Letter of Apology

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.

So..... you are saying that if a person is going to kill you, it is wrong to kill him first?

 

[firechyld]

100 000 civilians at last count, peeps. Not tens of thousands.

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.

Tell that to God who demanded that murderers, adulterers, homosexuals and many more, be killed for their crimes.

 

[aikido7]

100 000 civilians at last count, peeps. Not tens of thousands.

Some would call "100,000" tens of thousands because it is made up of 100 groups of 10,000.









Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.

 

[firechyld]

"tens of thousands" just sounds smaller.

By that argument, hundreds of people live in the US.

*grin*

 

[Lighthouse]

Originally posted by aikido7

Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.

Nor in any other thing.

 

[SOTK]

Re: Re: Letter of Apology

Re: Re: Letter of Apology

Originally posted by Skeptic

Right thinking Americans...........

:darwinsm:

Skeptic,

You're arrogance is almost sickening. :down:

Wait a second.....it is sickening. :vomit:

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by aikido7
I'm not exactly a mental giant.

 

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock:keypurr

Two wrongs NEVER make a right.

How about three?

All killing is wrong. There has to be a better way to peace.

Enjoy your burger. Would you like fries with that?

 

[Frank Ernest]

Originally posted by :mock::aikido:7

Some would call "100,000" tens of thousands because it is made up of 100 groups of 10,000.

Then again, when it comes to math I'm not exactly a mental giant, either.

:darwinsm:

 

[Frank Ernest]

I'm going to self-actualize some internalizations here. Regards to :zakath:.

:mock::skeptic: "right-thinking Americans" (a group from which he excluded himself)
:mock::aikido:7 "... not exactly a mental giant." (The Truth is finally out!)
:mock: keypurr "There has to be a better way to peace." (There is. It's called Superior Firepower.)

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by BillyBob

So..... you are saying that if a person is going to kill you, it is wrong to kill him first?

If someone is going to kill me, I will first try to do whatever I can to find other ways to stop that person or otherwise avoid being killed. Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Saddam was NOT about to kill Americans (i.e. he was not a threat). Bush had NO clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat, which is what would constitute "a person is going to kill you," as opposed to "a person might someday in the future develop the capacity to kill you, IF the U.S. and the world allow him the opportunity to develop such a capacity, which is unlikely."

Bush had plenty of time to find other more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam. If Bush had take the time, he might have avoided the unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

 

[Skeptic]

Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Do you think Jesus would agree with this? Or do you think Jesus would have preferred that people, as a FIRST resort, simply kill whoever is trying to kill them?

 

[BillyBob]

Originally posted by Skeptic

If someone is going to kill me, I will first try to do whatever I can to find other ways to stop that person or otherwise avoid being killed.

Thereby giving him more time to kill you.

Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

It should be the first resort.

Saddam was NOT about to kill Americans (i.e. he was not a threat).

That's not what John Kerry said.

Bush had NO clear hard pre-invasion evidence that Saddam posed a real, significant and imminent threat, which is what would constitute "a person is going to kill you," as opposed to "a person might someday in the future develop the capacity to kill you, IF the U.S. and the world allow him the opportunity to develop such a capacity, which is unlikely."

Saddam was a terrorist.

Bush had plenty of time to find other more ethical ways of dealing with Saddam. If Bush had take the time, he might have avoided the unnecessary and immoral slaughter of tens of thousands of innocent men, women and children in Iraq.

Saddam was given 12 years to comply, he refused. 12 years was more than enough time, Bush did the right thing.

 

[Rolf Ernst]

BILLYBOB--you are really in fine form on this one!

 

[BillyBob]

Thanks! :banana:

 

[aikido7]

BILLYBOB--you are really in fine form on this one!

Take it from me--he's got the snappy comebacks. I just notice he has nothing to say about Skeptic's remarks concerning Jesus.

 

[One Eyed Jack]

Originally posted by Skeptic

Killing the person trying to kill me is a LAST resort.

Good. Unfortunately, your killer had no such compunctions and killed you while you were still sorting thru your options. Now your family is at his mercy, which doesn't sound very good considering how much he just showed you.

Do you think Jesus would agree with this?

No, I think He would think you're an idiot. In fact, I know He thinks you're an idiot.

Or do you think Jesus would have preferred that people, as a FIRST resort, simply kill whoever is trying to kill them?

I don't think He would hold it against you for taking the life of someone who was trying to take yours. Why would He?

 

[Skeptic]

Originally posted by One Eyed Jack

I don't think He would hold it against you for taking the life of someone who was trying to take yours.

Even if there were other nonlethal first-resort options, which would make killing the person a last resort?

 

[Mr. 5020]

Originally posted by aikido7

Take it from me--he's got the snappy comebacks. I just notice he has nothing to say about Skeptic's remarks concerning Jesus.

That's because BB doesn't post theologically. It's a known fact.