Wow aren't WE doing alot of praying?
:)
Printable View
Wow aren't WE doing alot of praying?
:)
ur a funny guy tashboy :D
Not particularly, since some of us have the intelligence to have realised that nothing will change unless we do something about it ourselves.Quote:
Originally posted by jesus4u
Wow aren't WE doing alot of praying?
:)
You seem to have missed out on the "logic" phase of evolution.
It is VERY logical to believe and trust in Jesus Christ who loves me, protects me, provides me everything I need and is there for me at all times. Who wouldn't? But you want to believe in your own understanding of the universe when the creator of this universe is right there under your nose and in your reach.
im sorry but i have 2 say this...most christians use jesus christ as an excuse to act like complete ******s (not saying this is u j4u) because jesus died 2 take away all our sins (yeah right, thats bull, some guy who wanted 2 live immorally made that up so he could do what he wanted but he would go 2 heaven if he believed in jesus) they act all immoral and dont worryQuote:
Originally posted by jesus4u
It is VERY logical to believe and trust in Jesus Christ who loves me, protects me, provides me everything I need and is there for me at all times. Who wouldn't? But you want to believe in your own understanding of the universe when the creator of this universe is right there under your nose and in your reach.
again, im not saying this is u j4u, it probably isnt since u seem like a very straight up person
Does he love me? No - he's never said he does.
Does he protect me? No - I've nearly died more times than I care to think about and I've been protected by other people around me.
Does he provide everything I need? No - hard work on the part of myself, my family, and the country I live in provide for what I need.
Is he there for me at all times? No - I've never once seen him.
Looks like I just obliterated your poetic stance on the matter.
Quote:
Originally posted by parksie
Does he love me? No - he's never said he does.
For God so loved the world that he gave his only Son, that whoever believes in him should not perish but have eternal life
Does he protect me? No - I've nearly died more times than I care to think about and I've been protected by other people around me.
Cast all your anxieties on him, for he cares about you
Does he provide everything I need? No - hard work on the part of myself, my family, and the country I live in provide for what I need.
...your Father knows what you need before you ask Him.
Is he there for me at all times? No - I've never once seen him.
for He Himself has said, "I WILL NEVER DESERT YOU, NOR WILL I EVER FORSAKE YOU
Looks like I just obliterated your poetic stance on the matter.
thanks, I just stick up for what I believe to be true and am not afraid to tell the truth, even when it means being misunderstood and maligned.Quote:
Originally posted by ghost ryder
again, im not saying this is u j4u, it probably isnt since u seem like a very straight up person
I'm not having a go at you personally, I'm having a go at the religion you're representing...
However, all you seem to have posted are biblical quotes, which were written around 2000 years ago and nobody can possibly vouch for their accuracy.
I think the general consensus is we'd rather be doing something useful.Quote:
Originally posted by jesus4u
Wow aren't WE doing alot of praying?
:)
Carry on and pray if you want, just don't expect anyone to thank you when you could be doing something productive instead.
Word up.
Actually, I'd rather be doing something useless (like drinking :D)
I wish I could agree Parksie but human nature dictates otherwise...
U know the bread argument? (reworked by the Simpsons but that was not the source!! :D )
Is it ok to steal a loaf of bread? No
Is it ok to steal a loaf of bread if you have nothing to eat? Well
What about if the people that make the bread... etc etc etc
This scenario is played out in arguments and wars all over the world.
Ooops I replied to the wrong friggin thread!! doh... was supposed to be Black Hawk Down
see a mistake like that couldve started an argument and then I wouldve nuked you etc etc etc :D :D
... stick his finger in his arse, fart... and make how far he has catapulted accros the jungleQuote:
Originally posted by beachbum
I wonder what Tarzan would do in this situation....
im praying for ice cream :D
I'm praying Australia wins the cricket - 4/56 isn't looking hopeful...:(
Let's compare it with a computer then.
Does he love me ? Oh yes, I've a lot of friends online and there's the ubiquitous porn for those without friends. And I received an I Love You e-mail !
