Is the US of A a legitimate target?

[Katzndogz]

Whether the United States is a legitimate target or not doesn't mean much. Muslims think it is, and they will act accordingly. Which is not altogether a bad thing.

 

[sealadaigh]

America supports and arms Israel.
Israel commits mass murder and is at war with at least one pretty much unarmed state that is totally unable to defend itself against attacks.

Given the US supplies most of Israeli's arms and financially supports that government, would future attacks against the US be legitimate?

Personally, I believe attacks on the states are acceptable but I would prefer there be be economic damage and disruption only, not deaths.

Opinion?

I think you need to both, check your premise and choose your allegiance. Thanks for the heads up though.

i f you are referring to me, i haven't said anything at all yet about the "legitimacy of targets" because that us a very complex issue that requires a lot of thought and i never make statements based upon blind patriotism. i certainly do not agree with the way indofred posed the quedtion.

as one who has served in our military and has proudly worn his uniform in a very unpopular time for soldiers; and as one who has endured the most vile comments and abuse, which included being spit on and having eggs and urine thrown at me and who has a son in the navy, i think i have proven my allegiance.

if you are addressing me, and it seems from other comments regarding your inability to regard a site that blames all muslims with such a broad abd bigoted brush as a hate site, and not just "islamic terrorists", that you are addressing me, then i question your impartiality. below is the site we are talking about.

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

now, you may not regard this as a hate site, nor may daveman, nor colin, nor katz etc. and that is all good, but i sincerely doubt (hold that "doubt", i and not so sure anymore. change it to "hope") that were such a site posted targetting any other racial, ethnic, or religious group as muslims have been targeted, you would object. that, perhaps, is the difference btween you and i. i do not selectively believe in first amendment rights. i believe they apply to all americans and a long time ago i took an oath to defend that constitution and as far as i could tell, there was no time limit.

that site, and some of the posts, refer to muslims and do so without distinction. that not only alienates american muslims from our (and by "our", i am including them) way of life and results in the same kind of attitude, an attitude of "very, very blind patriotism" and fear that has resulted in countless attacks against muslims in this country and nurtures such hatred that even sikh americans are gunned down in their temple.

thank you.

 

[sealadaigh]

So it's a hate site because it exposes the atrocities carried out by islamic fundamentalists/extremists, is it? The figures posted are fully supported by the dates of the atrocities and the numbers killed. Since when have facts been hate, except in your own mind?

facts become hate when they are distorted, innacurate, and one sided. i have metmany muslims and they have been among the most gracious and accomodating people i have ever met.


you name me any ethnic or reilgious group...or whatever, and i could selectively choose facts and figures that make them look bad and say "this is their nature".

how about african americans. their prison population far outweighs their proportion in the general population they are also disproportionately present among the unemployed, have lower graduation rates from high school and college and a slew of other things where they lag behing white americans. now, i can attribute that to some character flaw, ignoring their many accomplishments and ignore the decades of overt thoroughly degrading racism after the reeing of the slaves, or the further less overt and more institutionalised racism that continues to this day (believe it) and present an accurate and non-hateful picture.

i can do that with native americans.

i can do that with irish americans.

i can do that with WASP americans.

i can do that with jewish americans.

you name it.

i could do it with anyone and anything...and i could make hate sites out of these groups that people with bigotry and/or naivete like daveman would post because they would believe it and people like you would defend if because they believe it.

it is a hate site. read the title. it really isn't that hard to figure out.

(p,s, i went back and edited all the sites out of my posts because i don't believe hate sites are allowed, even when coppied in quotes, in the CDZ.)

Read my post AGAIN! I was specific in mentioning islamic EXTREMISTS/ FUNDAMENTALISTS.

The definition of hate site is still yours, so good luck with getting reference to it banned.

i do not need to reaad your post again. i realise you make a distinction between islamic extremists and fudamentalist.

the site you posted does not make that disstinction. i am not really actively seeking getting it banned, i am removing it from my posts, or had been, because i thought it was a hate site, and still do, and my impression of the CDZ was that such sites were not approprite for this forum.

i think the only thing, though, that distinguishes it from other sites of similar nature is the target.

 

[sealadaigh]

nations are not targets.

