You flip out regardless of what I write.
Is the Iraq war just a modern day crusade ?
- Thread starter uscitizen
- Start date
Damo, as to your point of courts and murders. Sure, there are always degrees. I personally, consider our sending troops to Iraq, to be depraved indifference to human life, and I believe those whom sent them should be charged with manslaughter for it.
Now, our "shock and awe" campain, is out and out murder. And the ones who gave the orders, should be charged with it. They want to call it war crimes? Yeah, whatever. Six of one, half a dozen of another.
Now, that's never going to happen. But that is my personal view of it.
Now, our "shock and awe" campain, is out and out murder. And the ones who gave the orders, should be charged with it. They want to call it war crimes? Yeah, whatever. Six of one, half a dozen of another.
Now, that's never going to happen. But that is my personal view of it.
I think it's the stick.
I can understand this POV, however I wasn't speaking to the morality of the action in Iraq or of the suicide bombers. I was speaking of the difference between "sending them to die" and "sending them to fight". There is a large difference as I have described above.
Others attempted to make this into me making a point of morality. I have not.
I have already stated, in earlier threads, that I think the war is immoral as in the end more have died than we will ever save. But that was not the point of this thread, or the direction of my points throughout this thread.
People keep attempting to "catch me out" by saying, "It's all the same, dead is dead!" I just point out the simplistic nature of such an argument using other examples.
It is not the same. "dead is dead" doesn't mean we send the kids in there "to die". If we did, then we are failing hugely. We have only been "successful" 1% of the time in the directed action if we sent them in there "to die".
AnyOldIron
Atheist Missionary
If the EVIL USA invaded my home and killed my family I might strap on a bomb as well. WE caused the majority of this not the muslim religion.
It isn't religious-specific. As Damo says, suicide attacks are used in desperation, when an entity realises it cannot contend with the force ranged against it.
Suicide bombers are designed for shock as much as actual damage, the shock that someone is willing to commit suicide for it. In this, religion helps the psychology of the suicide bomber, but it isn't any specific religion....
It isn't religious-specific. As Damo says, suicide attacks are used in desperation, when an entity realises it cannot contend with the force ranged against it.
Suicide bombers are designed for shock as much as actual damage, the shock that someone is willing to commit suicide for it. In this, religion helps the psychology of the suicide bomber, but it isn't any specific religion....
I did not. I specifically stated that it was desperation and never said it was because they were muslim.
What I was giving you was a specific difference in "sending someone to die" and "sending someone to fight" which are two very different things. I was not speaking to the morality of either.
You stated that we are sending our kids "to die", I have pointed out that we are not and gave supporting information and even examples of people actually sent to die, as opposed to putting people in danger. Two very different things.
I did post that, but not because I think that Muslims are the only ones to use such a tactic... I can see how you might think that I was equating this to solely Muslims rather than as an example.K, I will admit defeat and admit to wrongness, you did however start a post with "Muslims send their children to die...." but then you explained more fully in the latter portion of the post.
My Bad, Damo is correct.
The main difference, in my mind, is that the church is not promoting the war. It is a far more political war than before largely because of that. That the players are much the same is undeniable though.
uscitizen
Villified User
"the Cjurch" did not, but then "the Church" does not exist now in the USA as it did in jolly old England then.
People calling themselves Christiand did very hearially support the war at it's inception and for some time thereafter .
Preachers even supported it from the pulpit. I personally heard one, and I am just one person who attended one church during that time period.'Several of our religious "leaders" STILL support the war.
And then there is the booty of oil involved.
People calling themselves Christiand did very hearially support the war at it's inception and for some time thereafter .
Preachers even supported it from the pulpit. I personally heard one, and I am just one person who attended one church during that time period.'Several of our religious "leaders" STILL support the war.
And then there is the booty of oil involved.
As I said before, a chuch is not all of chritendom. That the Church as it existed back then no longer exists is a large difference. However, that same Church that promoted the Crusades spoke against the war before it began.
There is no possible way you can say that all of christendom supports this because they are Muslim. I don't think you could even come up with supporting evidence of it other than "some churches". Yeah, "some churches" teach racism from the pulpit, current KKK guys run some of them, but that has no bearing on "all of christianity is racist".
It is the single largest difference between this war and the Crusades if you wish to compare them. Christians as a whole are not out to kill as many heathens as possible.
uscitizen
Villified User
There is no possible way you can say that all of christendom supports this because they are Muslim
I have never said ALL anywhere in relation to Christians Damo, just that a large portion of them did support the war and some still do. I still hear it from some very devout appearing Christians.
And lets not forget robertson and Falwell with other church "leaders"
I have never said ALL anywhere in relation to Christians Damo, just that a large portion of them did support the war and some still do. I still hear it from some very devout appearing Christians.
And lets not forget robertson and Falwell with other church "leaders"
However, during the Crusades all of christendom did support it. That is a major difference, and the first one that I began trying to get you to see. Not even close to a majority of christians are out there saying we should kill these people because they are heathens.
CIA TOTALITARIANISM
Verified User
uscitizen
Villified User
ALL Christians supported the Crusades ? I have trouble believing that, but perhaps it is so it was a much more violent and supersticious time. After all sins caused disease then. Witches were everywhere running rampant, a bare hanful of the population could even read, ie much easier to mislead then than now.
You are being deliberately obtuse. "All of christendom" doesn't mean every participant in the religion. It was the concerted will of the Church as a whole that this take place.
In other words to have the same thing happening now you would have every single church leader, with very few exceptions, espousing this as "holy". It isn't even slightly close to happening. It is not the official position of ANY mainstream christian church AT ALL that we should kill all muslims because they are heathens. It was the the official position of the church (the only one existing) at that time.
To say that this is the same thing is like saying that one person killing another is the same as Genocide. They aren't even in the same hemisphere of existence.
CIA TOTALITARIANISM
Verified User
Isn't this generally the m.o. of most on this board?