Obama's speech to Muslims

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
"There is a dirty bomb in Los Angeles, and it's bound to go off in mere hours. Conveniently, you happen to have the guy who set it up in custody, and you even somehow know it was him. Now comes the hard part... would you be ready to extract this information out of the culprit by any means necessary in order to save millions?"

Would I? Absolutely.

However, the problem with this scenario is that it's highly fictiotinalized, an old trope called "no third option". The problem is that the odds of this hypothetical situation to take place in what us boring people call the "real world" is extremely slim, well, we could say non-existent.

Yet, in this thread we have several people using different variations of this trope to attempt to justify their opinions, even demanding an answer to such a question from another person who's this far attempted to keep his opinions rooted firmly in reality. No wonder attempts to get such questions answered are promptly ignored.

Time that is running out is a nice way to create tension and move the story forward. However, it rarely is an issue in reality. We can still assume that there is a person who apparently knows something nasty might be ahead in the future. Our options are to extract that intel by either using "enchanced interrogation" or building ones trust. There is a 50-50 chance both methods will yield significant results.

Nobody needs to publicly present their choice. Just take a good deep glance in the nearest mirror and wonder what exactly could be done to make oneself a better man.

Of course, extreme cynics think "every man is a monster". Which pretty effectively clouds the morality in above hypothesis as well. Go figure.
 

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
"There is a dirty bomb in Los Angeles, and it's bound to go off in mere hours. Conveniently, you happen to have the guy who set it up in custody, and you even somehow know it was him. Now comes the hard part... would you be ready to extract this information out of the culprit by any means necessary in order to save millions?"

Would I? Absolutely.

However, the problem with this scenario is that it's highly fictiotinalized, an old trope called "no third option". The problem is that the odds of this hypothetical situation to take place in what us boring people call the "real world" is extremely slim, well, we could say non-existent.

Yet, in this thread we have several people using different variations of this trope to attempt to justify their opinions, even demanding an answer to such a question from another person who's this far attempted to keep his opinions rooted firmly in reality. No wonder attempts to get such questions answered are promptly ignored.

Time that is running out is a nice way to create tension and move the story forward. However, it rarely is an issue in reality. We can still assume that there is a person who apparently knows something nasty might be ahead in the future. Our options are to extract that intel by either using "enchanced interrogation" or building ones trust. There is a 50-50 chance both methods will yield significant results.

Nobody needs to publicly present their choice. Just take a good deep glance in the nearest mirror and wonder what exactly could be done to make oneself a better man.

Of course, extreme cynics think "every man is a monster". Which pretty effectively clouds the morality in above hypothesis as well. Go figure.

Well, heres the thing. It really isn't highly fictionalized because the consequences are the same. It doesn't have to be a timed thing. The thing is we wouldn't even know if it is a time thing. If we know there is going to be an attack sometime in the future, which in many cases we did, we have to try everything to prevent it.

We are talking about reality. Not some fantasy world where enemies, especially terrorists, are going to just give us all their information without being threatened. The question I asked helps in showing this reality. If someone is willing to torture to save their family, but still are against it being used by the U.S. in these situations, they are hypocrites. That's what the U.S. is trying to do: save other people's families. The question proves that no one can logically be against torture in all situations. You kind of have to be a sick person to let your family die, or other people's families die for that matter.
 

Le Saboteur

Active member
Finn said:
However, the problem with this scenario is that it's highly fictionalized, an old trope called "no third option". The problem is that the odds of this hypothetical situation to take place in what us boring people call the "real world" is extremely slim, well, we could say non-existent.

They even have a name for this kind of argument. It's called a "straw man" argument. Those offering up these wildly implausible scenarios have yet to refute any of the other comments previously stated; given the tone this thread has taken, it's turned into playground discourse. "Did you hear what 'monkey' said?" "Ohmigawd! Maybe they'll scrap now!" Sleight of hand may be an acceptable form of journalism on the television news, but it doesn't mean we should all jump on board.

Some of you here might find this cartoon amusing.

Attila the Professor said:
Capitalism is good. Prosperity is good. For the country, as a whole, a rising tide raises at least some of the ships.

