Deltablade

i get what you are saying.

you are saying that extremists from all religions behave in a very similar manner. also, that they behave more like the other extremists than they behave like the adherants of their own religion...right?

←

Right.

←

My idea is difficult to phrase. Let me try again. Most extremists of religions are more like the extremists of other religions than they are like some of the more conservative members of their own religions.

I would hate to say it but most religons spread that way. Hell, its unfair to not include the fact that our own country was formed the same way. To incite that as making the religon of Islam a bad religon is false.

Keep in mind, people of Islamic faith have deep seated roots that they are practing the truest of religons. One that stems back to Abraham and not change, twisted and corrupted by Christianity and Judiasm.

That is NOT to say that they are seperate. Rather, Islam does not think that Jesus was the son of god, but they do believe he was one of the profits (that HAS to be the wrong spelling) and that Mohammed was the last (and final) one. Islam does place the highest respect upon Jesus however.

I will never understand for 3 religons that really aren't that far apart, how there can be so much hatred. Course... there is the real estate issue... everyone claims the same holy land. I guess that poses a slight problem

Oh, for an intresting side note, theres more Muslims in Indonesia than all of the middle east (if I remeber my facts correctly).

Doug

←

Of the three Biblical religions, and actually all religions for that matter, the extremists and radicals are more like the extremists and radicals of other religions than they are to some within their own religion.

And, I can't believe that there is actually an argument over the Buddha's size. The Buddha lived in extreme opulence in his youth as a prince and then latter lived a life of extreme asceticism. This is the way he determined the "Middle Path" because he decided that those two extremes were not the correct way to enlightenment.

I thought the "UN" was guarding the weapons...

Goddammit...THERE WILL BE NO DRAFT. And Kerry said that he will put more troops in Iraq because he realizes that there is still conflict there and if we pull out now like many people endorse all hell will break loose and an entire group of oppressed people will be slaughtered. He knows more troops will be necessary and he's not gonna have a draft either.

And about the Chicago analogy: I wasn't trying to justify anything or in any way devalue the lives of American soldiers. I was just trying to make a point about an argument that is so often brought up: "Look how many soldiers have been killed in the war! It's Vietnam all over again!" When in fact, not that many people have died. I know it sounds terrible but war is war. War is killing and destruction. I know war is terrible but sometimes necessary. This is how the Iraq war went: we thought Saddam had weapons. (Everybody had something to say about Saddam's threat to the world, democrats, republicans, everybody.) Everybody agrees that Saddam is a bad man and should be removed from power. So congress declares war and we start bombing and invading. Saddam is found and arrested. Now we did what we had to do but it doesn't end there. It turns out that there are many happy people but some really angry people. The angry people try to kill our soldiers as we try to set up a new, more fair government for Iraq. Now we have a bit of a mess and we must clean it up.

Thank you mmetz.

Actually, they were headed home on minibuses in civilian clothes, as we can see in the image you posted without warning. This is a terrible incident but you almost make it out to be the Iraqi soldiers' faults. Or America's fault. If Saddam was still in power he would have probably given the militants money for what they did.

P.S.

Catch that familiar sash?

DID i miss something? The COMMANDER IN CHEIFs responsibility is to keep our soldiers out of harms way unless ABSOLUTELY necessary. OK lets talk about betrayal for a second. A man sends innocent children to war to kill other innocent people on a lie. Of course the haves and the have mores wont send their children.

I suppose those of you bashing kerry for what has been sold to you on his military record support our grave mistake of going to VIETNAM without proper intelligence... Well , sorry for the personal attack but you lack that very same quality.

    I feel strongly that every death attatched to this IRAQI war sits solely on the shoulders of this (never even elected by the popular vote in the first place) presidents administration. Thats a lot of death, so if they reinstate the draft in the next four years I guess well know who in here contributed.

←

The responsibility of the Commander in Chief is to use the military to protect the States. And I don't know about you ashman but if there ever is a draft, (which there will not be for the Iraq war, unless WWIII breaks out) I will proudly serve in the military if drafted. Why would I do that you may ask? Because some things are worth fighting for.

Also, call me an idealist, but I think we would have had an easier time with world opinion with that as our cause. Not to mention, if we came saying "We're here because we feel you deserve better", we might have been better recieved. Of course, we would have also needed a good propiganda campaign there (not terribly difficult, I would imagine, if we "bombed" them with food & pamphlets -- but this time, we'd have to make sure the food parcels DIDN'T look like cluster munitions)

←

This is true, but it is much easier for the average American to understand that "Saddam Hussein is a bad guy and he has these terrible weapons that he could use to kill us."