Does he protect me ? Yes, he kept me from going out and away from the possibility of being murdered or run over.
Is he there for me all the time ? Yes, just a push of the button and he's there to serve my every need. Well ... Almost anyway.
Does he provide me everything I need ? Not everything but a whole lot of it.
Would you be so daft as to say : computer = God ? You probably wouldn't ...
I on the other hand errmmm All hail to the new God in town. At least he doesn't byte
It's been ages since my last <<lot of swear words removed at request of sollicitor, the right honorable Mr. M. Liss>>, goddamnit !! :mad:
If god provides so much for you, then why do you ask questions on the vbforums ? Surely god would want to help you there too. He seems to do just about everything else!Quote:
Originally posted by jesus4u
It is VERY logical to believe and trust in Jesus Christ who loves me, protects me, provides me everything I need and is there for me at all times. Who wouldn't? But you want to believe in your own understanding of the universe when the creator of this universe is right there under your nose and in your reach.
I knew I shouldn't have opened this thread. Now I want to reply to some posts, but I know it will only start 'um heap big' argument.
I think I'll keep schtum and try not to hurt anyone.
I'm begining to understand a little of where you're coming from. I've met people with your mindset before; mostly in Inner London (cab drivers usually) and Rotherham (N England).Quote:
Originally posted by jesus4u
thanks, I just stick up for what I believe to be true and am not afraid to tell the truth, even when it means being misunderstood and maligned.
These people, too, had no 20:20 vision. Complete devotion to one cause, regardless of how compelling other options were. The people i mention above are racists. The stick up for what they believe in and condescend those who dare have a different opinion.
I also seem to remember this happening to a whole nation of people in the 20th Century. These people became awestruck with a particular leader, who was their all, almost omnipotent (through idolistic statues, pictures etc). His people praised him and saluted him. They were not allowed any expansion of thought beyond his teachings. And like Christianity, his methods lead to war.
Arbiter, awwww no fun :( :p :D:D
I mean, check this out for pure unreasonablness:
http://www.hcis.net/users/dlemmons/CCD-LCordle.htm
HA!!!!
Holy ****
Your wish is granted my son... but of course i demand a little sacrifice or two... emmm ok where to start... a couple of nubile virgin lasses, emm a few dollars (and none of that worthless australian crap) and a restyled mullet...Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
I'm praying Australia wins the cricket - 4/56 isn't looking hopeful...:(
Puss off, Aussies. Whin you gut to God's country, I, God, wull strike thee down wuth greta vungence...
Evolution through death and destruction, been happening 4 years, the strong will always pick on the weak and weak will always rise up and attack the strong it’s a thing we human’s are good at.
Thanks God! You're a champion! Sending us BEvan was a stroke of genius! :DQuote:
Originally posted by beachbum
Your wish is granted my son... but of course i demand a little sacrifice or two... emmm ok where to start... a couple of nubile virgin lasses, emm a few dollars (and none of that worthless australian crap) and a restyled mullet...
Uhmmm...I think 10 years of Soviet control and years of civil war pretty much reduced that country to a level where our bombing could actually be argued to be an improvement.Quote:
Originally posted by ghost ryder
OK THE TALEBAN WERE ******S, NO DOUBT, BUT WHY DID THE ****ING DESTROY THE COUNTRY?? WHY?? THERE WAS NO NEED...HAS IT GOT THEM ANY CLOSER TO BIN LADEN?? NOPE
As far as not getting OBL, I believe it's actually better that we didn't. Without a body, there willl ALWAYS be doubt about him. Any country there's a **sightening**, becomes a target. He'll be like Elvis....people will see him all over the place. The difference is that when OBL is seen, fighters are scrambled. We had a debate at work the other day about OBL actually having been caught, but they killed him and dumped him off an aircraft carrier.
Good way to keep the population interested in the *war*.
hehehehehehe
So your blaming the USA for 20 years of the Soviets and civil war AND the drought too ???Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
The food drops are a pretty obvious attempt at trying to win over the Afghan populace. Thus the propaganda which comes with it. It's still a good thing, but really, a packet of rice isn't much consolation for the death of friends and family, or the destruction of your entire country.
