Nonviolence vs. Islamic Terrorism - Page 48

DivineComedy · 03-14-06, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

That's all fine and good, but you're shifting what we're talking about. We're talking about a douch-bag on a bus.

NO, I am not shifting what we are talking about, but you are! For what reason, do you shift what we are talking about? We are talking about a HAMAS on a bus supported by a “sovereignty” that called the civilian clothed bomber a “martyr” instead of a criminal, that makes the bombing a different situation than an individual criminal “douch-bag” whose actions are unsupported:

March 13, 2003: “(CBS) Saddam Hussein has distributed $260,000 to 26 families of Palestinians killed in 29 months of fighting with Israel, including a $10,000 check to the family of a Hamas suicide bomber.

In a packed banquet hall on Wednesday, the families came one-by-one to receive their $10,000 checks. A large banner said: ‘The Arab Baath Party Welcomes the Families of the Martyrs for the Distribution of Blessings of Saddam Hussein.’“ http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2003/...in543981.shtml

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

According to Hobbses notion of rational self-interest as well as social contract, any warfare is an abscence of social contract.

A terrorist propagandist would claim that “any warfare is an absence of social contract.” I am not calling you a terrorist propagandist, but I would like to know where in the hell you got that doodoo from? To be sure, the purpose of taking a philosophy class is not to regurgitate what someone has told you. Although, if your teacher is like the Communist Sociology professor I once had, you will not get an “A“ if you do not answer the questions “correctly” on the final exam, like saying that Karl Heinrich Marx was the greatest economic thinker.

Since you are laying off on Hobbes feel free to use quotes that can be checked, like this:

“Whensoever a man transferreth his right, or renounceth it, it is either in consideration of some right reciprocally transferred to himself, or for some other good he hopeth for thereby. For it is a voluntary act: and of the voluntary acts of every man, the object is some good to himself. And therefore there be some rights which no man can be understood by any words, or other signs, to have abandoned or transferred. As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault him by force to take away his life, because he cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself.”
http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hobbes-lev13.html

http://oregonstate.edu/instruct/phl3...-contents.html

The man that adopts the use of civilian disguise to wage war “cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself” after the war is over and the soldiers beat their swords into plow shears, and the same applies to a society, whereby the society that adopts the use of civilian disguise to wage war cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to themselves.

“As first a man cannot lay down the right of resisting them that assault” his right to have his civilian clothes respected, because he cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself or his kind: nonviolent resistance is futile when you do not effectively resist both the philosophy and the “sovereignty” that supported the civilian clothed “soldier” blowing up a bus full of students!

Our rational self-interest that is expressed under our social contract and sovereignty (of we the people) can wage warfare against a foreign State Sponsor of Terrorism that supports terrorism, and WE do not lose our social contract. We can wage war when it is in our rational self-interests to oppose Fascists and NAZIS, and WE do not lose our social contract. Move to another sovereignty or lawless territory (where survival of the fittest rules), if you do not want to be a part of this social contract waging war against Islamifascists, it is your right, otherwise you must “drink the poison” of a war in your name {insert American flag uniform patch here}, as Socrates would probably say.

The use of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare is the renouncing of the ability to form a trusted civilian social contract, and in that sense it is the absence of a social contract, that is why our Nation has ratified only those Geneva Conventions that have not clearly watered down the prohibition of the use of civilian disguise. The thieves or the terrorists cannot trust each other not to steal or blow up respectively. Shiite cleric Muqtada al-Sadr renounced his right to form a trusted civilian social contract by supporting Hamas attacks using civilian disguise, and like honor among thieves is now facing the same kind of “Muslim” bombers blowing up market places in his home territory of Sadr City.

The adoption of the foolish philosophy of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare destroys the sovereignty (of the people), and the teachers of such foolish philosophy are an offshoot of the “liberal“ moral rot of “by any means necessary.” If you were correct that “any warfare is an absence of social contract,” it would make every individual responsible for his own survival of the fittest. That is the kind of sovereignty and philosophy that the Nazi rooted Baath party of Saddam must believe in, as I previously posted {Afghan sentence added}:

Quote:

Originally Posted by me

In the age when the divine right of kings is no longer taken seriously, and democracy is spreading, what does a tyrant have to do for job security?

