- Joined
- Sep 7, 2006
- Messages
- 68,355
- Reaction score
- 105,345
Registered Members experience this forum ad and noise-free.
CLICK HERE to Register for a free account and login for a smoother ad-free experience. It's easy, and only takes a few moments.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.
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.
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.
...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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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?
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.
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.
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.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.