The Iraq thread 4

[FW200 0]

So if you don't care about civi casualties, what's the difference between you and them?

[quicksand 0]

No one said we have to play fair, (It's war. Fairness need not apply.) we only have to win.

FarretFangs,I sincerly feel the need to ask you,quite worried and serious I might add if you are part of the Al-Queda terrorist group psy ops division because I am finally begining to see the point you were trying to make all along.

I honestly hope the fammilies of the 9/11 victims aren't reading this moronic hogwash nor had the victims twisted in their graves.

It is also my hope that no young person surfing this forum takes even for a second your statement seriously and starts beliving it is right to commit genocide,ethnic cleansing or any other horrendeus crime imaginable as long as you win the war you provoked.

I for one refuse to belive that Osama Bin Laden only has to win,because no one said he has to play fair and because he declared war on America and for this reasons he can strike any target at will inside USA be it with a nuclear bomb.

[FerretFangs 0]

I'm not fighting the war, like you, I'm just watching it. Whether or not I care about civilian casulties is not important. That we accomplish our military goals, is.

You all can make it about me, and your disagreement with my ideals if that makes you feel better, but that doesn't really have anything to do with situation on the ground, now does it?

You should know, however, I'm very well connected with the military, ( I've stated why, many times ) and I can tell you my frustrations and concerns are based what I hear from the mouths of our soldiers IN Iraq. If you all think I'm a bloodthirsty monster, I'll simply have to redirect you to the ones pulling the triggers. They'll be more than happy to tell you why they're doing what they do.

[Crazysheep 1]

You should know, however, I'm very well connected with the military, ( I've stated why, many times ) and I can tell you my frustrations and concerns are based what I hear from the mouths of our soldiers IN Iraq. If you all think I'm a bloodthirsty monster, I'll simply have to redirect you to the ones pulling the triggers. They'll be more than happy to tell you why they're doing what they do.

Y'know, I've noticed a pattern of pro-Bush Americans here hiding behind the fact they've been in the military because it's our culture to respect that.

But basing your concerns on the views of one side who are in a situation where clear ethical thinking is at it's most difficult is not a reliable way to form your political views.

Is it?

What would you say to an arab who, after being attacked for saying it doesn't matter who the terrorists kill as long as they get the job done, replied by saying-

You should know, however, I'm very well connected with the insurgency, ( I've stated why, many times ) and I can tell you my frustrations and concerns are based what I hear from the mouths of our soldiers IN Iraq. If you all think I'm a bloodthirsty monster, I'll simply have to redirect you to the ones detonating the bombs. They'll be more than happy to tell you why they're doing what they do.

[Balschoiw 0]

Quote[/b] ]Whether or not I care about civilian casulties is not important. That we accomplish our military goals, is.

Great, throw a nuke...rape some, kill innocents in masses, torture worldwide, imprison without charges. Oh wait, you´ve done all that...

I thought it was about the people in Iraq ? Must have gotten that wrong.

Quote[/b] ]You all can make it about me, and your disagreement with my ideals if that makes you feel better

Ideals ? You call that ideals ? Kill crush destroy, great ideals.

You´re no better than any ideologically madman blowing himself up in a toyota near a checkpoint if you have those "ideals" in your pocket.

Quote[/b] ]If you all think I'm a bloodthirsty monster, I'll simply have to redirect you to the ones pulling the triggers.

Yes, I´d gladly do that. Let´s ask the US government as they were the ones to pull the triggers FIRST.

Read the newspapers, it doesn´t hurt.

Edit:

One more thing. You claim to have served on a naval vessel. So how can you know what it is on the ground ?

I have rarely seen sailors jumping arounf in GWI. They were comfortably sitting on their ships doing their thing.

Apart from that your latest remarks in the Kursk thread and here indicate that you have a problem with others but not vice versa.

I´ll cite you with

Quote[/b] ]The ENTIRE WORLD would rejoice if it was a Nimitz-class super carrier on the sea floor, even though I'm sure we'd recieve some token condolences for the loss of life. As did you for your sailors.

I guess this shows clear enough where you are coming from.

Apart from that your bash of Syria is a BIT misplaced.

The US aka coalition forces put border guards out of service. They failed to reestablish them up to now. It was your deal, not Syria´s. Syria is in no way to be held responsible for what you did. They are not the ones to control who LEAVES their country. You are the ones to control who enters Iraq. Not Syria.

