Islamic Caliphate

Your pinhead argument might have some validity, if the Crusades were still actively happening in the world. They are not, and haven't been for quite some time. What you are saying is, since the Christians had the Crusades centuries ago, this justifies the Muslims having a Caliphate today.

The Caliphate is the root cause of all the strife. It is the sole reason for the Sunni/Shiite conflict, as well as most of the conflict within the Islamic faith. It has brought about nothing but war, death and oppression, and if allowed to re-establish, will bring about an Apocalyptic event. This is their goal and objective, and you seem to think we should allow them to have their little Apocalypse, after all, it's only fair, the Christians had their crusades. You people are beyond stupid.
 
Not being against something is not the same thing as being in favor of it.


This is true if you are a pinhead, it's how you manage to sleep at night and face yourself in the mirror each morning. Unfortunately, when you allow things to happen and don't speak out against them, you have condoned them.
 
Dixie, many Muslims see the Crusades as having never stopped.

Christianised countries are still attacking Muslims much as Muslims are attacking Christians.

You simply make a moral distinction between killing by bombing from a plane and bombing using the plane itself. In reality, there is no moral difference.
 
AnyOldIron said:
Dixie, many Muslims see the Crusades as having never stopped.

Christianised countries are still attacking Muslims much as Muslims are attacking Christians.

You simply make a moral distinction between killing by bombing from a plane and bombing using the plane itself. In reality, there is no moral difference.
Click to expand...
And people are still fighting over Jerusalem. What is it now, 2500 years, non-stop? I swear, the best thing might be to just nuke the damned place into a smudge of glass. That'll settle the bickering.

Of course, then they'd fight over the holy glass, I suppose.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
And people are still fighting over Jerusalem. What is it now, 2500 years, non-stop? I swear, the best thing might be to just nuke the damned place into a smudge of glass. That'll settle the bickering.

Of course, then they'd fight over the holy glass, I suppose.
Click to expand...

LOL, yep I am sure a piece of glass or two would look like the mother mary or somesuch.
 
Dixie, many Muslims see the Crusades as having never stopped.

And I can see little space ships flying around outside, but it doesn't mean we are being invaded by aliens from Mars. What difference does it make if some Muslims think the Crusades never ended, or if some wacko rightie thinks all Muslims are Satan? You are trying to justify your argument with the views of the extreme, and that is patently stupid.
 
OrnotBitwise said:
And people are still fighting over Jerusalem. What is it now, 2500 years, non-stop? I swear, the best thing might be to just nuke the damned place into a smudge of glass. That'll settle the bickering.

Of course, then they'd fight over the holy glass, I suppose.
Click to expand...

Jerusalem should be made an open, international city, not under the jurisdiction of any State.

Perhaps it could be adminstered and secured by a coaltion that has no vested interest in Jerusalem - like the hindus and buddists.
 
A pretty good idea Cypress, but I fear the Irraeli govt would control the surrounding land and prevent/limit access, so this probably won't work.
 
You simply make a moral distinction between killing by bombing from a plane and bombing using the plane itself. In reality, there is no moral difference.

This explains a lot! You simply can't see the moral difference between legitimate acts of war, and barbaric acts of terror. To you, there is no moral distinction between bombing a strategic military target, and intentionally murdering thousands of innocent civilians. Having a legitimate trial for Saddam Hussein, and executing him in the end, is no different to you than Zarqawi videotaping a hostage being decapitated as he gurgles for mercy.

You are either a man who doesn't know what morality is, or you have none.
 
Dixie said:
You simply make a moral distinction between killing by bombing from a plane and bombing using the plane itself. In reality, there is no moral difference.

This explains a lot! You simply can't see the moral difference between legitimate acts of war, and barbaric acts of terror. To you, there is no moral distinction between bombing a strategic military target, and intentionally murdering thousands of innocent civilians. Having a legitimate trial for Saddam Hussein, and executing him in the end, is no different to you than Zarqawi videotaping a hostage being decapitated as he gurgles for mercy.

You are either a man who doesn't know what morality is, or you have none.
Click to expand...

are you saying that our "legitimate act of war" affectionately known as "shock and awe" did not murder thousands of innocent civilians? Are you really saying that the plan to "shock and awe" people was really planned in such a way as to "shock and awe" them but not actually KILL any of them?
 
are you saying that our "legitimate act of war" affectionately known as "shock and awe" did not murder thousands of innocent civilians? Are you really saying that the plan to "shock and awe" people was really planned in such a way as to "shock and awe" them but not actually KILL any of them?


We dropped fucking fliers in Arabic for a week before we started bombing. The surgical nature of the campaign was such, we could pinpoint the specific buildings we wanted to target, and leave the surrounding neighborhood, relatively intact. So, yes, that is essentially what I am saying. Did we incur some collateral damage? Of course we did, it's an unfortunate consequence of blowing up shit in war. The difference between our actions, and the actions of the terrorists is, they don't have a such thing as "collateral damage".
 
sure...dropping a bomb on a restaurant filled with people trying to get something to eat on the off chance that Saddam might be there...just collateral damage.... we really expected the bomb to fly into the dining room, scan the reservation list, ascertain what table Saddam was sitting at and then go fly over next to HIM and just make a little tiny 'boom' and just kill him.... it was all working so perfectly, except we forgot to program the bomb to turn around and leave if Saddam wasn't there.... but hey...the restaurant, all the people in it, all the people in the rest of the building, all the people in the adjacent apartment building.... ooops.
 
uscitizen said:
Dixie is a very moral man. His morals are just way below most peoples.
Click to expand...

It's because I spend so much time thumping on my Bible!

Your post reminds me of the King of the Hill episode, where Hank and his buds were going to take on the youthful punks in a paintball competition...

Hank: Are we ready to teach these punks a little respect?
Dale: Very little!

:rolleyes:
 
34,500 innocent Iraqi civilians DIED VIOLENT DEATHS last year alone because of our boneheaded invasion and the sectarian violence we were totally unprepared to deal with.....ooops.
 
maineman said:
sure...dropping a bomb on a restaurant filled with people trying to get something to eat on the off chance that Saddam might be there...just collateral damage.... we really expected the bomb to fly into the dining room, scan the reservation list, ascertain what table Saddam was sitting at and then go fly over next to HIM and just make a little tiny 'boom' and just kill him.... it was all working so perfectly, except we forgot to program the bomb to turn around and leave if Saddam wasn't there.... but hey...the restaurant, all the people in it, all the people in the rest of the building, all the people in the adjacent apartment building.... ooops.
Click to expand...

LMAO... these people trying to get something to eat? Did they miss seeing the massive bombardment of fliers in Arabic, warning them to stay sheltered and in their homes? Was the 24/7 news coverage of our movements, including Geraldo's literal drawing in the sand, not enough to convince them to stay out of the way, and not go out to a restaurant? When they realized they were in a restaurant frequented by Saddam and his sons, did they not understand their safety was in jeopardy?

You somehow want to excuse these people and their careless stupidity, and pretend this was some unexpected thing that just came out of the blue, and these poor innocent people were just minding their own business, oblivious to it all, just trying to get something to eat. You're either a fucking idiot, or you are intentionally perpetrating a lie through this false myth.
 
maineman said:
34,500 innocent Iraqi civilians DIED VIOLENT DEATHS last year alone because of our boneheaded invasion and the sectarian violence we were totally unprepared to deal with.....ooops.
Click to expand...

No sir, they didn't! That is your conclusion and opinion, and it is not based in fact. 34,500 innocent Iraqi civilians died violent deaths because radical elements inside the country, do not want to have democracy, do not want to be civilized, and believe it is their right to slaughter innocent people to make their political point. They have fomented the sectarian violence, they have orchestrated the chaos, and you and the media have been willing accomplices all the way. Ooops!
 
Dixie won't take responsibility for the civil war in iraq, that he and bush set the stage for and created.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top