Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
8 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Terrorism in London
Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 181 of 313 (222928)
07-10-2005 9:10 AM
Reply to: Message 129 by Silent H
07-09-2005 11:28 AM


Re: Blair resign? Why?
I think the rationale to not count Lockerbie is that the target was a plane and the ground fatalities incidental to the act. This was a plan to attack ground targets in a coordinated way to produce a specific result on the ground which was achieved.
There were only 11 ground fatalities, and 259 on the plane. It also produced a specific result. I simply don't understand the reasons for discounting it.
I did not say that this was the worst mistake he made. I did not say that people have or should call for his resignation. And to repeat one more time in all caps: I DID NOT SAY THAT HE SHOULD BE HELD RESPONSIBLE FOR THIS EVENT OR STEP DOWN OR FORCED OUT BECAUSE OF THIS EVENT. It is just that I personally believe after his numerous errors, as an individual, if he were a decent leader he'd realize that the policies he has chosen have not been working, and that this event is a tragic symbol of their failure. He should be feeling bad in general, and he should be making way for more credible leadership.
I have understood this to be your position since I started this discussion. The point of contention is whether or not this means some policies have not been working, and this event is tragically symbollic of those failures. The department in charge of 'homeland security' is the home office, and the person in charge of that is Charles Clarke. He is the one that is responsible for policing and security. If this is anyone's error it is his.
Can we agree that Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq wasn't to prevent terrorists operating in Britain (even as a retrospective reason)? If it was, then Blair failed a long time ago - since we have known there are terrorists in Britain for a long time. Which is silly.
The point is that this event underscores the ad hoc nature of policy development by the Bush and Blair on Iraq. They keep switching to whatever is unknown or hasn't happened in order to defend that policy. A soundbyte in the US is that since Iraq we have not had a terrorist attack... well now there was one in Britain. Blair defended that argument, he has been shown to be wrong. He is making it up as he goes along, this should be a wake up call. If he was a decent leader it would be and he'd step down.
I think the argument is totally absurd and I'm going to need to see some sources at this point. I would be amazed if Blair said, (or supported the saying) that going to war in Iraq (post hoc or otherwise) would 100% prevent people setting bombs off in Britain.
A decent leader would certainly not step down at this point. If he did say the things you claim he did, a good leader would apologize. Blair has got a lot more things to do right now than just homeland security. He is extraordinarily popular at the moment and the people of Britain don't want him to resign, so it would be bad leadership for him to do so.
This message has been edited by Modulous, Sun, 10-July-2005 02:28 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 129 by Silent H, posted 07-09-2005 11:28 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 183 by Silent H, posted 07-10-2005 10:48 AM Modulous has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 182 of 313 (222929)
07-10-2005 9:18 AM
Reply to: Message 177 by Faith
07-10-2005 2:16 AM


You quote the laws given to ancient Israel, which was a theocracy, laws NOT addressed to the reader or even to the average Israelite of the time, but given to the elders of the Israelites of the time to enact according to the rule of law.
Huh, interesting. I'm sure you'll be able to give me the Bible verses that support your view. Although I wonder why you didn't do that first.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by Faith, posted 07-10-2005 2:16 AM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by Faith, posted 07-10-2005 1:31 PM crashfrog has replied

Silent H
Member (Idle past 5819 days)
Posts: 7405
From: satellite of love
Joined: 12-11-2002


Message 183 of 313 (222932)
07-10-2005 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 181 by Modulous
07-10-2005 9:10 AM