I doubt that Syria lets pass convois of weapons and suicide bombers. It´s your claim, but up to now all the Syria claims have been nothing but dust in the wind.

You blame Syria for something that the US have messed. Great deal. Nuke them, following your ideals.

It has been a known fact for a while now that rat-paths have been established in Iraq. It´s your deal to close them. Not Syria´s. Search the guilty ones in your own rows before you go rampaging on something you obviously have no idea about.

[denoir 0]

Y'know, I've noticed a pattern of pro-Bush Americans here hiding behind the fact they've been in the military because it's our culture to respect that.

But basing your concerns on the views of one side who are in a situation where clear ethical thinking is at it's most difficult is not a reliable way to form your political views.

Is it?

Indeed. Due to the fact that most European countries have conscription, saying "I've been in the military" as a measure of authority is like saying "I've finished high school".

They have trouble forming a vision and a coherent plan about Iraq at the highest level of the US military - it's absurd to think being a former soldier gives you any form of formal authority on discussing strategy. Not to mention that the discussion of the ethics of the war is something that people outside the military have to think about (unless you live in a military dictatorship, that is).

Also, the idea that the grunts on the ground have a clear picture is nonsense. They can with formal authority speak about micro-scale practical issues, but they don't see the overall picture. Chances are that the average arm-chair general watching CNN & BBC gets a better overall picture than somebody on the ground. If you plan to form opinion based on what soldiers on the ground say, you have to ask lots of them - enough to have a statistical foundation to stand on.

To give a personal example, I was in Kosovo '01. While I learned a great deal there, afterwards I realized that got a relatively skewed picture of the situation, simply because I deal with a certain type of people and saw certain type of things - that weren't representative for the whole situation. And I was in a weapons survey group, so I travelled a lot and met tons of people - much more than what your average grunt would. But it was not through that that I got the broader picture - it was because of research before and after I actually served there. And I can name a dozen of people who can speak of both the military and political situation in Kosovo with greater authority than I can - that have never been to the place.

In regards to the ethical issues, these are matters that concern everybody and everybody should have a voice. I would go so far to say that people that are not in Iraq have a better chance of objectively evaluating such issues.

[Balschoiw 0]

Indeed, even if you have access to newspapers and TV during missions it only gives you a glance on what you are doing there. In fact it sometimes was pretty scary to read what people knew about the things we did. Some major journals seem to be better informed than the people on the ground. At least that´s the impression I got. Anyway, it´s hard to keep pace with outside news as the time you spend on watch or duty consumes a whole lot of the day and therefore I was not very eager to spend my free time with reading papers or watching TV. It was more about doing some phonecalls if possible, trade some stuff and writing letters and reading books.

[denoir 0]

Suicide bombs cause Iraq carnage [bBC]

Quote[/b] ]

At least 50 people have been killed in Iraq as five separate explosions rocked Tikrit, Hawija and Baghdad.

A blast at a crowded market near a police station in Tikrit killed at least 27 people and injured scores.

Further north in Hawija, about 20 people died in a suicide bombing in a queue of people applying for army jobs.

Three were killed in Baghdad amid a continuing escalation in violence that has already claimed more than 300 lives across the country this month.

....

Poor bastards, they're dying like flies.

There have been about 140 car bombings in Iraq this month, compared to 60 last month.

[chops 111]

You should know, however, I'm very well connected with the military, ( I've stated why, many times ) and I can tell you my frustrations and concerns are based what I hear from the mouths of our soldiers IN Iraq. If you all think I'm a bloodthirsty monster, I'll simply have to redirect you to the ones pulling the triggers. They'll be more than happy to tell you why they're doing what they do.

Ah yes they can tell us that their President sent them there to stop an iminent attack on the USA, using weapons of mass destruction...

Lie.

Oh no that's right it was because of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorists.

Another lie.

What kind of society is it that the coalition soldiers are fighting to bring to Iraq? Hopefully one better than those which saw fit to invade Iraq in the first place.

WHY ARE THE COALITION FORCES IN IRAQ?

I felt sick when I saw that arrogant, supercillious insect Rumsfeld shaking hands with Saddam Hussein, Washington's best friend in the Iran-Iraq war.

[Acecombat 0]

No one said we have to play fair, (It's war. Fairness need not apply.) we only have to win.

Let me guess you use the [sHIFT] [-] ENDMISSION cheat in OFP quite often then? .

I can only wonder what your like in real life , a person with such selfish mindset can be quite a danger and cause of trouble for himself and others.

[denoir 0]

You should know, however, I'm very well connected with the military, ( I've stated why, many times ) and I can tell you my frustrations and concerns are based what I hear from the mouths of our soldiers IN Iraq. If you all think I'm a bloodthirsty monster, I'll simply have to redirect you to the ones pulling the triggers. They'll be more than happy to tell you why they're doing what they do.

Ah yes they can tell us that their President sent them there to stop an iminent attack on the USA, using weapons of mass destruction...

Lie.

Oh no that's right it was because of Saddam Hussein's links to terrorists.

Another lie.

What kind of society is it that the coalition soldiers are fighting to bring to Iraq? Hopefully one better than those which saw fit to invade Iraq in the first place.

After Hermann Göring had been convicted of war crimes, Gustave Gilbert, a German-speaking allied intelligence officer interviwed him. There's a really interesting part of the interview:

Quote[/b] ]

Göring: Why, of course, the people don't want war. Why would some poor slob on a farm want to risk his life in a war when the best that he can get out of it is to come back to his farm in one piece?

Naturally, the common people don't want war; neither in Russia, nor in England, nor in America, nor for that matter in Germany. That is understood. But, after all, it is the leaders of the country who determine the policy and it is always a simple matter to drag the people along, whether it is a democracy, or a fascist dictatorship, or a parliament, or a communist dictatorship.

Gilbert: There is one difference. In a democracy the people have some say in the matter through their elected representatives, and in the United States only Congress can declare wars.

Göring: Voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked, and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same in any country.

(source)

Very sad that nothing has de-facto changed in the last 50 years.

[Balschoiw 0]

Interesting concept to rebuild an army.

Growing pains strain Iraq's fledgling army

Quote[/b] ]BAGHDAD, Iraq - (KRT) - On the firing range, Staff Sgt. Timothy Tutini bellows at the Iraqi soldiers who can't shoot straight.

Even a platoon leader misses the human silhouette target entirely, despite firing several shots from an assault rifle from only about 25 yards away. In all, four of these 10 Iraqi enlistees fail to qualify in marksmanship from a prone position.

The soldiers blame it on the rifle. Then bad ammo. Those who pass laugh at those who don't. One by one, Tutini uses the same rifles to score bull's-eyes, just to show the soldiers that the problem lies with them.

So went the closing days of U.S. military training for this Iraqi army unit. Were the stakes not so high, it might be a laughing matter.

The 973 soldiers in the Iraqi 6th Division's 2nd Battalion, which patrols several Baghdad neighborhoods east of the Tigris River, will be virtually independent of the U.S. military on May 15, when they become "fully operational capable." By June, the last U.S. Army trainers are expected to be out of the unit's camp, with only observers remaining.

The 2nd battalion is a case study in how Iraqi recruits and their officers must overcome considerable obstacles to be able to defend their country.

"Holding them to the same standard of the U.S. Army is not feasible," said Tutini, 34, of Hinesville, Ga., who is a liaison from the Army's 7th Cavalry's 3rd Squadron to the Iraqi unit.

"When our Army first started, it wasn't much to look at either when George Washington was boss. But they'll get it, and they're light years ahead from where they started in 2003."

Capt. William Brown, the U.S. commander in the Iraqi camp, acknowledged shortcomings with some Iraqi soldiers, but said their courage, tenacity and superior familiarity of Baghdad's streets and people shouldn't be overlooked.

"In either army, you're always going to have ... some bad shots. You just got to work with the bad shots," Brown said. "There's just the little things they got to work on, but as far as the big things, they can take the fight."

The new Iraqi soldiers, who receive two weeks of basic training (the U.S. Army's lasts four times as long), are still adapting to the routine of wearing body armor and helmets, Iraqi officers concede. Security lapses occur when soldiers use their cell phones to announce a home leave schedule to relatives (insurgents can intercept the calls) or fail to conceal detailed terrain models used to orchestrate raids on insurgents.

As the Iraqi military re-creates itself, top-down snags inevitably occur.

Last week, for example, the Ministry of Defense decided to rebid all life-support contracts at the battalion's camp near the Olympic stadiums in Baghdad, but then left soldiers without food, portable toilet service, and bathing water for several days due to bureaucratic lapses during the rebidding process.

Brown provided them combat rations and, after the Iraqis went without showers for five days, arranged water delivery Sunday; Army contractors dug trenches for latrines.

Perhaps American commanders' biggest concern is that the Iraqi Army returns to its "old ways" of top officers imperiously dictating all orders, soldiers sitting idle in the meantime, and midrank or non-commissioned officers - the backbone of the U.S. military - marginalized and ignored.

"Some people say bad things about the IA," said Brown, 36, of Savannah, Ga., referring to the Iraqi army, "and we say, `Hey, bro, you gotta watch that.' We like to say this is our battalion too."

One community leader in Baghdad, Ziad Tariq al-Azawi, 44, declared the Iraqi Army not ready for autonomy.

"No, it's still under the standard performance of a professional army," said al-Azawi, chairman of a district council. "There are no qualified officers: A lot of them just got their positions, and they're not from any military academies."

Leading the way for this particular Iraqi unit is Lt. Col. Samir al-Tememy, 41, who had spent 18 years in Saddam Hussein's army before the U.S. invasion in March 2003.

Al-Tememy is optimistic about a new professional military for Iraq, free of the bribes and corruption instigated by Saddam's officer corps.

"The things America did is great, to build a new Iraq, and the people who died during Saddam Hussein's regime, we want to make sure they didn't get killed for nothing," he said.

Al-Tememy, who has moved his wife and eight children five times because of threats due to his job, nonetheless estimated it will take "not less than 15 years" for Iraq to build a truly free-standing army. He complained that the new military lacks armored vehicles and tanks.

Under Saddam, al-Tememy's military career was stymied because he is a Shiite, and Saddam's leaders were Sunnis, he said. He eventually was assigned a teaching job in a second-rate military college in Baghdad. He said he abandoned Saddam's military just before the U.S. offensive.

As a sign of how things have changed for the Muslim sect, 90 percent of al-Tememy's soldiers are Shiites, with the remainder Sunni. He insists no religious animosity exists toward former Sunni powerbrokers, many of whom are considered behind the insurgency.

Though 24 of his soldiers have been killed and 38 wounded since August 2003, al-Tememy said he has no trouble attracting recruits for dangerous duty because salaries are attractive. New soldiers earn $300 a month, compared with a teacher's starting pay under Saddam of about $100.

In fact, he said he has rejected hundreds of applicants because they were physically unfit, were drug users or had suspicious backgrounds.

Still, the material shortcomings of the Iraqi army were starkly evident as dozens of soldiers rode in white Nissan pickup trucks to carry out a nighttime raid on a suspected insurgent supply cell in the al-Betaween neighborhood near the Tigris River last Wednesday.

Accompanying them were U.S. Army Special Forces troops and other GIs in armored Humvees, with rooftop machine guns.

The targets included an Egyptian and a Sudanese suspected of selling drugs and using profits to buy arms, selling them to anti-coalition fighters.

At one point in their planning, a Special Forces soldier seemed skeptical that Iraqi troops could adequately cordon off a neighborhood. He asked an Iraqi officer point-blank, "You won't leave us hanging?"

"I'm confident in my company," responded Lt. Qayis Morad, 30, a platoon leader.

During the mission, the Iraqi strike team began knocking on doors. They entered a hotel and an ice shop, with U.S. Special Forces trailing.

Their main targets weren't found. But the Iraqi unit apprehended a 19-year-old Iraqi man, who later provided a location of the Egyptian, U.S. officers said.

Last Thursday, Iraqi soldiers went to that address and found the Egyptian and another man. Both were detained.

While the mission was considered a success, some Iraqi sergeants conceded they weren't ready to part with Americans.

"When I go on a mission with the American coalition, I feel safe because they offer safety and protection," said Sgt. Ibrahim Malik, 27, who had been a soldier in the Republican Guard during Saddam's reign and been stationed in the former leader's stronghold of Tikrit. "That means I can keep my family and my kids safe from the enemy."

Even if you dress them up in uniforms, it doesn´t make them capable soldiers in two weeks. Even the numbers G.W like to cite are highly dubious as there are no reliable numbers by now. SO even if they are able to set up a 300.000 men army, it will be an army of weekend soldiers. Once they are on their own, they will cease to exist faster than you can say 1, 2 ,3...

[miles teg 1]

Nah Ferret....don't hold back.  We need to OUT TERRORISE the TERRORISTS!  We need to go old school on them and do like the Crusaders did back in the good ol' days when Christians could openly say, "I WANNA KILL MUSLIMS AND SEND THEM TO HELL!!!" without being branded a racist by a bunch of bleeding-heart liberals.  Back then they just massacred, tortured, and raped thousands of Muslims and did stuff like cut open pregnant women and threw their fetuses on the ground.  Come on, we allow abortions today for Americans, so why we can't do that to Iraqis?  Huh?

With our modern technology we could take random Iraqi civilians to do "intestinal bungie jumping".  Its simple, gut 'em while they're alive, tie one end of their intestines to frame of helicopter and then toss em out...then make bets on whether or not their intestines will run out before they hit the ground.

But then we can't tell Iraqis from non-Iraqi Arabs or Persians or Muslims from Christians...so then ya know what that means...we gotta wipe out the world of the Muslim threat even if that means killing alot of Jews and Christian sympathisers.  Ya gotta root the evil from the core or the rot will spread outward and their filth will take over America and the world...cuz they've already taken over the UN and the democratic party!  They're a threat to freedom and democracy so we gotta wipe 'em out to win the war.  If any are left they'll just make more babies to keep on fighting so we gotta kill 'em all including them jihadi babies!

 

Come on you want to win don't you? So why don't we just go in Serb style?  Screw the UN.  Screw the EU.  We're the FUCKING US of A muthafuckas and we can do anything we want right Ferret!!!??      GOD BLESS AMERICA!!! It rocks being an American cuz we can give the finger to anyone while they just whine, bitch, and moan because we're #1 in the world and they're just jealous of our democracy, freedom, and the fact that we're the richest most powerful country in the world.   That means GOD IS ON OUR SIDE cuz obviously God has blessed us and Muslims are a test for us to prove ourselves to Jesus that we are faithful and are willing to fight to protect the faith and his kingdom.  So "you're either with us or against us" like the prophet Bush said.

Like you said, the facts don't lie. Those crazy jihadis just keep coming and coming and just won't stop so we need to listen to our soldiers who are the front line killing Sand Jiggas... UNLEASH THE DOGS OF WAR!!!  Honor?  To hell with that.  Winning the war is more important then honor!  Winning is more important then humanity!  Winning is more important the EVERYTHING!  WINNING IS EVERYTHING!!!!!!!!!!! (I'm pretty sure it says that in the Bible somewhere).

So like I said, we need to use CRUSADER tactics like back in the days when they kicked heathen Muslim ass in the name of God... oh wait... they lost.  Ok... then just like Hitler did to rid the world of those money grubbing, Jesus killing Jews.  Kill 'em all in the name of God and global dominance!  Ah shit... he lost also...   damn... uh... um...  nevermind.

(sarcasm mode off)

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[OmniMax 0]

Wow, that was pretty intense.

[chops 111]

Miles Teg. I think I more level-headed, rational approach would be more likely to to win Mr Ferret over.

As John Stewart from "The Daily Show" often bemoans, there doesn't seem to be much civility in political discussion of late. Just as the militaries of the world have to show they represent civilization and humanity by treating their enemy with respect and and prisoners with dignity, we too have to show those with whom we disagree that we have arrived at our view point from logical, rational process as opposed to spewing tirades of invective at them. Hard to claim to be rational and logical and therefore right, when talking of disembowelments.

Know how ya feel though mate

[Akira 0]

I've learned long ago from my time on this forum, that logical, rational debate is almost impossible with people that base their views and beliefs on 1) religion, 2) the supiorority of their culture/nation, and/or 3) blind faith in government officials.

You will never, ever convince some one that any of the three above are wrong, as they are not based upon logical, rational, or disprovable thoughts. So we will forever have an influx of people that will come in and yell "USA is da Roxs!!" or some other nonsense, and we will forever continue to bash our collective heads against the brick walls of their ignorance.

I, personally, gave up rational discussion with people of that like long ago, and have resorted, due to frustration of having to repeat answers and debates, to merely treating them with the derision and loathing that I actually feel. I could really care less at this point whether or not they think I am debating "civilly." I see no point in acting civilly to people that advocate and support the murders and deaths of 100,000+ people.

[Leveler 0]

The Iraq invasion shows the following: a well executed military operation against a nearly helpless opponent but with no plan, afterthought and clear aims; look at what has happened and is happening now. Now remember the operations in afganistan (with Osama somehow making his escape from even the tightest circles) as well as earlier investigations on events that transpired during the last 6 years. There is a pattern formed from all this for the U.S. government capability and agenda.

[miles teg 1]

Quote[/b] ]

Miles Teg. I think I more level-headed, rational approach would be more likely to to win Mr Ferret over.

As John Stewart from "The Daily Show" often bemoans, there doesn't seem to be much civility in political discussion of late. Just as the militaries of the world have to show they represent civilization and humanity by treating their enemy with respect and and prisoners with dignity, we too have to show those with whom we disagree that we have arrived at our view point from logical, rational process as opposed to spewing tirades of invective at them. Hard to claim to be rational and logical and therefore right, when talking of disembowelments.

Know how ya feel though mate  

Thats all fine and true and I agree with you for the most part Chops.  However War is not rational and MAN is NOT rational.  

We try to be rational, but ultimately we act upon a mixture of of logic and emotions that often leads to illogical rationalizations.   That is why I'm using the sarcasm as a sort of parody as to what the extreme christian conservative right of America believe.  Many of them are not quite that extreme, but they fail to realize that their brand of religous, ethnocentric, and nationalistic rationalization can very easily lead to these types of extreme ideas.   Germans didn't start exterminating Jews overnight.  It was a gradual process.  Its the marketing of hatred.  Its the same thing that Al-Qaeda is doing.   Fighting back with reverse extremism yes may win the war... but possibly at the cost of killing millions of people.

But hey, it worked with the genocide of Native Americans.

However nobody was there to defend them except themselves.   Now you have the EU and the rest of the world that might not take too kindly to America committing genocide.

If they chose to defend Muslims, the price we could end up paying would be a world war.  This however would be in accordance with Christian and Muslim beliefs of Armeggeddon because then it would be the world against the Christians and Jewish nation of Israel.

What I want Mr. Ferret to do is think out his beliefs to their rational conclusions.  What I have YET to hear conservatives do is to explain to me how our current policies will end terrorism.   They simply can't.   Hell even democrats can't because they just mimick what the Republicans say and have no original ideas of their own.  

I want to know what Mr Ferret thinks on what America will accomplish with our military goals.  If he believes that military power is the solution to the war on terror, then I want to hear how he thinks our military will win the war on terror.  

Chris G.

aka-Miles Teg<GD>

[Acecombat 0]

umm excuse me but i am religious and i dont see why we cant discuss this issue of war through logical/rational means , if some person is retarded and xenophobic its his fault not every person's who believe's in religion. If they suffer from delusions and misperceptions their loss not ours.

[Akira 0]

Your views aren't soley based on religion though. For example, there are those that feel we need to fight in the ME because "Satan lives there." Or because they want to bring about "Jesus' return." Or because God told them to.

There is no way you are going to reationally discuss the situation with those people.

I didn't say you couldn't discuss rationally with religious people, I said you can't discuss rationally with those that base their actions and beliefs on religion.

[Apollo 0]

Quote[/b] ]umm excuse me but i am religious and i dont see why we cant discuss this issue of war through logical/rational means , if some person is retarded and xenophobic its his fault not every person's who believe's in religion. If they suffer from delusions and misperceptions their loss not ours.

Granted ,and what can be said about these people's "religion" ,the form of religion terrorists are using ,or right wing people in the USA ,are more or less a derivate of religion altered for political goals.

Many current christian dogma's have been created trough history after christ for political means ,and are not to be found in the originaly greek written bible ,and even this bible is a derivate ,not the exact words of Christ himself and probably romantisized story's.In a same way ,the koran has gone trough many alterations ,and deffinatly translations of texts that easily can have multiple meanings depending on how analysed have made many versions of bible and koran today not in line with the original writings.

I have nothing against religious people ,but i prefer religious people who don't take the writings of their bible/koran to seriously ,rather just folow the most basic moral guidelines of it.I myself though am an staunch atheist ,seeing how much blood has shed in the past of the name of religion i can not believe in any god that could allow such a thing.

[Acecombat 0]

Your views aren't soley based on religion though. For example, there are those that feel we need to fight in the ME because "Satan lives there." Or because they want to bring about "Jesus' return." Or because God told them to.

There is no way you are going to reationally discuss the situation with those people.

I didn't say you couldn't discuss rationally with religious people, I said you can't discuss rationally with those that base their actions and beliefs on religion.

Well you cant have everything in life based on religion , it has its limits , religion only preaches the basics in life the rest is up to us how we proceed in life and make different choices with relation to it.

Quote[/b] ]there are those that feel we need to fight in the ME because "Satan lives there." Or because they want to bring about "Jesus' return." Or because God told them to.

That is simply bull , this cant even be proved if we take what the christanity says , so therefore it isnt religion or part of it but a byproduct of a insane and pathetic mind. Associating it with religion is only giving such fools moral high ground who think they are religious , breaking down their values and proving it to them that it isnt so in the religion is the way to go instead of blaming religion and further incensing other people , some who might not even be a part of this but still defend these retards because of their connection with religion.

Quote[/b] ]I didn't say you couldn't discuss rationally with religious people, I said you can't discuss rationally with those that base their actions and beliefs on religion.

Umm i DO base my actions on the core issues in life through religion otherwise why would i be religious if i didnt do that?

@Apollo:

Quote[/b] ]the koran has gone trough many alterations

Afraid not , we've got quran from nearly 1200 years ago and its all the same to what we read still. Usman the 3rd caliphs qurans copy can be found in musuems in Egypt (or maybe it was turkey?) its the same.

Quote[/b] ]seeing how much blood has shed in the past of the name of religion i can not believe in any god that could allow such a thing.

Ironically that blood was spilled by man himself , why blame someone else for your own shortcoming?

[Akira 0]

Quote[/b] ]Quote (Akira @ May 11 2005,18:40)

Your views aren't soley based on religion though. For example, there are those that feel we need to fight in the ME because "Satan lives there." Or because they want to bring about "Jesus' return." Or because God told them to.

There is no way you are going to reationally discuss the situation with those people.

I didn't say you couldn't discuss rationally with religious people, I said you can't discuss rationally with those that base their actions and beliefs on religion.

Well you cant have everything in life based on religion , it has its limits , religion only preaches the basics in life the rest is up to us how we proceed in life and make different choices with relation to it.

Quote

there are those that feel we need to fight in the ME because "Satan lives there." Or because they want to bring about "Jesus' return." Or because God told them to.

That is simply bull , this cant even be proved if we take what the christanity says , so therefore it isnt religion or part of it but a byproduct of a insane and pathetic mind. Associating it with religion is only giving such fools moral high ground who think they are religious , breaking down their values and proving it to them that it isnt so in the religion is the way to go instead of blaming religion and further incensing other people , some who might not even be a part of this but still defend these retards because of their connection with religion.

I don't care if it really is in a religion or not. Religion is still the excuse given. And for people that follow that thinking, it is impossible to rationally discuss the war or its consequences with them.

It's no different than trying to rationally discuss it with a suicide bomber or muslim extremist. Whether it is the "true" religion or not does not matter.

Quote[/b] ]Umm i DO base my actions on the core issues in life through religion otherwise why would i be religious if i didnt do that?

You are kind of proving my point here.

You completely miss the obvious and what I am saying (which you have agreed with before) because I used the word "religion" in a negative term which you decide to defend unerringly.

Any "good" person follows the basic tenants of every religion as Apollo said (don't kill, don't steal, etc etc). It's a societal norm. But people that act out beheadings or suicide car bombs or bomb abortion clinics are going to be incapable of rational discussion on their actions. From their view what they are doing is right (and righteous), though it goes against societal norms of what is "right."

[FerretFangs 0]

Well, I'll make this short and sweet, because obviously a long winded discussion here, is smply a waste of my time.

1. ) I'm not a religious zealot. I am infact an athiest. But you knew that about me, didn't you?

2. ) I'm not a conservative. I'm a moderate independent. I'm actually registered as a Libertarian, but of course, you all knew that about me too.

Any other discussion can be had amongst yourselves, because you seem to know everything that ever needed to be known, anyway.

Have at it geniuses. You've certainly made a believer out of me.

[Akira 0]

We were past you last page...