1) Support a system of individualism, crime and punishment, that will be bought by the simplest of foolish philosophers, where anyone that “feels” they are being unjustly treated has a “God” given right to use civilian disguise in warfare, to take the law into their own hands “according to their own ideas” of justice:

“On the basis of what we said about Iraq while confronting aggressions, the world now needs to abort the US aggressive schemes, including its aggression on the Afghan people, which must stop.
Again we say that when someone feels that he is unjustly treated, and no one is repulsing or stopping the injustice inflicted on him, he personally seeks ways and means for lifting that justice. Of course, not everyone is capable of finding the best way for lifting the injustice inflicted on him. People resort to what they think is the best way according to their own ideas, and they are not all capable of reaching out for what is beyond what is available to arrive to the best idea or means.
To find the best way, after having found their way to God and His rights, those who are inflicted by injustice need not to be isolated from their natural milieu, or be ignored deliberately, or as a result of mis-appreciation, by the officials in this milieu. They should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

2) Take steps to ensure the “survival of the fittest” in reaction to article one:

“I think, that you, often criticize those whom you criticize in order to weaken them, by saying that they use emergency laws, and what emergency laws, by western standards, cannot be a general rule. But now, unlike what you used to say about those whom you accuse of being dictators and despots, we see dozens of emergency laws and measures adopted by the governments of the West, with the US in the forefront, after facing one painful event.” (Saddam Hussein Shabban 13, 1422 H. October 29, 2001.)

The feedback loop creates the job security for the tyrant‘s job description.

Gandhi>Bush · 03-15-06, 10:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

NO, I am not shifting what we are talking about, but you are! For what reason, do you shift what we are talking about?

It seemed to me that your previous remarks were speaking about terrorism as a whole when we were in fact talking about a douche bag on a bus. While possibly represented by a terrorist organization, this man/woman is not terrorism.

Quote:

A terrorist propagandist would claim that “any warfare is an absence of social contract.” I am not calling you a terrorist propagandist, but I would like to know where in the hell you got that doodoo from?

Where did I get it from? What's his name... ohh yeah: Thomas Hobbes

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

It is not the act of taking off a uniform that violates a contract between men.

Quote:

To be sure, the purpose of taking a philosophy class is not to regurgitate what someone has told you. Although, if your teacher is like the Communist Sociology professor I once had, you will not get an “A“ if you do not answer the questions “correctly” on the final exam, like saying that Karl Heinrich Marx was the greatest economic thinker.

My Philosophy Teacher is a weirdo. He thinks voting is stupid and he reads alot of Nietzsche.

My knowledge of Thomas Hobbes and Social Contract theory is from research I did for Ethics Bowl this year where I condemned the looting in the midst of Hurricaine Katrina. It was my stongest case, unfortunately it was never called.

Quote:

The man that adopts the use of civilian disguise to wage war “cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to himself” after the war is over and the soldiers beat their swords into plow shears, and the same applies to a society, whereby the society that adopts the use of civilian disguise to wage war cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to themselves.

The Palestinians cannot be understood to aim thereby at any good to themselves by any form of violence no matter the state of their clothing.

Quote:

The adoption of the foolish philosophy of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare destroys the sovereignty (of the people), and the teachers of such foolish philosophy are an offshoot of the “liberal“ moral rot of “by any means necessary.” If you were correct that “any warfare is an absence of social contract,” it would make every individual responsible for his own survival of the fittest. That is the kind of sovereignty and philosophy that the Nazi rooted Baath party of Saddam must believe in, as I previously posted {Afghan sentence added}:

There are many today that would argue that every individual is indeed responsible for his own survival of the fittest.

Aristotle said that fairness is defined as treating equals equally and unequals unequally.

Are Palestinians and Israelis equal?

Should they be expected to fight equally?

DivineComedy · 03-16-06, 02:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

Where did I get it from? What's his name... ohh yeah: Thomas Hobbes

Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe, they are in that condition which is called war; and such a war as is of every man against every man. For war consisteth not in battle only, or the act of fighting, but in a tract of time, wherein the will to contend by battle is sufficiently known: and therefore the notion of time is to be considered in the nature of war, as it is in the nature of weather. For as the nature of foul weather lieth not in a shower or two of rain, but in an inclination thereto of many days together: so the nature of war consisteth not in actual fighting, but in the known disposition thereto during all the time there is no assurance to the contrary. All other time is peace.

Whatsoever therefore is consequent to a time of war, where every man is enemy to every man, the same is consequent to the time wherein men live without other security than what their own strength and their own invention shall furnish them withal. In such condition there is no place for industry, because the fruit thereof is uncertain: and consequently no culture of the earth; no navigation, nor use of the commodities that may be imported by sea; no commodious building; no instruments of moving and removing such things as require much force; no knowledge of the face of the earth; no account of time; no arts; no letters; no society; and which is worst of all, continual fear, and danger of violent death; and the life of man, solitary, poor, nasty, brutish, and short.

It is not the act of taking off a uniform that violates a contract between men.

Hobbes is talking about people in their most primitive state, “survival of the fittest,” without any civilization, a savagery “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” Hobbes is not claiming that war against such savages removes our social contract (laws) simply because someone does not read what he wrote. Your statement, that “according to Hobbses notion of rational self-interest as well as social contract, any warfare is an abscence of social contract,” is still INCORRECT! As Hobbes clearly said at the beginning of your quote, “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe,” where there is no common government (power) to keep them in awe (under control) and no social contract exists: we the people have a social contract called the United States Constitution. Nothing Hobbes said destroys our social contract when we put on a uniform or send someone else in uniform to wage war to protect ourselves from squat to urinate SAVAGES hiding behind a woman‘s dress.

Hobbes also went on to say things about the savages of the time period:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbes

It may peradventure be thought there was never such a time nor condition of war as this; and I believe it was never generally so, over all the world: but there are many places where they live so now. For the savage people in many places of America, except the government of small families, the concord whereof dependeth on natural lust, have no government at all, and live at this day in that brutish manner, as I said before.

That is why I asked the “Peaceful” Muslim if her Golden Rule only applied within her tribe, because that is the way it was among some savage tribes.

And Hobbes perfectly described the Savage:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbes

To this war of every man against every man, this also is consequent; that nothing can be unjust. The notions of right and wrong, justice and injustice, have there no place. Where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice. Force and fraud are in war the two cardinal virtues. Justice and injustice are none of the faculties neither of the body nor mind. If they were, they might be in a man that were alone in the world, as well as his senses and passions. They are qualities that relate to men in society, not in solitude. It is consequent also to the same condition that there be no propriety, no dominion, no mine and thine distinct; but only that to be every man's that he can get, and for so long as he can keep it.

We see the savagery in Iraq where the supporter of Hamas savagery, Muqtada al-Sadr, is ironically now faced with the exact same savagery in Sadr City. That is the kind of “liberty” that Al-Quacka supports, and that Saddam said “should, rather, be reassured and helped to save themselves, and their surroundings,” and it begs for tyranny, which our rational self-interests cannot allow.

That is exactly the kind of savagery the “Peaceful” Palestinian Muslim described:

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peaceful Muslim

Expressing your opinion and ‘Freedom of Speech‘ is fine until the point of insult.. if what you are saying justifies the insult then that means non of the human rules we are creating are applicable ..

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...8&postcount=34

G>B suggest you learn how to read a philosopher‘s work, as in their arguments and counter arguments that are made within the same work, before you butcher a philosopher’s work and attribute to him things he did not say.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hobbes

And because the condition of man (as hath been declared in the precedent chapter) is a condition of war of every one against everyone, in which case every one is governed by his own reason, and there is nothing he can make use of that may not be a help unto him in preserving his life against his enemies; it followeth that in such a condition every man has a right to every thing, even to one another's body. And therefore, as long as this natural right of every man to every thing endureth, there can be no security to any man, how strong or wise soever he be, of living out the time which nature ordinarily alloweth men to live. And consequently it is a precept, or general rule of reason: that every man ought to endeavour peace, as far as he has hope of obtaining it; and when he cannot obtain it, that he may seek and use all helps and advantages of war. The first branch of which rule containeth the first and fundamental law of nature, which is: to seek peace and follow it. The second, the sum of the right of nature, which is: by all means we can to defend ourselves.
From this fundamental law of nature, by which men are commanded to endeavour peace, is derived this second law: that a man be willing, when others are so too, as far forth as for peace and defence of himself he shall think it necessary, to lay down this right to all things; and be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself. For as long as every man holdeth this right, of doing anything he liketh; so long are all men in the condition of war. But if other men will not lay down their right, as well as he, then there is no reason for anyone to divest himself of his: for that were to expose himself to prey, which no man is bound to, rather than to dispose himself to peace. This is that law of the gospel: Whatsoever you require that others should do to you, that do ye to them. And that law of all men, quod tibi fieri non vis, alteri ne feceris.

http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/hobbes-lev13.html

If the so-called “Palestinian“ lay down his right to civilian clothes, by using civilian disguise to wage war, we are not obligated to expose ourselves as prey when he “says” {in church lady tone}, “the war is over,” and wants us to take his civilian clothes seriously.

A man must “be contented with so much liberty against other men as he would allow other men against himself,” therefore, if we are content to allow the use of civilian disguise to facilitate warfare we are in a perpetual state of war without end to be searched without end. I am not content with that kind of liberty. I say we kill all of the bastards and take back our liberty to hold up our Frisbee throwing arm to say, “Hi.”

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

It is not the act of taking off a uniform that violates a contract between men.

The taking off of the uniform to facilitate making war makes them a savage. As Hobbes would say, Savages only have a contract within their family or tribe and have no contract with men, as Hobbes said they “have no government at all.”

If the so-called “Palestinians” want to be treated equally with the Israelis (who just have to hold up their right hand) the so-called “Palestinians” must abandon Savagery and fight according to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit the use of civilian disguise. Otherwise, even if Israel is destroyed, it is in our rational self-interests that our social contract require that the so-called “Palestinians” submit to having every orifice searched with a cold hard robot probe for a possible salami bomb before they approach a bus, pizza parlor, and a marketplace, or any civilization! If the so-called “Palestinian” Savages want their civilian clothes respected they must wear a uniform to wage war; as Hobbes said: “What you would not have done to you that do not you to another.” I do not wish to be searched when wearing civilian clothes, so I wore my military uniform with pride.

I demand the animals be butchered so that I may continue to go get a sausage pizza in civilian clothes without being probed!

DivineComedy · 03-16-06, 02:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

Originally Posted by DivineComedy:
“The State sponsor of terrorism calls the terrorist a ‘martyr‘ when they dress up like a student and walk on a bus to blow up, and people die in an instant without time to say ‘oh ****.’ Forget for a moment any bias against Israeli occupation and just consider the situation as an unbiased observer that just sees the violence and wants to stop it. The civilian victims do not have a chance to stop that terror, because they can’t even see the enemy! Who did you see? You see a foreign power {State sponsor of terrorism that was in violation of a cease-fire resolution like H 32 of UN resolution 687 that required them not to support terrorism} support an act of terrorism. Certainly you would not require a civilian to drop everything and fight for nonviolence on a foreign battle field?”

In said scenario, there is no opportunity for resistance what so ever. Nonviolent or otherwise.

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...&postcount=432

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

It seemed to me that your previous remarks were speaking about terrorism as a whole when we were in fact talking about a douche bag on a bus. While possibly represented by a terrorist organization, this man/woman is not terrorism.

I would expect a terrorist propagandist to say that.

An insane person that likes to watch things go BOOM, and that has no political motive, and consequently could not be called a “martyr,” would not be terrorism, but simply a sad state of affairs that they didn‘t get help, and I personally think what you said is STUPID! Like, not getting enough sleep or something, like a brain switch turned off?

Nonviolent resistance is futile!

Gandhi>Bush · 03-17-06, 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by DivineComedy

Hobbes is talking about people in their most primitive state, “survival of the fittest,” without any civilization, a savagery “where there is no common power, there is no law; where no law, no injustice.” Hobbes is not claiming that war against such savages removes our social contract (laws) simply because someone does not read what he wrote.

Would you not agree that two neighbors have a contract between themselves? Surely if one perpetrates violence toward the other it is a violation of this contract? Would you not say that such a violence is in itself is the violation and that the clothes of the perpetrator, if at all relevant, are second to the initial violation of the contract?

Quote:

Your statement, that “according to Hobbses notion of rational self-interest as well as social contract, any warfare is an abscence of social contract,” is still INCORRECT!

I disagree, and I think that is because there was a misunderstanding of our exchange. I was speaking about the state in between the states of Palestine and Israel.

Quote:

As Hobbes clearly said at the beginning of your quote, “Hereby it is manifest that during the time men live without a common power to keep them all in awe,” where there is no common government (power) to keep them in awe (under control) and no social contract exists: we the people have a social contract called the United States Constitution. Nothing Hobbes said destroys our social contract when we put on a uniform or send someone else in uniform to wage war to protect ourselves from squat to urinate SAVAGES hiding behind a woman‘s dress.

You're absolutely correct about our social contract. I thought we were speaking of the contract in between the two warring parties.

Quote:

That is exactly the kind of savagery the “Peaceful” Palestinian Muslim described:

That doesn't seem to be what she described at all.

Quote:

G>B suggest you learn how to read a philosopher‘s work, as in their arguments and counter arguments that are made within the same work, before you butcher a philosopher’s work and attribute to him things he did not say.

...

This is all unneccessary. As I said, I believe there was a miscommunication, misunderstanding.

Quote:

The taking off of the uniform to facilitate making war makes them a savage. As Hobbes would say, Savages only have a contract within their family or tribe and have no contract with men, as Hobbes said they “have no government at all.”

Palestinians have a government.

Quote:

If the so-called “Palestinians” want to be treated equally with the Israelis (who just have to hold up their right hand) the so-called “Palestinians” must abandon Savagery and fight according to the Geneva Conventions that prohibit the use of civilian disguise.

To do so, would mean defeat. It would mean yet another loss to people who already have no hope.

Quote:

Otherwise, even if Israel is destroyed, it is in our rational self-interests that our social contract require that the so-called “Palestinians” submit to having every orifice searched with a cold hard robot probe for a possible salami bomb before they approach a bus, pizza parlor, and a marketplace, or any civilization! If the so-called “Palestinian” Savages want their civilian clothes respected they must wear a uniform to wage war; as Hobbes said: “What you would not have done to you that do not you to another.” I do not wish to be searched when wearing civilianclothes, so I wore my military uniform with pride.

When you donned your uniform, you and your country had a better chance of success than those who would fight in uniform for Palestine would have.

Quote:

I demand the animals be butchered so that I may continue to go get a sausage pizza in civilian clothes without being probed!

If you want them to be butchered, you should not have such high hopes for how their desires for you.

Quote:

I would expect a terrorist propagandist to say that.

I don't know why you can't have the common courtesy stop calling me that at my request. It seems like the majority of your posts are not even aimed at an interesting or worthwhile discussion, but aimed at a frustrating and stressful discussion. I have not made such remarks toward you.

Quote:

An insane person that likes to watch things go BOOM, and that has no political motive, and consequently could not be called a “martyr,” would not be terrorism, but simply a sad state of affairs that they didn‘t get help, and I personally think what you said is STUPID!

I don't think you can argue that these men are without political motive. I don't think you can argue that a political motive is all that is needed to be a martyr either.

Quote:

Like, not getting enough sleep or something, like a brain switch turned off?

As a matter of fact for the past months I've been through alot of stress regarding my health. Thank you for your concern, but I'd rather avoid the topic of my brain switching off.

DivineComedy · 03-18-06, 12:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

I don't know why you can't have the common courtesy stop calling me that at my request. It seems like the majority of your posts are not even aimed at an interesting or worthwhile discussion, but aimed at a frustrating and stressful discussion. I have not made such remarks toward you.

You said: “While possibly represented by a terrorist organization, this man/woman is not terrorism.”

I see no reason not to interpret such a statement any other way, and I call it like I see it.

My only purpose in coming on this message board after the hurricanes caused me so much stress was for one reason and one reason only, and I considered it the most important issue if not the one affecting me the most:

http://www.debatepolitics.com/showpo...73&postcount=1 (Just tell me what you think.)

To me the most frightening response was: “there is only one rule and the most important rule is NOT TO LOOSE at any cost.”

The discussion about civilian disguise is the only reason I am still in this futile topic, and G>B, I did not come on here to entertain you or to agree with you. But, now that I know your health is bad, I can quit. I am not that cruel.

I think fighting honorably is more important than success, even if it does not relieve stress.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

Would you not agree that two neighbors have a contract between themselves? Surely if one perpetrates violence toward the other it is a violation of this contract? Would you not say that such a violence is in itself is the violation and that the clothes of the perpetrator, if at all relevant, are second to the initial violation of the contract?

