Nelson Mandela facts you won't hear from the Mainstream Press

[Drummond]

Hip, hip, hooray. fj is convinced he has destroyed someone. Sounding more like Obama every day.

Tiresome in the extreme, Aboutime.

I expect, when I have more time tomorrow, I'll come back to this. But I'm fascinated by FJ's tactic of rubbishing something said, just because it's said often ! Almost as if a truth, in FJ's world, cannot remain one, or loses worth as one, if somebody repeats it !!!!

I suppose it makes a sort of 'sense', though ... because it's within a climate of 'truth malleability' that the Left can most successfully push their own propaganda.

Ho-hum ...

[fj1200]

Tiresome in the extreme, Aboutime.

I expect, when I have more time tomorrow, I'll come back to this. But I'm fascinated by FJ's tactic of rubbishing something said, just because it's said often ! Almost as if a truth, in FJ's world, cannot remain one, or loses worth as one, if somebody repeats it !!!!

I suppose it makes a sort of 'sense', though ... because it's within a climate of 'truth malleability' that the Left can most successfully push their own propaganda.

Ho-hum ...

No, something is rubbish because it's trash. ;) Just as is your propaganda.

[Drummond]

No, something is rubbish because it's trash. ;) Just as is your propaganda.

Typical of a Leftie - confusing truth with propaganda.

And your just declaring something to be 'trash' doesn't make it so ... Leftie !

[Drummond]

Seems I have to repeat myself, in order to get the proper message across. I'll try a bigger font, too .. in case it helps ... and how about a more attention-catching colour, too .. ??


I assert that terrorists are subhuman - that their thoughts and actions prove it. Other than basically saying 'I don't agree', and 'If they possess human DNA, then they must be human beings', you've neither said nor done anything to usefully counter my assertion.

For all your blather ... EVEN an outrageous claim to have 'destroyed' my 'argument' ... my statement remains correct.


:facepalm99: I have utterly destroyed your argument and you seek to cover your failure in loads upon loads of more rehashing your tired hatred.

Translation of your comment: since countering the argument put has proven impossible, I'll just do the Leftie thing, and claim victory ANYWAY !!

I know you'll just reply with more evasion, of whatever precise type, FJ. But, probably uselessly, I'll try this challenge AGAIN:

YOU SAY TERRORISTS ARE HUMAN. SO, PROVE TO US THAT THEY ARE.

This, I'm afraid, will mean that you can't use your 'they have human DNA, so there's your proof' argument. I've asserted time and again, with some painfully obvious examples, that samples of DNA, though 'human', nonetheless do not constitute a human being !!!

So you'll have to find another way of proving your case. Without rubbishing me, without demonising my comments, without rewriting my posts, or going in for your ridiculous crossings-out. JUST PROVE YOUR CASE.


Besides, nobody is telling you what to think; I am merely telling you that what you think is wrong. There is a difference there but undoubtedly you don't understand that either. Perhaps I'll make it easier for you to answer the question; are the mentally handicapped subhuman? Your definition requires you to accept or to reject it. At least now you don't have to put a number on it.

Sheer desperation. How many times have you required me to 'own' the 'mentally handicapped' point you keep on trying to resurrect, when I've made it extremely clear that I do not consider the mentally handicapped to be subhuman ?? A mentally handicapped person can be full of a capacity for humanity, therefore, the status 'human being' is proven.

THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR A TERRORIST.

No, FJ. Just prove your case. TRY. Without demonisations and the like.

I say you can't do it. Prove me wrong if you can.

[Drummond]

Define 'terrorists'.

I think this covers it quite well:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism


The unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.


I believe 'acceptable' anything is subject to the alternatives. If I wanted the best deal on a while supplies last item and killed just to save money, even one death is unacceptable. A tv or even a new house is something which one can go without, albeit one may suffer some grievance but such would be petty compared to the suffered grievance of even one life lost. The same couldn't be said for pursuit of freedom.

Interesting observations.

OK, even one death is unacceptable ? In that case, yours should be a zero tolerance to any terrorism. I look forward to seeing proof of same in your future posts !

You value the pursuit of freedom highly ? Fine. Then, how about .. the freedom to live WITHOUT there being any threat to life or limb, from terrorists and their terrorist acts ?? And if that seems reasonable to you, then I'm afraid you're in the position of being opposed to any terrorism that Mandela and/or his ANC thugs got up to.


I don't believe there is any rate greater than zero that would be acceptable under any and all circumstances

Then you must agree with my above statement !!!


.. but surely a lesser rate is more acceptable.

Now, I'm not following. How can you assert this without defying what you posted before ??


Thus, comparing the rate between India and SA, the lesser death toll is more acceptable. Unless you believe that more lives lost can be preferred over less, I fail to understand the pragmatism of your position--that all acts that affect terror are unjustifiable-- however principled you believe it to be.

... ditto ...


Again, subject to the alternative of what, exactly, ie living under an institution of oppression? No. I'd accept such as necessary to overcome an immoral institution

This is a further erosion of the case you've already made. Let me repeat your point about 'acceptable' kill rates from terrorism:


I don't believe there is any rate greater than zero that would be acceptable under any and all circumstances

Seems to me that your only opt-out is to say that terrorism must always be non-lethal. A nice, but rather impractical, proposition .. bombs and bullets DO kill, you know ...


Defeating the third reich is a goal worthy of lives, even those of innocents, lost to achieve. What was the goal of OBL... A return to a stone-age theocracy? Not worth it by a long-shot.


Terrorism...like say, Dresden.

I don't see how you can have it both ways !!!!

Check this out:

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

This link begins with the title:

'Bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Other Cities'


Dresden was FAR from the only city bombed !! The link gives accounts of several German cities which were also bombed. As for WHY ... NOTE THIS:


Documents dated 4 Feb revealed that RAF bombing priority list were, in specific order:

Cities with oil production facilities, such as Politz, Ruhland, and Vienna
Cities that were considered transportation hubs or with considerable industrial facilities, such as Berlin and Dresden.
Cities with factories capable of producing tanks, self-propelled guns, and jet engines.

Also a quote:


The civilian deaths at Dresden would be used by two political machines as propaganda. First, the Nazi Propaganda Ministry would attempt to use this to stir public resentment against the Allied invaders. Then during the Cold War, Soviet propaganda would describe this bombing as western cruelty, alienating the East Germans with the British and Americans.

Granted, it also goes on to say that Churchill himself had belated misgivings. Nonetheless, Logroller ... it is the case that any misgivings you yourself harbour about the Dresden bombings were FIRST seized upon by the Nazis and the Soviets, for their own pernicious propaganda campaigns.


Overcoming an oppressive regime with a minimal loss of life seems an acceptable course.

Again, you defy your own earlier position, Logroller.

Are you saying that you were wrong to assert ...


I don't believe there is any rate greater than zero that would be acceptable under any and all circumstances

'ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES'. Do you mean that, OR NOT ?

[fj1200]

Typical of a Leftie - confusing truth with propaganda.

And your just declaring something to be 'trash' doesn't make it so ... Leftie !

The fact that it is trash makes it so. And I'd say your use of language adequately fills the definition of propaganda (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda):

: ideas or statements that are often false or exaggerated and that are spread in order to help a cause, a political leader, a government, etc.

It sums up your big government ideas rather well. That and having to go to your leftie crutch which you can't prove. :laugh: Propaganda boy. ;)


Seems I have to repeat myself, in order to get the proper message across. I'll try a bigger font, too .. in case it helps ... and how about a more attention-catching colour, too .. ??

It just makes you seem desperate. Oliver says, "my logic is a failure so yelling and changing colors to match my rage will make it a better argument." :laugh:


For all your blather ... EVEN an outrageous claim to have 'destroyed' my 'argument' ... my statement remains correct.

There is nothing correct about your statement. You won't even back your own definition.


Translation of your comment: since countering the argument put has proven impossible, I'll just do the Leftie thing, and claim victory ANYWAY !!

I know you'll just reply with more evasion, of whatever precise type, FJ. But, probably uselessly, I'll try this challenge AGAIN:

YOU SAY TERRORISTS ARE HUMAN. SO, PROVE TO US THAT THEY ARE.

This, I'm afraid, will mean that you can't use your 'they have human DNA, so there's your proof' argument. I've asserted time and again, with some painfully obvious examples, that samples of DNA, though 'human', nonetheless do not constitute a human being !!!

So you'll have to find another way of proving your case. Without rubbishing me, without demonising my comments, without rewriting my posts, or going in for your ridiculous crossings-out. JUST PROVE YOUR CASE.

I have proved it. Again and again. Truth, fact, logic, and reason all say you have no case other than hatred. Your position isn't even a winning position in the real world; your position has been rejected, except by despotic dictators, and we've not been inundated with an upsurge of terrorist activity. Terrorists, as much as they suck, are human.

And LOL at you telling me what I can't use. :laugh:


Sheer desperation. How many times have you required me to 'own' the 'mentally handicapped' point you keep on trying to resurrect, when I've made it extremely clear that I do not consider the mentally handicapped to be subhuman ?? A mentally handicapped person can be full of a capacity for humanity, therefore, the status 'human being' is proven.

THE SAME CANNOT BE SAID FOR A TERRORIST.

No, FJ. Just prove your case. TRY. Without demonisations and the like.

I say you can't do it. Prove me wrong if you can.

The last time you laid out your position I took it apart, without "demonization" BTW, and you proceeded to fall back on your crutches; your leftie blather and previously failed Sullivan ties which are utterly useless other than to try and divert from the failure of your logic.

Now that you've rejected the definition that you proffered as some sort of "proof" then the only honorable thing you can do is abandon the rest of it. I'll even make my offer again of accepting your surrender quietly with no comment by me; it's the honorable, conservative thing to do so you can be assured that I'll stand by it. :)

[aboutime]

I think this covers it quite well:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism





Interesting observations.

OK, even one death is unacceptable ? In that case, yours should be a zero tolerance to any terrorism. I look forward to seeing proof of same in your future posts !

You value the pursuit of freedom highly ? Fine. Then, how about .. the freedom to live WITHOUT there being any threat to life or limb, from terrorists and their terrorist acts ?? And if that seems reasonable to you, then I'm afraid you're in the position of being opposed to any terrorism that Mandela and/or his ANC thugs got up to.



Then you must agree with my above statement !!!



Now, I'm not following. How can you assert this without defying what you posted before ??



... ditto ...



This is a further erosion of the case you've already made. Let me repeat your point about 'acceptable' kill rates from terrorism:



Seems to me that your only opt-out is to say that terrorism must always be non-lethal. A nice, but rather impractical, proposition .. bombs and bullets DO kill, you know ...





I don't see how you can have it both ways !!!!

Check this out:

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

This link begins with the title:

'Bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Other Cities'


Dresden was FAR from the only city bombed !! The link gives accounts of several German cities which were also bombed. As for WHY ... NOTE THIS:

Also a quote:



Granted, it also goes on to say that Churchill himself had belated misgivings. Nonetheless, Logroller ... it is the case that any misgivings you yourself harbour about the Dresden bombings were FIRST seized upon by the Nazis and the Soviets, for their own pernicious propaganda campaigns.



Again, you defy your own earlier position, Logroller.

Are you saying that you were wrong to assert ...



'ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES'. Do you mean that, OR NOT ?




Sir Drummond. Are you familiar with an American expression called "Bottom feeders"?

It seems your continued, seemingly endless exercise of futility with fj, and log is a sign of our Mississippi river bottom feeder Cat Fish who must suck everything down until they are bloated.
THEY BOTH HAVE WON the competition.

[Drummond]

The fact that it is trash makes it so. And I'd say your use of language adequately fills the definition of propaganda (http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/propaganda):


It sums up your big government ideas rather well. That and having to go to your leftie crutch which you can't prove. :laugh: Propaganda boy. ;)



It just makes you seem desperate. Oliver says, "my logic is a failure so yelling and changing colors to match my rage will make it a better argument." :laugh:



There is nothing correct about your statement. You won't even back your own definition.



I have proved it. Again and again. Truth, fact, logic, and reason all say you have no case other than hatred. Your position isn't even a winning position in the real world; your position has been rejected, except by despotic dictators, and we've not been inundated with an upsurge of terrorist activity. Terrorists, as much as they suck, are human.

And LOL at you telling me what I can't use. :laugh:



The last time you laid out your position I took it apart, without "demonization" BTW, and you proceeded to fall back on your crutches; your leftie blather and previously failed Sullivan ties which are utterly useless other than to try and divert from the failure of your logic.

Now that you've rejected the definition that you proffered as some sort of "proof" then the only honorable thing you can do is abandon the rest of it. I'll even make my offer again of accepting your surrender quietly with no comment by me; it's the honorable, conservative thing to do so you can be assured that I'll stand by it. :)

All of this blather from you, FJ, adds up to one thing.

COP OUT.

You've been directly challenged to prove that terrorists are human, and you've prattled and squirmed your way out of it. The only so-called 'proof' you offered before was that terrorists carry human DNA .. but, as I've illustrated in several different ways, just possessing human DNA does not prove that the entity, thing, call-it-what-you-will, is OF ITSELF, human.

In my last post, I sought to have you prove that terrorists were human by means other than your ONE DISCREDITED way. AND YOU CANNOT DO IT. You tried to cover for this, with ...


And LOL at you telling me what I can't use.

So, you had just the ONE 'way' to make your case. ONE ONLY.

You'll never admit how very weak your case is .. not outright ... so, you just went ahead and launched into a diversionary attack, instead.

You do not debate either fairly or honestly. And so, I'm done with you.

[Drummond]

Sir Drummond. Are you familiar with an American expression called "Bottom feeders"?

It seems your continued, seemingly endless exercise of futility with fj, and log is a sign of our Mississippi river bottom feeder Cat Fish who must suck everything down until they are bloated.
THEY BOTH HAVE WON the competition.

Nicely put. I cannot agree more, Aboutime. Especially about the futility involved.

Ultimately, I don't care. Anyone trawling through the debate (if it can be called that) can make up their own minds as to who has the better case, and who has been more honest and straightforward a contributor. My various comments stand on their - not inconsiderable - merits.

[fj1200]

All of this blather from you, FJ, adds up to one thing.

COP OUT.

Funny, I was going to say the same thing about all the arguments that you have been avoiding; Should I recount them? How about just this one; your abhorrent view has been rejected along with your opinion that we don't "fully understand" the enemy yet we've not been overrun by terrorists. Mags pwns you.


You've been directly challenged to prove that terrorists are human, and you've prattled and squirmed your way out of it. The only so-called 'proof' you offered before was that terrorists carry human DNA .. but, as I've illustrated in several different ways, just possessing human DNA does not prove that the entity, thing, call-it-what-you-will, is OF ITSELF, human.

In my last post, I sought to have you prove that terrorists were human by means other than your ONE DISCREDITED way. AND YOU CANNOT DO IT. You tried to cover for this, with ...

:laugh: Still can't get over the drubbing you took back on page 12 can you? How about bringing up your leftie crutch again along with the shame I put on you regarding your Sullivan characterization; remember your outright lie on that one that I proved? Good times, good times...


So, you had just the ONE 'way' to make your case. ONE ONLY.

You'll never admit how very weak your case is .. not outright ... so, you just went ahead and launched into a diversionary attack, instead.

You do not debate either fairly or honestly. And so, I'm done with you.

The war can be one without your disgusting views, that is what you can't get over. DNA fact that an individual is human is fact; every argument within you is based on subjective determination that when push comes to shove you are unable/unwilling? ;) to put a number on.


Nicely put. I cannot agree more, Aboutime. Especially about the futility involved.

Ultimately, I don't care. Anyone trawling through the debate (if it can be called that) can make up their own minds as to who has the better case, and who has been more honest and straightforward a contributor. My various comments stand on their - not inconsiderable - merits.

:laugh: Say the guy who runs from his own definition. Now, off you go, run to 'at' for some validation. Methinks that you need some. :poke:

[Drummond]

COP-OUT#2 !!

... This, FJ, is what your latest post amounts to. AGAIN, you've nothing new to offer to 'prove' your assertion that terrorists are 'human'.

All you've done is to repeat your tactic from before ... a diversionary, attacking piece, designed to cover for your inability to ANSWER MY CHALLENGE.

Just how many times are you going to do this, anyway ??


:laugh: Still can't get over the drubbing you took back on page 12 can you?

WHAT 'drubbing' is this you're claiming for yourself .. ? I've checked two computers for their display of 'page 12', and each agree this corresponds to posts 166-180. In none of them, do you even post at all !!!!!

You're making it up as you go along - evidently.


The war can be one without your disgusting views,

One ? Is that one fewer than two ? Or, the one and only thought you can produce to try and defend your ridiculous, evidence-defying, 'terrorists are human' claim ??

You clearly can't answer my challenge. Are you now going to desist, or should you be answered with a 'COP-OUT#3' ... ??

[aboutime]

COP-OUT#2 !!

... This, FJ, is what your latest post amounts to. AGAIN, you've nothing new to offer to 'prove' your assertion that terrorists are 'human'.

All you've done is to repeat your tactic from before ... a diversionary, attacking piece, designed to cover for your inability to ANSWER MY CHALLENGE.

Just how many times are you going to do this, anyway ??



WHAT 'drubbing' is this you're claiming for yourself .. ? I've checked two computers for their display of 'page 12', and each agree this corresponds to posts 166-180. In none of them, do you even post at all !!!!!

You're making it up as you go along - evidently.



One ? Is that one fewer than two ? Or, the one and only thought you can produce to try and defend your ridiculous, evidence-defying, 'terrorists are human' claim ??

You clearly can't answer my challenge. Are you now going to desist, or should you be answered with a 'COP-OUT#3' ... ??




Sir Drummond. The easy way around this BS from fj is to just laugh at him, and remember...If you ask fj. He honestly believes he is the SOLE, SMARTEST Member here.
Just ask him.
Then. Let the chips (cowchips) fall where they may with fj, standing alone, impressed by his own selfish, patronizing, stupidity ONLY HE...is unable to see, or understand.
Then, fj WINS.
Until someone else takes his absolute need to have the LAST WORD again.
This thread has become nothing more than an fj, One Ring Circus where only fj rules.

[fj1200]

COP-OUT#2 !!

... This, FJ, is what your latest post amounts to. AGAIN, you've nothing new to offer to 'prove' your assertion that terrorists are 'human'.

All you've done is to repeat your tactic from before ... a diversionary, attacking piece, designed to cover for your inability to ANSWER MY CHALLENGE.

Just how many times are you going to do this, anyway ??

Why do I need to add anything new when you can't refute what is already out there? Besides, you haven't added anything new in about the past five threads that you've prattled on in. I've gotten tired of listing everything that you ignore and divert from. :shrug:


WHAT 'drubbing' is this you're claiming for yourself .. ? I've checked two computers for their display of 'page 12', and each agree this corresponds to posts 166-180. In none of them, do you even post at all !!!!!

You're making it up as you go along - evidently.

My mistake, page 11, post # 163. Awesome pwnage there. ;)


One ? Is that one fewer than two ? Or, the one and only thought you can produce to try and defend your ridiculous, evidence-defying, 'terrorists are human' claim ??

You clearly can't answer my challenge. Are you now going to desist, or should you be answered with a 'COP-OUT#3' ... ??

Wow, going with the spell check argument; Tough to argue with that one. :rolleyes: Try yelling and coloring your posts again Oliver, that is clearly better than presenting your abhorrent logic again.

[Drummond]

Well, FJ, since you STILL aren't meeting my challenge, and as you're STILL diverting away from it by diversionary attacking ...

... COP-OUT#3 is clearly what we have here ...

.... when will it stop ? Ever ??


Why do I need to add anything new

BECAUSE YOUR ONE DEFENCE HAS BEEN DISCREDITED BY MULTIPLE EXAMPLES OF ITS USELESSNESS.


when you can't refute what is already out there?

The usefulness of your argument HAS been refuted. You just won't admit it.


My mistake, page 11, post # 163. Awesome pwnage there. ;)

Dream on.

Here's my answer, then ...


Again, simple biology proves you wrong.

Refuted ad nauseum. Skin cells have human DNA. Skin cells are not definable as 'human beings'.

Ditto strands of hair. Ditto saliva. Ditto blood. Ditto individual bones. Ditto .... well, need I continue ? You surely get the picture (as much as you'll wish you didn't). In NONE of my examples can it be claimed that any one of them is, constitutes, a 'human being' .. yet, biologically, each has human DNA. Lesson to be learned .. the presence of human DNA is USELESS as outright proof of a human being actually BEING one.

No. Something else has to be added .. other vital ingredients are required. Humanity. Empathy. Decency. Morality. And, FJ, a terrorist has NONE OF THESE.

But then, I've argued all this already. You dismiss such an argument, but give no credible grounds for doing so. You just CLAIM you have ... repeatedly ...


The fact is that they are human beings regardless their despicable actions
I've just shown you otherwise !


You can't use your conclusion as proof of their actions; Granted: terrorists commit despicable acts

Why ... just because you say so ?? Tell me why not.


You can't use your conclusion as proof of their thoughts; Granted: terrorists think about committing despicable acts

Why ... just because you say so ? Where's the humanity to act as a check, or balance, to STOP the terrorist from acting ? Answer ... IT DOESN'T EXIST.


You haven't shown that terrorists only think about committing despicable acts; Not granted: would you accept that terrorists evidence "humanity" when with their family?

Answered previously, subsequently rubbished by you for no good reason. As already said, humanity in a terrorist would make that terrorism either unthinkable, OR, impossible to commit once thought about. Sheer humanity would prevent it.

Your point about terrorist 'humanity' with their families has also been answered. What kind of 'family loving' terrorist would ever risk robbing their family of a 'loved one' by going off to commit terrorist atrocities .. OR .. choose to inflict them on OTHER FAMILIES ?

This can only be explained by considering that the humanity which defines a human being AS one, must be absent for that check or balance not to make terrorism impossible for a 'family loving' terrorist.


Your posit has not been proven
Yes it has !! I've made these points before. And they remain good refutations of your 'terrorists are human' garbage.


....that is clearly better than presenting your abhorrent logic again.

Abhorrent ? Really ? Well, then, EVEN at this late stage, try PROVING ME WRONG. That you don't happen to like the obvious conclusions I draw doesn't make them wrong. All it does mean is that you badly need a reality check.

Or - will you just go in for YET more of the put-downs, demonisations, rewrites, crossings-out, false claims of 'victory' as before, ALL THAT STUPID TRICKERY, RATHER THAN DEBATE HONESTLY AND REASONABLY ?

[Voted4Reagan]

Did Mandela employ Terrorist tactics in the early days of the ANC? Most certainly.

In the eyes of the Almighty only he can answer for what he has done.

The cause was Noble...The Tactics disgraceful...The result inevitable.

The man is dead, to be judged by God.

Lets all leave it at that

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Did Mandela employ Terrorist tactics in the early days of the ANC? Most certainly.

In the eyes of the Almighty only he can answer for what he has done.

The cause was Noble...The Tactics disgraceful...The result inevitable.

The man is dead, to be judged by God.

Lets all leave it at that We would have had not some few tried to defend the man and his terrorism and murdering tactics. I believe in stating the entire truth and when that truth is denied and lied about I believe in defending it and not letting those doing the lying get way with it unchallenged. You are absolutely right he will be judged by God. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A just cause can be tainted by attempting to bring about the success by employing evil and murdering tactics. Mandela is no Mahatma Gandhi and some of us are tired of seeing the false image being spun by the leftists and terrorist sympathizers to make him out to be! Besides being a damn lie its also a great insult to Gandhi and what he did to show the world violence is not the way. .--Tyr

[Drummond]

We would have had not some few tried to defend the man and his terrorism and murdering tactics. I believe in stating the entire truth and when that truth is denied and lied about I believe in defending it and not letting those doing the lying get way with it unchallenged. You are absolutely right he will be judged by God. The road to hell is paved with good intentions. A just cause can be tainted by attempting to bring about the success by employing evil and murdering tactics. Mandela is no Mahatma Gandhi and some of us are tired of seeing the false image being spun by the leftists and terrorist sympathizers to make him out to be! Besides being a damn lie its also a great insult to Gandhi and what he did to show the world violence is not the way. .--Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[fj1200]

Well, FJ, since you STILL aren't meeting my challenge, and as you're STILL diverting away from it by diversionary attacking ...

Why ... just because you say so ?? Tell me why not.
...
Yes it has !! I've made these points before. And they remain good refutations of your 'terrorists are human' garbage.

...

Or - will you just go in for YET more of the put-downs, demonisations, rewrites, crossings-out, false claims of 'victory' as before, ALL THAT STUPID TRICKERY, RATHER THAN DEBATE HONESTLY AND REASONABLY ?

:laugh: I see you're still operating under the false assumption that you've actually proven something. Hypocrite. :laugh:

[fj1200]

Besides being a damn lie its also a great insult to Gandhi and what he did to show the world violence is not the way. .--Tyr

Why are we not following his example?

[Drummond]

:laugh: I see you're still operating under the false assumption that you've actually proven something. Hypocrite. :laugh:

... to which I simply say ....

COP-OUT#4 !

You have no way of answering me, and well we both know it. Not counting Leftie comrades, of course, who'll believe whatever they want - I'm sure, by now, this is also clear to the vast majority of people who've been following this thread.

Unless you now want to concede defeat (which your ego will never permit), there is absolutely no point in continuing this.

[fj1200]

... to which I simply say ....

blah, blah, blah...

So I see that you have no way of countering my truth. Hypocrite. Let me know when you have something new.

[Drummond]

So I see that you have no way of countering my truth. Hypocrite. Let me know when you have something new.

... 'Sorry'. All I have is yet more of your copping-out. I make this ...

COP-OUT#5 ...

.... which is FAR from new .. eh ?

Does Mr Egotist need the last word ? Well, if you need it that badly .. go for it ...:laugh::laugh:;):poke:

[fj1200]

... 'Sorry'. All I have is nothing new ...

That would have been so much easier. Despicable terrorists that commit despicable acts are human beings; that is the unfortunate truth of the matter. That your despicable position brings us closer to them is another unfortunate truth of the matter.

[logroller]

I think this covers it quite well:

http://www.thefreedictionary.com/terrorism





Interesting observations.

OK, even one death is unacceptable ? In that case, yours should be a zero tolerance to any terrorism. I look forward to seeing proof of same in your future posts !

You value the pursuit of freedom highly ? Fine. Then, how about .. the freedom to live WITHOUT there being any threat to life or limb, from terrorists and their terrorist acts ?? And if that seems reasonable to you, then I'm afraid you're in the position of being opposed to any terrorism that Mandela and/or his ANC thugs got up to.



Then you must agree with my above statement !!!



Now, I'm not following. How can you assert this without defying what you posted before ??



... ditto ...



This is a further erosion of the case you've already made. Let me repeat your point about 'acceptable' kill rates from terrorism:



Seems to me that your only opt-out is to say that terrorism must always be non-lethal. A nice, but rather impractical, proposition .. bombs and bullets DO kill, you know ...





I don't see how you can have it both ways !!!!

Check this out:

http://ww2db.com/battle_spec.php?battle_id=55

This link begins with the title:

'Bombing of Hamburg, Dresden, and Other Cities'


Dresden was FAR from the only city bombed !! The link gives accounts of several German cities which were also bombed. As for WHY ... NOTE THIS:

Also a quote:



Granted, it also goes on to say that Churchill himself had belated misgivings. Nonetheless, Logroller ... it is the case that any misgivings you yourself harbour about the Dresden bombings were FIRST seized upon by the Nazis and the Soviets, for their own pernicious propaganda campaigns.



Again, you defy your own earlier position, Logroller.

Are you saying that you were wrong to assert ...



'ANY AND ALL CIRCUMSTANCES'. Do you mean that, OR NOT ?
Perhaps I misspoke. I meant "under all circumstances", not 'any'. I believe my argument supported my position rather clearly. Some circumstances will surely justify bloodshed, Although it behooves us to minimize such. So if an act of violence, perpetrated to bring about a moral end, also serves to minimize bloodshed it is preferred. Agree or disagree?

[fj1200]

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant "under all circumstances", not 'any'. I believe my argument supported my position rather clearly. Some circumstances will surely justify bloodshed, Although it behooves us to minimize such. So if an act of violence, perpetrated to bring about a moral end, also serves to minimize bloodshed it is preferred. Agree or disagree?

Nope. Because Gandhi.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant "under all circumstances", not 'any'. I believe my argument supported my position rather clearly. Some circumstances will surely justify bloodshed, Although it behooves us to minimize such. So if an act of violence, perpetrated to bring about a moral end, also serves to minimize bloodshed it is preferred. Agree or disagree? Careful now logroller, that could be used to justify "eradicating" (see also "murder"," kill 'and "execute") the Islamist threat and Jafar already went berserk over that thought he conjured up. I know you didn't say that but Jafar doesn't need you to. He can just redefine a word or two that you presented (while he ignores other words) and presto==guilty you are! :laugh: -Tyr

[logroller]

Careful now logroller, that could be used to justify "eradicating" (see also "murder"," kill 'and "execute") the Islamist threat and Jafar already went berserk over that thought he conjured up. I know you didn't say that but Jafar doesn't need you to. He can just redefine a word or two that you presented (while he ignores other words) and presto==guilty you are! :laugh: -Tyr
That's a fair point-- utilitarianism has its flaws, but at least its an ethos with logical support. Fairs far better than demonstrable sub-humanity...bananas, toe-clippings..absurdity! If we're gonna be casting stones we'd be wise to do so in an unbiased manner IMO. Else we are just self-serving beasts struggling for me and mine.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

That's a fair point-- utilitarianism has its flaws, but at least its an ethos with logical support. Fairs far better than demonstrable sub-humanity...bananas, toe-clippings..absurdity! If we're gonna be casting stones we'd be wise to do so in an unbiased manner IMO. Else we are just self-serving beasts struggling for me and mine. Take religion out of the equation and we all are just self serving beasts. Man for the greater part has no good in him that does not come from his serving God or at the very least honoring a higher set of moral principles than are above the everyday activities of life . I see you listed sub-humanity. Careful there , getting close to admitting humans can be so vile/evil and savage as to no longer be human.. A big long debate about that has already been going here for a while now. ;)-Tyr

[Drummond]

Perhaps I misspoke. I meant "under all circumstances", not 'any'.

As I see it, the one just emphasises the other. 'Under all circumstances' effectively means what you said before - what's the difference ?


I believe my argument supported my position rather clearly. Some circumstances will surely justify bloodshed

Bloodshed deliberately meted out AGAINST INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS, Logroller. What justifies THAT ?


Although it behooves us to minimize such.

Then we get into the murky territory of 'what are acceptable figures'. Tell me, what minimal number of deaths, perpetrated by terrorists, can you classify in that way ? Logroller ... GIVE ME A FIGURE.


So if an act of violence, perpetrated to bring about a moral end, also serves to minimize bloodshed it is preferred. Agree or disagree?

Evil acts are evil acts, Logroller. Had a loved one of yours been a victim of the ANC, I doubt that you'd be suggesting what you are. Consider the Christian position on evil ... where in the Bible is it argued that there can be 'moral' levels of evil that can ever be accepted, and acceptable, as such ?

Perhaps you would 'prefer' that such an inclusion existed ?

[logroller]

As I see it, the one just emphasises the other. 'Under all circumstances' effectively means what you said before - what's the difference ?

I thought the same, but you seem to have taken it differently.
Just to rehash:
some deaths to accomplish a moral end= Acceptable
less deaths to accomplish a moral end= More acceptable
no deaths to accomplish a moral end= Most acceptable


Bloodshed deliberately meted out AGAINST INNOCENT HUMAN BEINGS, Logroller. What justifies THAT ?
Saving lives. Do you not understand utilitarianism at all? Were Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki also unjustified in your opinion-- as that too was bloodshed deliberately meted out against innocent human beings, remember: to win the morale war?


Then we get into the murky territory of 'what are acceptable figures'. Tell me, what minimal number of deaths, perpetrated by terrorists, can you classify in that way ? Logroller ... GIVE ME A FIGURE.
All real numbers less than the number of deaths under alternative means. What are the acceptable figures for war deaths?



Evil acts are evil acts, Logroller. Had a loved one of yours been a victim of the ANC, I doubt that you'd be suggesting what you are.
To be bold, it is definitively so. But no, I Already answered that. had a loved one of yours been murdered in Dresden would you still see it the same?


Consider the Christian position on evil ... where in the Bible is it argued that there can be 'moral' levels of evil that can ever be accepted, and acceptable, as such ?
Considering that the central tenet of Christianity is an innocent (Jesus Christ) dying for the benefit of all mankind, surely the death of an innocent does not equal evil.


Perhaps you would 'prefer' that such an inclusion existed ?
Doesn't it? I seem to recall you and/or tyr mentioning the sale of a cloak to buy a sword... Not a shield, a sword!
Perhaps You prefer that we just allow ourselves to overrun by oppressive forces-- No violence, as gandhi taught; perhaps taking the path of Jews in Nazi germany-- both leading to wholesale slaughter. I could have sworn you have taken a firm position against chamberlain for being passive, yet here you take a line that deaths of innocents is never ok to combat oppression. So which is it?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

1. Considering that the central tenet of Christianity is an innocent (Jesus Christ) dying for the benefit of all mankind, surely the death of an innocent does not equal evil.
1A.... CHRIST'S DEATH WAS A VOLUNTARY ACT MADE BY A CONSENTING ADULT. I THINK THAT MAKES A HUGE DIFFERENCE BETWEEN THE TWO OR DOES IT? -Tyr


Doesn't it? I seem to recall you and/or tyr mentioning the sale of a cloak to buy a sword... Not a shield, a sword!
Perhaps You prefer that we just allow ourselves to overrun by oppressive forces-- No violence, as gandhi taught; perhaps taking the path of Jews in Nazi germany-- both leading to wholesale slaughter. I could have sworn you have taken a firm position against chamberlain for being passive, yet here you take a line that deaths of innocents is never ok to combat oppression. So which is it?
1B.... TRUE, I MENTIONED THAT AND YES I AM A SWORD KIND OF GUY(SHIELD TOO). WHAT CAN I SAY, EXCEPT I BELIEVE A QUICK BLADE PROPERLY PLACED WOULD SETTLE MANY AN ISSUE WITHOUT THE NEED FOR A WAR THAT KILLS SO MANY INNOCENT PEOPLE.--SO SHOOT ME FOR BEING A SAVAGE MINDED SCOUNDREL. ;) - Tyr I think a military decision made in a World War between opposing national armies does not compare well with terrorists murdering innocent people(deliberately targeting and murdering innocent women and children) as a terror tactic! Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not actions taken to instill terror but had a more tangible and realistic military goal methinks. -Tyr

[Drummond]

I thought the same, but you seem to have taken it differently.
Just to rehash:
some deaths to accomplish a moral end= Acceptable
less deaths to accomplish a moral end= More acceptable
no deaths to accomplish a moral end= Most acceptable

Translation: there are differing degrees of acceptability between evils. According to you, anyway. OK ... you mention Dresden, part of WWII. Now, did more than 3,000 people die because of the actions taken by Allied soldiers against the Third Reich .. or not ?

Muslim terrorists would doubtless seek to explain 9/11 as a 'moral' act. So, comparing kill rates, was 9/11 a lot less evil than fighting German forces in WWII ?


Saving lives. Do you not understand utilitarianism at all? Were Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki also unjustified in your opinion-- as that too was bloodshed deliberately meted out against innocent human beings, remember: to win the morale war?

You're using the wrong target for your hinted-at 'blame game'. Had Hitler's war machine not existed, had it not waged war as it did, would Dresden have happened ? If Pearl Harbour hadn't been attacked, would the US have been at war with Japan, regardless, and would Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever have been bombed ? Blame the original perpetrators, not those who reacted.


All real numbers less than the number of deaths under alternative means.

Terrorists use jet aircraft to demolish the Twin Towers. What if they'd waited a year or two, and detonated a nuke instead ? Does that, by comparison, make 9/11 an acceptable attack ?


What are the acceptable figures for war deaths?

Wars involve military goals and targets. Not equatable to terrorist savagery at all. And ... I note that you've evaded my own request for actual figures.

This isn't surprising .. because no acceptable figure could ever be offered. Which sort of defies your own argument, does it not ???



had a loved one of yours been murdered in Dresden would you still see it the same?

I'd like to think so. The loved one would've been the victim of the regime that made the attack necessary.


Considering that the central tenet of Christianity is an innocent (Jesus Christ) dying for the benefit of all mankind, surely the death of an innocent does not equal evil.

Context, Logroller. And tell me, was Jesus equal to every other individual ?


Doesn't it? I seem to recall you and/or tyr mentioning the sale of a cloak to buy a sword... Not a shield, a sword!
Perhaps You prefer that we just allow ourselves to overrun by oppressive forces-- No violence, as gandhi taught; perhaps taking the path of Jews in Nazi germany-- both leading to wholesale slaughter. I could have sworn you have taken a firm position against chamberlain for being passive, yet here you take a line that deaths of innocents is never ok to combat oppression. So which is it?

If people take it upon themselves to fight against people (or terrorist savages) pointing guns against them, then they do. They take responsibility for their actions, and the consequences, which are likely to be counterproductive, to say the least. But if they don't, then it's because they've been successfully coerced into submission, which is very different to offering support !!!

[logroller]

I think a military decision made in a World War between opposing national armies does not compare well with terrorists murdering innocent people(deliberately targeting and murdering innocent women and children) as a terror tactic! Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki were not actions taken to instill terror but had a more tangible and realistic military goal methinks. -Tyr
And mandela didn't have a tangible and realistic military goal? sabotage and treason-- that's what he was jailed for and it didn't work-- just as allied firebombing of japan didn't work, so we unleashed a weapon which did in fact cause terror, not merely destruction of strategic targets. Indeed peaceful means were tried in SA as well-- they were jailed, beaten, enhancely interrogated, even killed.
The simple fact of the matter is resistance is a threat that's often met with violence aimed at scaring ones opposition into submission and capitulation. Once violence is introduced, the difference in who's right is which side has the moral high-ground in their final goal, not their methods.
If Mandela had called for the prompt and utter destruction of the Afrikaans and then used weapons of mass destruction in cities, killing ten times the number of civilians (auspiciously innocent), would that have been more acceptable in your opinion? Are more deaths sometimes preferable?

[logroller]

Translation: there are differing degrees of acceptability between evils. According to you, anyway. OK ... you mention Dresden, part of WWII. Now, did more than 3,000 people die because of the actions taken by Allied soldiers against the Third Reich .. or not ?

Muslim terrorists would doubtless seek to explain 9/11 as a 'moral' act. So, comparing kill rates, was 9/11 a lot less evil than fighting German forces in WWII ?



You're using the wrong target for your hinted-at 'blame game'. Had Hitler's war machine not existed, had it not waged war as it did, would Dresden have happened ? If Pearl Harbour hadn't been attacked, would the US have been at war with Japan, regardless, and would Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever have been bombed ? Blame the original perpetrators, not those who reacted.



Terrorists use jet aircraft to demolish the Twin Towers. What if they'd waited a year or two, and detonated a nuke instead ? Does that, by comparison, make 9/11 an acceptable attack ?



Wars involve military goals and targets. Not equatable to terrorist savagery at all. And ... I note that you've evaded my own request for actual figures.

This isn't surprising .. because no acceptable figure could ever be offered. Which sort of defies your own argument, does it not ???




I'd like to think so. The loved one would've been the victim of the regime that made the attack necessary.



Context, Logroller. And tell me, was Jesus equal to every other individual ?



If people take it upon themselves to fight against people (or terrorist savages) pointing guns against them, then they do. They take responsibility for their actions, and the consequences, which are likely to be counterproductive, to say the least. But if they don't, then it's because they've been successfully coerced into submission, which is very different to offering support !!!
Clearly context is paramount. But I'm not the one liking the SA plight against apartheid to AQ trying to send us back to the Stone Age--you are. Same goes for figures on acceptable deaths that meet all criterion--it doesn't exist. You seek a rule that applies under all conditions yet, curiously exonerate nations from the same. Its inconsistent to say the least.
ditto so far as evasion goes, i direct you to your evasion of a direct question in the first page of this thread-- to wit, when asked for an affirmative action taken to combat aparthed, you answered in the negative. Ie AN EVASION OF THE QUESTION. Sauce for the goose...
Its become abundantly clear that you don't have a preferred solution, you're just a naysayer. Lead, follow or get out of the way.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

And mandela didn't have a tangible and realistic military goal? sabotage and treason-- that's what he was jailed for and it didn't work-- just as allied firebombing of japan didn't work, so we unleashed a weapon which did in fact cause terror, not merely destruction of strategic targets. Indeed peaceful means were tried in SA as well-- they were jailed, beaten, enhancely interrogated, even killed.
The simple fact of the matter is resistance is a threat that's often met with violence aimed at scaring ones opposition into submission and capitulation. Once violence is introduced, the difference in who's right is which side has the moral high-ground in their final goal, not their methods.
If Mandela had called for the prompt and utter destruction of the Afrikaans and then used weapons of mass destruction in cities, killing ten times the number of civilians (auspiciously innocent), would that have been more acceptable in your opinion? Are more deaths sometimes preferable? So you are now putting forth the premise that the rightness of the CAUSE justifies terrorism as a tactic. I'll not argue against the rightness of the cause since freedom I hold to be ever so dear myself. I will however argue no cause justifies the deliberate murder of innocent women and children as a means instill terror to advance that cause. Again I point back to Gandhi showing the correct path. ONLY COUNTER THAT I'VE SEEN TO THAT WAS, "WELL THEY TRIED THAT AND IT DIDNT WORK".. which is simply not true unless you put a time limit on it. Gandhi's method has no surefire time limit and doesn't promise a quick success. Mandela didn't choose that path because he wanted success quickly so he could bask in it IMHO. Gandhi wanted success regardless if he ever lived to see it or not(true sacrifice of self). That's the difference between the two men and also points out clearly the difference between their two drastically opposing methods! Next point is --war between nation's armies can not be properly compared to murder by use of terrorism. You say it can and I disagree with that. I am sure neither of us will back down. I know only God could make me change my mind on that. I DOUBT God is ever going to tell me that murdering innocent women and children is a just cause and should be done to advance a political cause or even to right past wrongs. It goes much deeper that the reality of the cause IMHO. IT IS A MORAL PRINCIPLE one either holds dear or one does not IMHO. They bound even women and children, placed a tire around their necks , pour on gasoline and set them on fire . For that I'd slay every one of the murdering bastards by my own hands if possible and never feel the slightest remorse ever! They and were exactly the same as the murdering Muslim terrorists. I CAN NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE IN DEFENDING THESE MURDERING BASTARDS AND THE INSANE ACT OF DEFENDING THE MUSLIM MURDERING BASTARDS. Which is why I know Mandela was pure scum and not a hero by any true definition of the word. Myself, I'd spit on his grave and that's a fact.--Tyr

[logroller]

You're using the wrong target for your hinted-at 'blame game'. Had Hitler's war machine not existed, had it not waged war as it did, would Dresden have happened ? If Pearl Harbour hadn't been attacked, would the US have been at war with Japan, regardless, and would Hiroshima and Nagasaki ever have been bombed ? Blame the original perpetrators, not those who reacted.

So you should then place the blame upon the Afrikaners.

[fj1200]

^Bam!

[logroller]

So you are now putting forth the premise that the rightness of the CAUSE justifies terrorism as a tactic. I'll not argue against the rightness of the cause since freedom I hold to be ever so dear myself. I will however argue no cause justifies the deliberate murder of innocent women and children as a means instill terror to advance that cause.
You've argued such before, to which I retort that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki instilled terror to advance the war cause.



Again I point back to Gandhi showing the correct path. ONLY COUNTER THAT I'VE SEEN TO THAT WAS, "WELL THEY TRIED THAT AND IT DIDNT WORK".. which is simply not true unless you put a time limit on it.
Ive put forth many arguments, never putting a time period on it. I mention only the factual reality that Gandhi's methods didn't work. He lost control of his followers, one of them assassinated him, plunging the country into civil war and resulting in 500,000 deaths and millions more displaced. Is that how it works, tyr? Is that correct to you? Tell me, is that how you advocate overcoming Islam? Nonviolence?



Gandhi's method has no surefire time limit and doesn't promise a quick success.


Nor any success whatsoever. He was murdered, the country divided and 500,000 killed all in the matter of a decade, if not less. Both you and I know that neither of us would do as gandhi. Because we both know that just leads to slaughter.



Mandela didn't choose that path because he wanted success quickly so he could bask in it IMHO.
That's completely divorced from reality. Some twenty years of incarceration is expedient to you. Imprisonment: basking?



Gandhi wanted success regardless if he ever lived to see it or not(true sacrifice of self). That's the difference between the two men and also points out clearly the difference between their two drastically opposing methods! Next point is --war between nation's armies can not be properly compared to murder by use of terrorism.
Dead is dead tyr. Does it matter who does the killing, or how? You said NO cause justifies the murder of innocents yet here you claim that armies can do it under the auspices of war..it's completely contradictory and a blatant double-standard. The simple fact is gandhi was murdered by his own people because he favored shared power with the muslim minority. So tell me, would you gave support to gandhi... Self-sacrifice and such?



You say it can and I disagree with that. I am sure neither of us will back down. I know only God could make me change my mind on that.
Clearly. Because your logic doesn't support your belief. Thus you appeal to God.



I DOUBT God is ever going to tell me that murdering innocent women and children is a just cause and should be done to advance a political cause or even to right past wrongs. It goes much deeper that the reality of the cause IMHO.


Curious that in the same breath that you yield faith in divine guidance you express doubt, but what would Jesus do?



IT IS A MORAL PRINCIPLE one either holds dear or one does not IMHO. They bound even women and children, placed a tire around their necks , pour on gasoline and set them on fire .
Have you seen the effects of nuclear blasts?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions_on_human_health


Tell me more about these moral principles one either holds or does not.



For that I'd slay every one of the murdering bastards by my own hands if possible and never feel the slightest remorse ever!
So, you feel the same way about those allied bombers, right?



They and were exactly the same as the murdering Muslim terrorists. I CAN NOT SEE ANY DIFFERENCE IN DEFENDING THESE MURDERING BASTARDS AND THE INSANE ACT OF DEFENDING THE MUSLIM MURDERING BASTARDS.
AND defending the murdering bastards in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right?



Which is why I know Mandela was pure scum and not a hero by any true definition of the word. Myself, I'd spit on his grave and that's a fact.--Tyr
That's what you BELIEVE. But you're Casting stones methinks; not what Jesus or gandhi would have done. If he was scum, so were Truman and Churchill.

[aboutime]

Tyr. I find myself wondering why Jim doesn't just turn, or give his Forum to logroller, and fj?

After all. Between the two of them. Absolutely everyone else; every human being alive, and every member of this forum are not worthy, or eligible to be near, hear, read, or discuss any topic of any kind since Log, and fj are the sole owners of the entirety of worldly knowledge.

Therefore, no other member of the human race is permitted to say, do, read, hear, or think about any topic unless it is first cleared with Log, or fj.

Only they may offer their selfish approval, or stupidity standards they are capable of presenting here.

Just ask either of them how miserable, frustrated, and permanently mentally challenged they are.

IMO...of course.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

You've argued such before, to which I retort that Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki instilled terror to advance the war cause.



Ive put forth many arguments, never putting a time period on it. I mention only the factual reality that Gandhi's methods didn't work. He lost control of his followers, one of them assassinated him, plunging the country into civil war and resulting in 500,000 deaths and millions more displaced. Is that how it works, tyr? Is that correct to you? Tell me, is that how you advocate overcoming Islam? Nonviolence?





Nor any success whatsoever. He was murdered, the country divided and 500,000 killed all in the matter of a decade, if not less. Both you and I know that neither of us would do as gandhi. Because we both know that just leads to slaughter.



That's completely divorced from reality. Some twenty years of incarceration is expedient to you. Imprisonment: basking?



Dead is dead tyr. Does it matter who does the killing, or how? You said NO cause justifies the murder of innocents yet here you claim that armies can do it under the auspices of war..it's completely contradictory and a blatant double-standard. The simple fact is gandhi was murdered by his own people because he favored shared power with the muslim minority. So tell me, would you gave support to gandhi... Self-sacrifice and such?



Clearly. Because your logic doesn't support your belief. Thus you appeal to God.





Curious that in the same breath that you yield faith in divine guidance you express doubt, but what would Jesus do?



Have you seen the effects of nuclear blasts?
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Effects_of_nuclear_explosions_on_human_health


Tell me more about these moral principles one either holds or does not.



So, you feel the same way about those allied bombers, right?



AND defending the murdering bastards in Dresden, Hiroshima and Nagasaki, right?



That's what you BELIEVE. But you're Casting stones methinks; not what Jesus or gandhi would have done. If he was scum, so were Truman and Churchill. Correct me if I have this wrong but what I got from your last post is that you believe terrorism is a fully justified act and just as worthy to be defended as are all other war strategies/methods!(?) If that's true then no acts by man are to be condemned because any person or group of people are free to murder as they please to further their cause. Bear in mind my foundation is that when survival is paramount then killing in war may be justified. So tell me , is Islam under attack and its people in danger of being wiped from the face of the earth or is Islam just attempting to utterly destroy all that disagree with its slavery and insane beliefs? Now WW2 we were in a war for our very survival , we were not fighting to advance a damn religion. So all those WW2 points you tried to make are in error. Which brings us back to you justifying Mandela's terrorism because the cause was worthy _(apparently worthy of any savage, foul deed) and my proclaiming it for exactly what the vast majority of the world knows it truly is. As to my presenting my readiness to slay such murdering bastards myself you bet I would and I would be honored if allowed to do so. Which is no different that my citing on another thread that I'd like the white man in Texas that knocked out that old black man to be turned over to me for a spell. So that then I could stomp his sorry ass as it ever so richly deserves to be stomped. I am very consistent in my application of my core principles. -Tyr

[logroller]

Deleted

[jimnyc]

So you should then place the blame upon the Afrikaners.

http://i.imgur.com/dOtSN6i.gif

[logroller]

Correct me if I have this wrong but what I got from your last post is that you believe terrorism is a fully justified act and just as worthy to be defended as are all other war strategies/methods!(?)
A fully despicable act just as worthy of being condemned as well.


If that's true then no acts by man are to be condemned because any person or group of people are free to murder as they please to further their cause. as any person or group of people are free to murder them back to quell them and their cause. Liberty's a bitch.


Bear in mind my foundation is that when survival is paramount then killing in war may be justified.
That's not the correct way, the true way that gandhi taught. So you're saying that your foundation is incorrect and false?


So tell me , is Islam under attack and its people in danger of being wiped from the face of the earth or is Islam just attempting to utterly destroy all that disagree with its slavery and insane beliefs?
Yes and no. Sorta. Iirc mandela was methodist, not muslim? Point mandela


Now WW2 we were in a war for our very survival , we were not fighting to advance a damn religion.
mandela was fighting for freedom, not religion. Point mandela. Furthermore, at the time the nukes were dropped, we'd liberated all US territories and crippled their navy. Hardly were they a threat to our survival, just not willing to capitulate. Burning their skin off changed their minds.point America.


So all those WW2 points you tried to make are in error.
nice Strawman. The error is yours; mandela fought for freedom the same as We did; point mandela and America.


Which brings us back to you justifying Mandela's terrorism because the cause was worthy
Cause=Freedom. You just said that defense of freedom was sufficient justification. Point mandela


_(apparently worthy of any savage, foul deed) and my proclaiming it for exactly what the vast majority of the world knows it truly is.
Thus far you've been a defender of mandela; once I point out your double-standard that is.


As to my presenting my readiness to slay such murdering bastards myself you bet I would and I would be honored if allowed to do so. Which is no different that my citing on another thread that I'd like the white man in Texas that knocked out that old black man to be turned over to me for a spell. So that then I could stomp his sorry ass as it ever so richly deserves to be stomped. I am very consistent in my application of my core principles. -Tyr
that's not very gandhi-like. Do you recant your previous assertion on gandhi being the correct path; the true path? Or is that you're just in the wrong?

[Drummond]

So you should then place the blame upon the Afrikaners.

TYR - EXCELLENT ANSWER.

Sorry, Logroller, that won't work. The ANC were terrorists, acting as terrorists. In the other examples, it was Nation States battling Nation States, in war.

If you want to continue your line of reasoning ... and, considering that the likes of Al Qaeda seek to justify 9/11, amongst other actions they've taken (have you ever heard of terrorists who DON'T excuse their atrocities ??) ... do you hold America to blame for the attack it suffered ??

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motives_for_the_September_11_attacks


In bin Laden's November 2002 "Letter to America", he explicitly stated that al-Qaeda's motives for their attacks include: Western support for attacking Muslims in Somalia, supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon, the presence of U.S. troops in Saudi Arabia, U.S. support of Israel, and sanctions against Iraq.

My question is: just how far SHOULD you go to defend terrorists, anyway ???

Do you see how dangerous, how very murky this can become, and in fact how indefensible, all this is ?

[Drummond]

Correct me if I have this wrong but what I got from your last post is that you believe terrorism is a fully justified act and just as worthy to be defended as are all other war strategies/methods!(?) If that's true then no acts by man are to be condemned because any person or group of people are free to murder as they please to further their cause. Bear in mind my foundation is that when survival is paramount then killing in war may be justified. So tell me , is Islam under attack and its people in danger of being wiped from the face of the earth or is Islam just attempting to utterly destroy all that disagree with its slavery and insane beliefs? Now WW2 we were in a war for our very survival , we were not fighting to advance a damn religion. So all those WW2 points you tried to make are in error. Which brings us back to you justifying Mandela's terrorism because the cause was worthy _(apparently worthy of any savage, foul deed) and my proclaiming it for exactly what the vast majority of the world knows it truly is. As to my presenting my readiness to slay such murdering bastards myself you bet I would and I would be honored if allowed to do so. Which is no different that my citing on another thread that I'd like the white man in Texas that knocked out that old black man to be turned over to me for a spell. So that then I could stomp his sorry ass as it ever so richly deserves to be stomped. I am very consistent in my application of my core principles. -Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap::clap:

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

] A fully despicable act just as worthy of being condemned as well. Nice to see you agree, I had my doubts on that that you'd ever come around to that. :laugh:


as any person or group of people are free to murder them back to quell them and their cause. Liberty's a bitch. Again you agree ,an eye for an eye, we are making progress. ;)



That's not the correct way, the true way that gandhi taught. So you're saying that your foundation is incorrect and false? No, I am saying I know the better way is non-violence . That's not to say I myself would be able to follow that path. I was born and made to fight, its in my soul, my spirit. Just a fact of who and what I am(dad and granddad taught me well). No brag just fact. I hope it doesn't confuse you that I have the intelligence to admit one thing while also admitting being too weak to follow that advice myself. Yet there is hope amigo. Hope exists as long as we are above ground. Why just last month I was able to stop myself from kickin' the hell out of the greeter at our local Walmart store for his stupid PC saying to me ,"Holiday greetings to you sir" instead of the correct--"Merry Christmas sir." Small steps like that compound over time to go a long way. ;)--Tyr



Yes and no. Sorta. Iirc mandela was methodist, not muslim? Point mandela Well, if you insist that "yes and no" prove a point who am I to disagree? -Tyr



mandela was fighting for freedom, not religion. Point mandela. Furthermore, at the time the nukes were dropped, we'd liberated all US territories and crippled their navy. Hardly were they a threat to our survival, just not willing to capitulate. Burning their skin off changed their minds.point America. Presented as you value American soldiers lives to be worth nothing I must presume since a land invasion of Japan was predicted to cost our military from 100,000 to 250,000 lives(and likely triple that number of theirs). When dropping the two nukes would save that many! So were we "obligated" to save enemy lives by sacrificing more of ours!!??? You have me seriously wondering about this equation my friend. Simply because I have heard the answer before on another forum a few years back in which my then openly dem/liberal liberal opponent replied yes to my asking that question of him!--Tyr



nice Strawman. The error is yours; mandela fought for freedom the same as We did; point mandela and America. Really!??? I was not aware that our Revolutionary War soldiers WENT ABOUT BURNING TO DEATH INNOCENT WOMEN AND CHILDREN TO WIN! If they did please cite the figures and give a link or two on that. And maybe even prove it was a sanctioned policy as well.



Cause=Freedom. You just said that defense of freedom was sufficient justification. Point mandela Methinks you confuse my saying --"survival'-- justifies as my saying freedom justifies. Yet you are correct if saying I agree that freedom justifies fighting for it but I never stated it ever justifies the deliberate and wanton murder of innocent women and children as a tactic to instill terror to win. The two are not the same! The blacks were not being exterminated. They were being denied freedom to live a better life. -Tyr



Thus far you've been a defender of mandela; once I point out your double-standard that is. Sir, the double standard exists but it sure as hell lies not within me. -Tyr



that's not very gandhi-like. Do you recant your previous assertion on gandhi being the correct path; the true path? Or is that you're just in the wrong? Ahh, my expressing my personal feelings on the matter and even what I would do myself along with what is the best way confuses you. I believe I explained that in a reply listed above in this post. If you need further clarification just ask. I can go into a more detailed description of my application in real life of my moral principles.-Tyr [/QUOTE] Well, logroller seems we can have an enlightening chat about controversial subjects. I've found this to be entertaining and informative as well. And that is a sincere bravo to you on expressing yourself in what I believe to be a totally honest way. A mark of distinction in a man, one that some people are incapable of. --Tyr

[logroller]

TYR - EXCELLENT ANSWER.

Sorry, Logroller, that won't work. The ANC were terrorists, acting as terrorists. In the other examples, it was Nation States battling Nation States, in war.
Translation: its ok when nations act as terrorists.


If you want to continue your line of reasoning ... and, considering that the likes of Al Qaeda seek to justify 9/11, amongst other actions they've taken (have you ever heard of terrorists who DON'T excuse their atrocities ??) ... do you hold America to blame for the attack it suffered ??
Regarding the blame game, it was your line of reasoning, not mine. I merely exploited it in my favor.
Nonetheless, regarding AQ and 9/11-- Asked and answered. I said that what AQ fights for offers no justification. That should be the end of that unless you believe fighting for freedom, as Mandela did, is the same as fighting against it as AQ does.


My question is: just how far SHOULD you go to defend terrorists, anyway ???
Depends on what they fight for IMO.
My question is: just how far SHOULD you go to defend terrorism committed by nations???


Do you see how dangerous, how very murky this can become, and in fact how indefensible, all this is ?
Its crystal clear to me. I believe a terrorist act is justified based upon why its done; you believe a terrorist act is justified based upon who does it. Tyr's right, it's still evil-- all violence is and nobody gets an automatic pass, but in the end its serving a superior cause that counts IMHO, whether the cause be one's country doesn't matter as much as the principles by which it stands. A righteous cause is what's important. I'm no gandhi, never claimed to be, nor did I say mandela was of equivalent character. But he's no more a murdering bastard than was Churchill.

[Drummond]

Translation: its ok when nations act as terrorists.

Further translation: in order to make a case which supports terrorists, you're willing to so fog the issue as to suggest that there can be no difference at all.

That's rather an extreme extent of support, don't you think ?


Regarding the blame game, it was your line of reasoning, not mine. I merely exploited it in my favor.

Sorry to see that you don't debate more honestly, then. For myself, I don't consciously go in for 'exploitation' .. and besides, in order to use it that way, doesn't that say that you found value in it ?

This aside, though ..


Nonetheless, regarding AQ and 9/11-- Asked and answered. I said that what AQ fights for offers no justification. That should be the end of that unless you believe fighting for freedom, as Mandela did, is the same as fighting against it as AQ does.

Ah, but did you see how AQ defend their actions ? In my quote before, didn't the site report that they'd said ..


America ... 'supporting Russian atrocities against Muslims in Chechnya, supporting the Indian oppression against Muslims in Kashmir, the Jewish aggression against Muslims in Lebanon' ...

... as being part of the basis for what they did ?

So you see, despite what you say, they DO offer justification for what they do.

Therefore, your enthusiasm for supporting terrorist actions, using your own yardstick, should include Al Qaeda ... and ... innocent lives lost, be damned ... eh ?

It's not as though you've set any figure, despite my request for one, concerning what is or is not an acceptable body count.


Depends on what they fight for IMO.

So if the cause is 'just' ... and who gets to determine that, anyway, by what authority or justice ? ... then a bomb can be detonated, and - say - it's OK to kill half a dozen people, maybe blow limbs off of a couple more, dismember another victim, not to mention give a lifetime's worth of anguish to the loved ones left behind ????

So long as not TOO many people (exact number undetermined) don't die, that is .. ?


My question is: just how far SHOULD you go to defend terrorism committed by nations???

Even supposing that your point - or concept - is even valid, you seem to have no problem with terrorism being ranged against these other 'terrorists'

Tell me, Logroller, is it me, or is this moral fog you're creating becoming incredibly dense ?


Its crystal clear to me. I believe a terrorist act is justified based upon why its done

And who gets to play God to judge these things ?


you believe a terrorist act is justified based upon who does it.

FALSE. My position is ANTI-TERRORIST. I have said, on thread after thread, that the subhuman act of terrorism defines the worth of the entity perpetrating it. Terrorism has no place in human affairs .. NONE.


Tyr's right, it's still evil-- all violence is and nobody gets an automatic pass, but in the end its serving a superior cause that counts IMHO, whether the cause be one's country doesn't matter as much as the principles by which it stands. A righteous cause is what's important.

Translation: Evil can be good, if the one doing it is working from a 'good' motivation ???

Logroller ... 'The road to hell is paved with good intentions'

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_road_to_hell_is_paved_with_good_intentions


The road to hell is paved with good intentions is a proverb (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proverb) or aphorism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Aphorism).

An alternative form of the proverb is "hell is full of good meanings, but heaven is full of good works"

Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Logroller ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

A righteous cause is what's important. I'm no gandhi, never claimed to be, nor did I say mandela was of equivalent character. But he's no more a murdering bastard than was Churchill. I thought we were done both having made our points. However I can not in good conscience ignore this accusation you just made against Churchill. If Churchill's role and actions are not hero worthy then no man 's action ever were IMHO. HE FOUGHT FOR HIS NATION'S SURVIVAL AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST EVIL AND MURDEROUS REGIMES MAN HAS EVER KNOWN (NAZIS).. Yet you dare to equate a murdering terrorist (which Mandela most certainly was) with him!! As nicely as I can do it , I call bullshit on that.
If one had to pick history's top ten greatest leaders of men Churchill would have to be in that list. Mandela would even make it into any top 500 list. Would not even make it into any top million in my book. Perhaps you confuse action with cause amigo. Stone cold murderous action even if it is deemed to support a righteous cause still is stone cold murderous action. A distinction must be made or else any and all murder can be justified! Simply because it allows for those doing the evil and murderous deeds to justify that their cause is a just one! Apply that reasoning and anybody murdering can apply that coverall to justify their act/acts of murder. There can be no such standard set amigo. Not and it ALSO be logical or an act of justice IMHO. -Tyr

[fj1200]

Wow, a standing KO if I ever saw one. ;)

[logroller]

Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Logroller ?

Asked and answered. I said it is when deaths of innocents is unavoidable, such actions are justified if they serve to reduce the number. Same question to you.

[aboutime]

Tyr. I find myself wondering why Jim doesn't just turn, or give his Forum to logroller, and fj?

After all. Between the two of them. Absolutely everyone else; every human being alive, and every member of this forum are not worthy, or eligible to be near, hear, read, or discuss any topic of any kind since Log, and fj are the sole owners of the entirety of worldly knowledge.

Therefore, no other member of the human race is permitted to say, do, read, hear, or think about any topic unless it is first cleared with Log, or fj.

Only they may offer their selfish approval, or stupidity standards they are capable of presenting here.

Just ask either of them how miserable, frustrated, and permanently mentally challenged they are.

IMO...of course.



A second invitation for log, and fj to address. Call it a BUMP.

[Drummond]

I thought we were done both having made our points. However I can not in good conscience ignore this accusation you just made against Churchill. If Churchill's role and actions are not hero worthy then no man 's action ever were IMHO. HE FOUGHT FOR HIS NATION'S SURVIVAL AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST EVIL AND MURDEROUS REGIMES MAN HAS EVER KNOWN (NAZIS).. Yet you dare to equate a murdering terrorist (which Mandela most certainly was) with him!! As nicely as I can do it , I call bullshit on that.
If one had to pick history's top ten greatest leaders of men Churchill would have to be in that list. Mandela would even make it into any top 500 list. Would not even make it into any top million in my book. Perhaps you confuse action with cause amigo. Stone cold murderous action even if it is deemed to support a righteous cause still is stone cold murderous action. A distinction must be made or else any and all murder can be justified! Simply because it allows for those doing the evil and murderous deeds to justify that their cause is a just one! Apply that reasoning and anybody murdering can apply that coverall to justify their act/acts of murder. There can be no such standard set amigo. Not and it ALSO be logical or an act of justice IMHO. -Tyr:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Perfect answer, Tyr .. and I couldn't see you leaving that criticism of Winston Churchill unchallenged.:clap:

[Drummond]

Asked and answered. I said it is when deaths of innocents is unavoidable, such actions are justified if they serve to reduce the number. Same question to you.

I take it that you've already seen Tyr's answer to you ? Quoting from it:


Stone cold murderous action even if it is deemed to support a righteous cause still is stone cold murderous action. A distinction must be made or else any and all murder can be justified!

You say:


...when deaths of innocents is unavoidable, such actions are justified if they serve to reduce the number.

So, the deaths of innocents can be seen to be 'unavoidable', eh ? Meaning ... that a terrorist just HAS to terrorise, he or she has absolutely no choice in the matter ??

Logroller, you're close - if not actually at the point of - justifying 'any and all murder', are you not ? I do not accept that terrorists HAVE to kill innocent human beings. THEY CHOOSE THEIR SAVAGERY. There is no physical law of nature mandating them to kill. They make their choice. And, Logroller, you will not convince me that the murder of those innocent human beings is 'justified' ... AT ALL.

Tell me what crime any of those innocent human beings had committed, to earn a randomly-applied death sentence !!!

Do you realise that a logical outcome of your argument is to quantify innocent human lives as having insufficient value to even deserve to be lived ??? And for what, to satisfy A TERRORIST CHOICE TO COMMIT MURDER ???

.... so, Tyr's point is validated .. already. Unless of course, Logroller, you're now prepared to concede you are wrong ?

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

:clap::clap::clap::clap:

Perfect answer, Tyr .. and I couldn't see you leaving that criticism of Winston Churchill unchallenged.:clap: I could no more leave that statement unchallenged than I could stand by and watch a helpless innocent person beaten my a far more powerful man . That's the thing here I have never yet explained about a huge portion of my many fights in life. That I did so to defend others. The majority were me defending others incapable of defending themselves. That doesn't make me any better than anybody else but it does make me totally unwilling to ignore such dastardly action. True, I did so greatly enjoy beating the damn bullies. So yes, I am guilty of taking too much pleasure in doing so. My second validation for fighting so much was that it "kept me in shape" for my second job= bouncer. I had no problem finding the bullies every bar and club had at least one some had 5 or 10. I didnt hang out in soft gentle places back then. As my older brother told me -- " but Robert you enjoy it too damn much! That's not healthy "! Only when I GOT MUCH OLDER DID I SEE HE WAS RIGHT. SPILT MILK, NO CORRECTING IT NOW. I lived to talk about it now because somebody up above was looking out for me is all I can figure out. I was not a gentle man back then, at least not like I am now. You know logroller has his point of view on this and I simply disagree. He may see it as logical and commendable so I try not to criticize too harshly in my reply. --Tyr

[logroller]

I thought we were done both having made our points.
you were mistaken. I'll let you know when I'm done.


However I can not in good conscience ignore this accusation you just made against Churchill. If Churchill's role and actions are not hero worthy then no man 's action ever were IMHO. HE FOUGHT FOR HIS NATION'S SURVIVAL AGAINST ONE OF THE MOST EVIL AND MURDEROUS REGIMES MAN HAS EVER KNOWN (NAZIS)
I agree completely.... however, ibid, hell is full of good intentions... So perhaps you should take up the issue with Drummond, the bible or gandhi-- for it is them and their standards which indict Churchill, not me or mine. Once again you've made a strawman and I cannot in good conscience abide by such. You're mistaken to believe that I would.


.. Yet you dare to equate a murdering terrorist (which Mandela most certainly was) with him!! As nicely as I can do it , I call bullshit on that.
Not a dare, 'tis the outcome of your logic sir. I admit its not especially nice to expose the fallacy of your and other's position, but the shit is of your own bull.


Perhaps you confuse action with cause amigo. Stone cold murderous action even if it is deemed to support a righteous cause still is stone cold murderous action.
Such as killing women and children to affect the morale of the nation at large, as Churchill did-- Is that not pretty stone-cold, action-wise?


A distinction must be made or else any and all murder can be justified!
By definition, murder is non justifiable homicide; ergo justified killing is not murder. That's the distinction you fail to accept. You use a presupposition of unjustified homicide to prove it unjustifiable-- its circular reasoning.


Simply because it allows for those doing the evil and murderous deeds to justify that their cause is a just one!

If you want to take the line that all killing is evil then fine, then all war is evil; All killing is unjustifiable and thus murderous and all those who do so are evil murderers worthy of a sub-human label. That's not my position; in fact I have argued repeatedly and consistently against such. Because I know the perils of such and by your own admonition you don't abide by such either. Sorry tyr, you can't have your self-righteous cake and eat it too.


Apply that reasoning and anybody murdering can apply that coverall to justify their act/acts of murder. There can be no such standard set amigo. Not and it ALSO be logical or an act of justice IMHO. -Tyr
I believe I've covered the difference between murder and killing; exposing the logical failures you sense as your own. Applying my standard can justify any number of killings, but certainly not all. The lack of logic is your repeated strawman and circular reasoning. And justice??? By all means, explain to me how one day of mandela's incarceration for sabotage of strategic non-living targets and treason against an evil and insidious institution was justice? Answer that sir without the fallacious rhetorical presupposition of it being unjustified murder or terrorism, if you can.

If you do, I will, under the South African law at the time prove gandhi guilty of terrorism. Indeed, most every member of this board would qualify. Look it up -- the terrorism act of 1967. hitler himself would be proud of such an article. Then tell me again what you would do to resist such without yourself being a 'terrorist'...evil, murderous etc....oh yea, and you're presumed guilty until proven innocent...if you get a trial at all; there's no habeus corpus provision. So scratch that challenge, you're a terrorist tyr, the law says so. Nothing you say can absolve such except rejecting all forms of dissidence, but it's too late for that; once a terrorist...always, right? And the next time you have a party at your house the government is coming in guns blazing-- YOU TERRORISTS MUST BE STOPPED. This is the war on terror and not what I consider just....but then again, if it saves lives...perhaps such is justifiable.

[logroller]

A second invitation for log, and fj to address. Call it a BUMP.
I call it discussion of staff actions, flaming and spam.

[logroller]

I take it that you've already seen Tyr's answer to you ? Quoting from it:



You say:



So, the deaths of innocents can be seen to be 'unavoidable', eh ? Meaning ... that a terrorist just HAS to terrorise, he or she has absolutely no choice in the matter ??

Logroller, you're close - if not actually at the point of - justifying 'any and all murder', are you not ? I do not accept that terrorists HAVE to kill innocent human beings. THEY CHOOSE THEIR SAVAGERY. There is no physical law of nature mandating them to kill. They make their choice. And, Logroller, you will not convince me that the murder of those innocent human beings is 'justified' ... AT ALL.

Tell me what crime any of those innocent human beings had committed, to earn a randomly-applied death sentence !!!

Do you realise that a logical outcome of your argument is to quantify innocent human lives as having insufficient value to even deserve to be lived ??? And for what, to satisfy A TERRORIST CHOICE TO COMMIT MURDER ???

.... so, Tyr's point is validated .. already. Unless of course, Logroller, you're now prepared to concede you are wrong ?
Murder is never justified, it's defined as such. You failed to answer the question. Perhaps it was an oversight of your's, so I'll give you one more chance before I conclude you're a coward.

Question: Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Drummond?

[Drummond]

A quick point.


... So perhaps you should take up the issue with Drummond, the bible or gandhi-- for it is them and their standards which indict Churchill, not me or mine.

Letting you know, Logroller, that I in no way regard Churchill as other than a war HERO. He was a dedicated opposer of Hitler and the evils Hitler spawned through his Third Reich.

I've already posted elsewhere that Dresden had to be bombed as a strategic target .. since what was located there had its use in Hitler's war effort. If you wish, I'll dig up the evidence a second time.

But rather more offensive is the evident inability you have in separating out warfare from terrorism. To offer just one point for consideration .. Hitler's Reich had to be smashed, defeated, in order to stop its offensive capabilities, themselves deadly. More, the evils perpetrated by that regime had to be stopped themselves.

Ask any Jew whether they appreciate the Allied liberation of concentration and death camps, Logroller. Such liberations were only possible through very sustained military action, itself responsible for many deaths. Ask yourself what would've occurred had Hitler's forces never been militarily opposed as they were.

Churchill's leadership played a major part in Hitler's downfall ... and you criticise CHURCHILL and his actions !!!

I find that as incredible as it is offensive. A 'terrorist' he was NOT .. but instead a stalwart defender of the free world.

[logroller]

A quick point.



Letting you know, Logroller, that I in no way regard Churchill as other than a war HERO. He was a dedicated opposer of Hitler and the evils Hitler spawned through his Third Reich.

I've already posted elsewhere that Dresden had to be bombed as a strategic target .. since what was located there had its use in Hitler's war effort. If you wish, I'll dig up the evidence a second time.

But rather more offensive is the evident inability you have in separating out warfare from terrorism. To offer just one point for consideration .. Hitler's Reich had to be smashed, defeated, in order to stop its offensive capabilities, themselves deadly. More, the evils perpetrated by that regime had to be stopped themselves.

Ask any Jew whether they appreciate the Allied liberation of concentration and death camps, Logroller. Such liberations were only possible through very sustained military action, itself responsible for many deaths. Ask yourself what would've occurred had Hitler's forces never been militarily opposed as they were.

Churchill's leadership played a major part in Hitler's downfall ... and you criticise CHURCHILL and his actions !!!

I find that as incredible as it is offensive. A 'terrorist' he was NOT .. but instead a stalwart defender of the free world.
Is that your answer? Was that a yes?

[Drummond]

Murder is never justified, it's defined as such. You failed to answer the question. Perhaps it was an oversight of your's, so I'll give you one more chance before I conclude you're a coward.

Question: Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Drummond?

'Thank you' for your suggestion that I may be a 'coward', Logroller. You are not the only contributor on this forum who stoops to contentious personalised tactics in the hope of gaining leverage.

Answering your question: you omit the issue of INTENT. In warfare, the deaths of innocents is not an outright intention (... unless you happen to be comparable to bad figures, such as Hitler). However - where terrorists and terrorism is concerned, such an intention is sought after, and thoroughly intended. It is invariably central to their aims.

An INTENDED act of blowing up innocent people, as themselves sought-after targets, is not a 'good work'. But since, in warfare, you cannot deploy bombs or missiles which only blow up the 'guilty', innocent lives have to be accepted as likely to die along with others.

It's either that, or surrender to an aggressor force. That aggressor will in any case be likely to kill innocents, and plenty of them, if permitted a victory. Again, think 'Third Reich' for a good example of that.

Warfare has complications which terrorism does not. Terrorists care specifically about killing and maiming innocent people. It is their focus.

And defenders of terrorists, whether it's their outright intention to or not, defend THIS.

[Drummond]

Is that your answer? Was that a yes?

It is a 'Yes'. Churchill was indeed a stalwart defender of the free world.

[logroller]

Murder is never justified, it's defined as such. You failed to answer the question. Perhaps it was an oversight of your's, so I'll give you one more chance before I conclude you're a coward.

Question: Is blowing up innocent people a 'good work', Drummond?
That's the question you coward.

[Tyr-Ziu Saxnot]

you were mistaken. I'll let you know when I'm done. . That is a right fine stand. I believe I nicely let you know I am done and had made my points on the subject and I see no need to keep repeating those points. Carry on as you like doesn't matter to me. Call me a coward too if you feel like it. Obvious to me somebody has decided to get personal over this subject. Why I haven't a clue. I will say this , Drummond is by no means a coward. I'd take him in my corner in a serious fight anytime. I dare say that I am somewhat of a very good judge of courage and honor. He sir, has both with excess to spare. Fact.. -Tyr

[Drummond]

That is a right fine stand. I believe I nicely let you know I am done and had made my points on the subject and I see no need to keep repeating those points. Carry on as you like doesn't matter to me. Call me a coward too if you feel like it. Obvious to me somebody has decided to get personal over this subject. Why I haven't a clue. I will say this , Drummond is by no means a coward. I'd take him in my corner in a serious fight anytime. I dare say that I am somewhat of a very good judge of courage and honor. He sir, has both with excess to spare. Fact.. -Tyr

Many thanks, Tyr ! Much appreciated.

You know that your opposition is as desperate as it is disreputable when it has to resort to such depths in order to hope to win a debate.

[Drummond]

That's the question you coward.

Selective blindness getting the better of you ? I posted:


An INTENDED act of blowing up innocent people, as themselves sought-after targets, is not a 'good work'. But since, in warfare, you cannot deploy bombs or missiles which only blow up the 'guilty', innocent lives have to be accepted as likely to die along with others.

I deal in reality. You deal just in insults, when the going gets tough for you.

Shameful.