Is a truce possible?

[Nartwak]

Man, what?

[tarna]

I've seen a lot of speculation of what 'war' is so I thought I'd add my own definition...

 

To war is to seek the ability to impose the will of a goverment upon an unwilling population.

 

This obviously includes applications within a country's own boundries ( through force, economics or psychology ).

[astr0creep]

Huh, the British empire did it sucessfully for centuries. Kooky.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And where is their empire now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

We let the countries under our rule declare/ask for their independence and get away with it. We even said "yes" when Canada asked.

 

 

Edit: but in answer to the original topic - No, a truce is not possible, and will never be possible as long as both sides are intent on killing one another. And at least one of them is.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Canada is still under the rule of the Queen if I am not mistaken. We still have a Governor General who reports to the Queen. Of course this is more symbolic in practice now, but on paper Canada is still a British colony.

Edited January 21, 2006 by astr0creep

[WinterSun]

i thought him and bush were allies already... oh they are going to make it public 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't know if it's the beer, but this post makes no sense .

 

And the whole idea of a truce is utter sh!te. We'll only have peace in the middle east when the religious leaders lose their power.

[Pidesco]

I don't see why Iraq is a better launching point than say, Europe, against terrorists based in Africa. And lets not forget that if Iraq's main natural resource was turnips, the U.S. wouldn't have touched Saddam with a fifty foot pole.

but france would not have opposed, either. ah yes, funny how france and russia's opposition was more about oil than our willingness, yet rarely is that mentioned.

 

to quote you for myself "Truth to the extreme."

 

 

 

 

Er..., I wrote that quoted bit, not Astr0creep.

 

 

Also, I should say it is better to oppose the invasion of a country because of oil than to invade a country because of oil.

[BattleCookiee]

And the whole idea of a truce is utter sh!te. We'll only have peace in the middle east when the religious leaders lose their power.

 

Except for the warmongerers are not their leaders, but their citizens, so even without these leaders there may be the same amount of war... or maybe more (see Iraq for example) since they are no longer ruled upon and wan't to rule over others.

 

Leaders = Metal Fist to keep peace

Leader-less = Total chaos, suicides everywhere, some grasps for power leaving many deads

 

YAH! That'll be peace...

[213374U]

Except for the warmongerers are not their leaders, but their citizens, so even without these leaders there may be the same amount of war... or maybe more (see Iraq for example) since they are no longer ruled upon and wan't to rule over others.

Not really. Extremist religious leaders over there stir up trouble by appealing to people that, more often than not, have nothing to lose. The regular Joe over there isn't a "warmonger", as you put it. He's just miserable, and if you offer him the chance of going to heaven where he'll have seventy-some virgins all for himself, chances are he'll take you up on the offer.

 

 

Leaders = Metal Fist to keep peace

Uh... what? War is Peace?

[BattleCookiee]

Not really. Extremist religious leaders over there stir up trouble by appealing to people that, more often than not, have nothing to lose. The regular Joe over there isn't a "warmonger", as you put it. He's just miserable, and if you offer him the chance of going to heaven where he'll have seventy-some virgins all for himself, chances are he'll take you up on the offer.

 

Well, leaders of a country can be put out of office (that were the leaders applied on in both posts I hope). The killing of Religious leaders is just working against you... severly, and it thus (except if you wan't to improve hostility) useless.

 

Over 100's of years religious leaders died... peacefully (old age) and by being killed. Is religion passed out? Nope, since there is always somebody to take over that position. One pope dead, and a new one rises. One imam dead, and a new one rises. One religious leader "killed" and you might have yourself an "additional" war...

 

Really, the Islam hasn't made as crazy wars YET as the Christian people did. Crusades, 80-years war, the forcefully persuading inhabitants of Africa and Asia to be catholic. The burning and killing of everybody not-catholic. Entire religions have been erased by Catholics, just for not being Catholic... (remember the Inquisition |(sp?)?)

 

Leaders = Metal Fist to keep peace

Uh... what? War is Peace?

 

If people are ruled by Iron Fist, there won't be war, since the person who tries to collect an army or following for a war get's killed before being able to do so...

Edited January 21, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[Dark Moth]

Really, the Islam hasn't made as crazy wars YET as the Christian people did. Crusades, 80-years war, the forcefully persuading inhabitants of Africa and Asia to be catholic. The burning and killing of everybody not-catholic. Entire religions have been erased by Catholics, just for not being Catholic... (remember the Inquisition |(sp?)?)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Are you joking? If you aren't, then you obviously know next to nothing about Islam's history and how it first spread. Nakla Raid? Battle of Badr? Ring any bells? As for religious persecution, ever hear of the Jizrah? Do you even know why the first crusade was called? Maybe you would benefit from learning about the first Islamic conquests. And that is only until 750. I suggest you read up, since your knowledge seems to be lacking. Islam has killed more people in its rise to power than Christianity ever has.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Mothman

[BattleCookiee]

As any religion, they indeed make alot of deaths (silly thingies, religions). But just to make a statement when the Islamatic Leaders are dead there will be peace can never become true, and even if the Islamitic religion (like any religion) killed many people, not a single religion can be called more bloodlust or has caused more deads than the Catholic one...