Rather than, "We must stop the evil Saddam Hussein because he's oppressed his people for 25 years, he hates a portion of them and as a result gassed them, he refuses to obey UN resolutions concerning his weapons, he spends his time building lavish palaces while half his country lives in poverty, he loves terrorists.....blah, blah, blah."

Actually, I don't know why Bush didn't just say that. I don't know if it would have been too difficult to understand. If everyone knew these noble causes to be more clear, I don't think the war would be much of an issue these days.

I'm begining to gather that some Americans believe that before the war the Iraqis were all riding a giant ferris wheel eating cotton candy when the U.S. came and started mowing them all down with machine gun fire.

Chicago averaged just under 50 homicides per month in 2003. What he's trying to say is that if you think about it, although about 1000 soldiers have died in Iraq since the war's onset, its not really that bad. By the way, I am in no way devaluing the service of our soldiers. I am eternally grateful for those who are willing to die for the United States.

Just some reaserch I did.

I hate to make people, especially our servicemen into numbers but:

The first year of war in Iraq (March 2003-March2004) 547 U.S. soldiers died.

http://www.cnn.com/SPECIALS/2003/iraq/forces/casualties/

In the calender year of 2003, the Chicago police reported 599 homicides.

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/3855774/

Just something to think about.

The family man who wants to keep our country safe is the candidate that best represents me. I'm not saying I support the two party system completely(actually, I don't really like it at all). I think its a shame that you pretty much have to be rich to run for president these days. Thats why there can be no real "People's President". I wish others could have chance of winning but there is too much allegience to the Democratic and Republican parties and not enough education-based voting.

I agree. Thats a pretty complicated and ridiculous system of voting. You're supposed to vote for the candidate you think would best represent you, not two candidates you could live with.

In a survey conducted by National Geographic in 2002, about 11% of 18-24 year old American citizens couldn't find the United States on a map. Almost one third of American young people estimated the population of the U.S. at 1-2 billion.

These aren't kids either. These are people who can and do vote. Although only 3000 were surveyed, I think having the electoral college is a good idea nevertheless.

I'm sick of hearing about the draft. There will be no draft unless something terrible happens and WWIII breaks out. The government will do everything possible in order to not have a draft. The military itself hates drafts because the soldiers don't want to be there, they suck at fighting because they have almost zero training, and draftees don't make good decisions in critical situations. An all volunteer military is what President Bush has promised, and thats what will be followed.

Ashman, I'm glad you were entertained by Farenhiet 9-11 and felt compelled to relay the information you learned to us. I bet you agree with Micheal Moore and think that if Al Gore had been elected in 2000, the events of September 11 would not have taken place.

I am not contradicting myself at all, you're just retarded. I am NOT pro-abortion, I am pro-CHOICE. I don't care what you believe or what I believe, I don't think it's the government's right to ban abortion as a whole.

Believe me, I am 100% sure of my position, and I'm Pro-Choice.

You can try all you want to "Get through," I get your point and I don't care, you don't have a right to make the abortion decision no matter what you think and no matter how well you can justify - it's not you're decision and I would like to see it stay that way.

This doesn't mean I don't promote the so-called culture of life. I believe strongly in most of Bush's abortion stance - banning partial birth abortion, creating legislation and policy to help make adoption a more viable option, etc. I do NOT believe the government has the right to ban early abortion, though.

That said, I'm done, so leave me the hell alone. You aren't going to change my view with your skewed statistics and stuff, I know plenty about the issue, regardless of how smart and more knowledgable you think you are (you're not, and no ones said a thing I haven't heard before, so give it a rest) - I stand where I stand and thats that.

←

What I really want is everyone to think rationally about this issue: If you can admit that abortion is killing, which it is by definition, and you agree that killing is wrong, how can abortion be right?

Matt, I'm begining to realize that you aren't the problem here. You are only pro-choice. It is only the mother's choice whether or not she kills her child. Thats the problem. Why should anybody be able to choose death for an innocent child? Anybody else who does that in the world today is prosecuted. Matt, I'm sorry if I've caused you any frustration, its not you I'm against.

First of all, Matt, you're a poking nice guy. Its not that I can't accept that your opinion differs from mine, its just that you are constantly contradicting yourself and you aren't even sure of your position. (i.e. "I guess.")

In the instance of rape, everyone always pushes this like it happens all the time. It is extremely rare for a victim of rape to become pregnant. There are 6 milllion pregnancies anually in the US. 1.5 million of them are aborted. Only about 200 are assalt rape pregnancies.

Actually, despite the fact that you pro-choicers love to bring up the instance of rape, less than half of assault rape pregnancies are aborted. (Mahkorn & Dolan, “Sexual Assault & Pregnancy.” In New Perspectives on Human Abortion) This is chiefly because the woman gets no support from those around her and abortion is so easily pushed as the solution to her problem.

Deltablade... I wholeheartedly agree with you in the principle of Killing is Killing.