.
.
.
Look at the things around you fool. Then tell me you'd be happy living in your own ****, with not enough food to get by, and on top of that some arsehole from another country waltzes in and starts throwing rocks at you.
Wow....we are good. :rolleyes:
hehehehehe
Last I heard they were claiming he had probably died of kidney failure because he needed dialysis which he couldn't get at the time...pffft....:rolleyes:
Where the hell do you get that from? There is no way you could insinuate that from what I said.Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
So your blaming the USA for 20 years of the Soviets and civil war AND the drought too ???
Wow....we are good. :rolleyes:
hehehehehe
It was an argument against someone's response to bombing opposition that "well, what about the food drops?" like that was adequate compensation.
Don't bloody start making crap up and misquoting people inaccurately...:rolleyes:
Taken from: http://www.wsws.org/articles/2001/oc...tal1-o24.shtmlQuote:
The US and the Taliban
Like Pakistan and Saudi Arabia, the US has repeatedly denied any support for the Taliban. Given the close involvement of the CIA with Pakistan and the ISI throughout the 1980s, however, it is highly implausible that Washington did not know of, and give tacit approval to, the Bhutto government’s plans for the Taliban. Pakistan’s support for the Taliban was an open secret, yet it was only in the late 1990s that the US began to put pressure on Islamabad over its relations with the regime.
Further indirect evidence of US-Taliban relations comes from the efforts of US Congressman Dana Rohrabacher, a member of the House Foreign Relations Committee, to obtain access to official US documents related to Afghanistan since the Taliban’s formation. Rohrabacher, a supporter of the Afghani king, certainly had an axe to grind with the Clinton administration. But the response to his demands was significant. After two years of pressure, the State Department finally handed over nearly one thousand documents covering the period after 1996, but has stubbornly refused to release any dealing with the crucial earlier period.
While exact details of early US contacts with the Taliban or its Pakistani handlers are unavailable, Washington’s attitude was clear. Author Ahmed Rashid comments: “The Clinton administration was clearly sympathetic to the Taliban, as they were in line with Washington’s anti-Iran policy and were important for the success of any southern pipeline from Central Asia that would avoid Iran. The US Congress had authorised a covert $20 million budget for the CIA to destabilise Iran, and Tehran had accused Washington of funnelling some of these funds to the Taliban—a charge that was always denied by Washington” [Taliban: Islam, Oil and the New Great Game in Central Asia, p. 46].
In fact, the period from 1994 to 1997 coincided with a flurry of US diplomatic activity, aimed at securing support for the Unocal pipeline. In March 1996, prominent US senator Hank Brown, a supporter of the Unocal project, visited Kabul and other Afghan cities. He met with the Taliban and invited them to send delegates to a Unocal-funded conference on Afghanistan in the US. In the same month, the US also exerted pressure on the Pakistani government to ditch its arrangements with Bridas and back the American company.
The following month, US Assistant Secretary of State for South Asia Robin Raphel visited Pakistan, Afghanistan and Central Asia, urging a political solution to the continuing conflict. “We are also concerned that economic opportunities here will be missed, if political stability cannot be restored,” she told the media. Raphel did not hold talks with the Taliban leaders or offer any other indication of official support. But neither was the US stridently criticising the Taliban on women’s rights, drugs and terrorism, which were to form the basis of its ultimatums to the regime in the late 1990s. On all three issues, there was an abundance of evidence, unless one chose to deliberately ignore it.
* Ever since the seizure of Kandahar it was obvious that the Taliban would not countenance even the most basic democratic rights. Girls were banned from schools and women from working—measures which created enormous hardships. A strict, even absurd, dress code was imposed on men and women and virtually all forms of entertainment, from video and TV to kite flying, were banned. A religious police enforced the social code, meting out arbitrary justice on the street to offenders. Public executions were carried out for a wide range of crimes including adultery and homosexuality. The purpose of the entire system of repression was to terrorise people into accepting the Taliban’s theocratic dictatorship in which no one had any say except the Taliban’s mullahs. Even their decisions were subject to veto by Mullah Omar in Kandahar.
