This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Classic Theme
Thottbot Theme
Religious Censoring Debate
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Squishalot
Al-Qaeda is not a governmental force of any kind. If they still could declare a fair n' square war, that means I can declare war on any state I want and use that to justify killing people. Then I capitulate and woah, I'm protected by inernational laws and at most I will have to pay for the damages I've caused and serve two or three years in prison.
Ironically, you've listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation, yet they are a governmental force in the state of Palestine.
But, you see, this is my point. Just because you've declared war on someone doesn't mean that you're immune from your actions. Killing civillians is wrong, declaration of war or not.
So please respond to my previous point about genocide. Because according to you, that's perfectly acceptable and not terrorism, provided that there's a declaration of war.
Then again, you brought those 'law' things up again. I already said, laws are subjective, and have no place in an objective definition.
Post by
Honorus
Ironically, you've listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation, yet they are a governmental force in the state of Palestine.
Palestine is not a sovereign state, it's currently occupied by the Sovereign State of Israel, making it a temporary part of Israel.
But, you see, this is my point. Just because you've declared war on someone doesn't mean that you're immune from your actions. Killing civillians is wrong, declaration of war or not.
So please respond to my previous point about genocide. Because according to you, that's perfectly acceptable and not terrorism, provided that there's a declaration of war.
Of course, I agree. Killing civilians, as long as they co-operate, intentionally is wrong. Killing hostile and sabotaging civilians is common sense and a part of surviving.
Sorry if it might've appeared strange earlier, my ctrl+c was slacking.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Ironically, you've listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation, yet they are a governmental force in the state of Palestine.
Palestine is not a sovereign state, it's currently occupied by the Sovereign State of Israel, making it a temporary part of Israel.
Another subjective statement!
Several dozen countries, including the Vatican, disagree with you
.
Of course, I agree. Killing civilians, as long as they co-operate, intentionally is wrong. Killing hostile and sabotaging civilians is common sense and a part of surviving.
And this demonstrates why your example about declaring war on specific people and going on a killing rampage then 'losing' the war is flawed and simply hot air.
Post by
Honorus
Another subjective statement! Several dozen countries, including the Vatican, disagree with you.
Several dozen is likely to be about 36, 12*3=36 Dozen=12. And how many countries are there in the world?
Post by
Honorus
Ironically, you've listed Hamas as a terrorist organisation, yet they are a governmental force in the state of Palestine.
Palestine is not a sovereign state, it's currently occupied by the Sovereign State of Israel, making it a temporary part of Israel.
According to whom? What gives them the right to make that determination?
Self-Defense. The entire arab world wants to destroy Israel. Sure, you could argue that Israel invaded their lands, but you'll have to blame Canada and the US for that because THEY decided that the jews were to form their nation in that area. Then they got attacked by foreign military powers, which they beat and took a piece of land which they saw as payment for the damage their enemies inflicted upon them.
Post by
Squishalot
Another subjective statement! Several dozen countries, including the Vatican, disagree with you.
Several dozen is likely to be about 36, 12*3=36 Dozen=12. And how many countries are there in the world?
Nevertheless, it's a subjective statement, and again, has no place in an objective definition of terrorism. Neither do 'laws' or 'legal acceptability'. Do you agree or disagree?
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Honorus
Another subjective statement! Several dozen countries, including the Vatican, disagree with you.
Several dozen is likely to be about 36, 12*3=36 Dozen=12. And how many countries are there in the world?
Nevertheless, it's a subjective statement, and again, has no place in an objective definition of terrorism. Neither do 'laws' or 'legal acceptability'. Do you agree or disagree?
International Laws would I say play a part in an objective definition.
Post by
Honorus
You really need to do some research for yourself.
I live in Sweden, we don't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state. This is an american website. USA doesn't recognize Palestine as a sovereign state. We both live in the Western World, none of the Western World nations recognizes Palestine as sovereign either.
Post by
Squishalot
Nevertheless, it's a subjective statement, and again, has no place in an objective definition of terrorism. Neither do 'laws' or 'legal acceptability'. Do you agree or disagree?
