BMW M3 Forum (E90 E92)

BMW Garage BMW Meets Register Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read


Go Back   M3Post - BMW M3 Forum > BIMMERPOST Universal Forums > Off-Topic Discussions Board > Politics/Religion
 
GetBMWParts
Post Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
      05-30-2008, 03:39 PM   #23
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,974
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstClass View Post
They have human rights, but not legal ones. They don't fall under Geneva or US law so we can basically do whatever we damn well please with them. Not saying it's right, just saying it's legal.

That number is bullshit and we both know it. There aren't hundreds of thousands of deaths from collateral damage.

That's just stupid, much more than that might have happened if we hadn't tried to put an end to things. See what I did there? I made baseless hypothetical statements with no point just like you, avoid doing so again please.
THat is ONLY according to criminals like Bush and a few of his followers (like you)

1) By Rob Stein
Washington Post Staff Writer
Friday, October 29, 2004; Page A16

One of the first attempts to independently estimate the loss of civilian life from the Iraqi war has concluded that at least 100,000 Iraqi civilians may have died because of the U.S. invasion.

2)By Fred Kaplan
Posted Tuesday, Feb. 25, 2003
This report estimates that civilian casualties could total 500,000. Another much-cited public study, by the International Physicians for the Prevention of Nuclear War, cites a figure of up to 100,000.

3) http://www.un.org/apps/news/story.as...41&Cr=iraq&Cr1

Over 34,000 civilians killed in Iraq in 2006, says UN report on rights violations
IN ONE YEAR!!!

I don't even want to talk about displaced people and so on...
Appreciate 0
      05-30-2008, 03:41 PM   #24
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,974
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by FirstClass View Post
Your logical fallacies are strikingly similar to other people around here. "Refuting" a point isn't restating your original point.

Or maybe five times as many people would be dead because of a weak/let's talk about this response to 9/11. The way you are reasoning my point is equally valid.
Didn't I show you many times that you DO NOT understand that LSAT theory you're constantly trying to apply here.
You do not understand the meaning of the fallacies you try to point out...
Appreciate 0
      05-30-2008, 03:42 PM   #25
Negotiator
Lieutenant
Negotiator's Avatar
Ukraine
9
Rep
539
Posts

 
Drives: 07 GTI
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fairfax, VA

iTrader: (0)

Islam definately does permit killing non-muslims, in cases where they don't convert or refuse to pay a religious tax. Also, Al-Quada has a universal goal that supercedes any other as they are means to get its target - Shariah, and the resurrection of the Persian empire.

Civilized countries do not negotiate with terrorists, and never should. Either persuade them, or eradicate them.
Appreciate 0
      05-30-2008, 06:06 PM   #26
ganeil
Colonel
ganeil's Avatar
United_States
35
Rep
2,050
Posts

 
Drives: 328i Coupe
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Georgia

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by hks786 View Post
That's what intel is for. Now we know what intel we used to go to Iraq with. We also have statements from people who worked within the Admin like Scott McClellan who tell a very interesting story about the events leading up to the war. Let's not forget Powell warned Bush for 2.5 hours but he refused to listen and decided to march on with the Iraq war.
Intel is about making an assessment based on the available information. It is not about being psychic.

Quote:
Yes "even if". Not everyone believes 9/11 happened the way the US govt told us. Their are a lot of debates about the evidence and I'm not gonna make any decision because I know how easy cover-ups can happen. Look at what happened in Iraq. No WMD's...

The tea joke was just stupid. Killing terrorists isnt working, but who said anything about going to the other extreme of being nice to them? There's nothing wrong with embracing politics and dialogue. Infact, it's sensible. Doesnt mean we're doing any ass licking.
A lot of people believe a lot of stupid things with no grounding in reality but the fact that a lot of people believe it doesn't make it less stupid.

Killing terrorists IS working. You can see that because they are dead. A dead terrorist is no longer able to commit any more terrorist attacks.


Quote:
That's just stupid. What about July 7 2005 in London? It might not have happened if it wasnt for the Iraq war. What about the Madrid bombings in 2004? That's already a total of 243 people DEAD and 2455 people INJURED.

What about all the plots that have been uncovered and police have put a stop to? What about all the hatred that has increased? These deaths and injuries could have been avoided and that NOT including the hundreds of thousands DEAD in Iraq. Some of them are our own troops.

Here's a picture that shows the countries in which terrorism on/after september 11th has occured:
What abject nonsense. 9/11 happened before Iraq, the African embassy bombings happened before 9/11, al Qaeda planned to bomb the Strasbourg cathedral before Iraq.

How about a map showing the countries attacked before Iraq?