* In the case of the huge Afghani heroin industry, the US played a major role in its expansion. Throughout the 1980s, the Mujaheddin groups and their Pakistani handlers exploited the covert supply lines, set up with CIA assistance to get arms into Afghanistan, in order to smuggle large quantities of opium out of the country. The CIA ignored the drug trade in the interests of prosecuting the war against the Soviet army. By the early 1990s, Afghanistan rivalled Burma as the world’s largest producer of opium. The US took much the same attitude to the Taliban, which initially pledged to outlaw opium cultivation but quickly reversed its decision after realising that there were few alternative sources of income in Afghanistan’s ruined economy. After the Taliban took Kandahar, opium output from the surrounding province increased by 50 percent. As its forces moved further north, estimated output for the country as a whole increased to 2,800 tonnes in 1997—up at least 25 percent from 1995. None of this provoked public denunciations in Washington at the time.
* The US attitude to the threat of Islamic extremism was just as hypocritical. In the 1980s, the US not only gave support to the Mujaheddin generally, but also, in 1986, specifically approved a Pakistani plan to recruit fighters internationally to demonstrate that the whole Muslim world supported the anti-Soviet war. Under the plan, an estimated 35,000 Islamic militants from the Middle East, Central Asia, Africa and the Philippines were trained and armed to fight in Afghanistan. Prominent among the Arab Afghans, as they were dubbed, was Osama bin Laden, the son of a wealthy Yemeni construction magnate, who had been in Pakistan building roads and depots for the Mujaheddin since 1980. He worked with the CIA in 1986 to build the huge Khost tunnel complex as an arms dump and training facility, then went on to build his own training camp and, in 1989, established Al Qaeda (the Base) for Arab Afghans.
Worked for me. I doubt very much if any country in history was ever freed/spawned/hatched/whatever without alot of nasty things happening to civilians. Every nitwit I hear has some hard-on over the bombings but everything I've read, civilian deaths in war did not start with Wilbur and Orville.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
You have just shown how much of a stupid moron you are. Deadset if you within 5 feet of me when you said that, you'd have got a punch in the face.
That is the most ****ing ignorant and stupid things you've posted so far.
:mad:
With the *worldest's* largest refugee situation problem BEFORE we ever got involved and countless people dying, we actually, drastically cut the death rate in that country. Let the misuc play.
With things not turning completly to **** like all the predictions before the *war* started, all I can say is, sucks to be you.
hehehehehehe
I thought it was the Pakistani leader who was saying that and we *blew* if off. Last I heard anyway.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Last I heard they were claiming he had probably died of kidney failure because he needed dialysis which he couldn't get at the time...pffft....:rolleyes:
Either way....no body, no closure.
That was a completly rational and intelligent response.Quote:
Originally posted by HarryW
I don't know why you're bothering to argue about it. None of you know the 'real' situation, none of you are on the front lines, none of you are (AFAIK) in Al-Quaida (however that's spelt), privy to their top-secret plans for who they're going to blow up next. You're arguing about something you don't fully understand, and to pretend you know The TruthTM is just dumb.
Besides, you've gone way too far with the insults to have the slightest chance of changing each other's opinions. People only listen to those they fear or those they respect. Noone in here fears anyone else (well actually just the thought of Jamagei sitting on me gives me the shakes...) and if you're looking for respect (doubtful) you're going about it the wrong way. So, basically, the bickering is futile.
What are you up too ??
hehehehehehe
ARRRGGGHHHHHQuote:
Originally posted by jesus4u
It is VERY logical to believe and trust in Jesus Christ who loves me, protects me, provides me everything I need and is there for me at all times. Who wouldn't? But you want to believe in your own understanding of the universe when the creator of this universe is right there under your nose and in your reach.
I hate people like this !!!!!!!!!!!!
