't want to be heavy handed. Please try to keep the thread within confines of the subject.

My sole comment on the subject is the Mendenhall should not be expected to be invited to an MENSA meeting any time soon. Neither do I.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Now that religion has been brought into the FOOTBALL FORUM, here is my prayer:

I have had to kick a couple of people off this thread for posting links to some not so football stuff. And some of the post here are way beyond the original subject of the thread.

But it's the off season and I don't want to be heavy handed. Please try to keep the thread within confines of the subject.

My sole comment on the subject is the Mendenhall should not be expected to be invited to an MENSA meeting any time soon. Neither do I.

You are right, PATSNUTme. The discussion certainly should have been moved. Thanks for being lenient.

God help us if the lockout continues through the summer and subsequent games are lost!

 

[BradyFTW!]

Add Iraq, Sudan. Yemen, etc. He wasn't part of Iraq (although it is believed that Al Queda were operating in Iraq) but his actions put this country's anti-terrorism campaign into overdrive. I concede that i'm off a few # of casualties. No disrespect to the dead. Just making a point.

Attributing the deaths from the Iraq War to bin Laden is tenuous at best. Realistically, there's no link between the two and there never was.

 

[RobertWeathers]

Attributing the deaths from the Iraq War to bin Laden is tenuous at best. Realistically, there's no link between the two and there never was.

If 9/11 doesn't happen, the US does not get the international nor congressional support to attack Iraq.

 

[jah]

No comment.

 

[ausbacker]

You misread. Singular targets are Obama. Civilian casualties of war are what you are referring to. Doesn't make it right though.

Bush didn't want to just wipe out Hussain. He wanted to make a statement for every Arab country that messed with the US- right or wrong.

If I had it my way I'd increase funding by 50% for the CIA, NSA, DIA, FBI, and the other 10 or so intelligence agencies- including Special Forces and Navy SEALs.

You are aware overspending on your military is one of the big reasons your economic system is beginning to fail right? I'd work on improving the lives of American citizens at home before spending more on one of the best Armed Services/covert operations in the world.

As for Mendenhall, I understand his mentality and his opinion that doesn't necessarily mean you gave to agree with it.

Interesting thread to read through and garner some opinions once the dust starts to settle on the Bin Laden assassination.