However, my 7 week old daughter showed more awaredness and intelligence at 1 hour old than some of the people posting on this site.

I would change your point to the following ...

There is no difference between aborting a baby inutero and euthanising a toddler other than one being surrounded, and ironiclly protected, by the mothers womb - in both instances the child is KILLED.

←

Yes, Thats what I was saying. I was just trying to get through to Matt, which I've recently discovered is impossible. He was saying that since a fetus is not aware or intelligent it could be killed if desired. I though he meant self-awareness, which we don't really gain for a few months or years of life. You know, if you think back to your earliest childhood memory, before that you don't really remember that because your brain is still developing and you really haven't the capacity to know that you're a person yet. I was thinking, by that rationale, Matt would agree that at that point, it would be ok to kill the child if you didn't want it.

The one celled Zygote is no more alive than the bacteria I fight off with Lysol, if you really want to get scientific.  I don't care if it's alive or not, as long as it isn't aware and intelligent I couldn't care less.

←

Comparing it to bacteria doesn't change the fact that its alive and it'll be a person in good time. I was just trying to make the point that destroying a living thing is killing it. It would become a person but it is KILLED. WHEN IS KILLING AN INNOCENT PERSON ACCEPTABLE??? Just becuase it doesn't know its being killed doesn't give anybody the right to.

A newborn baby is niether aware nor intelligent. Nor is a child of a few months age for that matter. Why isn't it acceptable to kill them too?

You couldn't be more correct.

I'm not talking about freedom of speech, I'm talking about the government banning abortion!

I'm sorry I misunderstood you. So, you're worried about our goverment officials imposing thier moral beliefs upon you? I don't know how you let them tell you that killing people is wrong and illegal. How can you argue angainst a policy that is intended to preserve human life? It is pretty much a scientific fact that the one-celled zygote that forms when the sperm and egg meet is alive. This cell begins to divide and multiply, the unique human DNA dictating which characterestics to build. According to Merriam-Webster, the first entry for the word "kill" is "to deprive of life". By aborting the fetus at any point during its gestation, you are killing it. It is alive, it is being deprived of life. Killed. The fetus is killed. It could have become a great person one day, but instead, while caught up in the drama of discovering an unwanted pregnancy, the woman makes an irrational choice becuase it makes her situation easier. No one wants to be held responsible for their actions. Shouldn't people take good care of their children? Or should they kill them before they ever had a chance?

you DON'T have a right to impose your views on others.

←

No one is forcing anybody else to believe their veiws. This is the internet. You can say whatever your tiny brain can think up. The first amendment to our nation's constitution guarantees our right to free speech, so long as we abide by other laws and regulations.

hmm...i put pro-choice...  but i won't accept abortion past the 2nd-trimester either.  birthdays are given when u exit the womb...isn't that what it's supposed to stand for?  128 day premie is still 3 months into a pregnancy...  that finishes the first trimester.  abortion should be legal before that and then in comes the grey area for the 2nd trimester.  it should also be legal if it endangers a mother's life AND cannot be removed safely and become a premature baby..  a fetus technically, if u want to call it, a parasite.  there is no way the fetus can survive without technology, nor can it survive outside a womb during the 1st trimester (until technology tells us otherwise).  oh well...i'm being a little harsh.

Your statements make me quite ill. You consider a fetus a parasite? The only thing I can guarantee about you is that you were once a fetus. You didn't come from a fetus, you were a fetus. Think about this, would you ever have prefered that your parents discarded their parasite? But wait, only in the first trimester of development, right? That would have been ok. I don't understand how killing an innocent life is ever justified.

Well I guess thats the fundamental difference between our viewpoints: You think that sometimes death is the best answer, and I think death in this situation isn't really an answer to anything, its giving up.

From what I gather, you don't think that everyone deserves a chance. Why doesn't everyone deserve a chance to live?

And I'm talking about two parents who accidentaly concieve a child, which is the majority of abortion cases. Ok, ok, maybe thats not what they wanted to happen, but why doesn't that baby get a chance to live? Why should anyone's life be destroyed before its even begun?

First of all, did I say anything about animals? No, I don't frickin care about animals.

And just because a fetus doesn't go through cognitive processes doesn't mean it never will. And never will that justify its elimination.

The most premature baby was born in 1987 and was 128 days premature. That is a little more than 4 months premature. He was 1lb. 6oz. his skin, hands, ears, and feet were still developing. His parents were told he had no chance of survival, but he survived. I know this is an extreme case but who is to say that he couldn't have been aborted. Had his parents not wanted him, you feel that they should have the option to kill him after a week or two after having him? And call it medicine? Its still the 2nd trimester.

"Yeah, why don't we hurry up and kill that fetus before it turns into a human being!"