Take a vote.....When we're done bombing Afghan....can we bomb jesus4u's house next ???? I vote yes.
There you go again, quoting things out of context, which weren't directed at you, and which had bugger all to do with whatever point it is you're trying to make.Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
Worked for me. I doubt very much if any country in history was ever freed/spawned/hatched/whatever without alot of nasty things happening to civilians. Every nitwit I hear has some hard-on over the bombings but everything I've read, civilian deaths in war did not start with Wilbur and Orville.
With the *worldest's* largest refugee situation problem BEFORE we ever got involved and countless people dying, we actually, drastically cut the death rate in that country. Let the misuc play.
With things not turning completly to **** like all the predictions before the *war* started, all I can say is, sucks to be you.
hehehehehehe
No-one in your country can claim the war was started to liberate the Afghani populace. It started for revenge, and secondly to oust a government which the US government helped gain it's position, but was no longer useful to them, or in favour with them.
It seems that alot of you are trying to justify the deaths of civilians because you liberated them. And one person tried to justify it with food drops.
People were killed, but that is just the only way it could have happened -> 'without alot of nasty things happening to civilians'
So it seems you have a fairly set notion of it's OK for you, but not for them, which is exactly the sort of malicious hypocrisy that harms your country's reputation, especially considering the civilians killed weren't in any way involved.
I really have no idea what you're trying to prove, or to say, and out-of-context quoting doesn't make that any easier.
Right, so I get attacked for posting stuff like "Why not just go shoot someone, Justin", and you post something like this, which just reinforces the reputation of gung-ho, 'violence is the only answer' Americans.Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
ARRRGGGHHHHH
I hate people like this !!!!!!!!!!!!
Take a vote.....When we're done bombing Afghan....can we bomb jesus4u's house next ???? I vote yes.
:rolleyes:
Eh...I can't bother to go back and find exactly what you said but it's basically, "you or someone like you"Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Where the hell do you get that from? There is no way you could insinuate that from what I said.
It was an argument against someone's response to bombing opposition that "well, what about the food drops?" like that was adequate compensation.
Don't bloody start making crap up and misquoting people inaccurately...:rolleyes:
Everyone talks like Afghan was a nice quiet country with fields of corn and all was swell.(my new word) :)
It was a ****hole. People getting shot in front of crowds in the stadium, war and drought forcing MILLIONS to leave or die, etc.
We've done the population a favor.
Whether or not they are now 'free' is an indirect consequence of a vengeance campaign. Don't start pretending otherwise.
If it was such a ****hole, why did they get no help until now?
I know what conditions in the country must have been like, but it's completely wrong of you to try and claim any change over there was a nice gesture on behalf of all Americans. You wanted blood, so you killed people. Some other people benefitted, and many of those who would have benefitted were also killed, so it's hardly anything to thank the US military or government for...
Revenge, oil, whatever. 10 years from now, hopefully, Afghan will be a nice quiet, productive country and no one will give a **** why we did it.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
No-one in your country can claim the war was started to liberate the Afghani populace. It started for revenge, and secondly to oust a government which the US government helped gain it's position, but was no longer useful to them, or in favour with them.
Everything I've read has that we pulled out of that country years before the Taliban took power. Actually, we pulled out years before they even existed.(we left in 89....Taliban formed in 92-93)
Actually, proper justification of our bombings will come at a later date....that is if the Afghani's take advantage of this.Quote:
It seems that alot of you are trying to justify the deaths of civilians because you liberated them. And one person tried to justify it with food drops.
How many people died founding the country you live in ?? Do you know ?? Do you care ?? Probably not to both questions. But your enjoying the fruits of someones labor to kill another aren't you ??
Your rantings against any and all deaths makes you as silly as Jesus4u.
Of course it does...:rolleyes:
Would you be happy to die right now for the good of someone who may or may not be born in 210 years?
I doubt it very much.
Uhmmm.....Not sure. Maybe you could check with your government officials and find out why they didn't do anything. The USA isn't the only country on this planet you know.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Whether or not they are now 'free' is an indirect consequence of a vengeance campaign. Don't start pretending otherwise.
