• 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!

Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

Will we see war crime prosecutions, and are they justified?

  • Yes we will see them and they are justified.

    Votes: 3 6.3%
  • Yes we will see them but they will not be justified.

    Votes: 4 8.3%
  • No we will not see them but they would have been justified.

    Votes: 14 29.2%
  • No we will not see them and they would not have been justified.

    Votes: 27 56.3%

  • Total voters
    48
He was also the Secretary General of the UN and it was his job to know UN policy. Think what you want to about Kofi, but you cannot take that fact away from him. It would be like someone you've consulted to think you don't know anything about court procedure's.

You seem to have alot more reverence for that idiot than I do. He is a biased anti American POS.
 
Call it what you will, but I don't think Islam is anything you need courage to face. It's just a religion. Like Christianity, Judism, Hinduism, etc. And if you're going to make a case for something, like going to war, it is up to YOU to present your evidence. It is not up to me to find it for you. Especially, when the evidence in question doesn't exist. If it did, produce it. If it didn't, then ****ing drop it!
Now don't go off in a huff.

The evidence is as I took pains to express, readily available and indeed it is up to you to avail yourself of the painfully abundant data.

Since you lump all religions together, you have made it clear that you are not yet ready to employ serious consideration of these issues. Perhaps some later maturity will incline you towards a study of the differences between for instance, Protestantism, which is generally not involved with decapitating hostages, and Militant Islam, which is.

I understand, we all have things that are fearful to face.

The course of wisdom though, is to allow the more courageous, and informed to deal with the more painful and difficult issues that civilization faces.

Please feel free to comment when you have addressed certain obvious and prominent vacuities in your awareness, where these issues are concerned.
 
You are either lying or fooling yourself when you say this is not a right verses left/fringe issue.The only ones screaming war criminal are the die hard Bush bashers,the Cindy Sheehans,Code pink and other retards.

I neither right nor left and while I don't support war crimes trials, and I don't not support them either, I certainly don't think Bush and Cheney are innocents or have not done very bad things.

Certainly not all non-leftists love Bush or the neocons.
 
Last edited:
All completely irrelevant. You didn't even try to counter the charge that the Iraq war broke international law.
Slander? Hardly, just truth.

As far as International law, that largely fictional body of silliness, I can hardly prevent the World Community® from presenting a case. I assume that if they have one to make they will, and they won't need Mr. Annan's questionable help to do so.
 
I assume that if they have one to make they will

Of course they won't. They're too spineless to mount a serious campaign to get him in the dock. The best we can hope for is that Bush gets his war criminal ass gunned down on the street or shoed to death by angry Iraqis.
 
The BO administration should throw Bush, Cheney, et al into prison and the next Republican administration should return the favor. No need farting around with trials; just jail them and be done with it.

That's how most banana republics work and the good ole USA certainly fits that category now.
 
Of course they won't. They're too spineless to mount a serious campaign to get him in the dock. The best we can hope for is that Bush gets his war criminal ass gunned down on the street or shoed to death by angry Iraqis.

I sort of feel the same way about snot nosed moon bat libs who post such hate towards the president.
 
Although your statement is more true than false, it is also un-American and irresponsible. If we don't hold our elected officials to the same standard we receive, then this country has lost its way.

Meh. The concept of "war crimes" was a farce when it was invented, and the first convictions and executions on the basis of "war crimes" were ex post facto. They are nothing more than an excuse for the winners of a war to execute the losers. Saddam Hussein would still be in power with full American support for his "crimes" if he had not threatened former President Bush's oil interests in Kuwait in 1991.

Call me un-American if you wish; frankly, I don't put much stock in being an American anymore. I am still here only because my family is here and because no other country will have me.

And if you think people shouldn't be held resoponsible for their actions, then you must think being an irresponsible adult is a good thing.

The President of the United States is responsible only to the citizens of the United States. While I would happily argue that he has failed spectacularly in his duties to his people, his failures are no more spectacular than former President Carter's. Neither gentleman has failed his country badly enough to deserve the indignity of a show trial followed by a summary execution, or worse, the humiliation of a life sentence in a foreign prison.
 
Meh. The concept of "war crimes" was a farce when it was invented, and the first convictions and executions on the basis of "war crimes" were ex post facto. They are nothing more than an excuse for the winners of a war to execute the losers.

I disagree. A mechanism was and is needed to inhibit strife and warfare from morphing into genocide.
 
Of course they won't. They're too spineless to mount a serious campaign to get him in the dock. The best we can hope for is that Bush gets his war criminal ass gunned down on the street or shoed to death by angry Iraqis.
Moderator's Warning:
You're new here. Don't do this again.
 
The President of the United States is responsible only to the citizens of the United States.

Our President, and every U.S. citizen, MUST follow international laws. :doh I don't know where you hail from but, in this country we take our laws and international laws pretty seriously. Well, until stupid took office, that is. :roll:

BushCo has trampled our constitution, gutted our environmental laws and regulations and abandoned our citizens in times of devastating disasters... Katrina! They all deserve to be in jail.

I hope Obama will go after them but, politics may say "leave the old a-hole alone so that the next guy doesn't come after me". If he doesn't he will be basically promoting the idea that the President of the USA can run an illegal administration and live by Richard Nixon's words, "If the President does it... it's NOT illegal". :(

Here's just a few links showing you that the rest of the world, and even some of our own, still believe in laws and justice and the idea of right and wrong. After he leaves office, the popular motto will change from "Drill baby, drill!" to "Burn baby, burn!" :mrgreen:

t r u t h o u t | US General Accuses Bush Administration of War Crimes

Maj. Gen. Antonio Taguba (now retired) served as the deputy commanding general for support for the Third Army for ten months in Kuwait during the early days of the Iraq occupation. In a statement released today, he bluntly accuses the Bush administration of war crimes and lays down a challenge for prosecution.

In 2004, Taguba released a classified report detailing abuses committed at Abu Ghraib Prison. The "Taguba Report" (executive summary) urged Pentagon officials to follow up on its findings by enforcing adherence to the Geneva Conventions in interrogations.

Taguba retired in January 2007, later alleging that Pentagon officials had ordered him to retire for being "overzealous" in his criticisms of the military.

In light of ongoing Congressional investigations into so-called harsh interrogation techniques, and on the heels of Congressman Dennis Kucinich recently issuing articles of impeachment accusing President Bush of, among other offenses, authorizing torture, we present Taguba's latest statement for your consideration.

The full Physicians for Human Rights report outlining the medical evidence of torture perpetrated by the United States can be read at their website.

So much for that stupid idea that those in the military can speak out against the military's actions or the Commander In Chief's stupid orders!

From: Could Bush Be Prosecuted for War Crimes? | | AlterNet

"The United Nations charter has a provision which was agreed to by the United States formulated by the United States in fact, after World War II. Its says that from now on, no nation can use armed force without the permission of the U.N. Security Council. They can use force in connection with self-defense, but a country can't use force in anticipation of self-defense. Regarding Iraq, the last Security Council resolution essentially said, 'Look, send the weapons inspectors out to Iraq, have them come back and tell us what they've found -- then we'll figure out what we're going to do. The U.S. was impatient, and decided to invade Iraq -- which was all pre-arranged of course. So, the United States went to war, in violation of the charter."

One country has already held hearings on this: Kuala Lumpur War Crimes Commission hears nine charges against Bush, Blair, Howard

And stupid Bush already admitted his war crimes @ Bush confesses to war crimes

Sep 11, 2006, 00:31

George W. Bush's speech on September 6 amounted to a public confession to criminal violations of the 1996 War Crimes Act. He implicitly admitted authorizing disappearances, extrajudicial imprisonment, torture, transporting prisoners between countries and denying the International Committee of the Red Cross access to prisoners.

These are all serious violations of the Geneva Conventions. The War Crimes Act makes grave breaches of the Geneva Conventions and all violations of Common Article 3 punishable by fines, imprisonment or, if death results to the victim, the death penalty.

At the same time, Bush asked Congress to amend the War Crimes Act in order to retroactively protect him and other U.S. officials from prosecution for these crimes, and from civil lawsuits arising from them. He justified this on the basis that "our military and intelligence personnel involved in capturing and questioning terrorists could now be at risk of prosecution under the War Crimes Act . . . ," and insisted that “passing this legislation ought to be the top priority” for Congress between now and the election in November.

News-Editorial

The International Commission of Inquiry on Crimes Against Humanity Committed by the Bush Administration of the United States documents the evidence on wars of aggression, detention and torture, destruction of the global environment, sabotage of global health programs, and the abandonment of New Orleans. Dennis Brutus will screen testimony from the Commission, discuss the potential for a new round of war crimes in the event the Bush regime attacks Iran, and consider civil society resistance strategy and tactics.

