MarkB Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 so markb, since you say that america is intentionally targeting ppl that arent terrorists... please explain to me a motivation behind it because i dont see it... do you think bush likes killing people for kicks and giggles? if you legitimately believe that, you've been totally brainwashed... i understand that innocent people have died... but what about the innocent people that saddam tortured or would have tortured? yea, those mothers with dying infants deserved to live too, just as much as those in the same situation now deserve to. Call me nieve or whatever, but i really believe bush is targeting terrorists with this war. The war for oil deal is freakin ridiculous... most of our oil comes from venezuela and mexico anywyas, and soon enough, science will have an answer to oil anywyas.... war for oil theories are total crap... and i dont think the president is twisted enough to kill people for laughs Can you show me where I said that America, or any other nation, is intentionally targeting people who aren't terrorists? I can't seem to find it, sorry. I didn't say they were doing it intentionally. I believe that it's being done for various reasons - stupidity, false or inaccurate information, and soldiers who are more concerned with getting their first kill or humiliating civilians than doing the right thing. If you doubt that, spend a few minutes looking through the piles of allegations, proof and criminal cases where soldiers have been abusing people after running into their houses, guns drawn, and packing them off to camps. Auschwitz, anyone? Also, it's been well publicised that some of the so-called SMART bombs are anything but smart and have been missing their targets rather wildly. It wasn't too long ago when dozens of people were killed in just that situation I posted before as the rocket was aimed for a suspected terrorist haven and ended up hitting a busy street or market instead. Simply because I disagree with the tactics used in these situations doesn't mean I agree with the treatment of Iraqis under Saddam Hussain. However, 2 wrongs don't make a right. The bottom line is that people are dying needlessly, regardless of who is responsible for their deaths. Sure, maybe George W. Bush isn't twisted enough to "kill people for laughs". But given his past credentials, I wouldn't like to trust him with the fate of my family or friends if we just so happened to belong to a group, religion or organisation that he didn't approve of. Bear in mind, this is the same man who has somewhat of a storied past including cocaine addiction, various driving violations and has "won" both of his terms as U.S. president under questionable circumstances. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NYM Posted July 25, 2006 Author Share Posted July 25, 2006 Tell ya what, and this may rub people the wrong way, but if it does, well.... Read your bibles. Then you won't have to worry about following the philosophies of people like Nostradumbass. Everything you need to know is there. Are you talking about the Book of Revalation? Even though I am a Catholic, I don't read the Bible a lot. But the book of Revalation has always caught interest in me. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Applejak Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 As for collateral damage, that's a joke. Collateral damage is when you try to take out a bridge and destroy part of the area around it, not when your army purposefully fires a rocket into a crowded mosque, market or street and ends up killing dozens of civilians who were doing their shopping instead of the terrorist camp half a mile away from where they fired the rocket. Right there mate. If thats not what you mean then we clearly have our wires crossed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhath Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Can you show me where I said that America, or any other nation, is intentionally targeting people who aren't terrorists? I can't seem to find it, sorry. I didn't say they were doing it intentionally. I believe that it's being done for various reasons - stupidity, false or inaccurate information, and soldiers who are more concerned with getting their first kill or humiliating civilians than doing the right thing. If you doubt that, spend a few minutes looking through the piles of allegations, proof and criminal cases where soldiers have been abusing people after running into their houses, guns drawn, and packing them off to camps. Auschwitz, anyone? Also, it's been well publicised that some of the so-called SMART bombs are anything but smart and have been missing their targets rather wildly. It wasn't too long ago when dozens of people were killed in just that situation I posted before as the rocket was aimed for a suspected terrorist haven and ended up hitting a busy street or market instead. Simply because I disagree with the tactics used in these situations doesn't mean I agree with the treatment of Iraqis under Saddam Hussain. However, 2 wrongs don't make a right. The bottom line is that people are dying needlessly, regardless of who is responsible for their deaths. Sure, maybe George W. Bush isn't twisted enough to "kill people for laughs". But given his past credentials, I wouldn't like to trust him with the fate of my family or friends if we just so happened to belong to a group, religion or organisation that he didn't approve of. Bear in mind, this is the same man who has somewhat of a storied past including cocaine addiction, various driving violations and has "won" both of his terms as U.S. president under questionable circumstances. mark, by definition, targeting is intentional.... i understand your point if you are saying that innocent people are being killed on accident... and i agree with that... i just dont agree with your implication they are being "targeted" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAM Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 I guess you didn't hear the part of where I thought none of this was true. What I did say however, was that if it is true, we will find out soon enough. so what are you saying? it's true? it's not true? how can you say something isn't true then turn around and say "well, but, if it is true then..."? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
