|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,788 Year: 4,045/9,624 Month: 916/974 Week: 243/286 Day: 4/46 Hour: 0/1 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Terrorism in London | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1493 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
Civil Freedoms are always measured a sliding scale: they are not absolutes. In Britain the right to own a gun is viewed as negligible when compared to the right for other people to live in a society without guns. Ok, but that's suddenly a new argument. As I said, its one thing to weigh the right to own a firearm against the safety of a disarmed society and come to many different conclusions; but all that is very different indeed from saying that there's no right to own a gun at all. Civil freedoms are absolutes to me, even though in practice a stable society means they are to some degree limited. I mean, just because a hypothetical religious society (for instance) denies its women the right to refuse sexual activity to their husbands doesn't mean that that's not a basic human right that they still possess. Just because your government doesn't give you a certain right doesn't mean that it doesn't exist for you. Just because your rights are infringed doesn't mean that you don't have them. They're denied to you, not nonexistent. One of those rights, to me, is owning anything that you want. I recognize the point of laws that curtail this freedom, but that doesn't change the fact that, to me, the right to own whatever you want is a fundamental civil liberty.
We could discuss this in another thread if you like - I suspect it's fairly off-topic. I think we're pretty much done. I've come to understand a little bit how you frame rights in your mind; I hope I've helped you see how I do it. I don't expect you to agree with me but I did want to know a little bit more about how you thought about it.
Can you then outfit it with sidewinder missiles? If you can find someone to sell them to you, and the avionics package you need to aquire a target and launch, I'm pretty sure you can buy a jet with the missle rails to launch them.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6499 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
It is you who asserts a theory devoid of evidence, not me.
As for christian fundamentalists wanting to take over the world...They understand that their faith says they must covert people, and in no way demands muder, subjugation and the rule of the world under a Christian authority. Yes, the ultimate aim is for all to be Christian, as Islam's ultimate aim is for all to be Muslim. But the means of achieving that is hugely different. One is through conversion and peace, the other is through the sword. That is why despite that the most powerful nations are christian, we don't see wars for that purpose. Nor do we see Christians flying airplanes into buildings, acting as suicide bombers, etc. If you read the bible, there is simply no call to murder infidels. But the Koran is clear on that point. If you read the Koran, especially the war verses, you will be as shocked as was I...and i mean that in contrast to the bibles. There, truly, is no comparison. Consider this, if jesus, like Mohammed, married many wives including a 9 year old he impregnated when she was 10, led armies into battle and killed many himself, kept slaves himself, and so on, imagine how different Christianity would be.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6499 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
You can examine whatever you want, but there is nothing either of us can say that will persuade the other.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6499 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
I appreciate your desire to continue, but I seriously doubt that either of us will convince the other of anything.
Most of the deficit is due to tax reductions and spending increases aside from iraq. Insofar as Iraq is a factor, then it is necessary, just as deficit sending to fight the Nazis was necessary. Note that when the US first attacked the nazis it was not germany itself, but North Africa. You battle where you must in oursuit of your final aims. As i wrote to begin this entire thread, Hussein was not an islamist, but there were many reasons to for the 2nd stage of the war on Islamism to be there. And as i also said, trmendous good has come of it, and the seeds of an islamic democratic revolution have taken root.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6499 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
If you are one of the few in oppostion to teh war, but not in general opposition to Bush and Republicans, then i was wrong in that assumption.
As for rebuttals, they can go on forever. Thus, as we have reached a dead end, you're welcome to that last word.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meeb Inactive Member |
One is through conversion and peace, the other is through the sword. To quote MP:"NOBODY expects the Spanish Inquisition! Our chief weapon is surprise...surprise and fear...fear and surprise.... Our two weapons are fear and surprise...and ruthless efficiency.... Our *three* weapons are fear, surprise, and ruthless efficiency...and an almost fanatical devotion to the Pope.... Our *four*...no... *Amongst* our weapons.... Amongst our weaponry...are such elements as fear, surprise.... I'll come in again."
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6499 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
There is simply no question that Christians have in the name of the faith done grievious wrong. But their actions cannot be justified by the faith. what they did was clearly contrary to what jesus preached. In contrast, the actions of the Islamists are entirely consistent with what Mohammed preached. Christians could become democratic and still be true Christians faithful to the letter of the faith. Muslims will have to go into collective denial of their faith in order to be democratic. And they will, sooner or later 9(and maybe sooner thanks to Bush) because democracy innately appeals to human nature.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6499 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
As I posted before, Amir tehari is an iranian Muslim, who is, perhaps, the most prolific writer on the ME. He is a passionate democrat, who fervently wants to see democracy come to the Islmaic world. Here is a recent column of his:
What Business Does the U.S. Have in Iraq?By Amir Taheri Gulf News | July 8, 2005 The other day, it was the first anniversary of the transfer of sovereignty in Iraq. As expected, opponents of the war seized the opportunity to add a fresh coat of gloom to the picture they paint of the situation there. The doomsters insist the United States and its allies, including the overwhelming majority of the Iraqi people who have just formed their first democratically elected government, are losing and the terrorists, euphemistically labelled "insurgents" are winning. The problem is these doomsters do not offer any standard for success against which the performance of the U.S.-led coalition and the Iraqi people could be measured. When it comes to offering a strategy for coping with this supposed failure, all that they have to offer is a time-table for U.S. military withdrawal. The only rational way to approach this issue is to ask: What business does the United States have in Iraq? If we assume it has no business, a perfectly legitimate position, we should be asking not for a time-table but immediate withdrawal. But if we assume the United States is in Iraq on some business then, surely, we cannot talk of withdrawal in abstraction. Also, any success or failure could then be measured against the goals of that business. Thus the real debate concerns the nature of the business the United States may have in Iraq and the best ways of accomplishing it. Did the United States go to Iraq to seize oil resources and bring oil prices down? If yes, then with oil prices pegged at $60 (Dh220) per barrel compared to $18 (Dh66) before the war, it has failed and better bring its troops back immediately. Or did the United States go to Iraq only to topple Saddam Hussain and to finish the job which Bush Senior had left unfinished? If that is the case, the United States has succeeded because Saddam and almost all his henchmen are under lock and key. Again, the United States can declare that it achieved its goal and bring its soldiers home. President George W. Bush and Prime Minister Tony Blair, however, claim the U.S.-led coalition is in Iraq on an altogether more ambitious mission, of which the toppling of Saddam Hussain was only the first phase. That mission is aimed at transforming Iraq from a despotic system into a vibrant democracy. The plan is a part of a broader strategy to bring the Middle East into the global political and economic mainstream. The U.S.-led intervention in Iraq and earlier in Afghanistan, however, is not the result of starry-eyed altruism but the fruit of enlightened self-interest. Today, the single deadliest threat to the U.S. national security comes from Islamist terrorism which, although it has sympathisers in the West, uses the Middle East as its main support base. Terrorism cannot be defeated and eventually uprooted unless it is deprived of the swamps of despotism in which it breeds like deadly mosquitoes. The United States and its allies are beginning to abandon the 60-year or so policy of allying themselves with Arab despots in exchange for cheap oil. The U.S.-led interventions in both Afghanistan and Iraq symbolised that change. Even though the United States and its allies have not fully shifted their weight away from despotic regimes and in favour of pro-democracy forces in the region, the Middle East is already abuzz with messages of change and reform. If we assume that the US-led wars in Afghanistan and Iraq were part of such a grand strategy we will then have something with which to measure success and failure. Let us see how this works in the case of Iraq. Four phases The Iraq mission could be seen in four phases: liberation, pacification, reconstruction and democratisation. These phases should not be considered consequentially. Rather they should be seen as parallel tracks along which movements of different rhythm and tempo takes place. The first phase liberation has been completed in the physical sense. The Ba'athist regime and its machinery of repression have been shattered, never again to be rebuilt. In a broader sense, however, it may take generations before the people of Iraq can liberate their souls from decades of life under the worst tyranny seen since the Second World War. The second phase pacification has also been largely accomplished. Barring common criminality partly due to lack of proper policing, most of Iraq is peaceful. The terrorists do not hold any territory, even at night. Over the past year, specially since the general election of January 30, the insurgents have been losing support even in the Jazirah region, known as the Sunni Triangle. They have also failed to develop a political leadership to challenge the leadership that emerged from Iraq's first free elections. Nor has the insurgency developed any clear political demands. This partly explains why it is increasingly depending on "holy warriors" from other Arab countries. The full pacification of Iraq, in the sense of not having a single car bomb, may not come anytime soon. No Arab country is in such a felicitous state. In this context, the experience of Algeria is of importance. The war that the Algerian state has waged against Islamist terror gangs for the past 13 years has claimed almost a quarter of a million lives. It took Egypt 20 years and over 30,000 lives to crush the Islamofascists. The third phase reconstruction has been the least successful. Despite efforts on a heroic scale, the U.S.-led coalition gets no more than a 'C,' largely due to bureaucratic constraints, confused planning and corruption. But reconstruction, too, is a long-term effort and Iraq may need years to become a modern economy. The fourth phase democratization is an undeniable success. We have already mentioned the general, provincial and municipal elections. But a more important, and lesser known, fact is the culture of democracy is beginning to strike roots in Iraq. This can be seen in the growth of the new privately-owned media, and constant improvement in its quality, and the emergence of Western-style political parties. Again, all this may take decades before Iraq becomes a truly democratic society as opposed to a despotic one with some trappings of democracy. Tactically, the enemies of this grand strategy, that is to say the Islamofascists and their Baathist and Khomeinist allies, remain deadly and dangerous. As in other Arab countries they may continue to wreak havoc in Iraq for some time yet. Strategically, however, their back has been broken by the combined force of American military power and the Iraqi people's resolve to shake-off tyranny. The Iraq enterprise has been and remains a strategic success for the United States, its Iraqi and other allies and for all those who wish the Middle East democratised. But there is still much unfinished business. This is no reason to cut and run. So when should the U.S.-led coalition withdraw? The answer has been there all along: when the current political process in Iraq produces a new elected government based on a new democratic constitution ratified in a popular referendum. Such a government, speaking for the whole Iraqi people, could then, if it so wishes, demand an end to the coalition's military presence. Such a time-table takes us into the spring of next year or, as Iraq's Prime Minister Ebhraim Al Jaafari said in London the other day, early 2007. Until then it would be irresponsible to cast doubts on the resolve either of the United States or of the new Iraqi leadership to stay the course.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
EDIT: Never mind, no need to answer. It's off topic anyway, and I don't want to get into another shooting match with the accusers around here.
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Yes, the ultimate aim is for all to be Christian, as Islam's ultimate aim is for all to be Muslim. But the means of achieving that is hugely different. One is through conversion and peace, the other is through the sword. Good points CSteve. If we Christians were like the Muslims, especially considering that at the time of the American Founders Christians were the great majority in the nation, no Deist could have had a say in anything, or possibly even remained alive, all other religions would be paying tax to us and stepping off the sidewalks when passing us on foot, and there never would have been a First Amendment -- which is now giving Islamicists legal protection in America. Only one point of difference with what you said: Christians DON'T have an "ultimate aim" of making everyone Christian as we know God does the choosing, not we, and Jesus said only "few" will find the way in the end. However, we have the DESIRE that all be saved by Christ for their own sake and since we don't know whom God will choose we give the gospel to all. Islam, however, has a mandate to make the entire world Muslim eventually. This message has been edited by Faith, 07-09-2005 09:30 PM
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Meeb Inactive Member |
Two questions:
1) Have you ever read the Koran or the Bible from beginning to the end? 2) Do you know that there is more to the bible than Jesus? Luke 22:36Luke 14:26 John 15:6 1 Samuel 15:3
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 420 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
If we Christians were like the Muslims, especially considering that at the time of the American Founders Christians were the great majority in the nation, no Deist could have had a say in anything, or possibly even remained alive, all other religions would be paying tax to us and stepping off the sidewalks when passing us on foot, and there never would have been a First Amendment -- which is now giving Islamicists legal protection in America. I'm sure that the American Indians, the Aztecs, and the Incas are glad to hear that. I imagine that the Hawaiians really appreciated Reverend Dole stealing their nation as well. Aslan is not a Tame Lion
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
Since this is, after all, a thread on the recent bombings in London, and we are talking about how good Christians are, I thought I'd share one good Christian's opinion on this issue.
(Of course, I would understand if those who are familiar with Phelps decline to check out the link.)
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
CanadianSteve Member (Idle past 6499 days) Posts: 756 From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada Joined: |
Yes to both.
If you have read the Koran, you know what I mean. If you haven't read it, you will be shocked at the war verses. Not that Sharia law - Allah's law, which the Islamists intend to be the one and one law for all mankind - isn't shocking too.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Chiroptera Inactive Member |
I actually have read the Koran, twice, and I just don't remember any of this at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Faith  Suspended Member (Idle past 1471 days) Posts: 35298 From: Nevada, USA Joined: |
That doesn't make a word of what I said untrue.
This message has been edited by Faith, 07-09-2005 09:47 PM
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024