Quote:
Then why have other's been convicted? Remember Richard Reid the shoe bomber? he is serving life in the US after his trial back in 2003. Also consider a UK national from Guantanamo Bay who has just been charged today:
They are not entitled to a trial, if they committed a specific crime other than being a combatant, there is no prohibition on trying them
__________________
_____________

1974 2002tii
1978 320i
2007 328i
Appreciate 0
      05-30-2008, 06:10 PM   #27
dr335is
Brigadier General
54
Rep
4,974
Posts

 
Drives: Some Mazda junk...
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Dallas, TX

iTrader: (4)

Quote:
Originally Posted by ganeil View Post

They are not entitled to a trial, if they committed a specific crime other than being a combatant, there is no prohibition on trying them
WHy did we try the marines that brutally murdered the civilians in Iraq? THey are War Criminals according to Geneva Convention...
How about the guy that (knowlingly) used the "wrong" intel to distroy the whole country and murder many... Does he deserve a trial or just say -- well, bad luck, it was just the bad intel...at least we got SH...
Appreciate 0
      05-30-2008, 08:03 PM   #28
caudalM3
New Member
United_States
0
Rep
24
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 AW M3 6MT
Join Date: May 2008
Location: PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
Islam definately does permit killing non-muslims, in cases where they don't convert or refuse to pay a religious tax. Also, Al-Quada has a universal goal that supercedes any other as they are means to get its target - Shariah, and the resurrection of the Persian empire.

Civilized countries do not negotiate with terrorists, and never should. Either persuade them, or eradicate them.
You have to read a post like this and just laugh.

His first paragraph seems to complain that islam is bad because they allow killing of people who do not convert to their belief system.

In his second paragraph he says that if terrorists don't convert to his/'civilized' belief system then they should be 'eradicated'.

Don't contradict yourself in the very same post, thats just plain stupidity.

BTW, the persian empire (I-II-III) was a Zoroastrian empire which pre-dated and ended before Islam's existance by MANY MANY years I doubt Al-quaidas goal is to resurrect the Persian Empire.

You've been watching 300 a few too many times lol.
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2008, 12:53 AM   #29
Negotiator
Lieutenant
Negotiator's Avatar
Ukraine
9
Rep
539
Posts

 
Drives: 07 GTI
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Fairfax, VA

iTrader: (0)

Your comprehension level is not up to par. Terrorist by definition is not a civilian bystander with opposing views, but someone who kills them. And yes, if someone falls under that definition, they shouldn't live. Thanks for pointing out the "contradiction"....

Al-quada's goal is to resurrect the Persian empire under shariah, which is what I said. Shariah is a form of governance, so it can apply to a community as well as a global superpower - in this case their goal is to unite the territories formerly held by the persians under such governance.

And yes, I have watched 300 many times, it's one of my favorite movies - yet it doesn't relate in any way to the current discussion.
Appreciate 0
      05-31-2008, 09:01 AM   #30
caudalM3
New Member
United_States
0
Rep
24
Posts

 
Drives: 2008 AW M3 6MT
Join Date: May 2008
Location: PA

iTrader: (0)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
Your comprehension level is not up to par. Terrorist by definition is not a civilian bystander with opposing views, but someone who kills them. And yes, if someone falls under that definition, they shouldn't live. Thanks for pointing out the "contradiction"....
And with that you've now put yourself on a equivalent moral level as your enemy and now its a 50-50 fight and you've just given up a major point of advantage over your enemy.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
Al-quada's goal is to resurrect the Persian empire under shariah, which is what I said. Shariah is a form of governance, so it can apply to a community as well as a global superpower - in this case their goal is to unite the territories formerly held by the persians under such governance.
So let me get this straight, Al-Quada which is an Arabic group wants to create an empire for the Persians (Iranians) and have them run it but instead under shariah law which Persians for the most part denounce?

I've never in my life read about a group of people who wanted to create an empire for another ethnicity/nation/group, and make it based on a rules system that the other ethnicity doesn't subscribe to.

You do realize that in history there was an Islamic empire which was larger then the Persian empire with influence over a larger demographic of people.
Why wouldn't they resurrect their own Arab/Islamic empire instead of create an empire for a different group of people?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Negotiator View Post
And yes, I have watched 300 many times, it's one of my favorite movies - yet it doesn't relate in any way to the current discussion.
It seems the only empire you know that existed in the middle east was the Persian empire, so I think you need to stop watching 300, and start reading some books written by historians. There have been quite a few empires in the region which have Arab/Islamic connections to them, so theres lots of empires for Al-Quaida to choose from, it wouldn't really make sense for them to choose the persian one. I would also urge you to read what the Bible has to say about the persian empire, i'm sure it goes against Al-Quaida's policies.

You should probably also read some of Al-quaida's statements, i've never read a word mentioning the re-creation of an empire or taking over anything other then Saudi Arabia (which they state is a reclammation).

Read a little and come back to debate, right now your arguments sound like a lunatic's.

You can't defeat the enemy wth rhetoric and lies. All that happens is you get labelled a lunatic and a liar. Look at how strong Bush started and now where he stands. You want to win a long war, do it the right way, keep your head straight, stick to the facts.
Appreciate 0
Post Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 07:37 PM.




m3post
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.7.0
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
1Addicts.com, BIMMERPOST.com, E90Post.com, F30Post.com, M3Post.com, ZPost.com, 5Post.com, 6Post.com, 7Post.com, XBimmers.com logo and trademark are properties of BIMMERPOST