omairee Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 so what are you saying? it's true? it's not true? how can you say something isn't true then turn around and say "well, but, if it is true then..."? he's 12. he hasn't learned the art of debate yet. or not very well. cut him some slack. wait 6 more years, then pick on him. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhath Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 hes a spammer... it was an easy way to get 4 extra posts in his post count :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RAM Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 he's 12. he hasn't learned the art of debate yet. or not very well. cut him some slack. wait 6 more years, then pick on him. my parents called it "tough love". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jp_hidalgo Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 The REAL TRUE about all this thing is that WE ALL want World Peace. Nobody like people dying, except those big mthrfckrs who only fight because of their interests. I don't think Bush is doing the right things, just because he is not respecting UN norms and he is declaring war to innocent countries instead of chase enemies... I mean... go there and stop the terrorists! but... please... don't send ten stealth bombers to destroy entire cities, because we are going to believe that this war is just a business and re-construction is another business too. And there are lot of money in play so... Bush is not doing well. Anyway, if the rest of the countries believe that USA are the real enemies, they're obviously wrong. A country is the state with the people living there, a country is not its goverment. PAX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhath Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 please, no informed person really thinks the un is legitmate ogranization... the un is an absolute joke... no one, i repeat, no one should EVER listen to the un Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Applejak Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 please, no informed person really thinks the un is legitmate ogranization... the un is an absolute joke... no one, i repeat, no one should EVER listen to the un Hey, I know youre frustrated but theres no need for that. I mean just recently Kofi Anan wrote a couple of letters to both Hezbollah and Israel saying please, please pretty please stop fighting. What more do you want?!??!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jogar84 Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Yes, the U.N. is indeed a joke. They have troops but refuse to use them. Meanwhile, U.N. peacekeeping forces are too busy picking up prostitutes in Africa. And Kofi is just an incompetent corrupt talking head with no power. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhath Posted July 25, 2006 Share Posted July 25, 2006 Hey, I know youre frustrated but theres no need for that. I mean just recently Kofi Anan wrote a couple of letters to both Hezbollah and Israel saying please, please pretty please stop fighting. What more do you want?!??!! lol :) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fred13 Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Kofi is just an incompetent corrupt talking head with no power. :wtg: 100% Agree. The UN needs to improve and fast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ELDoro Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 the UN is like a bunch of old ladies gossiping. p.s. on the topic of the U.S. targeting civillians. I had the same argument with a co-worker yesterday on the same topic. He was telling me how the US was the real bad guys and that they target civillians all the time. Um, last I checked the terrorist organizations were the ones intentionally targeting civillians and admitting it. Sometimes things are so obvious people fail to recognize them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DJEagles Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 The U.N. is about as effective as using sandpaper on a bad case of hemorrhoids... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tebjr Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Are you talking about the Book of Revalation? Even though I am a Catholic, I don't read the Bible a lot. But the book of Revalation has always caught interest in me. Well, that wouldn't be the book that I would start reading if your new to reading the bible. It can scare the living daylights out of you. I started from the book of Genesis, the first book in the New Testement, and read my way through. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bama Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 The U.N. i think is good in principle, but bad in execution. I mean when any 1 member of the U.N. Security Council can stop progress that a majority agrees on, thats fucked up Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhath Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Well, that wouldn't be the book that I would start reading if your new to reading the bible. It can scare the living daylights out of you. I started from the book of Genesis, the first book in the New Testement, and read my way through. genesis is the first book of the old testament... matthew is the first book of the new testament Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tebjr Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 My bad jhath, your right. I meant to say the old testament. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jhath Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 i have read the bible start to finsih before... great experience... next i am planning to do it chronologically.... the books of the bible in order as we know it today are not chronological... job was actually one of the first written... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
crowther Posted July 26, 2006 Share Posted July 26, 2006 Many of you are sharing your thoughts on World War III, and in a couple of cases the Bible has been mentioned. I guess right now no one can know if what we are seeing in the Middle East is the beginning of World War III or not. But from a Biblical perspective here are a few specific passages that speak of the end times and events at that time. Armageddon is referred to in Revelation 16:16 and is dealt with in more detail in Revelation 19:11-20:3 as the return of Christ overcomes the battle and leads into His millinenial reign on earth. A couple of interesting passages that direct effect on today's happenings are Isaiah 17:1 where Damascus, Syria is mentioned. "An oracle concerning Damascus: 'See, Damascus will no longer be a city but will become a heap of ruins.'" This hasn't happened yet in history, but it will. And is connected directly to the end time plans of God. Also, Ezekiel 38:1-12 refers to an ultimate move of Russia and various Arab countries on Israel. Gog and Magog, in the passage, refer to Russia. And Persia, Put and Cush are references to today's Iran, Upper Nile countries, and Libya. The times of the end and the work of the Anti-Christ are mentiioned in 2 Thessalonians. And the Biblical answer to all of this trial and tragedy is a saving relationship with Jesus Christ. John 3:16,17. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.