Evangelic idiots

Easy Livin wrote: Just to be clear. It goes without saying that Tony R. is participating in this thread in a personal capacity. I'll be keeping an eye on it and "moderating" it if and when required (it's been fine so far) to allow him to continue to make his points without feeling he has to hold back. He and all the moderators are subject to the rules like everyone else though. I don't tend to get too involved in the DNRTM threads, especially the political/religious ones. If I did though, Tony or Bryan would do the same for me.  (Just seemed like a good time to say that, no specific reason).

Always good to know that the moderaters are being moderated.

MMMMMMMmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmmhhhhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

And I thought the forum was being a bit boring lately!!!!!

Nothing like a few political/religious threads to spark up the livelyness!!!!!!!!!!

Tony R wrote: Blacksword wrote: The boundaries should be clear: A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever... But surely it is often depends on which side of the fence you are on.It seems obvious to me that if a "freedom fight" is carried on long enough it will inevitably come to be seen as terrorism. Once the oppressive occupying power becomes legitimate by dint of being there long enough any aggressive internal or external acts automatically become terrorism. Ireland is one example among many of the way the oppressor becomes the oppressed in the eyes of the world because of political expediency and the blurring affect of time.

One mans freedom fighter is another's terrorist, but thats down to an individuals perception of the situation. What should ultimately count is what is written in stone; what international law decrees. As far as I'm aware the UN is trying to come up with a 'definition' of a terrorist, and the problem here is exactly what we are discussing. It's a difficult definition to arrive at, especially if one uses the criteria of 'targetting' civillians. That would make us terrorists, for operations in Iraq which we now know struck many civillian targets, for the bombing of Dresden in WWII, for Hiroshima and Nagasaki. All civillian targets, and all incurring greater civillian loss than any act of terror ever known. I understand the thinking behind the attacks on Japan, but the aims of military opertions are a seperate discussion. Terrorists and 'freedom fighters' have aims which they believe to be equally valid..

The example of Ireland is a little different because half the population of the province wants to be governed from London. The IRA are terrorists NOT freedom fighters, by my definition, because they dont represent the will of the entire population. Indeed, they are not even representative of the entire Catholic population. Although, in principle I support the idea of an united Ireland...

Terror and freedom fighting can not be selective, depending on whether the likes of us and America approve of it, or gain from it. If a clear and fair definition could be achieved the world would be a better place, but my cynicism leads me to think this wont happen because it doesn't fit in with our agenda.

Just my opinions..

Tony R wrote: yargh wrote: erik neuteboom wrote: Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour! It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.     Hits the nail firmly on the head and why he finds it impossible to get full support from the United Nations.If the USA/United Nations targeted all homicidal dictators regardless of creed/economic desirability/colour then we could probably stand back and applaud.Of course the dilemma then would be to define "dictator". It would similarly be difficult to separate "freedom fighters" from "terrorists".

The boundaries should be clear:

A dictator is someone who has put themselves in power, and has not been elected by their people. Is this always a bad thing? Thats another issue. The vast majority of his/her population may approve of him, but he is still technically a dictator. Do we take issue with him/her just because he hasn't signed up to our idea of democracy.

A freedom fighter, to my mind is someone who resists acts of violence or oppression against them, that break international law. Resisting illegal occupation of their land for example. Even if they, themselves break law in that resistance.

A terrorist is an arsehole, who is always part of a minority, who targets innocent people, in an attempt to make governments sign up to their personal agenda. They always ultimately fail, and they are never representative of the majority of their fellow countrymen, followers of the same religion or whatever...

yargh wrote: erik neuteboom wrote: Sorry, Bluetailfly was right, I used the wrong word: I said that Bush has warned that the Islam is a danger but I had to say that Bush has warned that terrorism is a danger. That's projection from him because this arrogant and narrow-minded re-born Christian is both undermining and endangering his own country as the whole world with his politics for the very rich. He and his clan of oil and weapon sellers are terrorising us and they abuse the fact that so many Americans are very religious, in order to push religious discussions to the limits while true important issues are ignored. I respect every religion but the situation in the USA is very dangerous because of Mr. Bush Junior his hypocrite re-born Christian behaviour! It is difficult to know exactly what Bush thinks personally about the Islamic religion.  His careful use of words after World Trade Center attacks was motiviated, in large part, to not offend the Islamic nations that are -- on paper -- friendly towards the U.S., as he began his military campaigns against Afghanistan and Iraq.  Additionally, he did not want to offend any of his Saudi oil friends, with whom he and his familiy have partnered to make many millions of dollars.  There is also the long-standing principle of American society against religious persecution that Bush did not want to run afoul of while he planned potentially divisive policy decisions. That said, let's call Bush's "War on Terror" what it is:  it's a war on Islamic fundamentalism.  There are "terrorists" all over the globe, but I'm fairly certain that there isn't a lot of money or human resources being spent to arrest, say, IRA members.

Hits the nail firmly on the head and why he finds it impossible to get full support from the United Nations.If the USA/United Nations targeted all homicidal dictators regardless of creed/economic desirability/colour then we could probably stand back and applaud.Of course the dilemma then would be to define "dictator". It would similarly be difficult to separate "freedom fighters" from "terrorists".

By this we are all sustained: a belief in human nature
and in justice and parity...all we have is the faith to carry on.
        
Imperceptible the change as our votes become mere gestures
and our lords and masters determine to cast us
in the roles of serfs and slaves
in the new empire's name.
        
Yes and every bloody emperor claims that freedom is his cause
as he buffs up on his common touch as a get-out clause.
        
Unto nations nations speak in the language of the gutter;
trading primetime insults the imperial impulse
extends across the screen.
Truth's been beaten to its knees; the lies embed ad infinitum
till their repetition becomes a dictum
we're traitors to disbelieve.
With what impotence we grieve for the democratic process
as our glorious leaders conspire to feed us
the last dregs of imperious disdain
in the new empire's name.
        
Yes and every bloody emperor's got his hands up history's skirt
as he poses for posterity over the fresh-dug dirt.
Yes and every bloody emperor with his sickly rictus grin
talks his way out of nearly anything but the lie within
because every bloody emperor thinks his right to rule divine
so he'll go spinning and spinning and spinning into his own decline.
        
Imperceptible the change as one by one our voices falter
and the double standards of propaganda
still all our righteous rage.
        
By this we are all sustained: our belief in human nature.
But our faith diminishes - close to the finish,
we're only serfs and slaves
as the empire decays.

(P.H. Every Bloody Emperor)

This guy from Kansas is ill. He needs help, not mocking.

The rational majority ignores religous psychosis and fundamenatlism at its peril.

You see what I mean yargh ... "degenerate Asians", "stupid Americans' ...

IMO, that's not the way to start off a thread ... it's not about being sensitive, I just think a more polite attitude will benefit these (occasionally) intriguing discussions ...