Don't necessarily disagree with you here Attila, but I have never succumbed to the theory that giving everyone a job is going to change fundamental differences between Western & Muslim culture. The biggest and most obvious example, is the issue of "womens rights." As Obama mentioned in his speech, the common perception is that if a woman in the Near East is wearing a hijab she must be horribly repressed. The counter to that is, Western women are, shall we say, promiscuous. The question then is there a comfortable middle ground that preserves the ideal of "unity in diversity?"

This broad smear of issues seems to imply that the Western World would like nothing more than to wipe Islamic culture off the face of the map, because it doesn't comport to their newly found expectations. In other words, economics is not the answer; it may play a part, but won't do what some would like it to.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Short Round said:
Well, heres the thing. It really isn't highly fictionalized because the consequences are the same. It doesn't have to be a timed thing. The thing is we wouldn't even know if it is a time thing. If we know there is going to be an attack sometime in the future, which in many cases we did, we have to try everything to prevent it.

We are talking about reality. Not some fantasy world where enemies, especially terrorists, are going to just give us all their information without being threatened. The question I asked helps in showing this reality. If someone is willing to torture to save their family, but still are against it being used by the U.S. in these situations, they are hypocrites. That's what the U.S. is trying to do: save other people's families. The question proves that no one can logically be against torture in all situations. You kind of have to be a sick person to let your family die, or other people's families die for that matter.
I was never going to dispute the results torture might yield. However, the problem with torture is that it never offers a long-term solution. Sure, it might help one thwart off whatever boogeyman's hiding behind the next corner, but at the same time it's going to instigate more hatred in the other side and ensure that there will be more attempted assaults in the future, feeding the vicious cycle instead of dousing it.

Torture works, in some cases. There is proof that it has given results. But, the moments in which it becomes our only option to prevent the upcoming doom are technically non-existent in real world. Therefore, justifying torture with an argument like "it'll save lives" has its roots firmly planted in something coming straight out of Hollywood. But hey, considering it's supposedly painting us the ideal image of western lifestyle, who am I to judge those who wish to live after it... just don't come complaining to us when reality ensues.

The point here is not just to fight whatever "terrorists" there might be now, but attempt to build a world where the reasons for people to cause fear and sorrow in the other man are greatly diminished. Sure, we can keep down the road we are in now and enjoy those brief moments of calamity whenever's the current threat has been neutralized and our families and loved ones are safe for the moment... or we can try and build an athmosphere of mutual trust and empathy where any acts of violence that might occur are not despised just among "us", but among "them" as well.

So, instead of doing everything we can to prevent an attack that has already been launched, how about trying not to give them a reason for one in the first place?
 
Last edited:

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
I was never going to dispute the results torture might yield. However, the problem with torture is that it never offers a long-term solution. Sure, it might help one thwart off whatever boogeyman's hiding behind the next corner, but at the same time it's going to instigate more hatred in the other side and ensure that there will be more attempted assaults in the future, feeding the vicious cycle instead of dousing it.

Torture works, in some cases. There is proof that it has given results. But, the moments in which it becomes our only option to prevent the upcoming doom are technically non-existent in real world. Therefore, justifying torture with an argument like "it'll save lives" has its roots firmly planted in something coming straight out of Hollywood. But hey, considering it's supposedly painting us the ideal image of western lifestyle, who am I to judge those who wish to live after it... just don't come complaining to us when reality ensues.

The point here is not just to fight whatever "terrorists" there might be now, but attempt to build a world where the reasons for people to cause fear and sorrow in the other man are greatly diminished. Sure, we can keep down the road we are in now and enjoy those brief moments of calamity whenever's the current threat has been neutralized and our families and loved ones are safe for the moment... or we can try and build an athmosphere of mutual trust and empathy where any acts of violence that might occur are not despised just among "us", but among "them" as well.

So, instead of doing everything we can to prevent an attack that has already been launched, how about trying not to give them a reason for one in the first place?

True, it doesn't necessarily offer long term results. However, against this enemy there really isn't anything that can. Torture doesn't instigate more hate on the other side because it is already there. Their goal is to kill Americans. In their eyes we are the "big satan".

Well, everyone says there are other ways but never mention them. The reason is because with these enemies, there is no other way. They aren't going to talk to you. They would rather die. The only way to get information out of them to is to make them hurt physically, which naturally all humans feel no matter what. Not many humans can take that kind of stuff. This is one of the best examples of reality. In real life bad guys don't just tell you their plan. You need to get it out of them.