FINDINGS OF THE INTERNATIONAL COMMISSION OF INQUIRY ON CRIMES AGAINST HUMANITY COMMITTED BY THE BUSH ADMINISTRATION OF THE UNITED STATES

The Commission’s panel of jurists has reached a unanimous decision that George W. Bush and his administration have committed war crimes and crimes against humanity.

We find the Bush Administration guilty of all five indictments presented for which we have received evidence: wars of aggression, torture and indefinite detention, global warming policies and actions, attacks on public health HIV/AIDS programs and reproductive rights, and preparation for and response to Hurricane Katrina.

Each of these constitutes a shocking crime in itself, and taken together the full horrors are all the more unconscionable. It is also clear that this is an administration that demonstrates an utter disregard for truth and flagrantly lies about the reasons for its actions.

In arriving at this decision the jurists were particularly alarmed by the degree to which the Bush Administration’s actions in all five indictments were informed by the extreme right. It was the politics and perspective of the extreme, often religious, right that appeared in most cases to provide the ideological framework for the Bush Administration within which the lives of the poor, people of color and frequently non-Christians, were devalued to the extent that their human rights were flagrantly violated. Thus, although the specific conduct differs among the indictments, the result is the same: human life was debased and devalued by gratuitous acts of violence, torture, narrow self interest, indifference, and disregard.

Here is when our own Supreme cCourt told Bush and dickie that the Geneva Convention actually DID cover those "illegal combatants" Bush hid down in GitMo.
The Geneva Convention `catch' - Los Angeles Times

June 30, 2006

THE SUPREME Court on Thursday dealt the Bush administration a stinging rebuke, declaring in Hamdan vs. Rumsfeld that military commissions for trying terrorist suspects violate both U.S. military law and the Geneva Convention.

But the real blockbuster in the Hamdan decision is the court’s holding that Common Article 3 of the Geneva Convention applies to the conflict with Al Qaeda – a holding that makes high-ranking Bush administration officials potentially subject to prosecution under the federal War Crimes Act.

...as Yale law professor Jack Balkin concludes, it’s starting to look as if the Geneva Convention “is not so quaint after all.”

Consortiumnews.com
President Bush assured the American people that he “shared a deep disgust that those prisoners were treated the way they were treated.” Other administration officials pinned the blame on a “few bad apples” and dismissed the prison guards’ claim that they were told to “soften up” the detainees for interrogation.

Now, a report by the Justice Department’s Inspector General reveals that months before those abuses at Abu Ghraib, nearly identical tactics were used against “war on terror” detainees at Guantanamo Bay, Cuba, and at CIA prisons – and that FBI complaints about the tactics went up the chain of command back to Washington.

FBI agents at Guantanamo even opened a file that they labeled “war crimes” to document the systematic violations of the Geneva Conventions and laws against torture that they witnessed – before being told by superiors to close the file.

According to the Inspector General’s report, the FBI protests reached the White House but went unheeded. Instead, the prisoner abuses spread to Iraq where the Abu Ghraib prison was “Gitmo-ized” with the same harsh and bizarre tactics applied to Iraqi detainees.

So, the new Inspector General’s report adds to the growing body of evidence that – in the months before Election 2004 – Bush only feigned shock about what was being done to detainees in American custody.

The evidence is now overwhelming that Bush knew of – and approved of – those violations of the rules of war and basic human decency, that the “war crimes” catalogued by the FBI agents could be traced to him.

ABC News: Sources: Top Bush Advisors Approved 'Enhanced Interrogation'
Highly placed sources said a handful of top advisers signed off on how the CIA would interrogate top al Qaeda suspects -- whether they would be slapped, pushed, deprived of sleep or subjected to simulated drowning, called waterboarding.

The high-level discussions about these "enhanced interrogation techniques" were so detailed, these sources said, some of the interrogation sessions were almost choreographed -- down to the number of times CIA agents could use a specific tactic.

The advisers were members of the National Security Council's Principals Committee, a select group of senior officials who met frequently to advise President Bush on issues of national security policy.

At the time, the Principals Committee included Vice President Cheney, former National Security Advisor Condoleezza Rice, Defense Secretary Donald Rumsfeld and Secretary of State Colin Powell, as well as CIA Director George Tenet and Attorney General John Ashcroft.

And I can't leave off my neo-con friends' favorite site, The Daily KOS!
Daily Kos: Bush War Crimes must be punished: not just FAR LEFT who want investigations

We need to cry out loudly for accountability.

