NationStates Jolt Archive

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/26/afghan.convert.ap/index.html

WTF? I think I'm quite behind the times here as usual, but getting executed for changing religion? I thought we invaded Afghanistan to get rid of a crazy sharia fundamentalist government. Sorry if this is old news, but my net's been down for a few days.

I'm losing count, what is this, like, the 8th thread someone started on this?

So much for religious freedom in Afghanistan :rolleyes:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/26/afghan.convert.ap/index.html

WTF? I think I'm quite behind the times here as usual, but getting executed for changing religion? I thought we invaded Afghanistan to get rid of a crazy sharia fundamentalist government. Sorry if this is old news, but my net's been down for a few days.
I only heard about that like yesterday. Indeed, it's pretty disturbing.

So much for religious freedom in Afghanistan :rolleyes:

I bet he feels liberated.

I bet he feels liberated.

I think we should invade.

I think we should invade.

That always solves everything.

That always solves everything.

What's the worst that could happen?

What's the worst that could happen?

Freedom fries.

Wasn't he declared insane or something? So he couldn't be prosecuted.

Wasn't he declared insane or something? So he couldn't be prosecuted.

If true, then at least they found a way to deal with religion. Too bad they're not consistent with it.

"The Prophet Muhammad has said several times that those who convert from Islam should be killed if they refuse to come back...Islam is a religion of peace, tolerance, kindness and integrity. That is why we have told him if he regrets what he did, then we will forgive him,"

I love the part where Islam is a religion of peace, tollerance and kindness that will kill anyone who leaves and converts to another faith.

Macievelli did say it was easier to be feared than loved

I love the part where Islam is a religion of peace, tollerance and kindness that will kill anyone who leaves and converts to another faith.
Christians used to do the same. No matter how peaceful a religion intends to be, there will always be some people who use it as an excuse to kill others.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/26/afghan.convert.ap/index.html

WTF? I think I'm quite behind the times here as usual, but getting executed for changing religion? I thought we invaded Afghanistan to get rid of a crazy sharia fundamentalist government. Sorry if this is old news, but my net's been down for a few days.

Another fine example of US tactics in action, and the consequences of them.
You take out the gov't, and then figure the people will just change overnight. What if the people LIKE the policies of the new democratically elected gov't and the old laws? Are you going to shoot all the people, too, because they don't have the same beliefs as America?
Honestly... the fact that the US has to tell people what kind of democracy they can have sickens me. "Huh? Iraqis want to elect all posts? No, no, no... that's not the way it's done in America. So... uhh... you can't do it either."
Pfft.
I don't think America really understands what democracy means.

I love the part where Islam is a religion of peace, tollerance and kindness that will kill anyone who leaves and converts to another faith.

Macievelli did say it was easier to be feared than loved

Oh, like Scientology, LOL...

Wasn't he declared insane or something? So he couldn't be prosecuted.That's an idea that's been floated, but I don't think it's actually been done yet. Here's a question for you, though--how will Bush's wingnuttia react if, in order to save his life, this guy has to claim that he was insane to leave Islam in order to become a Christian? Bush and Karzai are in a no-win situation here--one of their own making, I might add, and one for which I have no sympathy.

Macievelli did say it was easier to be feared than loved
I didn't know Macaroni was Muslim.

Christians used to do the same. No matter how peaceful a religion intends to be, there will always be some people who use it as an excuse to kill others.

It is not written into Christian doctrine that you should do this. It is written into Islamic doctrine (see the Sharia and the Hadiths). The article of the constitution they are using to do this is where it says "no law shall be passed that contradicts the sacred law of Islam".

Have you read the other reports on quotes about the public mood?

"The courts should punish him and he should be put to death."

"According to Islamic law he should be sentenced to death because God has clearly stated that Christianity is forbidden in our land"

This is wrong. And saying that Christians used to do it doesnt change anything. It is wrong

Oh, like Scientology, LOL...
More truth there than perhaps you realize. :(

It is not written into Christian doctrine that you should do this. It is written into Islamic doctrine (see the Sharia and the Hadiths). The article of the constitution they are using to do this is where it says "no law shall be passed that contradicts the sacred law of Islam".

Have you read the other reports on quotes about the public mood?

"The courts should punish him and he should be put to death."

"According to Islamic law he should be sentenced to death because God has clearly stated that Christianity is forbidden in our land"

This is wrong. And saying that Christians used to do it doesnt change anything. It is wrong


You fail to grasp that most people who would love to toss barbs at Christianity could care less if Islam is violent or kills people by policy. They are first in line as apologists.

The guy has actually been freed now, you know...

You fail to grasp that most people who would love to toss barbs at Christianity could care less if Islam is violent or kills people by policy. They are first in line as apologists.
if your apoligies sound sinciere you can get away with a lot of stuff

You fail to grasp that most people who would love to toss barbs at Christianity could care less if Islam is violent or kills people by policy. They are first in line as apologists.
Much as people who love to toss barbs at freedoms could care less if a Police State is violent or kills people by policy are first in line as Bush apologists.

I see.

You fail to grasp that most people who would love to toss barbs at Christianity could care less if Islam is violent or kills people by policy. They are first in line as apologists.
Speaking only for myself, I toss barbs at both. I'm very much a "pox on both their houses" type, you might say, in the sense that I have no use for anyone who uses religion as an excuse to visit atrocities on other human beings.

Much as people who love to toss barbs at freedoms could care less if a Police State is violent or kills people by policy are first in line as Bush apologists.

I see.

The difference is that in order for the Bush administration to want to kill you, you have to offer violence first.

The man in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity was not offering violence.

But I suppose the distinction is lost on you entirely - after all, you probably believe that no one has the right to act in their own defense, no matter what - that's the logic of your statement.

The difference is that in order for the Bush administration to want to kill you, you have to be declared violent by Bush or live in an oil rich area first.

The man in Afghanistan who converted to Christianity was not offering violence.

But I suppose the distinction is lost on you entirely - after all, you probably believe that no one has the right to act in their own defense, no matter what - that's the logic of your statement.

Fixed.

The difference is that in order for the Bush administration to want to kill you, you have to offer violence first.Or you have to be a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time, but hey, sucks for them, huh? :rolleyes:

Fixed.
Thank-you. I thought I'd had something in my eyes. A tear, perhaps. A tear of laughter.

Or you have to be a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time, but hey, sucks for them, huh? :rolleyes:

There are times I think I should get out of Canada, because I may be "a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time" at some point, as far as America is concerned... is there anywhere people would suggest over in Europe? :p

Or you have to be a civilian in the wrong place at the wrong time, but hey, sucks for them, huh? :rolleyes:

Hey, if you're living with some insurgents in your house, you knew it was dangerous to stay there, lol.

WTF? I think I'm quite behind the times here as usual, but getting executed for changing religion? I thought we invaded Afghanistan to get rid of a crazy sharia fundamentalist government. Sorry if this is old news, but my net's been down for a few days.

how old are you? were you not alive when we invaded afghanistan?

we went into afghanistan because osama bin laden was there and alqaeda was headquartered there.

thats it

we took out the taliban govt because they were supporting alqaeda. the head of the taliban married one of binladen's daughters so they were kinda close.

the afghan people didnt invite us in. they didnt beg us to give them religious freedom. they have never been interested in religious freedom. they probably didnt like the talibans murderous regime. that doesnt mean they dont support sharia law.

sure it sucks to have a christian man being killed for converting. the international community needs to give afghanistan a way to let this guy live while saving face. they dont want to look like they are the puppets of the united states and that they have to do as they are told.

Hey, if you're living with some insurgents in your house, you knew it was dangerous to stay there, lol.
And the innocent have nothing to hide, right?
http://workingforchange.speedera.net/www.workingforchange.com/webgraphics/wfc/TMW06-02-08.jpg

Hey, if you're living with some insurgents in your house, you knew it was dangerous to stay there, lol.
Well, more like, if you're living with some insurgents in your city or country, but don't let a little thing like accuracy get in your way. You've never let it stop you before.

Hey, if you're living with some insurgents in your house, you knew it was dangerous to stay there, lol.

:rolleyes:

Well, more like, if you're living with some insurgents in your city or country, but don't let a little thing like accuracy get in your way. You've never let it stop you before.

Remember the Pakistani village which was bombed because the US thought there might br some terrorists there? It might be more accurate to say 'if you're living with some insurgents in your city or country, or indeed a neihbouring country.

Well, more like, if you're living with some insurgents in your city or country, but don't let a little thing like accuracy get in your way. You've never let it stop you before.

The hit rate for aerial dropped weapons in the US is somewhere over 95 percent. Sorry to bother you with that little nugget, from "The Transformation of American Air Power".

If you think that collateral damage should not be allowed, please dismantle all armies right now - oh, and tell those pesky terrorists to stop using things like bombs, etc.

LOL. You need a serious dose of reality.

It might be more accurate to say 'if you're living with some insurgents in your city or country, or indeed a neihbouring country.
...or even hemisphere. Maps is tough to reed right, ya knoews.

LOL. You need a serious dose of reality.
Like you need a dose of humility. Apparently.

The hit rate for aerial dropped weapons in the US is somewhere over 95 percent. Sorry to bother you with that little nugget, from "The Transformation of American Air Power".

If you think that collateral damage should not be allowed, please dismantle all armies right now - oh, and tell those pesky terrorists to stop using things like bombs, etc.

LOL. You need a serious dose of reality.
Yeah, for every 100 weapons fired, we're only killing people at five innocent locations. What's to complain about there? :rolleyes:

This is wrong. And saying that Christians used to do it doesnt change anything. It is wrong
Of course. I was implying that an anti-Islam sentiment should be broadened into an anti-religion sentiment.

Yeah, for every 100 weapons fired, we're only killing people at five innocent locations. What's to complain about there? :rolleyes:

If you consider that a miss distance is considered 8 feet for a GPS guided bomb, hard to say that we've killed "innocents" every time we drop a bomb.

Like most people opposed to what the US does, you would like to think that we use WW II standards to assess "miss" and "collateral damage".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's pretty clear that insurgent roadside bombs and other insurgent activities have been responsible for over 80 percent of Iraqi civilian casualties in this conflict.

Now go back to your bowl of porridge.

Yeah, for every 100 weapons fired, we're only killing people at five innocent locations. What's to complain about there? :rolleyes:

But they're Muslim so obviously they don't count silly.

The hit rate for aerial dropped weapons in the US is somewhere over 95 percent. Sorry to bother you with that little nugget, from "The Transformation of American Air Power".

If you think that collateral damage should not be allowed, please dismantle all armies right now - oh, and tell those pesky terrorists to stop using things like bombs, etc.

LOL. You need a serious dose of reality.
Oh, I would venture to say that far more than 5% of the people who have been killed by "coalition" weapons in Iraq have been civilians. Limiting it to aerial dropped weapons--and by the way, if you include cluster bombs in that grouping, I doubt you can legitimately say 95% accuracy--is a bullshit way to limit the discussion. But you know that--you're not stupid. Just an apologist for the Bsuh administration. And an enemy of humanity, as far as I'm concerned.

Oh, I would venture to say that far more than 5% of the people who have been killed by "coalition" weapons in Iraq have been civilians. Limiting it to aerial dropped weapons--and by the way, if you include cluster bombs in that grouping, I doubt you can legitimately say 95% accuracy--is a bullshit way to limit the discussion. But you know that--you're not stupid. Just an apologist for the Bsuh administration. And an enemy of humanity, as far as I'm concerned.
Don't know. Benjamin Lambeth's book is considered the ne plus ultra in factual accuracy in this regard.

If you consider that a miss distance is considered 8 feet for a GPS guided bomb, hard to say that we've killed "innocents" every time we drop a bomb.

Like most people opposed to what the US does, you would like to think that we use WW II standards to assess "miss" and "collateral damage".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's pretty clear that insurgent roadside bombs and other insurgent activities have been responsible for over 80 percent of Iraqi civilian casualties in this conflict.

Now go back to your bowl of porridge.

1. Your 95% statistic doesn't exclude the possibility that even a direct hit on a millitary target could quite easily kill innocents, especially if cluster bombs are being used.
2. Hitting your target doesn't mean that the target was legitimate, consider the number of missiles and bombs hitting civilian targets because of negligent intelligence.

If you consider that a miss distance is considered 8 feet for a GPS guided bomb, hard to say that we've killed "innocents" every time we drop a bomb.
I would say the thousands of Iraqs killed since the start of the war is evidence enough of the American record with accuracy. You've managed to hit a couple of our soliders as well, not to mention a senior BBC correspondent. Great way to publicise your accuracy!

Like most people opposed to what the US does
I'm glad your President has indoctrinated you so well.

"Well, you're not agreeing with what I say. You're an enemy!"

I would also add that the US hasn't dropped a "dumb" cluster munition once in this conflict.

The bomblets are designed to home in on vehicles. That's how a small group of B-52s destroyed two entire Republican guard divisions in less than 30 seconds just outside Baghdad (on the highway), without striking a single building.

But of course, you'll stick to the idea that we drop dumb munitions...

I'm of two minds about this. As I heard it, this Afghani spent something like 17 years in Europe (the UK, I think) and came back. Seems to me that if you know a law permitting the executions of Islamic apostates is in place in your country, you'd better either stay the hell out or keep your apostasy a very closely guarded secret.

It appears that this bloke is trying to get changes started in Afghanistan by making his case and this law public (the insanity plea in that case makes sense -- you'd have to be crazy to show up in a grizzly bear den smelling like salmon, metaphorically speaking). I'm all for the sunshine disinfectant, but this seems like treating leprosy with a Band-Aid.

Perhaps he's attempting to fire up the old-school martyrdom in order to change things. If that's the case, I salute and respect his bravery and fortitude in choosing to be executed for his faith.

I would also add that the US hasn't dropped a "dumb" cluster munition once in this conflict.

The bomblets are designed to home in on vehicles. That's how a small group of B-52s destroyed two entire Republican guard divisions in less than 30 seconds just outside Baghdad (on the highway), without striking a single building.

But of course, you'll stick to the idea that we drop dumb munitions...
Dumb, smart, makes no difference to me--or to the kids that got shredded by bomblets that didn't explode the way they were supposed to. I've seen the pictures. Have you? Or are you so callous that you just don't give a shit?

I would also add that the US hasn't dropped a "dumb" cluster munition once in this conflict.

The bomblets are designed to home in on vehicles. That's how a small group of B-52s destroyed two entire Republican guard divisions in less than 30 seconds just outside Baghdad (on the highway), without striking a single building.

But of course, you'll stick to the idea that we drop dumb munitions...
Look, pal -- war is war and the killing of noncombatants who were on their way to market to feed their families is inexcusable no matter how accurate the weapon. Unless you're somehow going to give away tactical advantage by letting shoppers know to avoid the (local equivalent of) Wal-mart on the corner of Allahu street and Akhbar Avenue, you're going to kill people who have nothing to do with your target. ALL weapons in this case are "dumb" because needless violence is dumb.

That's not the issue. The issue is violence in service of democracy, and it's completely insane. Where the hell were we in Rwanda? And please don't fall back on "well that was Clinton" -- military personnel seldom change between administrations. America the political/the world citizen doesn't give a rat's ass about you unless you've got a resource we need.

Last I read, the afghanistani government was trying to say that he was insane so they wouldn't have to execute him. The government wanted it to go away, but had to find a way to justify it without pissing off the people... unless things have changed since two days ago.

Look, pal -- war is war and the killing of noncombatants who were on their way to market to feed their families is inexcusable no matter how accurate the weapon. Unless you're somehow going to give away tactical advantage by letting shoppers know to avoid the (local equivalent of) Wal-mart on the corner of Allahu street and Akhbar Avenue, you're going to kill people who have nothing to do with your target. ALL weapons in this case are "dumb" because needless violence is dumb.

That's not the issue. The issue is violence in service of democracy, and it's completely insane. Where the hell were we in Rwanda? And please don't fall back on "well that was Clinton" -- military personnel seldom change between administrations. America the political/the world citizen doesn't give a rat's ass about you unless you've got a resource we need.

Sorry, this is war, and if you believe this is for freedom and democracy, you're pretty stupid.

If you believe that collateral damage in any war in the service of democracy is a bad thing, then you can't fight a war anywhere - especially not a defensive war on your own territory, because you might kill someone innocent.

I didn't see other nations lining up to help in Rwanda, either (well, Belgians asked, which is a point in their favor).

When you've got the EU in a position to project power in the same way as the US, and working hard to stop things like Darfur and Rwanda on the first try, give me a call.

But I sincerely doubt that will EVER happen, LOL

Let the Afghani courts handle this before Western nations criticize Afghanistan's version of Democracy. I remember Rumsfield and Cheney attending a ceremonial event in Afghanistan where Afghani parliament, Afghani judges, and many other Afghani tribal leaders accepting that Sharia will play a great role in Afghanistan. All I'm saying is, let them (Afghanis) handle their businuess. Sometimes many wrongs are needed to be right, I thought Westerners should understand that, but no, they are quick to point finger at others and yet have their own problems. For every time you point a finger at someone, three fingers point back at you(Chinese proverb). Society changes from within lets not forget that.

Sorry, this is war, and if you believe this is for freedom and democracy, you're pretty stupid.

If you believe that collateral damage in any war in the service of democracy is a bad thing, then you can't fight a war anywhere - especially not a defensive war on your own territory, because you might kill someone innocent.

Make up your mind, if you can.

Sorry, this is war, and if you believe this is for freedom and democracy, you're pretty stupid. *snip*

Let's just stop right here and look at the glorious and howling spectacle that is this sentence. Ahem: THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WERE AND CONTINUE TO BE SOLD ON THE PREMISE THAT THIS WAR IS FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY! Jesus Tapdancing Christ, do you not even listen to your own propaganda?

And by the way, that justification only came about AFTER the whole WMD ruse panned out. Wake the fuck up, man.

Make up your mind, if you can.
I'll be sure to use small words, so you'll understand.

1. This war is not in the service of democracy.
2. A war in self-defense of one's own country on one's own soil would necessarily be such a war - in service of democracy, if it took place in Canada, for instance. As such, under the limits provided by the former poster, such a war would be completely immoral, unethical, and impossible to conduct - because someone might get killed.

Let's just stop right here and look at the glorious and howling spectacle that is this sentence. Ahem: THE AMERICAN PUBLIC WERE AND CONTINUE TO BE SOLD ON THE PREMISE THAT THIS WAR IS FOR FREEDOM AND DEMOCRACY! Jesus Tapdancing Christ, do you not even listen to your own propaganda?

No, as a matter of fact, I believe in Realpolitik, not propaganda.

But, if you're comfortable with the stuff on Fox News, go ahead and keep watching it.

I'll be sure to use small words, so you'll understand.

1. This war is not in the service of democracy.
2. A war in self-defense of one's own country on one's own soil would necessarily be such a war - in service of democracy, if it took place in Canada, for instance. As such, under the limits provided by the former poster, such a war would be completely immoral, unethical, and impossible to conduct - because someone might get killed.
Sorry DK, but you've exceeded my abilities. I'm only capable of reading three-syllable words at best, and so I kinda lose track after "democra-".

It's just a bunch of meaningless squiggles after that.

Can you dumb it down for me some more?

Sorry DK, but you've exceeded my abilities. I'm only capable of reading three-syllable words at best, and so I kinda lose track after "democra-".

It's just a bunch of meaningless squiggles after that.

Can you dumb it down for me some more?

Well, if you can't understand Realpolitik, maybe you should stick to Fox News.

*snip*
If you believe that collateral damage in any war in the service of democracy is a bad thing, then you can't fight a war anywhere - especially not a defensive war on your own territory, because you might kill someone innocent.
*snip*


Now let's look at this heinous shredding of reality.

A "defensive war on our own territory" is a hell of a lot different than a war waged elsewhere in order to put the world in a place our leaders would like them to be but can get them to without using weapons. Incidentally, isn't a "defensive war ON OUR (their) OWN TERRITORY" a fair characterization of the Iraqi insurgency? That being the case, IEDs and other "ungentlemanly" tactics are to be expected. They've been invaded, and they've had the history to suggest they know how to repel invaders, or at least make them very sorry for coming. Please, please, wake the fuck up.

No, as a matter of fact, I believe in Realpolitik, not propaganda.

But, if you're comfortable with the stuff on Fox News, go ahead and keep watching it.
I don't know what you're on, but you gotta share. You're the Fox-kisser here, pal.

Sorry DK, but you've exceeded my abilities. I'm only capable of reading three-syllable words at best, and so I kinda lose track after "democra-".

It's just a bunch of meaningless squiggles after that.

Can you dumb it down for me some more?

I think what he's trying to say from all of his 'realpolitik' references is that there is no justification for the killing of civilians but he doesn't care.

Of course if DK would care to elaborate instead of just repeating the word 'realpolitik' then I'd be interested to here his explanation.

No, as a matter of fact, I believe in Realpolitik, not propaganda.

But, if you're comfortable with the stuff on Fox News, go ahead and keep watching it.

2 entries found for realpolitik.

re·al·po·li·tik P Pronunciation Key (r-älpl-tk)
n.
A usually expansionist national policy having as its sole principle advancement of the national interest.

[German : real, practical (from Late Latin relis, real. See real1) + Politik, politics (from French politique, political, policy. See politic).]
re·alpoli·tiker n.

Source: The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
Copyright © 2000 by Houghton Mifflin Company.
Published by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved.

realpolitik

n : politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations [syn: practical politics]


Source: WordNet ® 2.0, © 2003 Princeton University

Emphasis added.

So you're an expansionist? You actually believe Manifest Destiny didn't stop at the Pacific? Holy shit.

I think what he's trying to say from all of his 'realpolitik' references is that there is no justification for the killing of civilians but he doesn't care.

Of course if DK would care to elaborate instead of just repeating the word 'realpolitik' then I'd be interested to here his explanation.

There isn't a justification, and given the extreme attempt that the US has taken to radically reduce collateral damage over the years, I feel that the levels of collateral damage to this point are acceptable.

What may or may not be acceptable to people is the reasonns for the war.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, they were the supporters and training ground for al-Qaeda. No one disputes that.

I would say that we showed remarkable restraint. I would have used nuclear weapons immediately after 911 and the obscene Taliban refusal to hand over Osama.

We're not there for freedom and democracy. We're occupying and controlling a country, because that's what Realpolitik dictates that any rational nation would do after identifying a nation as the source of a major attack.

Realpolitik has nothing to do with ethics or delusions of morality, or the propaganda messages that are fed to the public (which is why I am not a Fox watcher).

Emphasis added.

So you're an expansionist? You actually believe Manifest Destiny didn't stop at the Pacific? Holy shit.

Not necessarily. Read the rest of your definition, rather than the example:

politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations [syn: practical politics]

Not necessarily. Read the rest of your definition, rather than the example:

politics based on practical rather than moral or ideological considerations [syn: practical politics]
So it's practical to bog your nation's army down in an unwinnable war based on religious ideology? Neat. Check, please!

I would say that we showed remarkable restraint. I would have used nuclear weapons immediately after 911 and the obscene Taliban refusal to hand over Osama.

So is it acceptable to nuke America after your obscene refusal to hand over a murderous terrorist?

link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474432&highlight=hand+terrorist)

Americans need to realize that when we decide we're going to be nation builders, installing these fledgling democracies all over the world, countries may not always decide to buy the exact brand of democracy we're pushing. As stewards of the concept of democracy, we are forced to accept a countries sovereignty and allow them to shape their democracy in the manner they choose. It's not always pleasing to us but it's just the way it is. It's going to be interesting to see how America's government responds to the brand of democracy that takes shape in Iraq. With Islamic fundamentalist taking a big part in it. :sniper:

So it's practical to bog your nation's army down in an unwinnable war based on religious ideology? Neat. Check, please!
What's turned out to be impractical is the method.

If we had merely shown up and annihilated the local population, problem solved.

Guess you never read much political science - it's the basis for the actions of most nations.

There isn't a justification, and given the extreme attempt that the US has taken to radically reduce collateral damage over the years, I feel that the levels of collateral damage to this point are acceptable.

What may or may not be acceptable to people is the reasonns for the war.

As far as Afghanistan is concerned, they were the supporters and training ground for al-Qaeda. No one disputes that.

I would say that we showed remarkable restraint. I would have used nuclear weapons immediately after 911 and the obscene Taliban refusal to hand over Osama.

We're not there for freedom and democracy. We're occupying and controlling a country, because that's what Realpolitik dictates that any rational nation would do after identifying a nation as the source of a major attack.

Realpolitik has nothing to do with ethics or delusions of morality, or the propaganda messages that are fed to the public (which is why I am not a Fox watcher).
Okay, you're clearly a complete neocon nutjob. I cannot, in good conscience post replies to you anymore. Nuclear weapons? You're outta your skull.

So is it acceptable to nuke America after your obscene refusal to hand over a murderous terrorist?

link (http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=474432&highlight=hand+terrorist)

Venezuela doesn't have nukes. Next!

Okay, you're clearly a complete neocon nutjob. I cannot, in good conscience post replies to you anymore. Nuclear weapons? You're outta your skull.
Nope. Not out of my skull.

But you do admit the problem would have been solved in such a case.

In rather the same way that the rest of the world didn't screw with us after WWII - we were a nation with a reputation of using nuclear weapons.

I believe they have to be used every generation, in certain situations, to keep the memory of how horrific they can be fresh in people's minds.

And to convince people that to fuck around with the US is a good way to cease to exist.

Venezuela doesn't have nukes. Next!
Neither did Afghanistan, but you were willing to nuke the shit out of them. I believe the larger question is "if Venezuela had nukes, would they then be justified in nuking the US for the same reasons you say the US would have been justified in nuking Afghanistan, specifically for refusing to turn over a known terrorist?"

Venezuela doesn't have nukes. Next!

Irrelevant. If they had nukes would you accept that they were justified in nuking the US?

Irrelevant. If they had nukes would you accept that they were justified in nuking the US?
"Justification" in the Realpolitik sense means "can you get away with it without destroying your nation".

In the case of Venezuela, even if they nuked the US, they would cease to exist. Not a viable option.

Realistically, you only nuke countries that can't nuke you back.

"Justification" in the Realpolitik sense means "can you get away with it without destroying your nation".

In the case of Venezuela, even if they nuked the US, they would cease to exist. Not a viable option.

Realistically, you only nuke countries that can't nuke you back.

Will you stop wriggling and answer the question?

If they had nukes would you accept that they were justified in nuking the US?

In other words would you regard it as right or wrong?

Will you stop wriggling and answer the question?

If they had nukes would you accept that they were justified in nuking the US?

In other words would you regard it as right or wrong?
In Realpolitik, it's not a matter of right or wrong.

Which is why you are confused by my answers.

The mental calculation would be:

Can we get away with punishing the US for not turning over a terrorist by nuking them?

And the answer would be "No, the US would vaporize every square inch of Venezuela, leaving only vestiges of civilization".

In Realpolitik, it's not a matter of right or wrong.

Which is why you are confused by my answers.

The mental calculation would be:

Can we get away with punishing the US for not turning over a terrorist by nuking them?

And the answer would be "No, the US would vaporize every square inch of Venezuela, leaving only vestiges of civilization".

For the love of God I don't care about your 'realpolitik'. I want a personal, non-realpolitikal opinion from you as to whether it is right or wrong.

If you refuse to respond in anything other than realpolitik then I don't expect to see you ever condemning something as wrong, not if someone attacks the US, not if somebody murders your family, not even if you're mugged and left for dead. Now, which option will you choose?

For the love of God I don't care about your 'realpolitik'. I want a personal, non-realpolitikal opinion from you as to whether it is right or wrong.

If you refuse to respond in anything other than realpolitik then I don't expect to see you ever condemning something as wrong, not if someone attacks the US, not if somebody murders your family, not even if you're mugged and left for dead. Now, which option will you choose?
I guess in light of your post his choice is "realquietpolitik'. Points to Randomlittleisland for pwnage.

For the love of God I don't care about your 'realpolitik'. I want a personal, non-realpolitikal opinion from you as to whether it is right or wrong.

If you refuse to respond in anything other than realpolitik then I don't expect to see you ever condemning something as wrong, not if someone attacks the US, not if somebody murders your family, not even if you're mugged and left for dead. Now, which option will you choose?

I don't do things because they are "right" or "wrong".

In matters of personal survival, my survival takes precedence over all other priorities. So, if I am being mugged (in the US where I usually live), I will draw my personal weapon and kill. Right or wrong, legal or not, I will kill.

If someone attacks the US, the US should find a response that will send the message that such attacks will not be tolerated. So it's not a matter of right or wrong - you're trying to get them to stop.

In either view, if you want to be suffering from a delusion of morality, you could say that "attacking me" or "attacking the US" is wrong, and will be punished. But that's not really true - right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

In real life, it's wrong to physically attack me or my family, regardless of your reason, regardless of your point of view, regardless of your justification.

Several people have been EXTREMELY convinced of this, including my wife's ex-husband, who used to stalk her after we were married.

He's not dead, but he knows exactly how big the muzzle aperture is.

For the love of God I don't care about your 'realpolitik'. I want a personal, non-realpolitikal opinion from you as to whether it is right or wrong.

If you refuse to respond in anything other than realpolitik then I don't expect to see you ever condemning something as wrong, not if someone attacks the US, not if somebody murders your family, not even if you're mugged and left for dead. Now, which option will you choose?
May I advise against feeding the troll? A sophisticated and semi-literate troll, to be sure, but a troll none the less.

May I advise against feeding the troll? A sophisticated and semi-literate troll, to be sure, but a troll none the less.
I am hardly a troll if I don't believe in morality and ethics, especially in these days when morality is regarded as subjective, especially and specifically by people on the Left.

By your definition, Lenin was a troll.

I don't do things because they are "right" or "wrong".

In matters of personal survival, my survival takes precedence over all other priorities. So, if I am being mugged (in the US where I usually live), I will draw my personal weapon and kill. Right or wrong, legal or not, I will kill.

If someone attacks the US, the US should find a response that will send the message that such attacks will not be tolerated. So it's not a matter of right or wrong - you're trying to get them to stop.

In either view, if you want to be suffering from a delusion of morality, you could say that "attacking me" or "attacking the US" is wrong, and will be punished. But that's not really true - right or wrong has nothing to do with it.

In real life, it's wrong to physically attack me or my family, regardless of your reason, regardless of your point of view, regardless of your justification.

Several people have been EXTREMELY convinced of this, including my wife's ex-husband, who used to stalk her after we were married.

He's not dead, but he knows exactly how big the muzzle aperture is.

I give up.

I am hardly a troll if I don't believe in morality and ethics, especially in these days when morality is regarded as subjective, especially and specifically by people on the Left.

By your definition, Lenin was a troll.
Oh fuck you and your bullshit generalizations about the left.

I am hardly a troll if I don't believe in morality and ethics, especially in these days when morality is regarded as subjective, especially and specifically by people on the Left.

By your definition, Lenin was a troll.

WTF, DK. Now you're just being a dick. Knock it off. You know full well that it's the ones on the right that are being shown to have no soul, ethics, or qualms about twisting morality to suit them. Just look at how your precious king/president scared the shit out of people in order to get votes.... Asshole.

I am hardly a troll if I don't believe in morality and ethics, especially in these days when morality is regarded as subjective, especially and specifically by people on the Left.



An admirer of Kissinger, I take it.

WTF, DK. Now you're just being a dick. Knock it off. You know full well that it's the ones on the right that are being shown to have no soul, ethics, or qualms about twisting morality to suit them. Just look at how your precious king/president scared the shit out of people in order to get votes.... Asshole.
Every instruction I've ever received on "subjective morality" has been from a die-hard Leftist.

Not being a dick - just the truth. This comes especially from people who believe that organized religion is hogwash.

Call me an attentive student.

An admirer of Kissinger, I take it.

Yes. Quite.

They do things a bit different in those parts of the World. Sometimes it’s like the actualization of what would happen if the Amish were militant and had lots of guns. I don’t think we should be at all surprised by what’s happening over there. After all those years under the Taliban not everything changed over night. There actually former Taliban members of parliament in the new government of Afghanistan! That and instead of properly securing Afghanistan, the US decided to first do a nose dive into Iraq. That probably hasn’t helped things much, unless you’re a warlord who likes the status quo that is.

Of course. I was implying that an anti-Islam sentiment should be broadened into an anti-religion sentiment.

And I dont think in this case its fairly applied. Chrisitianity has nothing comparable to the Hadith or Sharia. We do not have active doctrine that tells us to be intollerant in this way. And before you give a load of OT examples, I said active doctrine. The OT is the Old Covenenant, which we are no longer bound by.

http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/asiapcf/03/26/afghan.convert.ap/index.html

WTF? I think I'm quite behind the times here as usual, but getting executed for changing religion? I thought we invaded Afghanistan to get rid of a crazy sharia fundamentalist government. Sorry if this is old news, but my net's been down for a few days.

1. it's there country....dont go there
2.america is evil incarnate....lol...did i just spit beer through my nose??oh...sorry....never mind.

I am finding this debate quite entertaining. Do continue. Of particular amusement value was the utterly groundless assertion that conservatives are moral-less swine while the liberals hold the moral high ground. Wonderful stuff you're smoking, obviously. Did you bring enough of it to share with everyone?

If you consider that a miss distance is considered 8 feet for a GPS guided bomb, hard to say that we've killed "innocents" every time we drop a bomb.

Like most people opposed to what the US does, you would like to think that we use WW II standards to assess "miss" and "collateral damage".

Nothing could be further from the truth.

It's pretty clear that insurgent roadside bombs and other insurgent activities have been responsible for over 80 percent of Iraqi civilian casualties in this conflict.

Now go back to your bowl of porridge.

porridge?

Let the Afghani courts handle this before Western nations criticize Afghanistan's version of Democracy. I remember Rumsfield and Cheney attending a ceremonial event in Afghanistan where Afghani parliament, Afghani judges, and many other Afghani tribal leaders accepting that Sharia will play a great role in Afghanistan. All I'm saying is, let them (Afghanis) handle their businuess. Sometimes many wrongs are needed to be right, I thought Westerners should understand that, but no, they are quick to point finger at others and yet have their own problems. For every time you point a finger at someone, three fingers point back at you(Chinese proverb). Society changes from within lets not forget that.

And so the number of Chinese pointing fingers grows exponentially.....thats why there are so many of them.....

I don't do things because they are "right" or "wrong".

In matters of personal survival, my survival takes precedence over all other priorities. So, if I am being mugged (in the US where I usually live), I will draw my personal weapon and kill. Right or wrong, legal or not, I will kill.



If this is true then you are inevitably doomed to failure (your going to die). Ones first priority shouldn't be just survival, but having lived a life worth living.

I know you put the qualifier "In matters of personal survival," but i figuered that was kind of redundent.