Re: Blair resign? Why?
There were only 11 ground fatalities, and 259 on the plane. It also produced a specific result. I simply don't understand the reasons for discounting it.
I thought I just made it clear what the rationale was, and it fits with what you just said. The target of the Lockerbie bombing was not ground targets in England, it was an airplane and the effects were planned for the airplane. Indeed the bombs may have been placed outside of England, and the target of the attack was generally thought to be American in nature.
Known as the Lockerbie bombing and the Lockerbie air disaster in Britain, it became the subject of that country's largest criminal inquiry, led by its smallest police force. It was widely regarded as an assault on a symbol of the United States, and with 189 of the victims American, it stood as the deadliest attack on American civilians until September 11, 2001.
That is pretty decent criteria for excluding Lockerbie.
The London bombing in stark contrast had as its target londoners on the ground in london, and that is where the effects were calculated to take effect. Indeed the subway of London is a pretty major symbol of England.
If it makes you any happier, it was not my assessment, it was theirs. I do agree more people died in Lockerbie and so it was a "worse" attack. I also have said I thought it strange to discount IRA attacks. We can make it the 2nd worst (terror) attack on England's mainland, and whatever rank after IRA bombings on England's interests.
The point of contention is whether or not this means some policies have not been working, and this event is tragically symbollic of those failures.
This does not mean some strategies have not been working. Some strategies simply haven't been working. The failures have already been made public and are evident. If we are engaged in a war on Terror and a major terrorist attack occurs, that is a pretty tragic symbol that something failed somewhere in that war.
Can we agree that Blair's decision to go to war in Iraq wasn't to prevent terrorists operating in Britain
Yes.
even as a retrospective reason
No.
If it was, then Blair failed a long time ago - since we have known there are terrorists in Britain for a long time. Which is silly.
Thank you for supporting my position.
I think the argument is totally absurd and I'm going to need to see some sources at this point. I would be amazed if Blair said, (or supported the saying) that going to war in Iraq (post hoc or otherwise) would 100% prevent people setting bombs off in Britain.
Prepare to be amazed... (from US govt website)...
Invoking a phrase often used by President Bush, Blair said Iraq "is, in a genuine sense, the front line of the battle against terrorism and the new security threat that we face.
Here it is directly in context of his actual statement...
And that is why, in a very real sense, because al Qaeda and other terrorists groups are actually there in Iraq now, what is happening in Iraq, the battle in Iraq, the battle for Iraq and its future, if you like, is, in a genuine sense, the front line of the battle against terrorism and the new security threat that we face.
Oh and here's an interesting additional, but parallel nugget of rationalization given by Blair during questioning...
And the way our strategy has evolved is that I think we know now that it is important not simply to go in and get after the Taliban in Afghanistan, but also to say, no, we're going to do something else. We're also going to give that country democracy and freedom, because that is actually part of the battle against terrorism, as well.
And that's why it's important to see this as a whole picture. The fact is, if Iraq becomes a stable and democratic country... that is a huge blow to the propaganda and to the effort of the extremists.
You will note no 45 minute crap, no WMDs at all. Here he is signing up kit and kaboodle to Bush's Krazy post hoc war pretext. At this stage Iraq has reached some milestones and it doesn't exactly look like its having an impact on terrorism... does it? Do they look demoralized?
You know what's absurd to me? A guy wastes his time writing a rebuttal assuming I am wrong instead of simply typing a couple words into a Google or Yahoo search engine and at least trying to find out if its true or not.
If you did you might even find out that your own govt officials have reacted to Blair's support of this notion... (from this article)...
{Blasting Blair} Leader of the Liberal Democrats Charles Kennedy wrote a damning article in The Observer newspaper. The gravest error is the continuing insistence that Iraq is the front line in an uncompromising 'war' against terrorism, he wrote.
I even told you that this was on BBC.
A decent leader would certainly not step down at this point.... He is extraordinarily popular at the moment and the people of Britain don't want him to resign, so it would be bad leadership for him to do so.
You just said that you understood my position and now here you are discussing something that could not be held if you understood my position.
You are free to disagree and I have said this. It is MY OPINION on what makes a decent leader and not everyone else's. I also don't give a shit if he is popular or not and have said that I am not thinking anyone will call for his resignation over this.
I do wonder about your comment regarding his popularity, as far as I understood it was low. But in any case a popular leader should still resign if he is screwing up.
Popular =/= good for nation.
You honestly think there is no one else in the entirety of England that could fill his shoes? No one that might have some fresher and better ideas?
As far as I AM CONCERNED, if he was a DECENT LEADER according to MY VALUE SYSTEM, he would see this as a symbol for his failures to match stated policy with results and step down soon (not even immediately). If I were him I'd realize that it was time someone else got a crack at trying to address the issues.
I guess I'll begin chucking you into the Blair apologist camp.

holmes
"...what a fool believes he sees, no wise man has the power to reason away.."(D. Bros)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2005 9:10 AM Modulous has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Modulous, posted 07-10-2005 1:40 PM Silent H has replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 184 of 313 (222935)
07-10-2005 11:40 AM
Reply to: Message 178 by Brian
07-10-2005 4:52 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
There is no rational overall comparison between the two. First, as I said, in the few instances in the OT where Jews are commanded to kill others - and there's really only one example (that i can think of) where a whole people are the target), there is specific instruction as a one time event. The Koran orders muslims, all Muslims, forever and ever to kill, kill, kill until all the world is Islamic. That is a order to war into the endless future, and it is exactly what the islamists cite as their authority for their actions.
To argue that jesus was gay is truly to be stretching. But even it were true, one can hardly compare one very vague passage with the explicit polygamy of Mohammed and that he has a 9 year old wife (I think he didn't have sex with her one one year - but I may be wrong).
To say Jesus didn't have slaves because he couldn't afford one is to be stretching, not only because he disavowed material wealth, but because it is obvious that slavery is entirely inconsistent with his message, yet a theme in Moghameed's - who even gives explicit instructions on when to take slaves and how to treat them.
And even if one wants to take in account the times in which the books were written - and that really isn't relevant in that today's followers take them as universal and non temporal - the Koran is, obviously and overwhlemingly, of a time that predates the bibles despite being written afterwards.
You may wish to be fair, but truth cannot be ignored in that effort, especially when truth explains why islamism is a force, and explains why democracy sas been, and continues to be, so resisted in so much of the Islamic world (while concurrently taking foot in other non western civilizations, such as Asian ones - except islamic Asian ones).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 178 by Brian, posted 07-10-2005 4:52 AM Brian has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 185 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 11:47 AM CanadianSteve has not replied
 Message 228 by Brian, posted 07-11-2005 11:33 AM CanadianSteve has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 185 of 313 (222936)
07-10-2005 11:47 AM
Reply to: Message 184 by CanadianSteve
07-10-2005 11:40 AM


Re: It is about Iraq, and much more
First, as I said, in the few instances in the OT where Jews are commanded to kill others - and there's really only one example (that i can think of) where a whole people are the target), there is specific instruction as a one time event.
Then I'm sure you'll be able to quote the parts of the Bible that support that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 184 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-10-2005 11:40 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

CanadianSteve
Member (Idle past 6472 days)
Posts: 756
From: Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Joined: 06-06-2005


Message 186 of 313 (222937)
07-10-2005 11:52 AM
Reply to: Message 180 by Ooook!
07-10-2005 5:27 AM


Re: Someone famous once said...
As i wrote before, the Christian world assuredly has done great, great evil. But those actions were in opposition to the faith. In contrast, much of the evil committed by the islamic world is consistent, even ordered by, the faith. That is why one could evolve beyond that and become democracies, whereas the other has not evolved beyond that and has resisted democracy. That doesn't mean the Islamic world won't become democratic and peaceful. It will. But only because the Christian world led the way, and even had to keep the imperialism of islam under control. Moreover, the Islamic wiorld will become democratic despite the faith through collective denial of it War Verses message.
That there are some Christians who would pervert democracy may well be true, but irrelevant. The Christian world, as a whole, developed liberal democracy, and the Islamic world, despite many individuals who favoured it, did not...and only ultimately will because the Christian world led the way.
We live in an age of moral equiavlence and relatvism. ironically, they evolved one where they could, in western liberal democracies. Theya re borne of peoples wanting to be fair and tolerant and understanding of others individually and as a whole. But that movement went too far, to the point where we lost the ability to see truth when it is unpleasant and defies our good will. Christianity is, at its very heart and soul, a message of peace (and a demand to believe, at risk of hell). Islam is, at its very heart, a message of submission and war until all the world submits to the faith and its religious law, Sharia, to be ruled on Earth inaccordance thereof by an isalmic caliphae. That may be ugly, but it's also the truth.
Not that islam won't come to be interpreted differently, consistent with democracy. But Muslims will go into collective denial as to that major theme in order to become democratic. Christians and Jews never had to do that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 180 by Ooook!, posted 07-10-2005 5:27 AM Ooook! has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 188 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 12:43 PM CanadianSteve has not replied
 Message 189 by jar, posted 07-10-2005 1:00 PM CanadianSteve has not replied
 Message 202 by Silent H, posted 07-10-2005 5:11 PM CanadianSteve has replied
 Message 204 by Ooook!, posted 07-10-2005 6:20 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 187 of 313 (222938)
07-10-2005 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 167 by CanadianSteve
07-09-2005 9:55 PM


War in the Qur'an
I didn't forget these verses; I simply remembered the context in which they were written.
Frankly, I don't quite understand why you have listed some of the verses that you have. Some of them are little different than passages we find in the Christian Bible stating how God hates idolators, how unbelievers will be damned to hell, and how at the end of the world God and his angels will wage war and kill those opposed to his will. This post will just comment one the verses speak of war against non-Muslims.
One thing that no one has done yet is get a Muslim's interpretation of these verses. Not only do I find it strange that Christians are taking it upon themselves to interpret the Qur'an and to claim what Muslims must believe and follow, I think that the point of this exchange is to discuss what actual, real Muslims actually believe.
For example, Sura 2 speaks of a defensive war (by the way, I think you might have your verse numbers wrong -- you list 2:91-93 but your quote doesn't match the actual verses -- I think you might have meant 2:191-193). My quotations come from this site. Verse 2:190 reads
Fight in the cause of Allah those who fight you, but do not transgress limits; for Allah loveth not transgressors.
Interestingly, although this should be clear enough, Marmaduke Pickthall's translation (which, by the way, is the translation that I actually own at home) is more explicit as to this advocating a defensive fight:
Fight in the way of Allah against those who fight against you, but begin not hostilities. Lo! Allah loveth not aggressors.
At any rate, verses 2:192,193 read,
But if they cease, Allah is Oft-forgiving, Most Merciful. And fight them on until there is no more Tumult or oppression, and there prevail justice and faith in Allah; but if they cease, Let there be no hostility except to those who practise oppression.
This doesn't match up with your quote, but then you claim it is verse 93, but that doesn't match at all what is actually in verse 93. So perhaps the difference is in your translation?
As far as Sura 9 goes, it has a specific historic context. The context is the Battle of Makkah. The pagans were violating the treaties that existed between them and Mohammed's followers (or were violating the spirit of the treaty -- it's been a while since I read it). At any rate, it is a call that the treaty, having been violated, is no longer in force, that they shall make war against this threat and that they should have no qualms about going to war or killing the enemy.
I see that others have already mention the books of Joshua that command the ancient Hebrews to forcibly take territory that wasn't theirs to begin with and to slaughter the inhabitants. I didn't see whether anyone mentioned the passages in the Kings and Chronicles where they were periodically told to murder the followers of other gods. But it might be a good idea to keep these passages in the Christian Bible in mind during a conversation as to whether one religion or another advocates peace or war.
Edited to change the subtitle. Sorry, Ned.
This message has been edited by Chiroptera, 10-Jul-2005 04:36 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 167 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-09-2005 9:55 PM CanadianSteve has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-11-2005 12:00 AM Chiroptera has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 188 of 313 (222944)
07-10-2005 12:43 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by CanadianSteve
07-10-2005 11:52 AM


As i wrote before, the Christian world assuredly has done great, great evil. But those actions were in opposition to the faith.
According to you. According to the perpetrators, it was entirely consistent with, and mandated by, that same faith.
Oh, right. "They're twisting the Bible." Never mind that that's exactly what they say you're doing.
Christianity is, at its very heart and soul, a message of peace (and a demand to believe, at risk of hell). Islam is, at its very heart, a message of submission and war until all the world submits to the faith and its religious law, Sharia, to be ruled on Earth inaccordance thereof by an isalmic caliphae.
Christianity: Submission to belief in and laws of an all-powerful God, until such time as all the world is under the rule of the Kingdom of God.
Islam: Submission to belief in and laws of an all-powerful God, until such time as all the world is under the rule of Sharia or whatever they call their worldwide theocracy.
I don't see a difference, except in terminology. Seriously, you should examine your ridiculous hair-splitting from the perspective of an atheist sometime. It would be hilarious except for the fact that the only thing you and the Muslims agree on is that I, the atheist, am an abomination to be ostracized and destroyed.
Christians and Jews never had to do that.
It's amazing to hear someone who, like me, lives in a country that rebelled against it's God-appointed ruler, which the Bible specifically comdemns, say a statement like that. It's amazing to me how ignorant you are about your own history and your own faith. Christianity isn't in the least consistent with democracy nor with the sort of democratic revolution that mark the beginning of both of our nations, as was noted by theologians at the time.
If the Founding Fathers had actually been Christians instead of Deists, you and I would both be living in the United States of England.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-10-2005 11:52 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 07-10-2005 1:04 PM crashfrog has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 394 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


Message 189 of 313 (222949)
07-10-2005 1:00 PM
Reply to: Message 186 by CanadianSteve
07-10-2005 11:52 AM


Democracy is a Christian invention?
The Christian world, as a whole, developed liberal democracy,...
Are you serious?
Do you know where the word Democracy comes from?
I hear that claim from Fundamentalists quite often but it's another one that is simply wrong. Christianity played no part in developing democracy. In fact, Christianity has been a characteristic of both the most open, democratic societies and the most despotic.

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

This message is a reply to:
 Message 186 by CanadianSteve, posted 07-10-2005 11:52 AM CanadianSteve has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 190 of 313 (222950)
07-10-2005 1:04 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by crashfrog
07-10-2005 12:43 PM


Christianity: Submission to belief in and laws of an all-powerful God, until such time as all the world is under the rule of the Kingdom of God.
Where do you get this idea? This is not what the majority of Christians believe. We believe that when Jesus returns the majority will still not be ruled by God. There is no coercion of belief preached or even considered to be possible.
Islam: Submission to belief in and laws of an all-powerful God, until such time as all the world is under the rule of Sharia or whatever they call their worldwide theocracy.
I don't see a difference, except in terminology.
Christianity has no notion of there ever being a world-wide theocracy. The best we hope is that God's law may be widely honored and obeyed, at the very least in formerly Christian lands, and that many people will be saved. The gospel is "not of this world" and has no aim to subdue the whole world. On the other hand, Islam is a religion of violent coercion. It was in the beginning when Mohammed couldn't get people to accept it -- he simply forced them to accept it at swordpoint. That's how the whole Arab world became Muslim. Since then there have always been the jihadic factions who believe in taking the world for Allah by force, and the Koran does support their doing that whether all interpret the Koran in that way or not.
Seriously, you should examine your ridiculous hair-splitting from the perspective of an atheist sometime. It would be hilarious except for the fact that the only thing you and the Muslims agree on is that I, the atheist, am an abomination to be ostracized and destroyed.
Oh really. Christians and Jews ostracize you? Seems to me you have a lot of freedom to say what you please against Christianity without any danger of being ostracized and destroyed for it.
It's amazing to me how ignorant you are about your own history and your own faith...
If the Founding Fathers had actually been Christians instead of Deists, you and I would both be living in the United States of England.
Um, his name is CANADIAN Steve, remember? He's also not a Christian, which can be judged by his spelling God as "G-d."
Has it ever occurred to you to treat an opponent with respect, not accuse them of "ignorance" just because you happen to disagree with them? Your tactic of ridicule is rude in the extreme.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 12:43 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 1:13 PM Faith has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 191 of 313 (222951)
07-10-2005 1:13 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
07-10-2005 1:04 PM


Where do you get this idea?
From you. From Christians. I've been hearing it for years, Faith.
We believe that when Jesus returns the majority will still not be ruled by God.
Oh, not at the start, no. Eventually everybody is either a Christian, or is annihilated.
Christianity has no notion of there ever being a world-wide theocracy.
"Kingdom of God." What do you think that means?
Um, his name is CANADIAN Steve, remember?
It was Canada to which I was referring. Apparently you didn't pick up on that.
Oh really. Christians and Jews ostracize you?
Did I say that they did? Thankfully I live in a nation where I am protected against retribution from you and your ilk. It's too bad that we're not able to intercept every act of Christian terrorism, but largely we're able to hold your fundamentalist monstrosities at bay.
Has it ever occurred to you to treat an opponent with respect, not accuse them of "ignorance" just because you happen to disagree with them?
Hrm, interesting idea. Why don't you and Canadian Steve try it sometime?
At any rate, I did not call Steve ignorant because he disagrees with me. I called him ignorant because that is what he is - ignorant about the history of his nation and his faith. To assert that the Bible doesn't condemn rebellion against one's king, or that that did not occur during the founding of either of our nations, is to betray a staggering ignorance of either the content of the Bible or the history of North America, or both.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 07-10-2005 1:04 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 193 by Faith, posted 07-10-2005 1:32 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 194 by Faith, posted 07-10-2005 1:35 PM crashfrog has replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 192 of 313 (222954)
07-10-2005 1:31 PM
Reply to: Message 182 by crashfrog
07-10-2005 9:18 AM


God's law
The whole context is the founding of a theocracy as the people are called to make a covenant with their King, who is God Himself (Ex 19:5; 24:7-8). Like the earthly kings of the day, God gave the people the laws that would rule them, laws straight from the mouth of God in this case rather than by an earthly king such as Hammurabi.
The context is God's giving of the law to Moses on Sinai (Exodus 19-32), and Moses' then giving it to the people and writing it down (24:4). In chapter 18 you see Moses acting as judge before the people and his father-in-law Jethro advising him to appoint rulers to do that work. This is clearly a primitive court situation in the desert. Many chapters are given to describing the various laws. Chapter 22 is where you found the few that bother you so much, 18-20, the law to put a witch or sorceress to death, the law to put a person caught in bestiality to death, the law to put an idolater to death. Bestiality seems like it might possibly be out of context but the other two are clearly appropriate in a theocracy.
Also, the people agree to obey all the laws (Ex 24:3), Saying "All the words which the LORD has said will we do." It's not as if anything was forced upon anyone.
When the punishment of a transgression is required it is done by "all the people" which probably means the male leaders as all the people would be too many. When Achan and his family were put to death for his transgression this is how it is described (Joshua 7:24-26). His transgression was judged before the people and the punishment was enacted. That's how law works in a community. It's a matter of context, not a specific verse.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 9:18 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 197 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 3:17 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 193 of 313 (222955)
07-10-2005 1:32 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by crashfrog
07-10-2005 1:13 PM


At any rate, I did not call Steve ignorant because he disagrees with me. I called him ignorant because that is what he is - ignorant about the history of his nation and his faith. To assert that the Bible doesn't condemn rebellion against one's king, or that that did not occur during the founding of either of our nations, is to betray a staggering ignorance of either the content of the Bible or the history of North America, or both.
Your assumption that you are right and he wrong is staggeringly rude. You disagree with him. You have no right to judge him as ignorant. One could certainly call you that on a number of points.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 1:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 3:15 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 194 of 313 (222956)
07-10-2005 1:35 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by crashfrog
07-10-2005 1:13 PM


Ugh, you are a disgustingly shallow mean-spirited young man. You aren't worth responding to as I keep discovering. Ugh. Blach. Read through the sequence of posts you ignorant arrogant dolt.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 1:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 198 by crashfrog, posted 07-10-2005 3:19 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 199 by mark24, posted 07-10-2005 3:57 PM Faith has not replied

Modulous
Member
Posts: 7801
From: Manchester, UK
Joined: 05-01-2005


Message 195 of 313 (222957)
07-10-2005 1:40 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Silent H
07-10-2005 10:48 AM


Re: Blair resign? Why?
I thought I just made it clear what the rationale was, and it fits with what you just said. The target of the Lockerbie bombing was not ground targets in England, it was an airplane and the effects were planned for the airplane. Indeed the bombs may have been placed outside of England, and the target of the attack was generally thought to be American in nature.
Yes, you made it clear what the rationale was, I still find it unusual that one would discount air terrorism when discussing terrorism. The rationale that the attack was thought to be primarily aimed at American targets is an acceptable and valid reason for discounting it, or at least playing it down from a British terrorism discussion.
The London bombing in stark contrast had as its target londoners on the ground in london, and that is where the effects were calculated to take effect. Indeed the subway of London is a pretty major symbol of England.
That's fine - it is indeed an acceptable criteria for discounting it. That wasn't the original criteria you were proposing which was 'England not Britain' and 'ground not air', which to me is a totally crazy criteria.
This does not mean some strategies have not been working. Some strategies simply haven't been working. The failures have already been made public and are evident. If we are engaged in a war on Terror and a major terrorist attack occurs, that is a pretty tragic symbol that something failed somewhere in that war.
Sure, something failed somewhere. The failure was in intelligence on the homeland (Clarke's area). Blair's (apparantly stated) plan to hold up terrorists in Iraq to prevent them attacking Britain wasn't what failed.
If it was, then Blair failed a long time ago - since we have known there are terrorists in Britain for a long time. Which is silly.
Thank you for supporting my position.
You think that saying that Blair failed already because there have been terrorists in Britain for ages (but only now pulled off an attack) is silly too? Heh. Seriously though, it is silly. You expect an anti-terrorism push, to be 100% effective? Let's be honest here, the attack was fairly pathetic. The statement we have at the moment says that strenuous efforts went towards assuring that the attack was succesful. If that's the best they can do with careful planning and strenuous efforts, then I consider the anti-terrorism push to have been a success.
Every leader in history has failed to prevent murder.
Prepare to be amazed... (from US govt website)...
Here it is directly in context of his actual statement...
And that is why, in a very real sense, because al Qaeda and other terrorists groups are actually there in Iraq now, what is happening in Iraq, the battle in Iraq, the battle for Iraq and its future, if you like, is, in a genuine sense, the front line of the battle against terrorism and the new security threat that we face.
OK, I'm not amazed. So Blair has said that Iraq has become a front line of the battle against terrorism. He didn't say "By fighting terrorism in Iraq we have by default won the fight against terrorism in Britain". He has not said we have won the fight against terrorism and we will no longer have any problems with terrorism. I've never got that impression from him. That terrorists exist still is a given, since we are fighting them. Terrorists, by definition, engage in terrorism. That we still see terrorism is indiciative that we have not yet defeated terrorists.
And that's why it's important to see this as a whole picture. The fact is, if Iraq becomes a stable and democratic country... that is a huge blow to the propaganda and to the effort of the extremists.
You will note no 45 minute crap, no WMDs at all. Here he is signing up kit and kaboodle to Bush's Krazy post hoc war pretext. At this stage Iraq has reached some milestones and it doesn't exactly look like its having an impact on terrorism... does it? Do they look demoralized?
Milestones maybe, but does Iraq look stable? I don't know if they look demoralized, I've never met them. Demoralized people can still organize a bombing...and to go from an attack that causes thousands of deaths, costs millions (billions?), grounds air traffic for days, changes the way a country looks at itself and shocks the entire world for weeks. Then to an attack a year later in Bali which killed 202, and caused maybe millions of dollars in damage down to the Madrid bombing killing 190, and now the London bombing which killed about 50 people.
It certainly seems like terrorism is becoming harder work, and s seeming to do less damage. The emergency services had prepared for the attack, and worked with speed and efficiency and everything panned out very well. Add that to the fact that the public transport system was only marginally affected and terror seems to be at a minimum. The failure is really the terrorists, not the war on terror.
You know what's absurd to me? A guy wastes his time writing a rebuttal assuming I am wrong instead of simply typing a couple words into a Google or Yahoo search engine and at least trying to find out if its true or not.
Sounds crazy to me. I wouldn't do that, since I didn't assume you were wrong, I just assumed you were exagerating what these people were saying since it seemed a very specific and career damaging thing to say for a politician. It turns out that I believe I was right. So far you have just shown that Blair and Bush have shifted the Iraq rationale to democracy and terror fighting, with no indication that it would guarantee that we would not have retaliatory strikes against Britain.
You honestly think there is no one else in the entirety of England that could fill his shoes? No one that might have some fresher and better ideas?
Of course I don't think that. Gordon Brown for a start. However, in a democracy popularity is a vital thing. But that's a debate for another time.
I guess I'll begin chucking you into the Blair apologist camp.
If you want to, I am certainly defending Blair since I don't think that the London bombing reflects any mistake he has made, nor any symbol of any mistake. However, I am critical of many of Blair's decisions and I generally vote against Blair (of his three terms, I only voted labour once).

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Silent H, posted 07-10-2005 10:48 AM Silent H has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 201 by Silent H, posted 07-10-2005 4:54 PM Modulous has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024