Sponsor Message:
Non Aviation Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Unacceptable For Muslims To Target US Civilians?  
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 54
Posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2423 times:

I do love a provocative topic. My own opinion is that killing is NEVER ACCEPTABLE, EVER. The death penalty, murder, war, it's all wrong.

But opinion makers and the general public, who aren't anti-death without exception, always say, it's unacceptable to target civilians. Now, if you're an Iraqi who's lost three kids and your wife and you want revenge, surely a British or American civilian is an acceptable target? Here's why: 1. Brits and Yanks vote (and god, don't we hear a lot about our democracy being so amazing). 2. Brits and Yanks pay tax. The bombs that killed my family (I'm an Iraqi, remember?) were paid for by those Brit and US civilians' taxes, and the gov't that attacked me were voted for.

I don't think an Iraqi under Saddam (or N Korean, Uzbekistani etc) can necessarily be held personally responsible for the acts of their leadership, cos they are not ruling by popular mandate. But Bush and Blair are. And while "the war" may not be universally popular, both were reelected after it started. So, how can the civilian populations in our great democracies be simultaneously responsible for the deaths in Iraq (650,000+) by voting again and again for the protaganists (and picking up the tab, with a third of our paychecks) and yet expect to remain immune from any possible consequence?

I look forward to your responses.


fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
25 replies: All unread, showing first 25:
 
User currently offlineMir From United States of America, joined Jan 2004, 21625 posts, RR: 55
Reply 1, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2413 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
Now, if you're an Iraqi who's lost three kids and your wife and you want revenge, surely a British or American civilian is an acceptable target?

No, because civilians are civilians. It's also unacceptable for an American who lost family members in the World Trade Center to exact revenge upon those in the Islamic world who were celebrating those attacks.

-Mir



7 billion, one nation, imagination...it's a beautiful day
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 2, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

You know, I was going to bother responding until I saw the OP use the BS 650,000+ figure.

Just keep on drinking the coolaid OP... keep drinking.

Anti death penalty, but pro killing civies...


User currently offlineMandala499 From Indonesia, joined Aug 2001, 6858 posts, RR: 75
Reply 3, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 2403 times:

Cedarjet,

Scary Poll Of American Muslims (by RJpieces Oct 30 2006 in Non Aviation)

Read question #26...

Quote:
26. Is violence by Muslims against American civilians acceptable, in retaliation for the American government’s actions in the Muslim world?
YES 23
NO 274
UNDECIDED 10

but that's the "views" of American Muslims... Iraqis? I dunno. Killing civilians is not the right thing anyways, regardless of one's faith. It is part if Islam that to kill an innocent life is wrong. Of course, the fanatics can put the argument that you put and use it to justify killing of US civilians... I doubt the majority would do it, and I don't see US civilians going round Baghdad killing Iraqi Muslims either...  Smile

Mandala499



When losing situational awareness, pray Cumulus Granitus isn't nearby !
User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 4, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 11 hours ago) and read 2359 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
My own opinion is that killing is NEVER ACCEPTABLE, EVER. The death penalty, murder, war, it's all wrong.

So, when someone like Hitler or Stalin (or Saddam Hussein) invades your country and kills your people, are you suggesting that the right thing to do is to lay down and die?

The left often complains that conservatives see everything in black and white and that they lack the subtlety to see things in between. You have just proved the opposite is true.

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
I don't think an Iraqi under Saddam (or N Korean, Uzbekistani etc) can necessarily be held personally responsible for the acts of their leadership, cos they are not ruling by popular mandate.

I'm afraid they are. Some Iraqis actively supported Saddam (you don't think he ruled all alone, do you?). The rest, even if they were a majority, tolerated him, and refused to fight for their own rights. You might say that they were afraid for their lives. But if the masses rise up and face their oppressors, history has proven that they can win if they want it bad enough. See the revolutions in Russia, France, and elsewhere.

But now, today, who are killing Iraqis? It's other Iraqis, and a few Jordanians and Saudis thrown in.


