Or you can't hold your own argument. Everything is open to different interpretations.I'm completely done trying to show you what you are missing. At this point it's not even worth trying.
Or you can't hold your own argument. Everything is open to different interpretations.I'm completely done trying to show you what you are missing. At this point it's not even worth trying.
Or you can't hold your own argument. Everything is open to different interpretations.
And it confuses me that you present facts as something polarizing and absolute, while facts can be presented under a biased context like much of the US media an RT.It confuses me that at times you apparently speak out about the legality of governmental military actions yet in this case you seem decided on the facts of mercenary action. Facts aren't open to interpretation, incidentally. They're facts.
See.... why do I even bother with this.I'm speaking out against the nonsensical notion that an individual should be punished for attacking terrorist or criminals in defense of others.
No, I did not say that. And you know perfectly well that I did not say that.So your idea is that killing ISIS is bad because they ... are people, and is morally wrong to kill them.
I'm speaking out against the nonsensical notion that an individual should be punished for attacking terrorist or criminals in defense of others.
And you could be pro US if you support the "killing" of Osama Bin Laden, same concept applies (a set of individuals doing an extra-judicial execution outside local or ruling jurisdiction).Who defines that? You could be pro-ISIS with that comment.
Then what were you trying to say?No, I did not say that. And you know perfectly well that I did not say that.
Really? It's all there in my post - we can't go changing the rules of engagement or putting aside our morality because it's popular or convenient or easier to do so. If we do, we only undermine the very fabric of our society, and while it might defeat ISIL, we will be no better than them.Then what were you trying to say?
Now that brings up the question of: Is it better to defeat ISIS, or worry about the fabric of our society?Really? It's all there in my post - we can't go changing the rules of engagement or putting aside our morality because it's popular or convenient or easier to do so. If we do, we only undermine the very fabric of our society, and while it might defeat ISIL, we will be no better than them.
Well, clearly we got bored of not compromising ourselves when it came to Japan.The world defeated the Nazis without needing to compromise itself. How is ISIL any different?
I wasn't aware that Imperial Japan and Nazi Germany were the same thing. Who else knows about this earth-shattering revelation?Well, clearly we got bored of compromising ourselves when it came to Japan.
The world defeated the Nazis without needing to compromise itself. How is ISIL any different?
Well, clearly we got bored of not compromising ourselves when it came to Japan.
And all of the actions against Germany were in keeping with the treaties dictating the rules of war.
Does siding with Stalin's regime count as the world "compromising itself"? It's kind of inevitable that if one's to discuss war crimes committed by the Allies, the mass rapes carried out by the Red Army will get mentioned.
Executions without trial of concentration camp guards/Nazis/SS.
Willful starvation of Nazi POWs.
Indiscriminate bombing of non combatants.
Torture and abuse of captured enemies.
Etc. Etc.
And this is not the Red Army I'm talking about.
You can add the rounding up of certain ethnic groups and placing them in prison camps to that list.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Japanese_Canadian_internment
So the Soviets are not on the allied in WW2?The world defeated the Nazis without needing to compromise itself. How is ISIL any different?
So the Soviets were compromising to side with?So the Soviets are not on the allied in WW2?
The Soviets only sided with the Allied when the Nazis did the suicidal thing in trying to invade Russia, chances are they would of been neutral for the whole thing.So the Soviets were compromising to side with?
No mores smokes, dirty magazines and cheap prostitutes for them!Because ISIS has no line of credit anywhere in the globe, they halve their fighter's salaries in an effort to keep the financials in the green thanks to the oil field bombings and revenue destruction.
http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/...-and-revenue-streams/articleshow/50626847.cms
For you funny (in your opinion) forum members, but also for the serious ones who want to understand the ideology, watch the Channel 4 story about "The Jihadis Next Door".
Few things -
A. In the present context there is no Freedom of Speech in the UK - the guy is right.
B. Do not jump on conclusions (min.21.25) when the UK Jihadi is asking a muslim bystander - " If you love Afghanistan, why did you come to my country?" to which the bystander answers with an apparently smart question - "If you love your country, why did you converted to my dean? I was born a muslim, why did you converted?"
The bystander doesn't make any sense. Islam, for the UK converted Jihadi, is not about loving his country, but for his believes. When it comes to religion, extreme or not, borders don't matter any more.
C. min.31.50 - the guy says something very interesting, if you pay close enough attention - " Death to Pakistan! What did Pakistan do for Muslims? What did Pakistan do for Muslims?"
Knowing how dangerous Pakistan is, I think that question is a very legitimate question for the world of Islam.
Enjoy!
Way to burst through the door with your "hilarious" user name. I think you meant to find the Channel 4 Facebook comments page?