To ignore these war crimes is a slap in the face to not only those who suffered needlessly in this war based on conspiracy theories about mushroom clouds and yellowcake, but to all prior victims of war crimes throughout history. It would mean we learned nothing from past horrors and that we are destined to repeat atrocities in the future. It means that we condone what was done in our names, and we, therefore, become culpable.
 
Meh. The concept of "war crimes" was a farce when it was invented, and the first convictions and executions on the basis of "war crimes" were ex post facto. They are nothing more than an excuse for the winners of a war to execute the losers.

I disagree. A mechanism was and is needed to inhibit strife and warfare from morphing into genocide.

I disagree. The mere existence of a cultural or "racial" group does not justify its continued existence, and there is nothing special about these groups which requires special protection. Genocide itself is no worse than the strife and warfare which create it, and strife and warfare are natural and necessary parts of the human condition.

Besides, what good does this mechanism accomplish, when it is only used in the fashion that I have described? How is it inhibiting genocide in the Sudan, Rwanda, or Zimbabwe? What good will it do when the American death count in Iraq surpassed Saddam's?

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

Our President, and every U.S. citizen, MUST follow international laws.

No law is worth more than the ability to enforce it. Our President will never face trial for war crimes, and no US citizen will face trial for war crimes without our consent.

At least as far as the United States is concerned, "international law" is not worth the paper that it is printed upon.
 
Genocide itself is no worse than the strife and warfare which create it, and strife and warfare are natural and necessary parts of the human condition.
I disagree. Purposefully exterminating a people or a nation is well beyond the scope and bounds of modern warfare.

Besides, what good does this mechanism accomplish, when it is only used in the fashion that I have described? How is it inhibiting genocide in the Sudan, Rwanda, or Zimbabwe? What good will it do when the American death count in Iraq surpassed Saddam's?
It is of course impossible to determine genocidal actions that were averted simply because harsh consequences exist. If one embraced your position, one could also posit that laws against any felony are no more than contrivances because they do not totally inhibit criminal activity.
 
We won't see any prosecutions. War crimes prosecutions are for countries that lose wars on their home turf, and they're nothing more than a means for victorious countries to install more pliable governments once they're ready to withdraw.

Noone's going to win a war on American soil in the immediate future, and both Bush and Cheney are probably going to be dead in their graves before it ever happens.

You forget, the faction has lost a (political) war on home turf to internal political forces, and these forces may want them handed over.
Im not syaing its very likely. But it is possible.
I mean, if the republicans went after clinton for ****ing around, youd think that the clintons might want some pay back right? Just for one example.

Id like to see it happen. But I dont think obama's gona do it.
Ill tell u one thing tho. I want him to WAIT untill theyre ACTUALY out of office. Get them OUT OF POWER properly, and thenf eed them to the wolves.
Thats what id do.
 
Last edited:
Your post suggests an unfamiliarity with the facts.

Present your case without the typical piling on of the emotional, rhetorical useless BS that many zealots often do when trying to make their case, ok?

If you please, (and if you can) just include the kind of charges you'd anticipate and the example of how you think Bushco might have been guilty.

War crimes arent even nececary.
Just treason.
He lied to the american public to lead them to war.
Thats treason. Nuff said.
Death penalties all round.
 
Purposefully exterminating a people or a nation is well beyond the scope and bounds of modern warfare.

I'd argue that the scope and bounds of modern warfare are best determined by observing what occurs in modern warfare. Attempted genocide appears to be relatively common.

It is of course impossible to determine genocidal actions that were averted simply because harsh consequences exist. If one embraced your position, one could also posit that laws against any felony are no more than contrivances because they do not totally inhibit criminal activity.

It may be impossible to determine, but given the occurrences that we see and the way that they are conducted without so much as a slap on the wrist... I do not think that very many genocidal actions are prevented at all.

And I might point out that while laws against felonies are not 100% effective, at least they are enforced as something other than a matter of political expedience-- and sometimes, they are even enforced when it would be inconvenient to do so. This is certainly not the case with "war crimes".
 
I'd argue that the scope and bounds of modern warfare are best determined by observing what occurs in modern warfare. Attempted genocide appears to be relatively common.
I would suggest that you peruse the definition of genocide.

It may be impossible to determine, but given the occurrences that we see and the way that they are conducted without so much as a slap on the wrist...
I highly doubt these Rwandan generals consider their sentence a slap on the wrist...

http://www.debatepolitics.com/africa/41439-rwandan-genocide-jailing-hailed.html

And I might point out that while laws against felonies are not 100% effective, at least they are enforced as something other than a matter of political expedience--
I would point out that modern war crimes trials are prosecuted by the UN and are international in character.
 
Now don't go off in a huff.

The evidence is as I took pains to express, readily available and indeed it is up to you to avail yourself of the painfully abundant data.

Since you lump all religions together, you have made it clear that you are not yet ready to employ serious consideration of these issues. Perhaps some later maturity will incline you towards a study of the differences between for instance, Protestantism, which is generally not involved with decapitating hostages, and Militant Islam, which is.

I understand, we all have things that are fearful to face.

The course of wisdom though, is to allow the more courageous, and informed to deal with the more painful and difficult issues that civilization faces.

Please feel free to comment when you have addressed certain obvious and prominent vacuities in your awareness, where these issues are concerned.
Dude, you keep seeing things that aren't there and reading things I didn't post. I treat all religions the same. I don't buy into this bull**** about Islam being bad. And people that try to build a case against Islam, by saying it is a criminal religion that has to be stopped at all costs, are seriously mentally disturbed. Or they're the biggest *****'s on the planet. I don't fear Islam, I don't fear religions and I certainly don't fear you. I had to leave because I had **** to do.

I find your posts to be classic examples of arrogance and conceit. You think you know and I know you don't! You act like you do, but its just an act. You play this little word game of misdirecting the conversation to being about me. But it's not about me, it's about you and your reaction to me. Why do you feel the need to make stuff up? Why can't you just have a conversation? What are you afraid of? Oh, I remember, Islam.
 
Last edited:
Meh. The concept of "war crimes" was a farce when it was invented, and the first convictions and executions on the basis of "war crimes" were ex post facto. They are nothing more than an excuse for the winners of a war to execute the losers. Saddam Hussein would still be in power with full American support for his "crimes" if he had not threatened former President Bush's oil interests in Kuwait in 1991.

Call me un-American if you wish; frankly, I don't put much stock in being an American anymore. I am still here only because my family is here and because no other country will have me.

The President of the United States is responsible only to the citizens of the United States. While I would happily argue that he has failed spectacularly in his duties to his people, his failures are no more spectacular than former President Carter's. Neither gentleman has failed his country badly enough to deserve the indignity of a show trial followed by a summary execution, or worse, the humiliation of a life sentence in a foreign prison.
Your argument doesn't wash. Because the purpose of a war crimes trial is not to kill Iraqis. The purpose of the trial is because we killed Iraqis. So by your definition, if we are the winners, we'd be putting them (the losers) on trial. We're not. And if we ever did go to trial, it would be the winners who are charged. And the charges would be over torture, not genocide. Or do you think its okay to torture people?
 
Genocide itself is no worse than the strife and warfare which create it, and strife and warfare are natural and necessary parts of the human condition.
Dude, that's pretty hard core!
 
I treat all religions the same.
For what possible Earthly reason, since they are in fact not the same at all?

This is, to my mind, a very peculiar position indeed. To illustrate, I oppose slavery in all its forms. But I would not equate the practice of slavery in Virginia in 1850, with the practice of slavery in a Ancient Persia. I can opposes both institutions, but I would have certain problems in moral judgment if I held the same opinion of both.

Religions vastly differ from each other, and command different responses from the religious and the irreligious. And unless you are out of touch with objective reality, which hopefully you are not, you must know this.

You can even test your awareness. Which case in each of these pairs would surprise you more:
  1. a Catholic Cardinal calling for the eradication of a non-Catholic state, by violence if necessary.
  2. an Islamic Imam calling for the eradication of a non-Islamic state, by violence if necessary.
  1. a Jewish youth blowing himself up with an explosive belt in a crowded restaurant of Buddhists because he thinks this will get him into paradise.
  2. a Muslim youth blowing himself up with an explosive belt in a crowded restaurant of Hindus because he thinks this will get him into paradise.
  1. A Jehovah's Witness posting a video in which he slowly cuts off the head of a telephone repairman of foreign origin who came into his neighborhood.
  2. A Muhammadan posting a video in which he slowly cuts of the head off a telephone repairman of foreign origin who came into his neighborhood.
Feel free to keep the results of this little test private, it you don't wish to post the honest results.
I don't buy into this bull**** about Islam being bad. And people that try to build a case against Islam, by saying it is a criminal religion that has to be stopped at all costs, are seriously mentally disturbed. Or they're the biggest *****'s on the planet. I don't fear Islam, I don't fear religions and I certainly don't fear you. I had to leave because I had **** to do.
Again, your ecumenicism is is ill advised. As I have state before, it behooves you to make at least some small study of the tenants of mainstream and militant Islam, before declaring them harmless.