User currently offlineCharger From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 5, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2325 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
My own opinion is that killing is NEVER ACCEPTABLE, EVER. The death penalty, murder, war, it's all wrong.

So if someone broke into your home and raped and murdered your wife and children, you would rather see that person alive? I sure wouldn't. If I found him before the police he would be dead where he stands.

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
Brits and Yanks vote (and god, don't we hear a lot about our democracy being so amazing). 2. Brits and Yanks pay tax. The bombs that killed my family (I'm an Iraqi, remember?) were paid for by those Brit and US civilians' taxes, and the gov't that attacked me were voted for.

But here lies the problem. Not every American voted for Bush, I didn't (you really don't want to know my personal opinion of him) and not every Brit voted for Blair. And yes the bombs that are used in Iraq were paid for by taxes, but what can the average citizen do to stop it. All Governments worldwide are going to buy guns, bombs, tanks, planes, missles, etc. to protect themselves. It's a fact of life. It's how these items are used that needs to be scrutinized.


User currently offlineANCFlyer From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 6, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 2303 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
I look forward to your responses.

You sound like a true terrorist talking there Cedarjet . . .

Did it take you all night to come up with this question?

It wouldn't matter if there wasn't a single death attributable to the US or the UK.

Terrorist will be terrorist, Islamofascist will be Islamofascist, they hate the west for more reasons than a simple bomb or a tax $.


User currently offlineArsenal@LHR From United Kingdom, joined Mar 2001, 7792 posts, RR: 19
Reply 7, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 9 hours ago) and read 2288 times:
Support Airliners.net - become a First Class Member!

To answer the initial question, no, it is absolutely not acceptable for any muslim to take the life of another human being, it is the ultimate sin. The same goes for every religion.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
You sound like a true terrorist talking there Cedarjet .

Hardly. It is a perfectly legitimate question, history has shown us that when you enter other people's territory, they will react and they will fight back. It is basic human nature, no point in denying it. Put yourself in the shoes of a proud Iraqi, your country has just been invading by a hostile and aggressive foreign power. You feel threatened and in the process your family is wiped out by the invader, what are you going to do? You're going to resort to violence, rightly or wrongly. You're going to defend your homeland, your livelyhood, forget about the rhetoric that your occupier is here to bring you 'freedom and democracy'. How many Iraqi's had that mindset when their country was smashed into pieces by the Americans?

This is not limited to Iraq, if the Americans are foolish enough to invade Iran, the same bloodshed will be in store. If Colombia or Bangladesh was invaded by the US, a similiar scenario will unfold, but without the sectarian divide/violence. It really is surprising that people are suprised when individuals resort to violence and retaliation when their homeland is under threat, it is nothing new.



In Arsene we trust!!
User currently offlineThetuna From United Kingdom, joined Sep 2004, 140 posts, RR: 1
Reply 8, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2268 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
I don't think an Iraqi under Saddam (or N Korean, Uzbekistani etc) can necessarily be held personally responsible for the acts of their leadership, cos they are not ruling by popular mandate

The people hardly rule in the USA. High level's of office are reserved for the rich and powerful. Oligarchy Money=Power



He just ate the big one! Hog!...get away from that thing!! Just get away from it!
User currently offlineCedarjet From United Kingdom, joined May 1999, 8114 posts, RR: 54
Reply 9, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

OK, first of all, I want to restate one point. I am against the taking of human life. A good friend worked at the WTC and didn't make it out, so that opinion is not a vague sounds-good-to-me thought, I've seen "collateral damage" at close hand. The dude left behind a wife he'd been married to for 363 days, she stayed with my sister in the months afterward, one of the saddest things of 9/11 was seeing one of those old fashioned Nintendo palmtop computer games toys by her bed, which she would play all night cos she couldn't sleep. And just cos the victims - in this phase of The War - are all Iraqi, doesn't make each loss any less tragic. And the next 9/11 and the next 7/7 will bring us a whole boatload more grieving parents, widows, widowers, orphans, sisters, uncles, aunts, employees, bosses, brothers, friends, a.netters, in our own communities. And in no case is it anything other than a complete defeat of the human spirit, and we should all do every single thing we can to stop it happening, here, in Iraq, Afganistan, everywhere. I'm sorry to say I'm not doing much, other than the occasional belligerent post in non-av, and I suspect that's true for all of us. But cut the "you sound like a terrorist" shit, cos I don't. So.

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 2):
You know, I was going to bother responding until I saw the OP use the BS 650,000+ figure.

Ha. No-one thinks it's BS cos they seriously doubt the credibility of the figure, or the methodology used to acquire it. Indeed plenty of independent witnesses to the carnage say they think it sounds about right, based on the body counts they have witnessed themselves. No, people object to the number for one simple reason - it's a REALLY BIG NUMBER. (And they probably supported, or worse, still support, the war.)

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
So, when someone like Hitler or Stalin (or Saddam Hussein) invades your country and kills your people, are you suggesting that the right thing to do is to lay down and die?

You know, this is the one exception to the rule. A foreign army in my street are absolutely fair game. (Although I have to admit, I don't know what I would do to turn them around. If I throw a CD at someone in a flak jacket, will it sting a bit? Hmm.) But no, fighting to defend your own land against a clear and outside aggressor is entirely different.

Quoting Charger (Reply 5):
So if someone broke into your home and raped and murdered your wife and children, you would rather see that person alive? I sure wouldn't. If I found him before the police he would be dead where he stands.

I would fight to defend my family / friends, and not be too fussed about trying not to hurt the other guy too much. In fact given my poor self defence skills, I would have to try and kill them, I don't think I have the strength or finesse to know how to just wound someone. But I'm pretty sure that if the worst happened and I wasn't around at the time to try and intervene, I wouldn't be too interested in the criminal being killed. I mean, them dying doesn't make my loved ones any less dead, right?

Two different opinions here.

Quoting Charger (Reply 5):
yes the bombs that are used in Iraq were paid for by taxes, but what can the average citizen do to stop it.



Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
But if the masses rise up and face their oppressors, history has proven that they can win if they want it bad enough.

I think Cfalk is right, we do have it within our ability to change the direction of our governments, if the French, Iranians, Russians et al can do it, any of us can. I think the problem nowadays is a lack of interest, and that the victims of our foreign policies are too weak (with the very very rare - 9/11 - exception) to reach us. We are all targets because of the actions of our governments, but we're too strong and too distant for our enemies to actually land a punch, so while our consciences (mine anyway) are not clear, that alone is not enough for any of us to rise up and change things for the better, so that other innocent people in far off countries aren't bombed to death like Iraqis, Afgans, and the rest.

Next.



fly Saha Air 707s daily from Tehran's downtown Mehrabad to Mashhad, Kish Island and Ahwaz
User currently offlineOly720man From United Kingdom, joined May 2004, 6725 posts, RR: 11
Reply 10, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
both were reelected after it started

yep, but that's more a reflection on the respective alternatives than the war, per se.

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
it's unacceptable to target civilians

Doesn't the Geneva Convention state that as well?

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
Now, if you're an Iraqi who's lost three kids and your wife and you want revenge, surely a British or American civilian is an acceptable target?

Or a Sunni or a Shia or a Kurd, if they were the perpetrators?

And ultimately you end up like the balkans where past insults get passed through the generations and grudges last centuries.


If we took that attitude, there wouldn't be an EU, Japan wouldn't be the economic powerhouse that it is... Rwanda and Burundi would have wiped each other off the planet.... etc etc etc

Eye for an eye.... everyone goes blind, as someone once said.



wheat and dairy can screw up your brain
User currently offlineLowrider From United States of America, joined Jun 2004, 3220 posts, RR: 10
Reply 11, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 8 hours ago) and read 2256 times:

In response to the thread title, it is ALWAYS unacceptable to target any civilian.

You really want to convict the entire population of the US and GB because of the decisions of the leadership? You really want to take that train of logic to it's ultimate conclusion?



Proud OOTSK member
User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 12, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 7 hours ago) and read 2233 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 9):
No-one thinks it's BS cos they seriously doubt the credibility of the figure, or the methodology used to acquire it.

I do. In fact, there was a whole thread of people that do.

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 9):
No, people object to the number for one simple reason - it's a REALLY BIG NUMBER. (And they probably supported, or worse, still support, the war.)

Yeah, REALLY BIG!

In fact, so big, that it's multiples of any number generated by any other method.

That, and the people who put out this study admitted that their 2004 version of the study was politically motivated and intended to influence the elections.

Now, you might think that everyone else, using every other method just happened to be wrong by several hundred thousand.. But everyone else combines the admission of misconduct in the previous study with the margin of error of 500,000 dead and properly concludes that the study is inherently flawed and useless.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 13, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2210 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
My own opinion is that killing is NEVER ACCEPTABLE, EVER. The death penalty, murder, war, it's all wrong

I agree. For the New Testament readers killing is always wrong.

For the vast number of "Christians" in America that support the Iraq war; the rule against killing only applies to protecting Americans.

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
So, how can the civilian populations in our great democracies be simultaneously responsible for the deaths in Iraq (650,000+) by voting again and again for the protaganists (and picking up the tab, with a third of our paychecks) and yet expect to remain immune from any possible consequence?

They can't logically expect to reamin immune.

Killing civilians invites getting your own civilians killed.

The killing of Muslim civilians by America is at the heart of Islamic terrorism against America - starting decades before 9/11.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
So, when someone like Hitler or Stalin (or Saddam Hussein) invades your country and kills your people, are you suggesting that the right thing to do is to lay down and die?

That is definitely the implication of everything Jesus taught, which makes it so difficult.

Quoting ANCFlyer (Reply 6):
they hate the west for more reasons than a simple bomb or a tax $.

The vast majority of Muslims and Arabs are angry with America for policies in the ME that kill Muslims and Arabs; centered specifically on the Israeli / Palestinian conflict. *

The tiny tiny fraction of Muslims and Arabs (maybe 1000) are angry for the same reasons, but are so radical that they are ready to kill anyone and anything because of it, including other Muslims and Arabs. These guys are comparable to the small number of Americans who are ready to carpet bomb the Middle East with nuclear weapons.

It should be noted that the US has killed more civilians in Iraq than Islamic terrorists have killed ever anywhere.

Civilians are fully a target in modern warfare and no side does much to protect them.

Cairo

*
http://www.csmonitor.com/2004/1129/dailyUpdate.html


User currently offlineMDorBust From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 14, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2203 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 13):
It should be noted that the US has killed more civilians in Iraq than Islamic terrorists have killed ever anywhere.

I would suggest that Islamic terrorists have killed more civilians in Iraq than the US has.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 15, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2186 times:

Quoting MDorBust (Reply 14):
I would suggest that Islamic terrorists have killed more civilians in Iraq than the US has.

I admit you may have something of a point, but this is a bit tricky since calling partisans fighting in a civil war 'terrorists' is only what those who support the current in-power regime call them. Were the rebels/confederates in the US civil war terrorists?

Furthermore, isn't this Iraqis killing other Iraqis, which you label terrorism, only possible because of America? In a sense, isn't America responsible for these civliain deaths as well - since America tore down the previous police state that existed in Iraq?

In any event, domestic terrorism is quite different from foreign terrorism, so Iraqis killing Iraqis seems a matter for Iraqis. Let me restate my point: America has killed more civilians in Iraq than all of Islamic terrorism has killed of civilians anywhere in the non-Iraq world. America has killed 4 or 5 times as many civilians in Iraq as American civilians have been lost to terrorism.

Cairo


User currently offlineFalcon84 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 16, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 6 hours ago) and read 2180 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
My own opinion is that killing is NEVER ACCEPTABLE, EVER.

Oh yeah? What about some fool who threatens me or my family? If I would have to use lethal force to stop him/her, that isn't acceptable? I beg to differ.


User currently offlineCfalk From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 17, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2165 times:

Quoting Cairo (Reply 15):
I admit you may have something of a point, but this is a bit tricky since calling partisans fighting in a civil war 'terrorists' is only what those who support the current in-power regime call them. Were the rebels/confederates in the US civil war terrorists?

Last I checked, neither the Union nor the Confederacy used, as their principle tactic of choice, attacks on civilians. Opposing armies fought each other. THAT is what differentiates a soldier (even a rebel partisan) from a terrorist. But of course I know you will ever acknowledge that difference.


User currently offlineCairo From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR:
Reply 18, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 2153 times:

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 17):
Last I checked, neither the Union nor the Confederacy used, as their principle tactic of choice, attacks on civilians.

uhmmm...Did you hear that Atlanta was burned? that Jackson was burned? that cities in both the north and south which weren't burned were looted to nothingness? Civilians were targeted and paid a huge price in the Civil War...as they were targeted and have paid a huge price in every war America has fought.

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 17):
Opposing armies fought each other. THAT is what differentiates a soldier (even a rebel partisan) from a terrorist. But of course I know you will ever acknowledge that difference


There is only a difference when you are on the side that has the money, technology and resources to form a modern army. So, you're right on one count that we can agree upon: I will never acknowledge a soldier in uniform fighting in an army (for a cause he may or may not believe in) is any different to an unorganized individual fighting alone out of uniform for a cause he believes in - where both examples kill many civilians. My main point here is that US action in Iraq has caused more civilian deaths than the sum total of all Islamic terrorism anywhere.

If it wasn't wrong for the Americans in the US civil war to kill other Americans, please explain how its wrong for Iraqi civilians fighting in an Iraqi civil war to fight in their own country.

Cairo

[Edited 2006-10-31 03:29:29]

User currently offlinePPVRA From Brazil, joined Nov 2004, 8964 posts, RR: 39
Reply 19, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2124 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Reply 9):
I think Cfalk is right, we do have it within our ability to change the direction of our governments, if the French, Iranians, Russians et al can do it, any of us can. I think the problem nowadays is a lack of interest, and that the victims of our foreign policies are too weak (with the very very rare - 9/11 - exception) to reach us. We are all targets because of the actions of our governments, but we're too strong and too distant for our enemies to actually land a punch, so while our consciences (mine anyway) are not clear, that alone is not enough for any of us to rise up and change things for the better, so that other innocent people in far off countries aren't bombed to death like Iraqis, Afgans, and the rest.

But it seems the Iraqis, Afghans, and rest didn't care about changing their own governmets for the better, for their own good, with all the benefits it would bring - plus not being bombed by some foreign nation - so why, why didn't they do anything?

Could they have done anything? Maybe, but it looked unlikely. Not by themselves anyways.

So now they need to want something to improve (they sure do it seems), be able to (they sure can - still a difficult situation that seems to require big compromises, though), and be motivated to improve their lives.

I don't think any Iraqi likes the current state of afairs in their nation, and they want things to improve, therefore they must be motivated because they are now able to promote change. The only two things that spoil that motivation is bureocracy and corruption.

Cheers  Smile



"If goods do not cross borders, soldiers will" - Frederic Bastiat
User currently offline2112 From United States of America, joined Jul 2006, 12 posts, RR: 0
Reply 20, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 4 hours ago) and read 2113 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
Now, if you're an Iraqi who's lost three kids and your wife and you want revenge, surely a British or American civilian is an acceptable target? Here's why: 1. Brits and Yanks vote (and god, don't we hear a lot about our democracy being so amazing). 2. Brits and Yanks pay tax. The bombs that killed my family (I'm an Iraqi, remember?) were paid for by those Brit and US civilians' taxes, and the gov't that attacked me were voted for.

You are completely representative of the twisted kind of Muslim logic that portrays itself as 'mainstream'. The 650,000+ death toll seems highly suspect as it is and as of recently the majority of Iraqi civilian deaths have been caused by pure Muslim faction fighting...let's look at your assumptions a bit further, shall we?

Americans and British do elect representatives. These representatives then appropriate a certain portion of our tax dollars, as part of a budget, to purchase military hardware as has been done since been founded. So far, you are correct, but your history book now appears to have been censored by the local theocracy. You (and your fellow Muslims) then take a HUGE leap of faith to assume that the Americans and British purposely elect representatives whose purpose is to purchase hardware for the specific purpose of killing Iraqis; this would NEVER, EVER be the case. What we see now is largely Muslim killing Muslim, not in the name of driving out the 'infidels' but to determine which Muslim faction will take power. This could be considered a crude form of Democracy in terms of one party fighting another, except here in Western civilization, we do it in non-lethal ways....

You say that the govt that 'attacked me were voted for' yet you show the Union Jack as your flag. Were you bombed directly? Were you located in Iraq when these bombs were detonated? Did the RAF drop bombs on your house located in the UK? You, my friend, are full of shit. I can only assume that you are based in the UK and while your family may, or may not, have suffered (the West has already begun to take casualty statements from Muslims with a grain of salt...) the Americans and the Brits do NOT purposely target civilians.

You are out of line, as have been a few of your sympathizers on these boards, in regard to Muslim propaganda. The Western world is on to the bullshit that you, your Al-Jazeera and other propagandist outlets spew.

You don't like it? Move back to where you came from.

[Edit: Spelling, grammar]

[Edited 2006-10-31 04:54:55]

[Edited 2006-10-31 04:56:38]

User currently offlinePipo777 From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 188 posts, RR: 2
Reply 21, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 1 day 3 hours ago) and read 2106 times:

Why do some people, instead of answering the thread starter's question, create some completely unrelated scenarios to question his opinion??

Quoting Cfalk (Reply 4):
So, when someone like Hitler or Stalin (or Saddam Hussein) invades your country and kills your people, are you suggesting that the right thing to do is to lay down and die?

Don't worry buddy...the first two you mentioned are dead and Saddam is under control...so you don't have to worry about any invasions...

Quoting Charger (Reply 5):
So if someone broke into your home and raped and murdered your wife and children, you would rather see that person alive? I sure wouldn't. If I found him before the police he would be dead where he stands.

well, if you feel that is ok to kill someone as revenge...then there is something wrong with you...One thing is self-defense, revenge is another...and it's illegal

Quoting Falcon84 (Reply 16):
Oh yeah? What about some fool who threatens me or my family? If I would have to use lethal force to stop him/her, that isn't acceptable? I beg to differ.

Again, as Cedarjet said in reply 9, this is obviously an exception...defending your homeland and self-defense is a completely different situation...and I'm sure you know that...

Attacking the thread starter's opinion make some people here look really stupid...just my opinion


User currently offlineCharger From United States of America, joined Oct 2006, 273 posts, RR: 0
Reply 22, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 15 hours ago) and read 2066 times:

Quoting Pipo777 (Reply 21):
well, if you feel that is ok to kill someone as revenge...then there is something wrong with you...One thing is self-defense, revenge is another...and it's illegal

Never said it was legal. When you actually have to deal with that situation come back and talk to me and tell me how you truely feel. Scum who go out with nothing on their minds besides rape and murder deserve nothing less than a death sentence.

Here's a true story. My best friends wife was grabbed by two guys after her shift as a emergency room nurse at 1 am in the morning. She was forced into her car at knife point, driven 15 minutes to a secluded area and beaten to within a inch of her life. She was then repeatedly rapped and I won't go into the disgusting things that they did to her. One of the guys then took the knofe and sliced four deep cuts into her face and told her she was nothing more than a piece of property and they would be watching her. Then then took her jewelery, what ever money she had, and drove off in her car, leaving her there. Luckily she was found in time to save her life. She has had to undergo several surgeries and still faces plastic surgery to correct her face.
Both individuals were caught and are now sitting in a comfortable jail, where they have TV, computers, a library, a gym to work out in, and are being fed and housed by my tax dollars.
Then to boot, My friend was told that with good behavior and the possibility of early parole, one of them could be out in 7 years and the other in 9 years.
That's pretty fair isn't it?
Meanwhile, My friend had to undergo the pain of several major surgeries, still faces more surgery in the future, Had to sell their house because she was afraid they would come back, has not been able to return to work yet because she is petrified of being attacked again, and has to see a psychiatrist because she just can't cope with what happened.
So please tell me how these two individuals deserve the right to live.
Oh and by the way this isn't the first time they were charged with rape.


User currently offlinePipo777 From Venezuela, joined Jan 2005, 188 posts, RR: 2
Reply 23, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 9 hours ago) and read 2023 times:

Well, luckily, I've never been in a similar situation and I'm not really sure how I would exactly feel in the same situation...I would probably like to beat the living crap out the guy and hope he gets life in prison...like you said 7 years does not sound like a fair sentence but killing him wouldn't change my situation...

I'll stop here as this is getting off-topic...my reply was not intended to question your opinion, but to point out that your reply, as well as the others I mentioned, was just an attack of some else's opinion and not about the question posed at the start of the thread...


User currently offlineRAPCON From Puerto Rico, joined Jul 2006, 671 posts, RR: 0
Reply 24, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 6 hours ago) and read 1988 times:

Quoting Mir (Reply 1):
It's also unacceptable for an American who lost family members in the World Trade Center to exact revenge upon those in the Islamic world who were celebrating those attacks.

Try this on for size:

--On the morning of September 11, 2001, no muslim nation was under attack, of any form whatsoever, from any of the Christian nations on the face of the Earth.

--It therefore leads to the sole conclusion that it is was the muslims who started things.



MODS CAN'T STOP ME....THEY CAN ONLY HOPE TO CONTAIN ME!!!
User currently offlineCasInterest From United States of America, joined Feb 2005, 4618 posts, RR: 2
Reply 25, posted (7 years 10 months 3 weeks 2 hours ago) and read 1965 times:

Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):



Quoting Cedarjet (Thread starter):
Now, if you're an Iraqi who's lost three kids and your wife and you want revenge, surely a British or American civilian is an acceptable target? Here's why: 1. Brits and Yanks vote (and god, don't we hear a lot about our democracy being so amazing). 2. Brits and Yanks pay tax. The bombs that killed my family (I'm an Iraqi, remember?) were paid for by those Brit and US civilians' taxes, and the gov't that attacked me were voted for.

So why shouldn't Non Muslims be justified to kill all muslims since SOME Imans support the Jihad and death of Non Muslims?

if we are going to generalize, let's just make the point that any reason could be a good reason to kill, if you believe killing someone will accomplish your goal.


In the end we would have millions/billions dead, and still have the same problems. revenge, kill hate, kill, revenge, kill... Nice fun cycle.



Older than I just was ,and younger than I will soo be.
Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
My Contribution To The US Economy For 2004 posted Thu Dec 30 2004 04:47:20 by Whitehatter
Klinsmann To Become US Soccer Coach? posted Sun Oct 29 2006 15:33:32 by Columba
Help For Trip To Ireland posted Fri Oct 20 2006 00:52:51 by BMED
Easy For Me To Say posted Sat Oct 14 2006 04:01:54 by Allstarflyer
An Open Letter To Our US Members. posted Wed Oct 4 2006 20:36:17 by CHRISBA777ER
Abandoned Lebanese Pet To The US posted Sat Sep 23 2006 11:20:03 by OD720
It's Time For Clipper To Go posted Fri Sep 22 2006 16:59:35 by Dtwclipper
Al Qaeda And Allied Group To Target France posted Sun Sep 17 2006 21:22:02 by AerospaceFan
It's Time For Me To Stop Smoking posted Thu Sep 14 2006 19:08:01 by Cosec59
A Modest Proposal For Democrats To Consider posted Fri Jun 9 2006 00:29:46 by AerospaceFan