International Laws would I say play a part in an objective definition.
"You would say", more subjectivity. You're not helping your argument. You can't have subjectivity of any sort in an objective definition, internationally recognised or otherwise.
Honorus - are you Christian?
Post by
Honorus
Honorus - are you Christian?
Yeah, I am a protestant.
Post by
393249
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
Honorus - are you Christian?
Yeah, I am a protestant.
Meaning that you ignore whatever the Vatican does, or would you respect a position that they take (on international politics) as generally 'good'?
Post by
Adamsm
Honorus - are you Christian?
Yeah, I am a protestant.
So the fact that the anti-abortion groups are more or less terrorists completely goes over your head eh? Killing doctors, bombing clinics, insulting anyone who uses said clinics, calling them the murders and monsters... and then the anti-abortionists hide behind religion as why they do it...(Why does that sound familiar?)
Also, if you knew basic history; the United States Government set up both Saddam and the Taliban into power in Afghanistan and Iraq; because you know, making a pair of pyscho's leaders of countries is always a good idea.
But hey, we get it; you have a fear of Muslim and Islamic groups, declaring them all as terrorists is easier then admitting that because they worship something different then you scares the crap out of you.
Post by
Honorus
Ok, now you have finally answered one of my questions.
So, because you live in Sweden, you believe that the Swedish government is the final authority on whether Palestine deserves recognition as a sovereign state. Got it.
I live in the USA, but I do not let the government form my opinions for me... nor do I believe that the decisions made by my government are always correct. In fact, I quite often disagree completely.
I do not see our PM as the final authority, I just happen to agree with him in a lot of cases. Including whether Palestin is a sovereign state or not. What you are ignoring is that it's a
fact
in both of our countries that Palestine is not a sovereign state. Just like it's a
fact
that only devoloping countries seem to be recognizing Palestine.
Post by
Squishalot
Yeah, I am a protestant.
Meaning that you ignore whatever the Vatican does, or would you respect a position that they take (on international politics) as generally 'good'?
To be clear, and to reiterate the question, I'm referring to matters of international politics that do not involve questions of faith.
Post by
Honorus
But hey, we get it; you have a fear of Muslim and Islamic groups, declaring them all as terrorists is easier then admitting that because they worship something different then you scares the crap out of you.
No, I have a fear of Comedy Central violating the right of free speech when they censor Muhammad, but they do not censor God, thus surrendering to terrorism.
Post by
Adamsm
But hey, we get it; you have a fear of Muslim and Islamic groups, declaring them all as terrorists is easier then admitting that because they worship something different then you scares the crap out of you.
No, I have a fear of Comedy Central violating the right of free speech when they censor Muhammad, but they do not censor God, thus surrendering to terrorism.
Ha! Right... because an American owned company, with probably American based Christians and Catholics wouldn't dream of making God looking good...
Also:
Islamic Figurative Art and Depictions of Muhammad
and
Depictions of Muhammad
; I'd suggest reading those before declaring that the reason why Muhammad was censored was due to 'fear of terrorists Islamic blowing things up'... seeing as, let's be 100 percent f-ing honest, the chance of a devout Muslim watching South Park is slim to none.
Post by
Honorus
But hey, we get it; you have a fear of Muslim and Islamic groups, declaring them all as terrorists is easier then admitting that because they worship something different then you scares the crap out of you.
No, I have a fear of Comedy Central violating the right of free speech when they censor Muhammad, but they do not censor God, thus surrendering to terrorism.
Ha! Right... because an American owned company, with probably American based Christians and Catholics wouldn't dream of making God looking good...
Also:
Islamic Figurative Art and Depictions of Muhammad
and
Depictions of Muhammad
; I'd suggest reading those before declaring that the reason why Muhammad was censored was due to 'fear of terrorists Islamic blowing things up'... seeing as, let's be 100 percent f-ing honest, the chance of a devout Muslim watching South Park is slim to none.
Once again, they showed god as a purple hippo.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.