If it was such a ****hole, why did they get no help until now?
And why would that be something for you to decide ?? Music in the streets, smiling women, food (slowly) getting in, trade of all types flowing, etc. Direct me to something that shows the attitude there , that you have ?? Seems to me that there are more people OUTSIDE of Afghanistan pissing on our flag then in it.Quote:
I know what conditions in the country must have been like, but it's completely wrong of you to try and claim any change over there was a nice gesture on behalf of all Americans. You wanted blood, so you killed people. Some other people benefitted, and many of those who would have benefitted were also killed, so it's hardly anything to thank the US military or government for...
No-one's 'pissing on your flag'. I'm stating a different viewpoint to that of your kill 'em all attitude.
Oh come on noodle-dick. It doesn't work that way. Of course I'd hate it. Every rational person would.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
Of course it does...:rolleyes:
Would you be happy to die right now for the good of someone who may or may not be born in 210 years?
I doubt it very much.
BUT
Do you actually want national decesions being made by people terrified by even one death?? We'd all be ruled by lords,dukes and dictators(like most/all of the Middle-east) or we' still be living in caves(not touching that). How about the suicide weenies at Woomera(sp?) Should all boat people be allowed no matter what ??
Stalin's thing about "one death being a tragedy but a million a statistic" is accurate. Alot of people were killed by the bombing but even more were dying from their brutal rulers and lack of food. Long term, more people will live because of our actions, whatever our reason.
If you don't buy any of this.....who do you side with....some family greiving over a lost member in the bombing or the family that survived because the Taliban is gone and food is flowing ???
Can't have it both ways.
You can't draw parallels between people killed in a bombing strike during a military assault to a few kids threatening to kill themselves in protest. How on earth are these two things the same?
That's exactly what you were promoting a few posts prior. You're just being a hypocrit, and throwing in random insults unnecessarily. You're not worth arguing with until you have something reasonable to say.Quote:
It doesn't work that way. Of course I'd hate it. Every rational person would.
Logically, people may have to die for certain things to eventuate. And logically, they didn't necessarily need to. Would it have hampered the invasion if you hadn't killed innocent civilians?
Of course not, but in your hateful tunnel-vision you don't care, it's that simple. There is no reason other than complete apathy.
Yes, and there is your problem. It's kind of hard to have a kill 'em all attitude if we didn't in fact kill them all. Matter of fact we left the vast majority alive and well. Hence the music and dancing and....:::Gasp::....homo's in the street.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
No-one's 'pissing on your flag'. I'm stating a different viewpoint to that of your kill 'em all attitude.
Sorry....had to throw that last part in.
:)
Gee out of the goodness of their hearts the American military move in to fix a corrupt regime. Sorry, the US bombed the crap out of the place because the government in power was seen as against American interests.Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
[B]
Uhmmm.....Not sure. Maybe you could check with your government officials and find out why they didn't do anything. The USA isn't the only country on this planet you know.
And why would that be something for you to decide ?? Music in the streets, smiling women, food (slowly) getting in, trade of all types flowing, etc. Direct me to something that shows the attitude there , that you have ?? Seems to me that there are more people OUTSIDE of Afghanistan pissing on our flag then in it.
The same thing happened in Vietnam.
It doesn't matter whether you achieved the goal of killing everyone or not - that is still the attitude you are promoting. You and the other one. The only solution is always guns and bombs. It's an absolute joke the way you try to justify it and make yourselves out to be heroes.
Of course I can. Your leaders have to make the decision that few deaths are "allowable" because of the greater good. The fact that refugees is the hardest decisions your people will ever have to make is another issue.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
You can't draw parallels between people killed in a bombing strike during a military assault to a few kids threatening to kill themselves in protest.
For the amusment of it all....Enlighten me with your logical idea for having avoided this all ?? One that avoids all deaths at all.Quote:
Logically, people may have to die for certain things to eventuate. And logically, they didn't necessarily need to.
