Suicide bombers

[there buster]

Quote:

It's devastating to your argument when I use your logic against you, isn't it

Not in the least.

When you start using logic, we can have a discussion.

If you can't figure it out, the answer is yes. Under law, any death that occurs due to criminal activity is the fault of the party who initiated the activity.

A security guard would not fire at "a group of children," but they might well be injured by a ricochet.

And to save you the trouble of another absurd offering, no, American forces do not target children.

It is however, a well-known terrorist tactic to attempt to hide among civilians, with the intent of them being harmed and causing outrage.

If Bill takes Jane hostage--which is the equivalent of terrorists hiding among civilians--and Jane dies as a result, Bill is guilty.

[there buster]

If you want to condemn Obama for his acceleration of the use of Predators in populated areas, I'm all for it. I think it's cowardly and mistaken. But your moral equivalence arguments are repugnant, unscriptural, invidious, and specious.

[fccool]

Tell that to the victim's of Iraq war... I have not lost a loved one because some cheesehead is giving orders to bomb a dot on the map full of "criminals"... and then other people "just doing their jobs"

[there buster]

I guess if you don't have logic OR facts, you just have to spin ever more elaborate scenarios.

So long as you use these wild generalizations, your cases retain a veneer of plausibility. As soon as we examine details, they evaporate.

[doug yowell]

Throwing words like "genocide" and "murder" in to intensify your argument actually has the opposite effect. It devalues those ugly words, numbs the sensibilities, dishonors those who truly were victims of such crimes. It's a pity.

Absolutely true!! Like calling rape any sexual act that a woman regrets later!And killing animals to eat a holocost!This is done by those who sit back in their democratically protected comfort zone and never have to experience the real thing.

[doug yowell]

Tell that to the victim's of Iraq war... I have not lost a loved one because some cheesehead is giving orders to bomb a dot on the map full of "criminals"... and then other people "just doing their jobs"

I recall the outrage of the French population when the Allies bombed their towns,and killed their women and children while trying to drive the Nazi's out of France. Wait. There was no outrage!! Sorry, my bad.Besides, the cheeseheads get to go to the playoffs this year.Too busy for bombing orders.

[fccool]

It's funny how Hitler makes it into every justification for full-scale war. Ironically, if not for the blind chauvinism of Germans... no one would had to suffer. It's because of the blind following such atrocities are possible. It's really hard to take sides in such debates. It truly is. On one hand you have examples such as Doug showing, where tyranny needs to be stopped and opposed... yet on other hand that's how tyranny spreads in the first place... by glorification of war and jingoism.

WWII was the most devastating event in human history. 70 million people died... 40-50 were civilians. Who knows how many died in the aftermath because of starvation and disease. That's population of New York city ... almost 10 times over.

All of it boils down to the ideas of State vs Individual. Individuals don't want war... at least the sane ones. Yet, statism ideology makes it possible for a group of few to point the gun at many and say... "Dress up, time to serve your country, son". Then, the life and service of soldier is glorified. It becomes the most important service one can do for the country. These people become honored and respected above all, because they are maintaining the nation we call ours.

Well... this is a soldier speaking out... so listen up!

http://www.dailymotion.com/video/xendsv_u-s-soldiers-apologize-to-people-of_news

[John317]

It's funny how Hitler makes it into every justification for full-scale war. Ironically, if not for the blind chauvinism of Germans... no one would had to suffer.

This is called over-simplification. Hitler wouldn't have invaded Poland without the agreement he made with Stalin. And it also wouldn't have happened if the WW I allies had treated the German people better at the end of that war. There were also imporant economic reasons for the German people to accept Hitler at that point. Most Germans were just glad to see German pride restored, as any people would be. I've read reports from Germans living during that time that most Germans thought the Nazis were fools, and then suddently the Nazis were in full control of the country. The Nazi take-over evidenly took most of the German people by surprise. The whole world should have taken Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf about his plans seriously instead of taking them as the ravings of a fool.

[fccool]

John,

Thank you for pointing it out. I'm aware of the numerous reasons behind the war. Really, to get German perspective... just read some of the Hitler's landmark speeches and see that it was not simply a maniac trying to take over the world. That guy really loved his country and the people, and he was really angered over what went on during and post WWI. He was not lying about rebuilding Germany and taking it out of dire depression. In fact, some of these qualities and achievements I do find admirable.

Yet, what I generally find to be oversimplification of WWII is the mantra that's being parroted by almost anyone who's been through US public school education. I.E. If we did not intervene, then we'd all be speaking German today, and Europe would have to suffer the totalitarian regime of Hitler.

What they ignore is the fact that Europe indeed suffer the post WWII totalitarian regime... a stronger Soviet Union - US ally. To be honest, I'm not sure which one I'd pick to live in... Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Soviet Union. I was lucky enough to live in the final hours of the latter. It was a lot more civilized by then.

Let's remember what lead up to WWII. Hitler staged an event, used it as pretext to invade Poland. His ultimate goal was to invade Russia, which he did. The Britain and France saw it important to liberate the Eastern Europe from totalitarian rule. What is ultimately for the good of the Polaks or Chech? They just traded one dictatorship for other. I'm not sure which one was more brutal.

The problem is that people don't really reflect on the real consequences of WWII. They simply slap... "it's better this way" without any further consideration.

[John317]

Sure. Again I think we actually agree.

But don't you think that if the Axis powers had won the war, things would have been far worse for people than they were in the 50s and early 60s? I agree that Stalin was terrible for eastern Europe and for the USSR, but if Hitler and the Japanese had won the war, it would have been bad all over, including China, the USA, Canada, Australia, and Western Europe. I'm sure that Hitler's plans included eventually dominating even Japan once he had the USSR and the USA. He wanted it all.

Do you sometimes visit Russsia? Can I ask when the last time was that you visited it?

[doug yowell]

Yet, what I generally find to be oversimplification of WWII is the mantra that's being parroted by almost anyone who's been through US public school education. I.E. If we did not intervene, then we'd all be speaking German today, and Europe would have to suffer the totalitarian regime of Hitler.

What they ignore is the fact that Europe indeed suffer the post WWII totalitarian regime... a stronger Soviet Union - US ally. To be honest, I'm not sure which one I'd pick to live in... Hitler's Germany, or Stalin's Soviet Union. I was lucky enough to live in the final hours of the latter. It was a lot more civilized by then.

Let's remember what lead up to WWII. Hitler staged an event, used it as pretext to invade Poland. His ultimate goal was to invade Russia, which he did. The Britain and France saw it important to liberate the Eastern Europe from totalitarian rule. What is ultimately for the good of the Polaks or Chech? They just traded one dictatorship for other. I'm not sure which one was more brutal.

The problem is that people don't really reflect on the real consequences of WWII. They simply slap... "it's better this way" without any further consideration.

The only reason that WWII became WWII was because the Western European powers, France and England, came to the defense of a smaller,weaker nation that was being attacked. The third in an increasing number of Hitler's conquests. Marshall Foch had argued back in 1919 that the penalties imposed by the allies on Germany were far too lenient. Germany's entrance into WWI and it's brutal,iron fisted occupation of France,ect...deserved complete subservience.He went on to predict that The Treaty of Versailles was just postponing the next war 20 years.Hitler's string of broken treaties,and his militaristic endeavors to take by force that which would become the Third Reich (1000 years)required something other than a Neville Chamberlain.Additionally, at the beginning of WWII Russia was Hitler's ally and there was no way the Western powers (or German military leaders)could know what was to transpire 2 years later.America's addition to fray was necessitated by an unprovoked attack by a similarly Imperialistic Japan.Again, talk to the people of IndoChina, Korea,China,the Phillipines,ect... and ask them if the consequences of WWII were worth the effort.Ask them if things are better today.

[Stan]

Had an interesting conversation a few months ago about suicide bombers changing over to be females in the middle east.

Was told that them media was so focused on the thought the men were doing it for the 72 virgins, that females began doing it to show they were not doing it for the 'benefits' but rather for their fight for freedom.

that remains something I cannot fully grasp.

[Dr. Shane]

Reminds me of Sting's song:

"We share the same biology

Regardless of ideology

What might save us, me, and you

Is if the Russians love their children too"

Love for their children may have prevented the Russians from starting WW3 but does nothing to protect us from extreme Muslims. Their idea of loving their children is strapping a suicide vest on them.

[Gordon1]

The whole world should have taken Hitler's writings in Mein Kampf about his plans seriously instead of taking them as the ravings of a fool.

Hi John, You're probably aware the writing of Mein Kampf is attributed to the Jesuit Father Bernhardt Staempfle. This according to The Secret History of the Jesuits by Edmond Paris, as well as the testimony of former Jesuit Alberto Rivera.

Hitler and his war machine was closely allied with the Vatican, so global domination was a logical step if we follow the Great Controversy projections. But Germany was not the nation prophesied to impose the mark of the beast.

See the photographic evidence of the Roman Catholic-Nazi government:

Spiritually Smart:

http://www.spirituallysmart.com/nazi.html

[there buster]

Quick, get out the tinfoil hats!

[Gordon1]

Had an interesting conversation a few months ago about suicide bombers changing over to be females in the middle east.

Was told that them media was so focused on the thought the men were doing it for the 72 virgins, that females began doing it to show they were not doing it for the 'benefits' but rather for their fight for freedom.

that remains something I cannot fully grasp.

Yes it would be hard to imagine a woman looking forward to 72 husbands.

[John317]

Yes, I have heard that explanation but having read the book and seen Hitler's speeches, etc., I'm certain that Hitler was the one who dictated Mein Kampf to Hess. I see no reason to believe Hitler didn't write it. He was certainly capable of it and it sounds just like him and reflects his thinking and viewpoint perfectly. I'm not saying this in order to defend the Jesuits but I don't see evidence to support the idea of the Jesuits writing Mein Kampf. I do know that some have made this claim, though.

[Gordon1]

Thanks John - Yes, Hitler was obviously competent in many areas.

[Guest]

Man! That Alois Hitler was quite the charmer wasn't he?

[John317]

He was probably the most talented public speaker in modern history in terms of being able to sway masses of people. People who heard him on the radio during the 30s and 40s say that you didn't even have to understand his language to be captivated by his speeches.

[LifeHiscost]

I've read reports from Germans living during that time that most Germans thought the Nazis were fools

I've heard similar comments re: what is happening in America when compared to one place in the world that suffered the collapse of their freedom, that the same things are now happening in America that occurred there before the collapse occurred.

One solution will be sufficient but I don't see reason to be holding our breath.

For after all this punishment, the people will still not repent.They will not seek the Lord of Heaven’s Armies.

Isaiah 9:13 NLT

God blesses!

[doug yowell]

Man! That Alois Hitler was quite the charmer wasn't he?

Downright irresistable!

[doug yowell]

Yes, I have heard that explanation but having read the book and seen Hitler's speeches, etc., I'm certain that Hitler was the one who dictated Mein Kampf to Hess. I see no reason to believe Hitler didn't write it. He was certainly capable of it and it sounds just like him and reflects his thinking and viewpoint perfectly. I'm not saying this in order to defend the Jesuits but I don't see evidence to support the idea of the Jesuits writing Mein Kampf. I do know that some have made this claim, though.

Defending Jesuits against scandalous lies is nothing to be ashamed of.