• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
  • Welcome to our archives. No new posts are allowed here.

Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace ?

yeah but dead right about religion though aren't I ?
I particularly like the bit about... born a blank sheet, innocent & pure with no pre conceived ideas, then brainwashed into the local brand of religion by people around them.
BTW since virtually all wars are due to race or religion, then please explain how there would be more wars if everyone was like me ?
I'm waiting......... ?
 
Last edited:
I do think like you. I have no nationality and no race but... I am every nationality and every race. My pointer was a human gesture, no insult to anyone, I love you all in every form and every shape, murderer or saint.
Regards and love
 
What the hell does any of this **** have to do with the topic & the fact that Robin is a liberal asswipe?
 
Perhaps you might like to define the term 'liberal'.
Do you mean someone that thinks before they act or open their mouths ?
 
Re: Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace

robin said:
yeah but dead right about religion though aren't I ?
I particularly like the bit about... born a blank sheet, innocent & pure with no pre conceived ideas, then brainwashed into the local brand of religion by people around them.
BTW since virtually all wars are due to race or religion, then please explain how there would be more wars if everyone was like me ?
I'm waiting......... ?

OMG! You know its always the bad guy who wants everyone in the world to be like them in order to have "peace".

Honestly, don't you think that we should be able to get along even if we have different religious beliefs, traditions, and nationalities.
 
Re: Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace

robin said:
Perhaps you might like to define the term 'liberal'.
Do you mean someone that thinks before they act or open their mouths ?


Your kidding rigth? You call the crap you spew thinking.... I feel sorry for you, you don't have a life. Your a misguided liberal ..... Lenin had a term for people like you, "Useful idiots"
 
Not so pal. I'm no commie. I'm a business man. I own properties I let out. I'm probably far richer than you. I think it's you who are the useful idiot. Northrop love jingos like you. They spend millions in the pentagon lobbying for wars. Now deluded flag wavers like you support a war on terror that's being fought in the wrong country, are helping their balance sheets no end :lol:
 
Last edited:
robin said:
yeah but dead right about religion though aren't I ?
I particularly like the bit about... born a blank sheet, innocent & pure with no pre conceived ideas, then brainwashed into the local brand of religion by people around them.
BTW since virtually all wars are due to race or religion, then please explain how there would be more wars if everyone was like me ?
I'm waiting......... ?

I was under the impression that mans inhumanity to man caused
wars.
Politicians are pretty good at lying I wonder if you noticed.
Sometimes they say things like 'Religion causes wars'
Ignorance plays a big part too; Claiming to know allot about
everyones religion makes some people look clever.
The truth is patently obvious to every one around them ,
Whilst making spurious claims it becomes obvious they know
nothing.
If we do not target the right people we will never catch
the B*sta*ds that did these atrocities.
I think some people use opportunities like this as an
excuse to take their frustrations out on the things
they hate the most ;religion seems to be the scapegoat
again.
:roll:
 
robin said:
No he wasn't, Carl Sagan was a homo sapiens
Despite your mindset of denial and childish rationale, Carl Sagan was indeed Jewish.

robin said:
Since he was far too rational to be Jewshish in the religious sense then by 'Jew' do you mean by race?
Lol robin... you are insipid beyond belief. As far as being rational, any casual inspection of major historical contributors to philosophy and the exact sciences reveals that one can be rational, pragmatic and also Jewish. The race card? If you had any knowledge whatsoever of biochemistry and genetics, you perhaps would appreciate that one's religious persuasion is not encoded in the double-helix of deoxyribose nucleic acid (DNA) common to all life-forms. Both your subjective and objective prejudices and woeful lack of basic empirical knowledge appear to be without limit.

robin said:
Well he's the same as an Arab isn't he. You are all the same race
The best that one can hope for here is that you are an atypical example of the Brit (or whatever) educational system. You again attempt to commingle religion and race. One does not need be an Arab to be a Muslim, nor does one need to be an Israeli sabra to be Jewish. From whom have you purchased or borrowed these silly notions? Goebbels? Mengele? I myself am of Russian heritage and yet I am both an Israeli and Jewish. There are Ethiopian Falasha in Israel who are Israeli and Jewish. Clearly, racial ethnicity has no intrinsic bearing on either one's nationality or one's faith in this regard.

The basic and fundamental proposition offered by you in a good portion of this thread is that war is an unnecessary evil which should be totally expunged via a mutual and everlasting global consent. While this hippy philosophy is noble in principle and is perhaps the Holy Grail of mankind, it is also simplistic and casually dismisses the foibles of human nature and the realities of history. If we are all to blame, then what is the underlying principle of many of your posts which only serve to apportion and assign specific blame?

Your unfeigned ignorance in a vast myriad of differing subjects continues to simply astound me. I can only conclude that you were home-schooled and a chronic runaway.


 
robin said:
Is this the most intelligent thing you have to say ?

I have said plenty, but you inability to accepted someone differance of opinion makes me not even want to waste my time with you. At this point I find your little tirad a bit annoying.
 
"Despite your mindset of denial and childish rationale, Carl Sagan was indeed Jewish."
Born in Brooklyn with a Jewish father.
Now how do you define Jewish. In what sense was he a Jew ?
Do you think he subscribes to the Jewish faith & mumbio jumbo associatesd with that ?
Doubt it... too intelligent.
Was he Jewish in the sense of having been branded a Jew in some Jewish equivalent of Christening ?
Well if so that's all in the mind & meaningless.
Was he Jewish in terms of race whatever the Jewish race is ?
There are certain features that some Jews have. I think there are Cirrilic Jews. Although we are all 99.99% genetivally the same so what madman Hitler thought was significant wasn't.
So pray tell me... in what way was Carl Sagan a Jew ?
What is the philosophical meaning of the word Jew ?
Are there degrees of Jewishness ?
Jewishness is all in the mind just like any other tribalistic religious nonsense.
Oh one other definition maybe... did he have an Israeli passport ?.. no I doubt it.
Finally... he would'nt have time for religious crap. He had a universal mind. Why would he be so small minded as to think about being in a tribal group when his mind was focussed on the universe ?
100 billion stars in our galaxy. A 100 billion galaxies. What significance is there in homo sapien ants being in tribal groups. We are specs
I'd rather talk about one of his books or cosmology than the frailties of human psycology that lead to tribalism.
 
Re: Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace

Resorting to calling personal religious beliefs "goobly-gook" just shows that you are running out of rational arguments. Robin - why have you steered your own thead way off topic just to criticize people's personal religious beliefs? You know that debatepolitics has a special section for religion.

I'm sure you've noticed the people who say that those who don't believe in God cannot be moral and cannot respect the rights of others. That's bigotry, is it not? Not if you say that the people who believe in God are the cause of war and bloodshed - that is exactly the same kind of bigotry.
 
Windy said:
No offense intended Robin but in my time in these forums
I have never known anyone that could inflame peoples
emotions quite like you.



Huh? Wha? Either your lying, ill informed, or just trying to hurt my feelings. Robin, Billo Really, and champs added and squared aren't half as annoying as me. Please. Or are you just talking about the ammeter level? The AAA of annoying?
 
Originally posted by Tashah:
The basic and fundamental proposition offered by you in a good portion of this thread is that war is an unnecessary evil which should be totally expunged via a mutual and everlasting global consent.
Earth to Tashah, do you want to come back down before you run out of gas? War exists because of the violence within each and every one of us. You seem to have more of your share.

Originally posted by Tashah:
While this hippy philosophy is noble in principle and is perhaps the Holy Grail of mankind, it is also simplistic and casually dismisses the foibles of human nature and the realities of history.
Do you know the realities of history. Can you not see that this is Weimar, Germany, all over again?

Originally posted by Tashah:
If we are all to blame, then what is the underlying principle of many of your posts which only serve to apportion and assign specific blame?
Even if the day comes where you do accept blame for your actions, what would you do about? Get out your theasarus and just make excuses for your behavior [like you do for Bush].

Originally posted by Tashah:
Your unfeigned ignorance in a vast myriad of differing subjects continues to simply astound me. I can only conclude that you were home-schooled and a chronic runaway
The only subject you seem to be ignorant of is the one we are discussing. Maybe when you get your head out of the clouds you will be able to see better.
 
robin said:
Oh one other definition maybe... did he have an Israeli passport ?.. no I doubt it.
I'm not sure which is the more pitiful here robin:

• Your total ignorance of the differences and distinctions between race, religion, and nationality.
• Your propensity and passé indifference towards displaying your total ignorance publically.

Additionally, your defense of the original thread thesis is also pitiful... so much so that you have found it necessary to morph the topic in a pitiful attempt to escape from a prison of your own device.

Connecticutter is quite correct... you have no interest in either honest or honorable debate. Those higher virtues are quite foreign to you. Your overarching intent here at Debate Politics is merely to bastardize the process in order to promote your sad and pitiful prejudices.

You are inelegant, ineloquent, provincial, and quite devoid of the normative social graces. Your intellectual grasp of science is nil, and the realm of faith is well beyond your metaphysical grasp. Credibility is nonexistant. You are not even a sum-zero personality, as negatives are your exclusive domain and sole testament.

Indeed, your personal imprimatur lies naked and exposed here... an indelible ying-yang of ignorance and prejudice.


 
Tashah
Your tirrade of verbiage in that supercilious tone of yours actually says nothing. It's bereft of substance. You are one of those people that can use language in a puffed up sense to say absolutely nothing. You've turned a philosophical debate into a bun fight by trying to insult me.
We were discussing the definition of what is a jew.
Tell me ... Is there an absolute definition of a Jew ?
Or a Muslim for that matter ?

Here's my take on religion....
A little over your head perhaps, but then you aren't the only one here.

RE Religion a virus of the mind ?
Religion gets into the host & programs it to convert others to the same.
Just like a virus that exploits it's host computer or cell to make copies of itself, religion does so by preaching especially when possible, preying on the young of the species before they have had a chance to develop an immune system (cynicism & the power of rational thought).
The most prevalent religions are ones that also program the host to reproduce in large numbers (Islam & Catholicism.)

Indeed religions themselves have evolved. Hundreds of religions are now extinct becuase they did not
A) Successfully programme their hosts to reproduce & spread the word .
B) Succesfully either kill or convert sufficient numbers of those with different religious beliefs.
C) Have the right blend of gaurantees of eternal life or an impressive enough father figure or imagery to switch on the instinctive love circuits/pleasure centres within the brain.

The virus (religion) gets into the host & switches on the instinctive circuitry in the brain for - I am loved, I have someone to love, I have a father figure who is perfect, I belong to a tribe & also overcomes the most basic instinctive fear off death. All these instincts exist in the brain because they are a very strong survival attribute for man as a social pack animal that often mates for life. Mating for life means better gene serving in as much as joint parenthood to the offspring. Fear of death clearly is the most basic survival instinct. Those that are not wary when crossing the road, or out hunting for food etc will either get killed or injured which will impare their ability to pass on or serve their genes.
These instinctive love & survival circuits are linked to pleasure centers in the brain hence the immense sense of pleasure people get when they fall in love with that mental construct known as the "Lord" or "Allah".
Remember the brain can love "mental constructs". Most of the time a person you love is not before you or with you but you still love them. That is because the brain is able to love it's/your "mental construct" of that person. The only difference is the mental construct known as "God" is not only someone that you are not with, but also someone who's very existence, outside of the brain, is indeterminate !
 
Last edited:
Billo Really said:
The only subject you seem to be ignorant of is the one we are discussing. Maybe when you get your head out of the clouds you will be able to see better.
Ah! An excellent opportunity here to provide a sampling of your notion of discussion Billo...

Billo Really said:
Hey, Tashah, where's the [spell your name backwards]?

Yup. No doubt about it Billo. Right on topic. Very deep. Very profound. Jeesh lol


 
robin said:
Tashah
Your tirrade of verbiage in that supercilious tone of yours actually says nothing.
It's spelled *tirade*. If you are unable to correctly spell supercilious verbiage... then please refrain from using it.

robin said:
You are one of those people that can use language in a puffed up sense to say absolutely nothing.
In that case and for your express benefit, I shall dumb-down my puffy language so that even you can get my drift... Go eat some worms robin.

robin said:
...trying to insult me.
Insult you? If I erred at all, it was on the side of caution. Actually, I was quite generous and magnanimous.


 
Tashah said:
It's spelled *tirade*. If you are unable to correctly spell supercilious verbiage... then please refrain from using it.


In that case and for your express benefit, I shall dumb-down my puffy language so that even you can get my drift... Go eat some worms robin.


Insult you? If I erred at all, it was on the side of caution. Actually, I was quite generous and magnanimous.


Robin eat worms :lol:
Lets cut the childish name calling & picking on typos shall we.
So define 'Jew' for me. Or is the whole idea of a Jew or a Muslim a mental construct OR Christian even. Someone flicked holy water on my forehead as a baby & mumbled some words so that makes me Christian doesn't it ?
Oh & your thoughts on religion.. a virus of the mind. You are supposed to be a scientist aren't you ?
 
Last edited:
Tashah said:
The basic and fundamental proposition offered by you in a good portion of this thread is that war is an unnecessary evil which should be totally expunged via a mutual and everlasting global consent.
Can't you see the irony intended in the thread title ?
If the USA can bomb a country like Iraq, just incase they have terrorists, then by their warrior ethos logic they should bomb UK, becuase we have terrorists. In fact they may as well bomb any country they like in case they have terroists. In fact maybe American policy has become a like terrorist policy.
As regards WMD in Iraq.. we all know the scientists like David Kelly said there were none of any significance.
They've now now killed nearly ten 911 worths of innocent lives in Iraq... a country who did not harbour the 911 terroists !
 
Last edited:
Re: Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace

robin said:
Can't you see the irony intended in the thread title ?
If the USA can bomb a country like Iraq, just incase they have terrorists, then by their warrior ethos logic they should bomb UK, becuase we have terrorists. In fact they may as well bomb any country they like in case they have terroists. In fact maybe American policy has become a like terrorist policy.
As regards WMD in Iraq.. we all know the scientists like David Kelly said there were none of any significance.
They've now now killed nearly ten 911 worths of innocent lives in Iraq... a country who did not harbour the 911 terroists !

This is the worst anti-war argument I've ever seen. So are you saying that you see no difference between the government of the UK and Saddam Hussein's regime?

You're setting up a straw man here so that you can attack it. There's no one saying that we have to bomb every country that has terrorists.
 
Re: Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace

Connecticutter said:
This is the worst anti-war argument I've ever seen. So are you saying that you see no difference between the government of the UK and Saddam Hussein's regime?

You're setting up a straw man here so that you can attack it. There's no one saying that we have to bomb every country that has terrorists.

I like this stupid remark better...

Contrary to Senator Kerry, President Bush never "took his eye off the ball" when it came to Osama bin Laden. The war on terrorism has a global focus. It cannot be divided into separate and unrelated wars, one in Afghanistan and another in Iraq. Both are part of the same effort to capture and kill terrorists before they are able to strike America again, potentially with weapons of mass destruction. Terrorist cells are operating in some 60 countries, and the United States, in coordination with dozens of allies, is waging this war on many fronts.
Again, this is a key difference between the two men, and the fact that terrorist cells exist in 60 nations has demonstrated this difference before. In an impromptu press conference a couple of weeks ago, John Kerry referred to this as a reason why we shouldn't have gone to war in Iraq. "Will we attack all 60 countries?" Kerry asked derisively. Kerry's sarcastic and flippant comment shows that Kerry would have allowed the US to be paralyzed at the scope of the strategic war on Islamist terror, and would have followed the Clinton strategy of making tough speeches followed by little if any action.
 
Re: Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace

Connecticutter said:
This is the worst anti-war argument I've ever seen. So are you saying that you see no difference between the government of the UK and Saddam Hussein's regime?
Uk government doesn't support Al Qaeda but some people in UK do.
Iraq government didn't support Al Qaeda but some people in Iraq did.
& the difference is..... ?
 
Re: Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace

Okay, if our reason for going into Iraq was because "some people in Iraq support Al Qaeda" then you'd be absolutely right. Problem is - that's not the reason. No one has ever given that as a reason. You're misrepresented your opponent's position just so that you can refute your own misrepresentation. I just don't understand where you get that.

The war in Iraq had many reasons but all were specifically about the motives and actions of Saddam Hussein's regime, not the Iraqi people.
 
Re: Is it now time for America to bomb England in the name of freedom, justice, peace

Connecticutter said:
Okay, if our reason for going into Iraq was because "some people in Iraq support Al Qaeda" then you'd be absolutely right. Problem is - that's not the reason. No one has ever given that as a reason. You're misrepresented your opponent's position just so that you can refute your own misrepresentation. I just don't understand where you get that.

The war in Iraq had many reasons but all were specifically about the motives and actions of Saddam Hussein's regime, not the Iraqi people.
Need to read this book....
It was a day for the history books. On April 9th, 2003, millions of Americans sat glued to their television sets as U.S. soldiers and Iraqi citizens joined together to topple the statue of Saddam Hussein in Baghdad’s Firdos Square. Like the fall of the Berlin wall, the fall of Saddam’s statue appeared to be one of those iconic moments that proved - spontaneously and undeniably - that democracy would always triumph over totalitarianism, that freedom was the great equalizer.
“If you don’t have goose bumps now,” said Fox News anchor David Asman as the extraordinary footage rolled, “you will never have them in your life.”

“Jubilant Iraqis Swarm the Streets of Capital,” read the New York Times headline.

Or did they?

In their eye-opening new exposé, Weapons of Mass Deception: The Uses of Propaganda in Bush’s War on Iraq, Rampton and Stauber take no prisoners as they reveal - headline by headline, news show by news show, press conference by press conference - the deliberate, aggressive, and highly successful public relations campaign that sold the Iraqi war to the American public. April 9th seemed to confirm what Washington and pro-war pundits had been saying for months: that the Iraqi people would eventually come to see America as their liberator, not their enemy. Yet the American media chose to focus on headlines such as “Iraqis Celebrate in Baghdad” (Washington Post) rather than on a Reuters long-shot photo of Firdos Square showing it to be nearly empty, or the Muslim cleric who was assassinated by an angry crowd in Najaf for being too friendly to the Americans, or the 20,000 Iraqis in Nasiriyah rallying to oppose the U.S. military presence.

We’ve always known what good PR and advertising could do for a new line of sneakers, cosmetics, or weight-loss products. In Weapons of Mass Deception, Rampton and Stauber show us a brave new shocking world where savvy marketers, “information warriors,” and “perception managers” can sell an entire war to consumers. Indeed, Washington successfully brought together the world’s top ad agencies and media empires to create “Operation: Iraqi Freedom” - a product no decent, patriotic citizen could possibly object to. With meticulous research and documentation, Rampton and Stauber deconstruct this and other “true lies” behind the war:

Top Bush officials advocated the invasion of Iraq even before he took office, but waited until September 2002 to inform the public, through what the White House termed a “product launch.”
White House officials used repetition and misinformation - the “big lie” tactic - to create the false impression that Iraq was behind the September 11th terrorist attacks on the United States, especially in the case of the alleged meeting in Prague five months earlier between 9/11 hijacker Mohammed Atta and Iraqi intelligence officials.
The “big lie” tactic was also employed in the first Iraq war when a 15-year-old Kuwaiti girl named Nayirah told the horrific - but fabricated - story of Iraqi soldiers wrenching hundreds of premature Kuwaiti babies from their incubators and leaving them to die. Her testimony was printed in a press kit prepared by Citizens for a Free Kuwait, a PR front group created by Hill and Knowlton, then the world’s largest PR firm.
In order to achieve “third party authenticity” in the Muslim world, a group called the Council of American Muslims for Understanding launched its own web site, called OpenDialogue.com. However, its chairman admitted that the idea began with the State Department, and that the group was funded by the U.S. government.
Forged documents were used to “prove” that Iraq possessed huge stockpiles of banned weapons.
A secretive PR firm working for the Pentagon helped create the Iraqi National Congress (INC), which became one of the driving forces behind the decision to go to war.
Weapons of Mass Deception is the first book to expose the aggressive public relations campaign used to sell the American public on the war with Iraq. It is a must-read for those who want to know how and why they bought this war.
 
Back
Top Bottom