Sadly, your plan of the world is extremely unrealistic. That will never happen. The world cannot ever be in complete peace, we have seen that throughout history. Humans are selfish and want power, they are not perfect.

I'm not quite sure how to respond to your last statement. Are you saying we gave them reasons to kill 3,000 innocent people on 9/11?
These enemies cannot be negotiated with, they believe their only way to salvation is by doing this. We don't give them reasons to kill people, they believe they have to. Just read parts of the Koran. It says they have the right to kill infidels, people who aren't Islamic.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
monkey said:
The United States of America, after suffering the WORST President EVER for the last 8 years, now has what may be one of the GREATEST Presidents ever.
Monkey, I agree with you a lot of the time. But I can't let you get by with this. While president, Truman was hated by the public as much as Bush was, but now he is looked back at with respect. I'm not saying that everything Bush did was right, or that even half of what he did was right, but he is certainly not the worst president we have ever had, and I don't think history will remember him that way.

You forget the scandals of Nixon, Harding, and Grant, the exacerbation of the Depression by Hoover, and the administrations of Pierce and Buchanan, which set the stage for the Civil War. Like him or not, Bush is not as bad as any of these men.

And Obama is certainly not the best president, either, unless you happen to be in favor of debt, big government, and racist Supreme Court justices. But let's not go there.

RedeemedChild said:
In my opinion George Washington, Abraham Lincoln, Thomas Jefferson along with FDR were the greatest Presidents that we've ever had.
Really? Here I fear that you show your own ignorance. Because you have picked four presidents who, although they are certainly four of the most famous presidents, had drastically different policies.

Washington favored Hamiltonian federalism, which Jefferson strongly opposed. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the welfare of homeland security (now who does that sound like?), which would have made Washington and Jefferson turn over in their graves (figuratively speaking, of course). FDR allowed the unnecessary interment of innocent Japanese Americans during WWII and favored "big government" economic solutions, the exact opposite of Jefferson's political philosophy.

So how can you think that these men, with radically different viewpoints and ideologies, could all be great? :rolleyes:

Oh, and by the way, what about Teddy Roosevelt and JFK? Why didn't you include them?
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
WillKill4Food said:
Monkey, I agree with you a lot of the time. But I can't let you get by with this. While president, Truman was hated by the public as much as Bush was, but now he is looked back at with respect. I'm not saying that everything Bush did was right, or that even half of what he did was right, but he is certainly not the worst president we have ever had, and I don't think history will remember him that way.

You forget the scandals of Nixon, Harding, and Grant, the exacerbation of the Depression by Hoover, and the administrations of Pierce and Buchanan, which set the stage for the Civil War. Like him or not, Bush is not as bad as any of these men.

And Obama is certainly not the best president, either, unless you happen to be in favor of debt, big government, and racist Supreme Court justices. But let's not go there.


Really? Here I fear that you show your own ignorance. Because you have picked four presidents who, although they are certainly four of the most famous presidents, had drastically different policies.

Washington favored Hamiltonian federalism, which Jefferson strongly opposed. Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the welfare of homeland security (now who does that sound like?), which would have made Washington and Jefferson turn over in their graves (figuratively speaking, of course). FDR allowed the unnecessary interment of innocent Japanese Americans during WWII and favored "big government" economic solutions, the exact opposite of Jefferson's political philosophy.

So how can you think that these men, with radically different viewpoints and ideologies, could all be great? :rolleyes:

Oh, and by the way, what about Teddy Roosevelt and JFK? Why didn't you include them?

I think you can favor these men, even with their different politics, because of what they did in the context of their time--All of them did things as president which were the best, if controversial, actions for their times.
 

WillKill4Food

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I think you can favor these men, even with their different politics, because of what they did in the context of their time--All of them did things as president which were the best, if controversial, actions for their times.
From your quote, I'm not sure if you're defending RedeemedChild's pick of the best presidents or if you are referencing my statements regarding who I consider the worst. Please be more specific.
 

Pale Horse

Moderator
Staff member
WillKill4Food said:
So how can you think that these men, with radically different viewpoints and ideologies, could all be great? :rolleyes:

Oh, and by the way, what about Teddy Roosevelt and JFK? Why didn't you include them?

oh SNAP!~~ :whip:

historians are cool
 
WillKill4Food said:
Lincoln suspended habeas corpus for the welfare of homeland security (now who does that sound like?), which would have made Washington and Jefferson turn over in their graves (figuratively speaking, of course).

It's funny you bring up Lincoln and Bush in the same sentence. You know Lincoln condemned the idea of a pre-emptive war, which I'm sure you realize is EXACTLY what Bush initiated.

"Allow the President to invade a neighboring nation whenever he shall deem it necessary to repel an invasion, and you allow him to do so whenever he may choose to say he deems it necessary for such purpose, and you allow him to make war at pleasure. Study to see if you can fix any limit to his power in this respect, after having given him so much as you propose. If to-day he should choose to say he thinks it necessary to invade Canada to prevent the British from invading us, how could you stop him? You may say to him, — 'I see no probability of the British invading us;' but he will say to you, 'Be silent: I see it, if you don't.'

"The provision of the Constitution giving the war making power to Congress was dictated, as I understand it, by the following reasons: Kings had always been involving and impoverishing their people in wars, pretending generally, if not always, that the good of the people was the object. This our convention understood to be the most oppressive of all kingly oppressions, and they resolved to so frame the Constitution that no one man should hold the power of bringing this oppression upon us. But your view destroys the whole matter, and places our President where kings have always stood," - Abraham Lincoln, in a letter to William H. Herndon, Feb. 15, 1848.


If only Jr were capable of generating such thoughts.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Short Round said:
Well, everyone says there are other ways but never mention them. The reason is because with these enemies, there is no other way. They aren't going to talk to you.
Those that hate the Westerners already are most likely lost cases. However, the behavior of us and our leaders are going to have an effect on their numbers in the future.

Short Round said:
Sadly, your plan of the world is extremely unrealistic. That will never happen. The world cannot ever be in complete peace, we have seen that throughout history. Humans are selfish and want power, they are not perfect.
I never said that we should aim for total "World Peace". It's something that will never happen, because one can't make everyone happy. I'm a moderator on a popular message board, I should know this. I also accept it.

However, there are ways to make more people tolerate me than outright dislike me. Abusing people they might feel themselves connected with is not one of them.

Short Round said:
We don't give them reasons to kill people, they believe they have to. Just read parts of the Koran. It says they have the right to kill infidels, people who aren't Islamic.
"He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:18.

That is just one example of the Good Book of the Christians. Sure, it can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, but so can the message of the Qur'an.

Were you not so eager to stereotypize the "enemy", you'd realize that the schism between Muslims and Westerners is not based on religion... it's based on history. And it reaches so far back that it's impossible to say who started it.
 

vaxer

Moderator Emeritus
Short Round said:
America didn't kill more innocent civilians after 9/11. That is a lie and you have no proof of it. I guess you are just repeating what you have heard. Try doing some research.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casualties_of_the_Iraq_War#Total_Iraqi_casualties

Most sources seem to point to about 100,000 civilian deaths. Since it was reported by the Pentagon there was no link between Iraq and Al-Qaeda, they didn't even die for a reason (or is it a different reason? geopolitics...?). If anything, these events promoted terrorism in the middle-eastern world.
 

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
Those that hate the Westerners already are most likely lost cases. However, the behavior of us and our leaders are going to have an effect on their numbers in the future.

I never said that we should aim for total "World Peace". It's something that will never happen, because one can't make everyone happy. I'm a moderator on a popular message board, I should know this. I also accept it.

However, there are ways to make more people tolerate me than outright dislike me. Abusing people they might feel themselves connected with is not one of them.

"He that believeth not is condemned already, because he hath not believed in the name of the only begotten Son of God." - John 3:18.

That is just one example of the Good Book of the Christians. Sure, it can be interpreted in a myriad of ways, but so can the message of the Qur'an.

Were you not so eager to stereotypize the "enemy", you'd realize that the schism between Muslims and Westerners is not based on religion... it's based on history. And it reaches so far back that it's impossible to say who started it.

But we haven't abused anyone. If future Muslims have a problem with us torturing TERRORISTS, that is their problem and there is nothing we can do about it. That means they sympathize with radicals anyway.

What does that verse have to do with anything? All that means is that non-believers will not be saved. That in no way can be interpreted as God saying to kill non-Christians! The Koran says one can kill a non-Muslim. That can't really be interpreted in another way. Jesus never says to use violence on non-believers.

Wrong. The enemies are radical Muslims, not all Muslims. These people believe they cannot be saved unless they kill infidels (mainly Americans and Israeli's). That is religion-based. Now you could say there is a mix, but it doesn't change the fact that they will stop at nothing to destroy us. They aren't going to hand over all their information.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
But it's clearly not just on the basis of Koranic teachings that resentments have arose. Another key tradition in Islam is that Jews and Christians are People of the Book, linked by a common tradition of monotheistic, Abrahamic, text-based religion. They were a more favored people.

And so Finn's right - it is not so much religion but history that has led to resentments. And we should do everything we can to prevent further resentment, because people aren't born being hateful. We can't afford to offer up our policies as recruiting posters for al-Qaeda and Hamas.
 
Last edited:

RedeemedChild

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I think you can favor these men, even with their different politics, because of what they did in the context of their time--All of them did things as president which were the best, if controversial, actions for their times.

Thanks Raiders112390! I could not have provided a better answer then that which you gave. You stated exactly what I believe.

Furthermore I don't approve of everything that Barack Obama is doing; for example nationalizing the banks. Nationalization of banks as some sources have pointed out could lead to what Christians fear is a state in which "no man can buy or sell save he that hath the mark of the beast."

Another thing that Obama has done that I do not approve of is left certain policies that still allow Military Tribunals to take place. And while I don't think Sonia Sotomayor is a racist I do fear that she might choose to be more favorable toward Catholics than to Protestants due to the fact that she is indeed Catholic as are the majority of Hispanics. And then there are rumors that Obama supports doing away with Religious Liberty via a National Sunday Law AKA National Day of Rest that would oppress Jews, Seventh Day Adventist and Muslims.

Furthermore as a Protestant I don't agree with Obama's moral position on Abortion and Gay Rights either. Yet, there is no denying that Barack Obama is something to be excited about as this is a turning point in American history and World history for that matter.

Yet as a fierce follower of Conspiracy Theories I will continue to watch Barack Obama with a weary eye for who knoweth if he is a wolf in sheep's clothing? After all Hitler rose to demonic power under the guise of one who cared for the people and then when it was all to late he revealed the evil best that he in heart was.

Just as people heralded Hitler as man of the people, a man of change so to Obama is being heralded and that frightens me to my very core and thus Padme Amidala's (Natalie Portmen) line from Star Wars Episode III Revenge of the Sith rings erriely in my mind "Is this how freedom ends? With thunderous applause?"


http://kvnuforthepeople.com/2009/05...-adolf-hitler-one-blogger-insinuates-as-much/

http://thatsrightnate.com/2008/11/14/is-obama-the-new-hitler/

http://prophesyagain.com/obama_may_sign_a_nsl.pdf

http://www.nowpublic.com/world/obama-hitler-and-new-world-order

http://www.infowars.com/what-“bank-nationalization”-means-for-you/

http://www.fortwaynenews.com/index.php/2008/04/30/national-sunday-law-free-in-your-mailbox/
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Short Round said:
But we haven't abused anyone. If future Muslims have a problem with us torturing TERRORISTS, that is their problem and there is nothing we can do about it. That means they sympathize with radicals anyway.
Again you display your foolish inability to view the issue from the other side of the fence. You see, the thing is, majority of those people one so nonchalantly labels as "terrorists" are not ones in their own mindset. While there certainly are jerks and sociopaths who simply revel in the violence caused, most of them actually have very rationalized reasons of becoming "terrorists". And those reasons usually have roots in surprisingly down-to-earth issues instead of fanatical faith.

Short Round said:
What does that verse have to do with anything? All that means is that non-believers will not be saved. That in no way can be interpreted as God saying to kill non-Christians! The Koran says one can kill a non-Muslim. That can't really be interpreted in another way. Jesus never says to use violence on non-believers.
Indeed. There is an idiom, "like the Devil reads the Bible", which means intentional misinterpretation. While the Qu'ran might contain parts that certainly can be interpreted as "open season on infidels", to say that it is their only right interpretation is about as wrong as my example of that particular verse from the Good Book.

Short Round said:
Wrong. The enemies are radical Muslims, not all Muslims. These people believe they cannot be saved unless they kill infidels (mainly Americans and Israeli's). That is religion-based. Now you could say there is a mix, but it doesn't change the fact that they will stop at nothing to destroy us. They aren't going to hand over all their information.
Yeah... determined, deeply devoted to their way of life, one-minded and in complete refusal to see the other side as nothing more than "the enemy". They wish to prosper and think that ends justify the means. I'm kind of inclined to agree, these type of folks won't bend no matter what.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
RedeemedChild said:
And while I don't think Sonia Sotomayor is a racist I do fear that she might choose to be more favorable toward Catholics than to Protestants due to the fact that she is indeed Catholic as are the majority of Hispanics.

Seriously? And here I thought that Catholics were no longer a suspect group.
 

Short Round

New member
Finn said:
Again you display your foolish inability to view the issue from the other side of the fence. You see, the thing is, majority of those people one so nonchalantly labels as "terrorists" are not ones in their own mindset. While there certainly are jerks and sociopaths who simply revel in the violence caused, most of them actually have very rationalized reasons of becoming "terrorists". And those reasons usually have roots in surprisingly down-to-earth issues instead of fanatical faith.

Indeed. There is an idiom, "like the Devil reads the Bible", which means intentional misinterpretation. While the Qu'ran might contain parts that certainly can be interpreted as "open season on infidels", to say that it is their only right interpretation is about as wrong as my example of that particular verse from the Good Book.

Yeah... determined, deeply devoted to their way of life, one-minded and in complete refusal to see the other side as nothing more than "the enemy". They wish to prosper and think that ends justify the means. I'm kind of inclined to agree, these type of folks won't bend no matter what.

No, you display your foolish inability to see that people don't become terrorists just because of past feuds. These terrorists base their beliefs off of fanatical religion. Why the hell else would they drive themselves into buildings, killing themselves? They believe they are doing the right thing, killing and dying for Allah. I understand these people don't view themselves as terrorists, that's what I have been saying. They think they are doing the right thing. There is no rational thinking, it's based on fanatical religion. And yeah I nonchalantly call people who slaughter 3,000 innocent people terrorists. I guess I should be more sympathetic to them, right? Maybe we should call them our brothers and tell them it is alright what they did, they are no different than us. Right?

The Koran clearly states it! It is extremely straightforward. How the hell else can you interpret it? The Bible never says anything like that.

Yeah, nice. I admit I refuse to see the other side as more than enemies. I refuse to accept these people as anything but murderers, because that's what they are. I guess you're alright with rationalizing these people's actions, but I'm not. Most of the world isn't. You know the difference between my way of life and theirs? I don't murder innocent people like they do.
 

RedeemedChild

New member
Attila the Professor said:
Seriously? And here I thought that Catholics were no longer a suspect group.

I have nothing against Catholic's as people but against the system, yes I do.

That is why I enjoyed The Golden Compass movie for it's anti-Catholic themes along with the new movie Angels and Demons. It does seem Dan Brown can carry some of his anti-Catholic ideas a bit to far but it sure does make for a good thriller on the big screen.

BTW I saw a documentary on The History Channel regarding Hitler, The Vatican and World War II it turned out that the Papacy played a large role behind the scenes in the support of Hitler.

gotohellboycom_2.jpg
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Short Round said:
No, you display your foolish inability to see that people don't become terrorists just because of past feuds. These terrorists base their beliefs off of fanatical religion. Why the hell else would they drive themselves into buildings, killing themselves? They believe they are doing the right thing, killing and dying for Allah. I understand these people don't view themselves as terrorists, that's what I have been saying. They think they are doing the right thing. There is no rational thinking, it's based on fanatical religion. And yeah I nonchalantly call people who slaughter 3,000 innocent people terrorists. I guess I should be more sympathetic to them, right? Maybe we should call them our brothers and tell them it is alright what they did, they are no different than us. Right?

The Koran clearly states it! It is extremely straightforward. How the hell else can you interpret it? The Bible never says anything like that.

Yeah, nice. I admit I refuse to see the other side as more than enemies. I refuse to accept these people as anything but murderers, because that's what they are. I guess you're alright with rationalizing these people's actions, but I'm not. Most of the world isn't. You know the difference between my way of life and theirs? I don't murder innocent people like they do.
The only last thing I'm left to wonder is how a guy who gives out statements that technically equal painting a bullseye on one's own forehead exactly intends to keep people around him "safe"...
 
Top