The Argument Shed

[Magus 86]

No, he's saying that saying that an entire population of people shouldn't be punished or persecuted because of what a very small number of people who happen to have some similarities with the rest have done. It has nothing to do with offending people.(this is in response to what Kop said last)



Yes, I'm against the Iraq war, but had I been around at the time it happened, I would have been against getting rid of the old Iraqi leader and putting Saddam in power in his place in the first place... I also would have been against giving him weapons and money to fight Iran. I'm against the Iraq war because we were attacked... and we went after someone who had nothing to do with it, or at least is nowhere near as important as Bin Laden. And the thing that's really stupid about it is that Bush and a bunch of other idiots try to use 9/11 as reason for going to Iraq... wtf?

Yeah, we gave them aid to fight off the Russian invaders, but we also supported Bin Laden and the Taliban(a very oppressive group), and it backfired. Just as supporting Saddam Hussein did. We also screwed around in Iran. We either took out the Shah and put in someone worse, or we took out someone before the Shah and put the Shah in his/their place... I don't remember exactly the way it was, but I do know that the leader/s before whichever one we put in power was suspected of being communist, so we just killed him/them, or at least took him/them out of power.

These are just a few examples. I don't remember every little thing we did, but I know there's a lot of stupid shit we've done, and it's all backfiring now. It was all stupid of us to do. The only reason we helped out the Afghans is because they were being invaded by Communists. Had they been invaded by anybody else, or at least anybody who was pro-USA or pro-any of USA's allies, we wouldn't have given a damn.



I've kind of backed myself into a corner here... What I was saying, Shinneri, is that What you were saying didn't make sense because you had it backwards. You were saying that they hate freedom because they don't want freedom. It should be that they don't want it because they hate it. If they didn't hate it, they wouldn't care, do you understand? That's what I was saying. I wasn't necessarily agreeing with you... and while I'm sure the leaders do in fact influence the people, I don't think it's just because of the leaders that we're being attacked. You can't tell me we haven't done anything to give them a reason to be pissed off at us. So even if the leaders are telling their people to attack us, we pissed them off, giving them a reason to get their people to attack us anyway. And I can't see any way they can possibly explain freedom and get their people to hate it. I really don't think that's the answer.

 

[Kop_007]

I'm sorry but I haven't said anything 'overly PC'. I'm just making some logical and simple observations. To call my views idiotic without any REAL rebuttals is quite offensive. Please, if you will, respond to every point i've made with a decent counter arguement or just stop posting.

​

REAL rebuttals? You come out with this?

I'm sorry, I think you just broke the bullshit filter on my pc, can I send you the bill?

All I've done is give you REAL rebuttals and then you come out all high and mighty with this?

Dont tell me what to do...or I'll tell you what to do.

 

[Kop_007]

Anyway, I've got a match to go to, so I suggest you use that time to come out of your perfect world bubble and get with the times.

 

[Klown]

Excellent. I'm glad that those lovely countern arguements I typed out for you on all of the points you made are worthless in your eyes so there is no point in even bothering to reply to me. Thanks for not even bothering to come out with anything except nonsense

EDIT: Oh you did make a point after I typed that. Thank you.

 

[Kop_007]

Yeah? Thanks?

They're a few posts up.

 

[Kop_007]

Excellent. I'm glad that those lovely countern arguements I typed out for you on all of the points you made are worthless in your eyes so there is no point in even bothering to reply to me. Thanks for not even bothering to come out with anything except nonsense

EDIT: Oh you did make a point after I typed that. Thank you.

​

Editing your own posts to hide inadequacies is poor.

 

[Klown]

Already stated, white males dont commit murder because they are white males. Whereas islamic terrorist commit these acts because of their religion. Totally different.

Flawed. The majority of terrorists are Muslim. A minority of Muslims are terrorists. So what does that mean? It means that if you want to catch terrorists, you look at the Muslims.