No. But it would have hampered the invasion if we had too many body bags coming home. I, and logically , most/all the people in this country are more interested in the welfare of innocent US soldiers. If my concern for "my" people over others is apathy, then so be it.Quote:
Would it have hampered the invasion if you hadn't killed innocent civilians? Of course not, but in your hateful tunnel-vision you don't care, it's that simple. There is no reason other than complete apathy.
Be kind of silly to bomb a country that was aligned with our interests now wouldn't it ??Quote:
Originally posted by Jethro
Gee out of the goodness of their hearts the American military move in to fix a corrupt regime. Sorry, the US bombed the crap out of the place because the government in power was seen as against American interests.
And when did I ever say this was all a love-fest ?? This whole situation since 9-11 has been nothing more then a huge ****-pie. Atleast we've gotten something useful out of it.
A suicide threat is in no way similar to murder by bombing. You've obviously no ability to discern that for yourself, so just trust me on that one. The government aren;t deciding who will live and die. The people themselves are threatening to kill themselves. It is most likely they won't even do it. No one is responsible for another's suicide...:rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
Of course I can. Your leaders have to make the decision that few deaths are "allowable" because of the greater good. The fact that refugees is the hardest decisions your people will ever have to make is another issue.
I never opposed the killing of everybody, you've insinuated that for yourself from somewhere, and I'd love to know where- more misquoting, perhaps? Certain individuals and groups most certainly deserved death, but those individuals and groups weren't Afghan citizens or Taliban soldiers. There is no point my coming up with a 'solution' for you, because it won't involve guns and bombs, and you won't understand it... :rolleyes:Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
For the amusment of it all....Enlighten me with your logical idea for having avoided this all ?? One that avoids all deaths at all.
Lack of concern for anyone else but yourself and your own interests is apathy. You are apathetic. Entirely apathetic.Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
No. But it would have hampered the invasion if we had too many body bags coming home. I, and logically , most/all the people in this country are more interested in the welfare of innocent US soldiers. If my concern for "my" people over others is apathy, then so be it.
What?!? Alot of prisoners, alot of dead civilians, and some ridiculous sense of justice and revenge?Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
Be kind of silly to bomb a country that was aligned with our interests now wouldn't it ??
And when did I ever say this was all a love-fest ?? This whole situation since 9-11 has been nothing more then a huge ****-pie. Atleast we've gotten something useful out of it.
Any time you want to amaze me with your idea of how all this could have been done without "guns and bombs", be my guest.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
It doesn't matter whether you achieved the goal of killing everyone or not - that is still the attitude you are promoting. You and the other one. The only solution is always guns and bombs. It's an absolute joke the way you try to justify it and make yourselves out to be heroes.
And no time-travel ****. Don't waste my time with how "we should have stayed engaged when the Soviets left" or "how we shouldn't have armed the rebels".
Start with 9-11-01. I'm sure there are a few people who can smuggly sit back and brag of how they saw all this coming, but I doubt your among that group and I know I'm not.
If your governent gave them what they wanted, would there be any concern of death ?? If not, then they control, atleast partially, their lives. The dead rarely concern themselves with the details.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
A suicide threat is in no way similar to murder by bombing. You've obviously no ability to discern that for yourself, so just trust me on that one. The government aren;t deciding who will live and die. The people themselves are threatening to kill themselves. It is most likely they won't even do it. No one is responsible for another's suicide...:rolleyes:
I click on the Quote button. Remove the parts I have no interest in but leave all sentences complete(most of the time...unless it's REALLY long-winded) and Reply. Any mis-understanding is entirely your fault. heheheheQuote:
I never opposed the killing of everybody, you've insinuated that for yourself from somewhere, and I'd love to know where- more misquoting, perhaps?
Wow....and to think that with a gift like yours, your just sitting in front of the computer in your undies. Why isn't the UN knocking down your door for enlightenment to all our worlds ills. LOLQuote:
There is no point my coming up with a 'solution' for you, because it won't involve guns and bombs, and you won't understand it... :rolleyes:
I already fessed up to that. Is there an echo in here ???Quote:
Lack of concern for anyone else but yourself and your own interests is apathy. You are apathetic. Entirely apathetic.
Works for me.Quote:
Originally posted by rjlohan
What?!? Alot of prisoners, alot of dead civilians, and some ridiculous sense of justice and revenge?
AiiiiiiiiiiiiiQuote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
Is there an echo in here ???
Aiiiiiiiiiiiii
Aiiiiiiiiiiiii
Aiiiiiiiiiiiii
The problem you and a lot of other Americans have is this idea that you can justify your countries actions in terms of protecting democracy, freedom, yadda yadda.Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
Be kind of silly to bomb a country that was aligned with our interests now wouldn't it ??
And when did I ever say this was all a love-fest ?? This whole situation since 9-11 has been nothing more then a huge ****-pie. Atleast we've gotten something useful out of it.
I'm sure the innocent Afghans who were killed by American bombs would be pleased to know that they died due to the US protectin democracy etc etc.
Actually American actions in Afghanistan have more to do with revenge, and a lame president seeking public approval, than they have to do with democracy etc.
The only useful thing the US has achieved is creating even more victims, anti-American sentiment and folk heros for extreme Muslim groups.
I'll bite on the lame prez part.....I still get a little woozy whenever I hear him talk.Quote:
Originally posted by Jethro
The problem you and a lot of other Americans have is this idea that you can justify your countries actions in terms of protecting democracy, freedom, yadda yadda.
I'm sure the innocent Afghans who were killed by American bombs would be pleased to know that they died due to the US protectin democracy etc etc.
Actually American actions in Afghanistan have more to do with revenge, and a lame president seeking public approval, than they have to do with democracy etc.
The only useful thing the US has achieved is creating even more victims, anti-American sentiment and folk heros for extreme Muslim groups.
As far as "protecting democracy, freedom, yadda yadda."....**** that. We did this to serve as an example to other countries. Afghanistan is not going to be a solo event. We are now putting troops in the Philipines(sp?) and I keep hearing talk of Iraqi. The word is, deal with your own radicals or we will deal with you. The whole key here is to stop another building from crashing down on us because some rat-ass in the world is pissed at something.
Freeing up Afghanistan or another country is just an excellant side-effect.
#1) Individuals threatening/committing suicide in protest to something they don't like is no-one's responsibility but their own.Quote:
Originally posted by Patoooey
[B]
If your governent gave them what they wanted, would there be any concern of death ?? If not, then they control, atleast partially, their lives. The dead rarely concern themselves with the details.
[B]
I click on the Quote button. Remove the parts I have no interest in but leave all sentences complete(most of the time...unless it's REALLY long-winded) and Reply. Any mis-understanding is entirely your fault. hehehehe
[B]
Wow....and to think that with a gift like yours, your just sitting in front of the computer in your undies. Why isn't the UN knocking down your door for enlightenment to all our worlds ills. LOL
I already fessed up to that. Is there an echo in here ???
It's a stupid form of protest designed (probably by externals) to make the public feel sorry for them and incite trouble. Nobody should or will just bend over because some children threaten suicide. It is not the responsibility of any government to respond to this approach.
#2) You quote things ot of context, and respond to those quotes, which had nothing to do with you or what you tried to point out in your response.
#3) More stupid attempts as insults. Are you just doing it for the fun of it, or do you really have nothing more relevant to produce other this sort of comment? :confused:
#4) Yeah, righto, if you're proud of it, then I'm real happy for you...:rolleyes:
#5) ou are not "putting troops in the Philipines", rather a small group of marines is providing 'training' and no further support to one of the most populous areas in the world, to help them control the trouble that the US government has stirred up around the world, including, but not exclusively, Indonesia and the Phillipines.
#6) [What?!? Alot of prisoners, alot of dead civilians, and some ridiculous sense of justice and revenge?]
--> "Works for me."
That's a great attitude to have, the world is surely a much better place with your malicious and apathetic attitude towards everything.
:rolleyes: