So with your formula Abu gharib = wrong abugharib soldiers = wrong person who put abu gharib ppl there = bush wrong = bush soldiers = punished = bush?
Abu Gharab was not wrong, it was a prison, but the actions of the soldiers in the prison was wrong, and they should be reprimended. Adeel, you have a huge problem with equating apples to apples, you make massive leaps of faith in trying to support weak arguments. Apples to apples....... DD
Name any major war without any civilian casualty. It's a big difference between avoiding collateral damage and targeting civilian lives. It's always a tough war to fight when your opponents hide out among civilians. Just a thought. What would you do to end this Israelis Palestinian conflict, if you were an Israelis Jew?
Abu Gharab WAS WRONG!!! putting people in Jail without a trial or any justice is wrong!!....there are innocent people in there as well...it's scary how you just pick people of the streets now and label the dude a terrorist.... this is the justice system? democracy? ....you think this will NOT raise hatred ?.....how is this possibly justified....it's BIG BROTHER.....just because its not happening to you...its easy to look the other way....and too bad becaue in a couple years that's gonna be the case since most of society is more concerned about Beniffer and Mickey Mouse than reality and finding out the truth...anyways i'm off topic......Abu Gharab is just an example of what is wrong.
Vince, Make any leaps lately? Not everyone in the prison deserved to be in there but a lot of them did belong. Most were thrown in for breaking curfew or suspicious activity. DD
Provided you are willing to extend that rule unanimously, I will agree with you. If you were willing to let Canada fire a missile into Montana to take out Theodore Kaczynski (the Unabomber) prior to us catching him, then I will support what Israel did in Syria.
Kaczynski is in jail. The terrorist that was killed was running around freely, and one could probably argue that he even had the support of the country that let him walk around freely.
If you reread my post, you will see that my example takes place prior to us catching Kaczynski. In terms of Syria supporting the terrorist, that is beside the point. If the premise is that there are no borders when it comes down to taking out terrorists, then the question of who supports and is against terrorists is immaterial. If you fit the definition of a terrorist, you are fair game.
No, it is not beside the point. The difference is that you have one country that is actively hunting the terrorist itself (US vs. Kaczynski) while the other one is not hunting the terrorist, but probably even providing infrastructure for it. The premise is not that there are no borders when it comes to taking out terrorists, but, to be precise, the premise was here obviously that there are no borders when one government provides a safe haven from which terrorists operate to destroy your country. Big difference, even though, depending on the way the terrorist is "taken out" (no harm, not even potential harm to civilians), I personally would not have a problem with the premise you quote either, in evident cases (such as Osama hiding in Afghanistan under a Taliban regime - who cares that they are a different country, if they, instead of pursuing him, provide a safe haven, you go there to get him)). Maybe your viewpoint is skewed since you are a Muslim who seemed to have agreed with some of the fundamentalist propaganda Sane and adeelsiddiqui have posted and seem to be against Israel per se.
You could have left this last bit out, SJC, in my opinion. It's the old, "Lumping folks together" thing. We do it too often here. It certainly happens to me often enough. Good discussion, otherwise. Keep D&D Civil!!
Perhaps, but it does add context to people's posts, who might not otherwise know the background or history of said poster. But probably best left out. DD
Wow. I didn't know you knew me so well. That last post perfectly exemplified what is wrong with stereotyping people. Never have I said in any post on the BBS that I was a Muslim. Yet, because I have CLARIFIED some things (I have never agreed with or even qualified anything fundamentalist that Sane or addelsiddiqui have stated) about what Muslims believe, you automatically assume that I am a Muslim that supports fundamentalist propaganda. As far as you know, I could be a Baptist from Alabama that takes an interest in comparative religion. Do not label me if you do not know me. As far as being against Israel, I am not as much against Israel as much as their policies. However, if you have noticed, never have I made any statement on Israel without backing it up with concrete facts and numbers. Unlike a lot of people on this BBS, I do not post on sentiment. Nor have I ever made a single statement on this BBS supporting the Palestinians or anyone else that is an enemy of Israel. I have spoken against Israel based on Israel's actions and I have supported those statements with facts. But once again, since I have the audacity to speak out against Israel using facts, I must be a fundamental Muslim, right ? Because speaking out against Israel is speaking out against all that is good and just in this world. Additionally, clarifying parts of the Islamic faith that some people might be oblivious to equates to skewed judgment and blatant fundamentalism. I would make a judgment on who and what you are, but I'll take the higher road and give you the benefit of the doubt.
Aggie, I don't know you at all, but I seem to recall you stating in a previous thread about religion that you are a follower of the Muslim faith. Is this incorrect? DD
I already said that I probably should have left it out. I have read enough of your posts, though, that I still feel that my assessment was at least not far off, and your last post does nothing to change that perception.
Actually, it is not incorrect. I am a Muslim and I try my best to be a devout Muslim. However, I do not think that I have ever stated that in a post. In my opinion, I should be able to have an objective opinion and my religion should not play a role in skewing that opinion. How objective I am is best left to be judged by others, but I personally do not feel that I let my faith bias my opinions. I do not support Israeli policy. But I can assure you that the reason for that is not because I am Muslim, but rather because of the policies themselves. Israel is a nation, not a religion. In my book, opposing Israeli policy is no different than opposing the policies of any other country of the world. Many of my Muslim friends oppose the war in Iraq because they equate the war in Iraq to being anti-Muslim. I think that is ridiculous. By that same token, people who deem that opposing the policies of Israel equates to be a fundamentalism is equally ridiculous. Killing people is wrong regardless of who they are. A non-Muslim life is worth just as much as a Muslim life in my book. A Israeli life is worth just as much as a Palestinian life. We should be able to have academic discussions without resorting to labeling one another.