Just because one part of a contract is violated—the damn Gestapo Communist Government makes me get an approved color permit to paint my house when it was pink during World War II—does not mean the whole contract is necessarily violated. The same goes for all of the greedy usurers that attacked without mercy after the hurricanes, while it was raining in my living room, harassing me mercilessly during the reconstruction, and still keep calling after being paid their damn money: “[2.280] And if (the debtor) is in straitness, then let there be postponement until (he is in) ease; and that you remit (it) as alms is better for you, if you knew.” The {insert foul language here} New Yorkers make part of me look forward to dancing a jig in the street like a Palestinian, just to relieve my stress. Yes, when my wife almost committed suicide due to the stress, I understood them G>B, just like I always have understood my own limitations; after I was broken, and blurted out a unthinking threat, the detective showed up quicker than snot. The clothes are the most important part of any contract because it identifies the neighbor and the intent of the neighbor. If one neighbor puts on the disguise of another neighbor it is a greater violation of contract, and an even a greater violation of contract must be hiding intent by putting on peaceful civilian disguise as it is abusing more than one person. A neighbor claiming responsibility after a sneak attack using civilian disguise does not compensate all civilians for the abuse committed in their name. Civilian disguise has the same effect as a blanket party. A blanket party is where the neighbor sneaks over to your house and throws a blanket over you while you sleep and beats the hell out of you with a baseball bat. The natural reaction to a blanket party is not to trust anyone. For peace to work as the goal there must be some trust that hostilities are over, we must believe in the honor of our opponent. It all boils down to identification friend or foe. There can be no trust in a future peace if your neighbor’s civilian clothes cannot be trusted as friendly. Can we trust the use of the word “peace” by the dishonorable, when any future hostile intent may be disguised by civilian clothes?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

Palestinians have a government.

Of Savages:

“GAZA CITY, March 17. — The Islamic Hamas plans to go it alone next week with its new Palestinian government after talks with other Palestinian factions failed to produce a single partner, a development almost guaranteed to lead to international isolation and a severe cash crunch.
Hamas leaders had one more round of talks with other parties yesterday, but none, not even the radical Popular Front for the Liberation of Palestine, could co-exist with the harsh principles of the militant Islamic group.”
http://www.thestatesman.net/page.new...ss=1&id=109995

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

To do so, would mean defeat. It would mean yet another loss to people who already have no hope.

So what? Isn’t the goal peace? The ability to accept defeat is a must for anyone to have people. Those that cannot be trusted in civilian clothes should be exterminated or preferably caged. Take your pick.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

When you donned your uniform, you and your country had a better chance of success than those who would fight in uniform for Palestine would have.

I thought it was OUR country? The ability to accept defeat is a must for anyone to have peace. If success is the goal and peace cannot come without it, and we cannot trust their civilian clothes, then we must cage them or preferably exterminate them.

To have peace there are times when we all must accept some defeat. I accept the defeat that I can no longer get on a plane without having my crotch searched, but I draw the line at the pizza parlor.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

If you want them to be butchered, you should not have such high hopes for how their desires for you.

You just go tell those animal rights terrorists that I will not give up my sausage pizza, nor will I peacefully submit to a probe of my body due to their actions to save the pigs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

I don't think you can argue that these men are without political motive. I don't think you can argue that a political motive is all that is needed to be a martyr either.

I wear civilian clothes now. If the thing becomes one of their “martyrs” by killing while using civilian disguise to facilitate the killing, which is associating the killing with my civilian clothes, they have put me in danger and they are my enemy. If the enemy cannot be reasoned with so as to wear a uniform, then the enemy must be caged or killed so that the children may wear civilian clothes in peace.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Gandhi>Bush

As a matter of fact for the past months I've been through alot of stress regarding my health. Thank you for your concern, but I'd rather avoid the topic of my brain switching off.

Hopefully it is not your brain that is shutting down. As long as you can think, use a fork, and wipe your own rear end you are probably better off than someone else at any local house of pain. Someone has always got it worse.

Let us just call this debate off. And go dance in the street.

“Care for us! True, indeed! They ne'er car'd for us yet. Suffer us to famish, and their storehouses cramm'd with grain; make edicts for usury, to support usurers; repeal daily
any wholesome act established against the rich, and provide more piercing statutes daily to chain up and restrain the poor. If the wars eat us not up, they will; and there's all the love they bear us.” http://shakespeare.thefreelibrary.co...Coriolanus/1-1