 

[PaulS1950]

Palestine, the "the pretty much unarmed state" has launched hundreds of rockets into Israel over the last month. Preemptive attacks that hit random targets not carefully aimed at military targets. They also detonated a bus bomb after getting off the bus.
Oh, poor Palestine, always getting beat up by the big bully Israel, Give me a break! they attack Israel constantly and then whine about how Israel defends itself. They started the war by attacking Israel when the gift of the land, by the then owners of it, displaced their sensibilities. They couldn't live peacefully with Jews so they started blowing people and buildings up. Israel then defending its people and land sequestered the terrorists outside the land and limited passage into Israel. One war after another Israel won - never starting one of them - and always in defense of themselves. Each time they put more land between themselves and their enimies - land that was confiscated from the agressors.
Israel is surrounded by some of the richest Islamic countries in the world - those poor defenseless muslims could buy the Israeli military might overnight. What they have trouble doing in fighting. They have no stomach for it, instead they let terrorists kill innocents and cheer them on with gifts to the families of suicide attackers. When Isreal made sure there was no profit to the families of those who killed innocents and themselves some were outraged that Israel would do such a thing. Bull! If Mexico started launching rockets into Texas and paid families to have their son be a suicide bomber we would do more than bulldoze a few houses. There wouldn't be enough living to make a good taco. If any other countries in the area supported the terrorist actions they too would suffer from the US military.
I don't feel sorry for the Palistinians any more than I feel sorry for the school yard bully who gets the tar kicked out of him by a big brother or the ten kids he has been bullying for the last 6 months.
Take an honest look at the history of the area over the last 100 years. Then remember that for the last 4000 years these same people have been fighting over; religious, tribal, and societal differences without slowing down.

 

[P F Tinmore]

Palestine, the "the pretty much unarmed state" has launched hundreds of rockets into Israel over the last month. Preemptive attacks that hit random targets not carefully aimed at military targets. They also detonated a bus bomb after getting off the bus.
Oh, poor Palestine, always getting beat up by the big bully Israel, Give me a break! they attack Israel constantly and then whine about how Israel defends itself. They started the war by attacking Israel when the gift of the land, by the then owners of it, displaced their sensibilities. They couldn't live peacefully with Jews so they started blowing people and buildings up. Israel then defending its people and land sequestered the terrorists outside the land and limited passage into Israel. One war after another Israel won - never starting one of them - and always in defense of themselves. Each time they put more land between themselves and their enimies - land that was confiscated from the agressors.
Israel is surrounded by some of the richest Islamic countries in the world - those poor defenseless muslims could buy the Israeli military might overnight. What they have trouble doing in fighting. They have no stomach for it, instead they let terrorists kill innocents and cheer them on with gifts to the families of suicide attackers. When Isreal made sure there was no profit to the families of those who killed innocents and themselves some were outraged that Israel would do such a thing. Bull! If Mexico started launching rockets into Texas and paid families to have their son be a suicide bomber we would do more than bulldoze a few houses. There wouldn't be enough living to make a good taco. If any other countries in the area supported the terrorist actions they too would suffer from the US military.
I don't feel sorry for the Palistinians any more than I feel sorry for the school yard bully who gets the tar kicked out of him by a big brother or the ten kids he has been bullying for the last 6 months.
Take an honest look at the history of the area over the last 100 years. Then remember that for the last 4000 years these same people have been fighting over; religious, tribal, and societal differences without slowing down.

Palestine, the "the pretty much unarmed state" has launched hundreds of rockets into Israel...

That is a common misperception.

All of those rockets land inside Palestine's borders.

 

[Colin]

facts become hate when they are distorted, innacurate, and one sided. i have metmany muslims and they have been among the most gracious and accomodating people i have ever met.


you name me any ethnic or reilgious group...or whatever, and i could selectively choose facts and figures that make them look bad and say "this is their nature".

how about african americans. their prison population far outweighs their proportion in the general population they are also disproportionately present among the unemployed, have lower graduation rates from high school and college and a slew of other things where they lag behing white americans. now, i can attribute that to some character flaw, ignoring their many accomplishments and ignore the decades of overt thoroughly degrading racism after the reeing of the slaves, or the further less overt and more institutionalised racism that continues to this day (believe it) and present an accurate and non-hateful picture.

i can do that with native americans.

i can do that with irish americans.

i can do that with WASP americans.

i can do that with jewish americans.

you name it.

i could do it with anyone and anything...and i could make hate sites out of these groups that people with bigotry and/or naivete like daveman would post because they would believe it and people like you would defend if because they believe it.

it is a hate site. read the title. it really isn't that hard to figure out.

(p,s, i went back and edited all the sites out of my posts because i don't believe hate sites are allowed, even when coppied in quotes, in the CDZ.)