Islamic leaders say terrorists are not part of Islam - why would it offend them? It's only offensive to the 'Islamic' (or not so) terrorist. If Islamic leaders get offended, then they are hypocrites

Agreed. But a good place to start a terrorist investigation is a Muslim community.

You haven't said anything overly PC? You're more or less saying that Muslimism has no links to terrorism...in the hope that we dont offend Muslims who are not guilty of these crimes.

​

1. Flawed analogy I agree. But the point remains the same. To discriminate and to scrutinize an entire population based on the actions of a tiny majority is not right.

2. My anaolgy does work here. The majority of murders are white. A minority of white people are murderes. You go to catch murderers? Look at the white people. See above.

3. Oh I don't know really. A fundamentalist christian bombs a school because of his hatred of children. He is denounced by the church. We then staple his corpse to a flaming cross. The point is it seems as if it's a warning to the christian population because one of their important religious beliefs are being violated. It looks to the public as if their entire religion is being mocked and they are being discriminated against.

4. Your point is to be suspicious of muslims. Not for the police to investigate the communities where a possible suspect is from. It's active suspicion without real reason that is not acceptable.

5. I'm saying that a very very tiny minority of muslimism has roots in terrorism and we shouldn't offend all muslims for the work of a minority. It's like treating all christians as dirt because you don't agree with one groups individule teachings.

EDIT: Ah yes but an edit which does not edit posts, only adds extra to the end in a marked area is not. To be quite frank, I did not see your responce after I asked for some because a few posts later at the bottom of the page you responded to the same point with mocking nonsense. A clever little trap to make it seem like i was belittling the points I had not read.

 

[mattmagoo]

Claiming that Terrorist commit these acts because they are muslim is a statement based in reality

what you fail to have looked into is why they are doing it because they are muslims

because muslims have been shit all over by the western world and have planted the seeds of hatred in their heads

it often seems overlooked that many terrorists are mearly fighting back over various attacks from the western world, many people have been thourpughly pissed off by the trade cut off that iraq recieved for a decade

this had no efefct on Hussain because he had stockpiles of money and food, the people however starved and could not keep up with the developments of "civilised" countries

 

[Kop_007]

Alright Klown.

It got a little heated there? But what good debate doesn't, eh.

Can we call it quits now? I did my sum up and you did yours, we've had another round of responses and we're no closer to anything. Our views are so vastly different that I think it will be impossible to agree on even the slightest thing.

I hope we've provided two good arguments to the rest of you, even if neither of us can see a single merit in each others.

So this is me signing off, and would like again to give my condolences to the London victims.

I've really gotta get going now (Cant miss the first game in Liverpool's European Cup defence)...so long amigo.

May we meet again.

 

[finty]

The same problem was facing the British government in the mid seventies during the pub bombings, and what did they do? Picked up any old Irish person and framed them. I think if we go looking at the muslim communities in the way you want the same will happen, especially if the press push for convictions and the public put pressure on the police for answers.

/badly worded post.

EDIT: Damn, 2 posts in between.

 

[LHC]

I don't care about political correctness, and it isn't politically correct to not judge an entire religion of the actions of a minority.

Statistically black people are more likely to comit thieving/shoplifting offences, but most people don't see a black guy and think "I'd best watch him, HE MIGHT STEAL".

The "muslims extremists do it because they are religious" argument isn't relevant.

[edit: moreover, what do you mean by be vigilant? Watch them so that when they explode you see it happen? When they sit next to you on a bus, move to a seat far away from them? That would certainly improve race relations.

How do you know who is a Muslim? Anybody with dark (not black) skin? A lot of people I know with darker skin are hindus. Do you feel safe sat next to a hindu?]

Also,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4678821.stm

Fucking hell, who'd have thought it?

 

[Klown]

Agreeing to Disagree with Kop.

The new name/picture for this forum is priceless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4678821.stm

Guess this means that that 'Religious and Racial Intolerance act' will be enforced. GO GO CURBING FREE SPEECH GO.

 

[Goity]

I don't care about political correctness, and it isn't politically correct to not judge an entire religion of the actions of a minority.

Statistically black people are more likely to comit thieving/shoplifting offences, but most people don't see a black guy and think "I'd best watch him, HE MIGHT STEAL".

The "muslims extremists do it because they are religious" argument isn't relevant.

[edit: moreover, what do you mean by be vigilant? Watch them so that when they explode you see it happen? When they sit next to you on a bus, move to a seat far away from them? That would certainly improve race relations.

How do you know who is a Muslim? Anybody with dark (not black) skin? A lot of people I know with darker skin are hindus. Do you feel safe sat next to a hindu?]

Also,
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4678821.stm

Fucking hell, who'd have thought it?

​

there are also a lot of sikhs in britain, though not nessecarily following all the rules of sikhism, eg there are a lot which cut their hair

 

[shinneri]

Agreeing to Disagree with Kop.

The new name/picture for this forum is priceless.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk_politics/4678821.stm

Guess this means that that 'Religious and Racial Intolerance act' will be enforced. GO GO CURBING FREE SPEECH GO.

​

BLAIR'S FOUR-POINT PLAN
-New laws as planned against incitement and instigation of terrorism
-New measures to keep people inciting hatred out of the UK, or making it more easily to deport them
-Help for the Muslim community to counter the "evil" interpretation of their faith
-International effort to mobilise the "moderate and true voice of Islam"

 

[LHC]

I'm not sure how keeping extreme Muslims out of the country will help prevent terrorism.

If anything, it will surely make it harder to detect.

 

[Esn]

The 4 London bombers were from the UK. They did it because they were Muslim....yes, they oviously had exterior influences based on other events, but why were they targeted? Because they were Muslim. They are waging Jihad....Muslims are the ones who have brought this term to the western world...the vast majority of Muslim terrorists are fighting a jihad.

​

This is a bit off topic, but all of these suicide bombers and so on remind me of the young communist revolutionaries who were around in the 20th century in countries where revolutions happened. They were quite willing to use violence and sacrifice their lives to die for a cause that they truly believed in... they were also considered terrorists in their own time, and yet now some like Che Guevera are hailed as heroes. Even before that, there were many people like them - Louis Riel is one (the man who tried to make Manitoba a French settlement, and who's still viewed as a hero by Canadian francophones). The terrorists who inhabit the world today are but reflections of these - history repeats itself. They are hated by us because we're on the wrong side, but by others they're viewed as heroes. It may not bring me much joy to say that, but there are people who believe that they have legitimate causes... obviously what the US and Britain should be trying to do is find what those causes are and work as hard as they can to resolve them so as to rob the terrorists of their support. Instead, the US went ahead and created a NEW reason, with Iraq.

The hell we didn't... We helped to put a lot of those oppressive leaders in power.

​

Oh yeah? Enlighten me. Only one I can think of would be in Afghanistan.. Indeed we did help fight off the Russian invasion there.. but we were helping the Afghans. Of course, that did turn out to be a mistake.

​

Ok, what about General Augusto Pinochet in Chile, who was put into power with a US-backed coup in 1973 in place of the elected socialist government of Salvador Allende. While in power, he declared the entire nation an emergency zone and imposed a state of siege that limited the rights of citizens and augmented the military's powers. He shut down three of the country's newspapers, placed universities under military administration, and prohibited singing in public.
Also, you're forgetting about many of the dictators that the US is propping up to this very day - in Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Egypt just to mention a few examples in the middle east. They supported Saddam Hussein in the past as well, giving him money for his war against Iran. The US has a two-sided policy to freedom... give them a large enough bribe, and they'll conveniently ignore and make business with a dictator (the Saudi Arabia case is an excellent example).

Even if they don't want their people to know about our freedom, they already do know about it, and if it has anything to do with not having freedom, then they're pissed at us for helping to put their shitty oppressive leaders in power, eliminating almost any chance of ever being free for the people who are now pissed and trying to kill us.

​

And yet you're against the Iraq war, I presume, which gives the Iraqi people a good, representative government?

​

Really? <<Doesn't seem to be very representative to me.

A large portion of Iraq isn't under the control of the coalition anyway, so for a lot of people it doesn't matter much who's in power. Same situation as in Afghanistan - you must have heard by now that Afghanistan's government functions only in Kabul, the capital city. What I don't understand is why the US government couldn't at least get ONE job done right before they moved on to the next.

 

[BaDToaD]

The london bombings were sick enough but what kind of monsters deliberately target children?

26 People killed in Iraq mosty children being handed sweets to mark the opening of a water treatment plant.

 

[Esn]

The london bombings were sick enough but what kind of monsters deliberately target children?

26 People killed in Iraq mosty children being handed sweets to mark the opening of a water treatment plant.

​

I'll bet they got some inspiration from the Chechnyan terrorists (er... excuse me, freedom fighters, as they're called in the UK and US) who took an elementary school hostage and killed more than 400 people.

 

[finty]

Actually the Chechnyan's are an extremily oppressed people, I'm not saying killing is right but if you go to their occupied homeland you will see how they are treated. Most of their men are murdered - be they fighters or not - and civilians are shot at will, I'd say you could compare this to the people of Palestine. Sometimes the only way to get the extent of your plight across to the world is to pull off a complete shocker, killing troops just doesn't do it any more. Also you will notice that alot of the Chechnyan fighters are women, calling themselves the Black Widows, this is another effect of the men being killed.

Note - This is not some UK/US press fed bullshit, until now I was unaware of their stance on the Chechnyans', and I am in no way against Russia, be it in its Soviet form or its present day form.

And on the subject of the London Bombings, I am not justifying the killings but the British people cannot say these attacks were uncalled for, Britain had no need to join the war in Iraq or Afganistan, she is not a world power anymore but is latching herself to the underbelly of the US in hope of gaining some sort of "respect". Note how France, Germany, Ireland and alot of other countries have not been attacked as they have said no to the war.

The population of a country cannot say they didn't decide to join the war their leaders did, as they choose who leads their country and if a decission is unpopular enough it will never be passed, well no in the UK anyway.

 

[LHC]

And on the subject of the London Bombings, I am not justifying the killings but the British people cannot say these attacks were uncalled for, Britain had no need to join the war in Iraq or Afganistan, she is not a world power anymore but is latching herself to the underbelly of the US in hope of gaining some sort of "respect". Note how France, Germany, Ireland and alot of other countries have not been attacked as they have said no to the war.

​

This was nothing to do with Iraq or Afghanistan. Or "trying to get respect". "Britain" isn't one person.

edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1995_Islamist...bings_in_France

The population of a country cannot say they didn't decide to join the war their leaders did, as they choose who leads their country and if a decission is unpopular enough it will never be passed, well no in the UK anyway.

​

This is just downright untrue.

"The population" didn't vote for the war. A minority of people in the UK supported Labour or the Conservatives, and many of these people didn't support the war (especially those that voted Labour). It wasn't in the manifesto, so this was never an election issue. If you vote for X and then they do something that they never told you about, or the complete opposite of what they said, are you responsible? I don't see how you can be. Some people don't have this option, for instance children, who have an honest-to-god gun to their head.

If all you're saying is that people are responsible for their government, then surely this applies everywhere rather than just democracies? If person A favours candidate B but candidate C wins the election, is A 'guilty' because he doesnt start plotting a civil war or overthrow of government? And if so, why doesnt this apply to people under other forms of government who are unhappy with their rulers (those living in totalitarian regimes 'can' also rebel)?

Who are the mythical group of people 'giving the government a mandate'? There are only individuals, some of whom voted for the current regime, and some of whom never.



edit: I was just thinking; it's pretty ironic that this will be used to justify ID cards (despite these people being british citizens) even though they were able to identify the bombers because of the ID cards they were carrying :rolleyes: