Destroying Islam

[annabenedetti]

Cool isn't it ... giving birth is what makes women unique, as well as equal ... especially in the eyes of the law, where it counts.

Did you notice he didn't quote that part?

 

[Rusha]

Did you notice he didn't quote that part?

I did.

 

[Tambora]

Our justification in dropping two bombs on Japanese cities was 'the further salvation of American lives.'

Yeah.

And here's the deal ......
We aren't trying to take over the world like Islam is.
Their brutality will continue until they have the whole world.
Our brutality would end when they are defeated and defenseless.

 

[Crucible]

Giving birth to my children was the most life-affirming, most paradigm-shattering, most rewarding thing I ever did.

I almost feel sad that you'll never know what that's like.

Here's the list of skills needed to do this one thing women excel at:

-be born a woman
-have sex

You can beautify it all you want, but that's just getting away from the point. In fact, all you're really doing is making an idol of yourself for men to labor under.

I mean, what better way can it be revealed what I've been stating through these threads forever now- than for you to wheel it right out for me altogether!

:chuckle:

 

[Lon]

Dropping the bomb on Hiroshima and Nagasaki was immoral. We killed over 100 thousand civilians.

We did. Immoral? For me, it is a bit larger than me. I have a hard time trying to intervene in war-ethics. I 'think' you count numbers, which is what our government did and you do what may save the most lives, even if you are taking others. I can't really give more than that because, as I said, I'm much like you in sentiment. I don't think you or I should necessarily be in charge of overseeing wars. I 'think' neither you nor I have the stomach for it.

Except you're not going after just the bully, you're going after the bully's wife and children.

True. Is a wife of an extremist, or the mother of an extremist innocent? :idunno: I am not cut out for making war decisions, just trying to express why the eye-for-eye decision exists and might necessarily (I don't know) need to be employed.

Isn't that exactly what's being advocated that we do?

I'm not sure we'd have no remorse, but yes, that's basically what this thread discussing, I believe.

I'm not necessarily the guy that can carry a thread like this, just a voice that thinks I can understand a bit what is going on, and further, realizing I'm not the guy to sit on that war council. I 'think' the chief end of a war must weigh costs and do the most expedient thing, "regardless." if I ever had to make that choice, I would do it, and decisively, but I couldn't live with it, for the entire rest of my life. I'd ever have it hanging over me. Some will go further and make it a weight of American lives vs. other lives and will place a different valuation on the decision. I think I understand national interest as well. Again, however, this is why I'd never want to be in that seat.

Is it kind of like this? - You see a gangster drive up to your house with one grandchild inside your house, you are a good shot, and have one shot. He is going to toss a bomb into your house. You can shoot the bomb right now, in his hand. He has his wife and child in the car.
Less innocents will be killed if you don't take the shot. I'd HATE to be in that position and would backpedal madly away from accusation whichever way you choose. I'm just not that guy. I understand you if you say "yes" and I understand you if you say "no." I think I'd have to take the shot, and it seems to me, its similar to what we are talking about here.

I think, no bones about it, that it has got to be the hardest decision ever, and I'm just not made for this kind of thing.

 

[Tambora]

Because I don't believe in spanking, the spare the rod spoil the child doesn't convince me.

Well it is biblical.
I am witness to the fact that a hard spanking can indeed be highly effective to stop bad behavior IMMEDIATELY!

No, we don't sit on our hands, but I believe the other extreme, to wholesale kill innocent civilians to root out terrorists, is morally wrong.

Then you are stuck with Islam just continuing right along on their path of destruction, because the terrorists are going to be among the innocent.
So you've pretty much tied your hands and made yourself defenseless.

There has to be a rational third way.

I'm all ears.

Terrorism is horrifying, and we can thank our past activities in the Middle East for destabilizing it and helping foster the environment in which it festered and grew.

We can lay blame with hindsight all we like, but the fact still remains that these terrorists are a HUGE problem and need to be dealt with no matter what the past holds.

 

[Crucible]

Cool isn't it ... giving birth is what makes women unique, as well as equal ... especially in the eyes of the law, where it counts.

:rotfl:

There's so many things wrong with that statement, it's not even worth speaking further on.

 

[Tambora]

I think, no bones about it, that it has got to be the hardest decision ever, and I'm just not made for this kind of thing.

Yep.
One needs to realize that any war that has ever happened had casualties.

I'm sure there were some Israelites that cringed at the thought of slaughtering every man, woman, and child in city (and their livestock too!).
But it needed to be done.

 

[Crucible]

Yep.
One needs to realize that any war that has ever happened had casualties.

I'm sure there were some Israelites that cringed at the thought of slaughtering every man, woman, and child in city (and their livestock too!).
But it needed to be done.

Yeah, as long as it's not you and you're family, bombs away

The reason God commanded these tribes be wiped out was so that they didn't evolve and multiply into something worse later on. We deal with those today who weren't taken out then.

But
With that being the case, you can't use that to justify taking out millions of people now.

 

[Tambora]

Yeah, as long as it's not you and you're family, bombs away

The reason God commanded these tribes be wiped out was so that they didn't evolve and multiply into something worse later on. We deal with those today who weren't taken out then.

But
With that being the case, you can't use that to justify taking out millions of people.

That's kinda the point.
Destroy them before they destroy you.

Does anyone really think that when they get nukes, they will not use them?
I'd rather we hit them first.

 

[Crucible]

That's kinda the point.
Destroy them before they destroy you.

Does anyone really think that when they get nukes, they will not use them?
I'd rather we hit them first.

The Israelites took out tribes that were only a few thousand deep at best.

You're talking about millions of people, and a worldwide religion second to Christianity.

 

[Tambora]

There's nothing a woman can do that a man can't do better.

Men run away better than women in horror movies.
Women are always tripping and falling.

 

[Crucible]

Men run away better than women in horror movies.
Women are always tripping and falling.

Women are better acting as victims.

 

[Tambora]

The Israelites took out tribes that were only a few thousand deep at best.

Thousands against thousands.

You're talking about millions of people, and a worldwide religion second to Christianity.

Millions against millions.

 

[Crucible]

Thousands against thousands.

Millions against millions.

I don't remember the Israelites killing a tribe, and then massacring everyone within a hundred mile radius and turning it all into an unlivable wasteland.

Or

Causing global unrest in half the cities in the world, causing even civil wars.


You all haven't thought about it any deeper than how to give an immediate justification

 

[Rusha]

:rotfl:

There's so many things wrong with that statement, it's not even worth speaking further on.

It's okay ... no one expects you to actually contribute anything to a discussion outside of "it's the fault of women".

That smiley face sums up the accuracy of your *logic*.

 

[Crucible]

It's okay ... no one expects you to actually contribute anything to a discussion outside of "it's the fault of women".

That smiley face sums up the accuracy of your *logic*.

You don't even realize the ridiculous irony and conclusion to what I've stated in that past

Let's go over it:

Cool isn't it ... giving birth is what makes women unique, as well as equal ... especially in the eyes of the law, where it counts.

-giving birth (being a woman) automatically certifies 'equality'
-'equality' in the eyes of the law, which is forced prominence of women (not equity)
-yet pretending it is 'equity', as to keep up the facade that your complaints are valid, or that you have any place criticizing men
-and lastly, feeling smug about it because many men are perfectly fine being ostracized for women's self involved lunacy

Case in point:
You all destroyed yourselves on this thread. Been a long time coming lain:

Now, we can move on to exhibit B! Yay
This is what proper Christian women beware:

 

[Rusha]

Let's go over it

Let's not and say we did.

Because I am such a sweet, considerate person, I will save you some time:

You have been running the same tired tirades and grudges for years. The reality is ... it's your issue to fix and has no bearing on anyone other than yourself.

 

[Crucible]

Let's not and say we did.

Because I am such a sweet, considerate person, I will save you some time:

You have been running the same tired tirades and grudges for years. The reality is ... it's your issue to fix and has no bearing on anyone other than yourself.

Years :think:

You all have proven me right since the start of these discussions, having exemplified much of what I say. The key wasn't to drill the truth over and over again, as the truth was evident enough- but rather to treat the whole matter as a painting that simply needed to be mounted right. And that's what I did on this thread, and now I'm finally satisfied after all this time

 

[Tambora]

Women are better acting as victims.

You play one very well.