Read my post AGAIN! I was specific in mentioning islamic EXTREMISTS/ FUNDAMENTALISTS.

The definition of hate site is still yours, so good luck with getting reference to it banned.

i do not need to reaad your post again. i realise you make a distinction between islamic extremists and fudamentalist.

the site you posted does not make that disstinction. i am not really actively seeking getting it banned, i am removing it from my posts, or had been, because i thought it was a hate site, and still do, and my impression of the CDZ was that such sites were not approprite for this forum.

i think the only thing, though, that distinguishes it from other sites of similar nature is the target.

If you paid attention instead of riding that high horse of yours, you'd see that I didn't post the site you refer to. Try again!

 

[Two Thumbs]

America supports and arms Israel.
Israel commits mass murder and is at war with at least one pretty much unarmed state that is totally unable to defend itself against attacks.

Given the US supplies most of Israeli's arms and financially supports that government, would future attacks against the US be legitimate?

Personally, I believe attacks on the states are acceptable but I would prefer there be be economic damage and disruption only, not deaths.

Opinion?

I thought out and out lies were forbidden in the kids room?

aside from that

Yes, we get to be attacked. No 'country' will do it directly since countries have standing militaries and infrastructure that we can quickly destroy.

That's why iran sends hamas to do it's dirty work.

 

[sealadaigh]

Read my post AGAIN! I was specific in mentioning islamic EXTREMISTS/ FUNDAMENTALISTS.

The definition of hate site is still yours, so good luck with getting reference to it banned.

i do not need to reaad your post again. i realise you make a distinction between islamic extremists and fudamentalist.

the site you posted does not make that disstinction. i am not really actively seeking getting it banned, i am removing it from my posts, or had been, because i thought it was a hate site, and still do, and my impression of the CDZ was that such sites were not approprite for this forum.

i think the only thing, though, that distinguishes it from other sites of similar nature is the target.

If you paid attention instead of riding that high horse of yours, you'd see that I didn't post the site you refer to. Try again!

i made a mistake and i apologise. there is no high horse.

it is a hate site, and i make that determination based upon the content and not political position or ethnicity or anything else. it targets a whole group based upon their religion/ethnicity. i would have the same opinion and complaint against Jew Watch News.

Jew Watch - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

i really do not see much difference between the two other than one targets muslims and the other targets jews,

i am not so stupid as to try to get it banned as a mod has already seen it and appears to approve of it, at least to the extent that he allows it. i disagree because i think it lowers the standards of the CDZ to allow hate sites and propaganda sites.

 

[sealadaigh]

Islamic terrorists like to kill people.

i don't think hate sites really add to the conversation and probably aren't supposed to be in the CDZ anyway.

we get it, you hate muslims. nazis hated jews, the KKK hates people of african descent.

..... Sharia Hates what it can't convert and control. What is your point? You think We All Hate Muslims? Every Human is Created by God, and subject to His Will. That takes precedent over Brand Names. We are Each Human First, and accountable for Our actions in the same way. Be it beyond our understanding or not, We Each face consequence, to the exact Measure, both good and bad. We subscribe to separate Religious and Civil Authorities here. Laws, though influenced by Values and Ethics, based in Religious Roots, need to be supported by both reason, and the consent of the governed, at least in principle. Granted Totalitarians resent and try to circumvent that.

that site targeted muslims and lumped them all together.

sharia is no different than the code of canon law for catholics or the talmudic law for jews.

to portray all catholics as raving traditionalists or better yet, santeria adherents, would be wrong.

to portray all jews as strict adherents of the talmud would be wrong.

generally, laws based upon religious teachings tend to soften considerably when the particular religion exists in or is exposed to a progressive and secular world. the fact that a lot of these third world countries (and many second world countries) had been and to some extent still are exploited by first world and former colonialist countries certainly doesn't help matters either.

i hope you will take another look at this site...

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

and reconsider whether it is approriate for this forum or not.

if it is your opinion that this is not a hate site, and that sites similar to it, regardless of the target, are not hate sites, i can accept that. i would just hope for some consistancy in the application.

 

[nesta]

unfortunately the usa is a completey legitimate target, and all representations of it anywhere in the world are too. israel couldnt do what it does without the usa, the 93 wtc bomber gave that as his reason for doing it, bin laden listed that first as his gripes with america, its the main reason 9-11 happened too.

 

[daveman]

Yes, America is a legitimate target -- but then her attackers are, too.

But a lot of people whine about that, like we're just supposed to take it.

 

[Katzndogz]

The Japanese thought the US was a legitimate target when they bombed Pearl Harbor too.

Liberals mean something else. A legitimate target has no right to self defense. Israel has no right to defend itself, and neither do we. It's no different that saying that a homeowner has no right of self defense against the home invader.

 

[sealadaigh]

countries are not legitimate targets. they really aren't.

almost every country contains legitimate targets, but countries are never legitimate target.

 

[sealadaigh]

The Japanese thought the US was a legitimate target when they bombed Pearl Harbor too.

Liberals mean something else. A legitimate target has no right to self defense. Israel has no right to defend itself, and neither do we. It's no different that saying that a homeowner has no right of self defense against the home invader.

on 7 december, 1941, the pacific fleet was the target and it was probably not a legitimate target because there was no declaration of war.

 

[Rozman]

Is this another America's chickens have come home to roost speech?

 

[skye]

Is the US of A a legitimate target? asks Indofred -


You Indofred must be a friend of Islam, if you ask such a XXXXXXX question!

The only legitimate target are Islamists who seek the destruction of the state of Israel first, and when that is done the spread of Islam throughout the whole world!

That is the only legitimate target!

 

[Intense]

i don't think hate sites really add to the conversation and probably aren't supposed to be in the CDZ anyway.

we get it, you hate muslims. nazis hated jews, the KKK hates people of african descent.

..... Sharia Hates what it can't convert and control. What is your point? You think We All Hate Muslims? Every Human is Created by God, and subject to His Will. That takes precedent over Brand Names. We are Each Human First, and accountable for Our actions in the same way. Be it beyond our understanding or not, We Each face consequence, to the exact Measure, both good and bad. We subscribe to separate Religious and Civil Authorities here. Laws, though influenced by Values and Ethics, based in Religious Roots, need to be supported by both reason, and the consent of the governed, at least in principle. Granted Totalitarians resent and try to circumvent that.

that site targeted muslims and lumped them all together.

sharia is no different than the code of canon law for catholics or the talmudic law for jews.

to portray all catholics as raving traditionalists or better yet, santeria adherents, would be wrong.

to portray all jews as strict adherents of the talmud would be wrong.

generally, laws based upon religious teachings tend to soften considerably when the particular religion exists in or is exposed to a progressive and secular world. the fact that a lot of these third world countries (and many second world countries) had been and to some extent still are exploited by first world and former colonialist countries certainly doesn't help matters either.

i hope you will take another look at this site...

Islam: Making a True Difference in the World - One Body at a Time

and reconsider whether it is approriate for this forum or not.

if it is your opinion that this is not a hate site, and that sites similar to it, regardless of the target, are not hate sites, i can accept that. i would just hope for some consistancy in the application.

Sharia is not the same as Canon Law. Sharia is Totalitarian. The Catholic Church does not disrespect the Separation of Powers, It does not seek to undermine Sovereign Rule. Sharia Law claims Dominance over Civil Law, All Law outside of the Koran. Big difference in outcomes, don't you think?

 

[Intense]

The Japanese thought the US was a legitimate target when they bombed Pearl Harbor too.

Liberals mean something else. A legitimate target has no right to self defense. Israel has no right to defend itself, and neither do we. It's no different that saying that a homeowner has no right of self defense against the home invader.

on 7 december, 1941, the pacific fleet was the target and it was probably not a legitimate target because there was no declaration of war.

There was a Declaration of War, It was delayed because of bureaucratic, communication and translation issues.

 

[sealadaigh]

unfortunately the usa is a completey legitimate target, and all representations of it anywhere in the world are too. israel couldnt do what it does without the usa, the 93 wtc bomber gave that as his reason for doing it, bin laden listed that first as his gripes with america, its the main reason 9-11 happened too.

i disagree completely. if i didn't i would have a hard time arguing that palestinian civilians were not legitimate targets for the IDF, and i am not going to do that.

why is building filled with civilians a legitimate target?

also, if i do not know why the tpwers, or any military, economic, or political target, is legitimate as a target to an insurrectionary group only very loosely connected to palestine. if i believed that towers were a legitimate target for al qaeda. i would have to subscribe to "the clash of civilisations" and i am not ready to do that either.

one big problem, though, that i am having disagreeing with you, is that i disagree with your opposition so much more.

anyway, tell me why you think these are legitimate targets.