Turn on thread page Beta

Now do people see the difference between terrorism and say the war in Iraq? watch

    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    You are saying I wish the USA to deliberately kill civilians so I can berate them about it?
    no. not you

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    As I said the whole male population of Iraq can be called suspected militants. Again, it's not really the point if you deplore torture wherever it happens.
    It is different if they do it because they think these people might actually be militants. Unjustified? Sure. The same as targeting people you KNOW are mere civilians? No.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    You really think that after demonising Saddam, imposing no fly zones and killing 500 000 Iraqi children it would have been feasible for the US to start negotiating with him?
    For weapons and money? Sure - he would have lapped it up. If you are referring to international opinion .... come now - look at its stance on the invasion - it would have been easier to deal with him as far as international consensus goes.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    The whole point of the aggressive policy towards Iraq was because he started making anti-Israeli threats. They would be back to square one if they started trading with him.
    Evidence? Or another baseless assumption?

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Iran is on the top of the agenda at Gleneagles tomorrow. Ahmadinejad has recently won the election meaning the hardcore Khomeinis have total power.
    Its unlikely such an attack was planned in a couple of weeks.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    They want to say to the Britain, that Iran is no Iraq and if you side with the US in a war on Iran we will bring the war to your country. This is just a taster of our capability. I don't believe a small terrorist cell could have committed more than one bomb in London. There is also a opposition demonstration in Edinburgh tomorrow and Iran has a record of exporitng terrorism.
    you dont? Why on earth not - 4 bombs? Takes 4 people or less... Hardly that hard. Terrorism experts seem to disagree with you.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    US Capitalism kills more than anyone.
    Utter rubbish... whats the alternative? Communism? Because that always does wonders for life expectancy.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    52% is the turnout figure. 58% in Iraq and 30% outside. I find this very strange to start with. Also all the other discepencies in the election I've mentioned, but not just that. The majority of the deputies were elected on an anti-occupation ticket. Yet they do nothing to end it. Also this from Iraqi exile Sami Ramadani in the Guardian recently

    http://www.guardian.co.uk/comment/st...521384,00.html
    How this adds up to a puppet government Ill never know ... but if it makes you happy to make the accusation.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    I've never argued agains this. I've argued against this fact being used to say Islamic terrorism is worse than bush/blair terrorism.
    The potential for Islamic terrorism is FAR worse. They would jump atht echance to nuke major western cities.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    She is a total ***** isn't she?
    Terrorists can target her if they want - ill help.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Ok, don;t trust them. This article could have appeared anywhere. This is from an IRAQI doctor.
    Its from the socialist worker ... sorry - cant get around it. Just as I dont trust many things of Fox News - or from Rush Limbaugh - I dont trust this publication. Give me BBC, CNN, major and abjective (as much as you can get) institutions without an avowed political agenda.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Maybe because it is not clear which is worse morally. Is accidentally killing 10 better than deliberately killing one?
    Yes.
    Morality is a matter of mindset - not effect.
    Offline

    0
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Maybe because it is not clear which is worse morally. Is accidentally killing 10 better than deliberately killing one?
    Clearly yes.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Yes.
    Morality is a matter of mindset - not effect.
    Where was that universally agreed on?
    Offline

    11
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Well since we dont actually know who carried them out yet for sure it seems abit early to say.
    pull the other one.

    you could bet your mortgage (if you have one) on al qaeda, and the odds would be so bad you'd only make about a £10'er off it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    Lawz, if we don't know how these Iraqi civilian 'deaths' came about, we cannot make a judgement as to whether their 'deaths' were brought about by more innocent acts than the murders of todays Londoners.
    Whether or not our forces, whose actions brought about these Iraqi civilian 'deaths', have any justification for their aggression is key.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    Where was that universally agreed on?
    Is it objectively true? No. Is it accepted by most - certianly


    Is a baby killing someone the same as an adult killing someone?

    Most would say no - why? Because the mental aspect of the act is different - that is where morality bites.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Lawz, if we don't know how these Iraqi civilian 'deaths' came about, we cannot make a judgement as to whether their 'deaths' were brought about by more innocent acts than the murders of todays Londoners.
    Whether or not our forces, whose actions brought about these Iraqi civilian 'deaths', have any justification for their aggression is key.
    So you are avoiding the point I made? If the US had a policy of wanting to kill as many civilians as possible what would be the result?

    As said - the evidential burden is ont on me to show that the US doesnt do so - its on anyone claimign they do to show a reason to conclude that.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    For weapons and money? Sure - he would have lapped it up.
    the whole point of withholding weapons and money in the first place was because of his agressive noises towards Israel which haven't got less by the way and which never would have done. Otherwise, why was it? Kuwait? What's to say he wouldn't do it again rearmed?

    Evidence? Or another baseless assumption?
    Pattern of events. He started paying for suicide bombs, they turned against him.

    Its unlikely such an attack was planned in a couple of weeks.
    I'm sure some people knew the result of these elections before they took place if you get what I mean.

    you dont? Why on earth not - 4 bombs? Takes 4 people or less... Hardly that hard. Terrorism experts seem to disagree with you.
    What is Al Qaeda? Where are the complications? They are a diseprate group of several different small groups. EVERY bombing will be blamed on A; Qaeda as they are a convenient target and every bombing will be claimed by them so that they can take the credit.

    Utter rubbish... whats the alternative? Communism? Because that always does wonders for life expectancy.
    A shift towards Social Democracy

    How this adds up to a puppet government Ill never know
    Their will is the will of the occupiers as shown by their actions or inactions should I say.

    The potential for Islamic terrorism is FAR worse. They would jump atht echance to nuke major western cities.
    They could not get hold of a nuke. They could not launch a nuke. And I believe only one country has used nuclear weapons and surprisingly they also wiped out a whole city, only it was in the east so it doesn't matter so much.

    Terrorists can target her if they want - ill help.
    lol

    Its from the socialist worker ... sorry - cant get around it. Just as I dont trust many things of Fox News - or from Rush Limbaugh - I dont trust this publication. Give me BBC, CNN, major and abjective (as much as you can get) institutions without an avowed political agenda.
    The socialist worker accepted his input. It's from the mouth of an Iraqi, not a SW correspondant. I was lucky enough to talk to Sheikh Majid Al Gaood of Ramadi and Wahaj El Iraq and he told me the same thing. Bye the way, the only study into media coverage of the war showed that the BBC was the most prowar.
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    It depends how you accidently killed one. If you are trying to kill one person accriss the road but kill 10 in the cross fire knowing that there is a high chance they will die, then that is also very bad don't you think?
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Is it objectively true? No. Is it accepted by most - certianly

    Is a baby killing someone the same as an adult killing someone?

    Most would say no - why? Because the mental aspect of the act is different - that is where morality bites.
    What you actually saying is your going on gut feeling.

    Your child example is also flawed. Most people accept that child has its how life ahead of it and hence has the chance to live more "life" compared to a adult who is statisatically closer to death. It is a different moral situation.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Vienna)
    Clearly yes.
    Because?
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    the whole point of withholding weapons and money in the first place was because of his agressive noises towards Israel which haven't got less by the way and which never would have done. Otherwise, why was it? Kuwait? What's to say he wouldn't do it again rearmed?
    I thought you said it was oil?

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Pattern of events. He started paying for suicide bombs, they turned against him.
    They turned against him WAY before that.

    If you are really taking conclusions from the events it followed then the invasion of Kuwait seems to be the right one.

    [QUOTE=Northumbrian]I'm sure some people knew the result of these elections before they took place if you get what I mean. [/quote

    We're back to you being sure without evidence?

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    What is Al Qaeda? Where are the complications? They are a diseprate group of several different small groups. EVERY bombing will be blamed on A; Qaeda as they are a convenient target and every bombing will be claimed by them so that they can take the credit.
    Fair point - Al Qaeda doesnt mean much as a term - but I dont see any evidcence of Iranian involvement (I dont doubt there COULD be).

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    A shift towards Social Democracy
    And that means?

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    Their will is the will of the occupiers as shown by their actions or inactions should I say.
    So because they dont oust the US troops they must be controlled by them?

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    They could not get hold of a nuke.
    I hope youre right - but Im not sure .... Russian nukes arent exactly locked up nice and tight.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    They could not launch a nuke.
    Not really relevant. THey dont need to.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    And I believe only one country has used nuclear weapons and surprisingly they also wiped out a whole city, only it was in the east so it doesn't matter so much.
    half a century ago - should we discuss the horrors of Genghis Kahn so as to attack the Mongolians?

    The US would not do that today.

    Regardless - there are serious debates about whether that saved lives in th elong run. But I wont draw conclusions.

    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    The socialist worker accepted his input. It's from the mouth of an Iraqi, not a SW correspondant. I was lucky enough to talk to Sheikh Majid Al Gaood of Ramadi and Wahaj El Iraq and he told me the same thing. Bye the way, the only study into media coverage of the war showed that the BBC was the most prowar.
    The most pro war compared to who and on what metric?

    It sinteresting that right wingers attack it as being left wing and anti war and those on the left say the opposite.... points of view are certainly interesting.

    As said - I dont take the word of those who suffered in Fallujah at face value. If someone bombed my house by mistake and killed my family I would say things like that too. I look for evidence from unbiased sources.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    What you actually saying is your going on gut feeling.
    Mine and most people's. Yes.

    Whats your point? That Morality is subjective? Sure ... but then you dont get a nobel for that... fairly patent.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Mine and most people's. Yes.

    Whats your point? That Morality is subjective? Sure ... but then you dont get a nobel for that... fairly patent.
    See edit above.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Northumbrian)
    It depends how you accidently killed one. If you are trying to kill one person accriss the road but kill 10 in the cross fire knowing that there is a high chance they will die, then that is also very bad don't you think?
    If you kill 10 people accidentally knowing it might happen trying to kill one person because you think it will save 100... then I can see why you might do it.
    Offline

    9
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    So you are avoiding the point I made? If the US had a policy of wanting to kill as many civilians as possible what would be the result?

    As said - the evidential burden is ont on me to show that the US doesnt do so - its on anyone claimign they do to show a reason to conclude that.
    Haha! It's your thread. You claim the difference. You must prove it. Clue keywords:none phantom empty

    There is no difference for the victims, all were killed in the name of a warped agenda. Part of the agenda of those responsible for the Iraq murders is that when such events as todays in London occur - good chaps like you will fall into line and make the kinds of arguments you're making now.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by material breach)
    What you actually saying is your going on gut feeling.

    Your child example is also flawed. Most people accept that child has its how life ahead of it and hence has the chance to live more "life" compared to a adult who is statisatically closer to death. It is a different moral situation.
    You misread my post - I meant the BABY WAS THE MURDERER - not ebing killed.
    Offline

    1
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by Lawz-)
    Mine and most people's. Yes.

    Whats your point? That Morality is subjective? Sure ... but then you dont get a nobel for that... fairly patent.
    Sure. Not everyone thinks the same tho, I would like to hear how vienna justifies morally the difference.
    • Thread Starter
    Offline

    12
    ReputationRep:
    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Haha! It's your thread. You claim the difference. You must prove it.
    So if I said - "my mother is a better person than Charles Manson"

    I would be mistaken because I cant disprove she is a serial killer?

    What on earth kind of approach is that?

    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Clue keywords:none phantom empty
    Clue words: grow, the, f uck, and up.


    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    There is no difference for the victims, all were killed in the name of a warped agenda.
    That is to miss the point entirely.

    There is no difference for someone run over by mistake and someone shot by a burglar. That doesnt equate the too now does it?

    (Original post by ArthurOliver)
    Part of the agenda of those responsible for the Iraq murders is that when such events as todays in London occur - good chaps like you will fall into line and make the kinds of arguments you're making now.
    Sure.... whatever....
    And part of the agenda of the terrorists is that good chaps like you will fall into line and attack the UK government.
 
 
 

3,083

students online now

800,000+

Exam discussions

Find your exam discussion here

Poll
Should predicted grades be removed from the uni application process
Useful resources

The Student Room, Get Revising and Marked by Teachers are trading names of The Student Room Group Ltd.

Register Number: 04666380 (England and Wales), VAT No. 806 8067 22 Registered Office: International House, Queens Road, Brighton, BN1 3XE

Write a reply...
Reply
Hide
Reputation gems: You get these gems as you gain rep from other members for making good contributions and giving helpful advice.