You assessment that people who disagree with you are mentally disturbed is an example of the typical leftist mindset that equates heightened emotion with rational argument.

I do agree that you should not fear me. I am the one trying to present to you a rational, knowledge based position. Reason is not to feared, nor are reasonable people. (In more enlightened times, they are to be emulated.)

I find it very difficult to make a rational response to a position based upon willful blindness. Traditional Islam is a threat to the precepts of Western Civilization. This is a simple fact, whether one has the courage to address the issue, or retreat into comforting denials.

The time may come in your lifetime when you'll have to take a stand and choose a side. It is interesting to wonder what you would do in such a situation.
I find your posts to be classic examples of arrogance and conceit. You think you know and I know you don't! You act like you do, but its just an act. You play this little word game of misdirecting the conversation to being about me. But it's not about me, it's about you and your reaction to me. Why do you feel the need to make stuff up? Why can't you just have a conversation? What are you afraid of? Oh, I remember, Islam.
Very, very good! Perhaps anger will motivate study. This could be a turning point.

I'm not actually terribly arrogant, but I am addressing facts, which are perhaps the most arrogant things in Creation. I do appreciate being thought of as a classic, however.

As for me "knowing," well to be frank, this is the state of mind one enters into when one has spent some time and effort learning facts. I advise everyone to try it.

To be perfectly honest, I have grown very tired of modern liberal thought that seem to believe that denial makes truth, emotional assertion makes fact, and a shallow pronouncement of moral relativism evokes a strong character.

Now once again, if you are serious about making relevant and well founded statements on subjects such as these, I direct you first to a study of the Koran and Hadith, and the principles of traditional Islam, and certainly the pronouncements of leading militant Muslim clerics which guide the Islamic faithful.

I would expect thatyou can direct your own studies, but I can provide an elementary reading list on request.
 
Last edited:
Information may flow freely, but were it absorbed freely, I expect that the general public in the West would be so terrified by what they learned of Militant Islam, that they might well laud Bush an Cheney as the heroes of the age, and demand greater military action.

That's exactly what Bush was hoping to accomplish... have you actually READ the bible (assuming that you are a believer in the bible)? I ask because Islam is comparable in terms of it's advocacy of violence by and for 'god'... while we individually are tolerant of other religions, the churches themselves are quite intolerant of other beliefs.

He's an idiot whose opinions should matter not to anyone who values American sovereignty and american Primacy.

I love how people just say 'oh that guys an idiot so his argument is irrelevant' and then will take that article in the future to call that position 'debunked'.

I think you are lying but if he did that-you would blame the shotgun.

Nah, I would only blame the shotgun if I pulled the trigger and it backfired (maybe my own stupidity for not checking it first). I personally believe that there are TOO MANY gun laws... and so what if people are out shooting each other... it's called 'natural selection' for a reason... if you decide to be in a gang you are naturally more likely to be selected to be shot.

Ad hominum's are one of the most favorite debating technique's at this website.

Especially when it comes to unpopular viewpoints... where unpopular might as well equal : stupid, un-american, tinfoil, etc.

You're post is foolishness, of course.

The information on the nature of Militant Islam is freely available. The serious student is advised to begin with a study of the Koran, Hadith and current popular movements in Traditional Islamic regimes, and to set aside the comfortable, and objectionable modern tendency amongst the fearful to invent imaginary evils instead of confronting actual ones.

Courage is essential to survival in a hostile world, after all. A few moments of honest reflection will reveal the wisdom of this fact to all but the most intransigently timid.

A Perusal of the history of Islamic conquest is from the Middle Ages forward is also not to be neglected.

Carry on.

Most major religions are similar in their stories and messages. and all seem to contain the same tales of 'God' on earth doing ungodly things.

Now, ignoring this is not the solution, and I'm not quite certain WHAT the solution IS, BUT you'd expect that for a country that calls itself 'civilized' that we'd be above the need for a new 'crusade'

Becoming a monster to kill a monster still leaves you with a monster.

Now don't go off in a huff.

The evidence is as I took pains to express, readily available and indeed it is up to you to avail yourself of the painfully abundant data.

Since you lump all religions together, you have made it clear that you are not yet ready to employ serious consideration of these issues. Perhaps some later maturity will incline you towards a study of the differences between for instance, Protestantism, which is generally not involved with decapitating hostages, and Militant Islam, which is.

It's not to lump all religions togethe, but to say that many religions carry many common threadx.
 
Back
Top Bottom