[WinterSun]

And the whole idea of a truce is utter sh!te. We'll only have peace in the middle east when the religious leaders lose their power.

 

Except for the warmongerers are not their leaders, but their citizens, so even without these leaders there may be the same amount of war... or maybe more (see Iraq for example) since they are no longer ruled upon and wan't to rule over others.

 

Leaders = Metal Fist to keep peace

Leader-less = Total chaos, suicides everywhere, some grasps for power leaving many deads

 

YAH! That'll be peace...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yeah, because the Iranian president isn't a glove puppet for the mullahs, and England isn't full of muslim clerics calling for war and destruction against the west...

[Dark Moth]

and even if the Islamic religion (like any religion) killed many people, not a single religion can be called more bloodthirsty or has caused more deaths than the Catholic one...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

As I said, you obviously know next to nothing about Islam's history, then. (here's a little more) But if you just want to keep posting unsupported opinion and ignoring facts, go right ahead.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Mothman

[BattleCookiee]

Yeah, because the Iranian president isn't a glove puppet for the mullahs, and England isn't full of muslim clerics calling for war and destruction against the west...

 

What do you wan't dead now? The leaders of countries, or the radical leaders of the Islam? Or maybe you just wan't everybody there dead?

And as said, kill one radical leader, and more will rise, deadlier (and more radical) than before.

 

And for every Iranian president there is a Bush, a Chirac and a Blair... and for every mulsim cleric and following there are an equal number of people who wish all Muslim dead...

 

As I said, you obviously know next to nothing about Islam's history, then. (here's a little more) But if you just want to keep posting unsupported opinion and ignoring facts, go right ahead.

 

If you think THAT list is impressive, look up the list of wars/killings due to Christianity...

Both religions suck, and are war mongering and useless, but that doesn't mean that we need to loose which of the 2 is worse throughout history (it would be different in the "now" form...)

Edited January 21, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[Dark Moth]

Those lists aren't everything, my friend, only the tip of the iceberg. And how about posting some lists yourself, instead of just making claims? Not that it's ever bothered you before, though. Christianity is not naturally warmongering, and some would argue neither is Islam. Many do agree it's mostly due to the pinheads who misuse it. As for the crusades, it may interest you to know that the Crusades were not first called for imperialism purposes but in response to years of MUSLIM aggression in the Middle East. The first Crusade was called in response to a call for help from Alexius I Comnenus.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Mothman

[BattleCookiee]

As for the crusades, it may interest you to know that the Crusades were not first called for imperialism purposes but in response to years of MUSLIM aggression in the Middle East.  The first Crusade was called in response to a call for help from Alexius I Comnenus.

 

As you source from Wikipedia, here is what it has to say on the Crusades. Make sure to read the boldend parts

 

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. Although the East-West Schism was brewing between the Catholic Western church and the Greek Orthodox Eastern church, Alexius I expected some help from a fellow Christian. However, the response was much larger, and less helpful, than Alexius I desired, as the Pope called for a large invasion force to not merely defend the Byzantine Empire but also retake Jerusalem.

 

When the First Crusade was preached in 1095, the Christian princes of northern Iberia had been fighting their way out of the mountains of Galicia and Asturias, the Basque Country and Navarre, with increasing success, for about a hundred years. The fall of Moorish Toledo to the Kingdom of Le

[WinterSun]

Yeah, because the Iranian president isn't a glove puppet for the mullahs, and England isn't full of muslim clerics calling for war and destruction against the west...

 

What do you wan't dead now? The leaders of countries, or the radical leaders of the Islam? Or maybe you just wan't everybody there dead?

And as said, kill one radical leader, and more will rise, deadlier (and more radical) than before.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Who said I wanted anyone dead? I was referring to clerics losing their power,i.e. becoming as irrelevant as christian priests and generally ignored by most people. Or do you really think Arabs would be as fervently anti-West without all the "kill the infidel" crap they're constantly force fed.

 

 

And for every Iranian president there is a Bush, a Chirac and a Blair... and for every mulsim cleric and following there are an equal number of people who wish all Muslim dead...

 

Yes, but everyone you just mentioned are idiots...

[Dark Moth]

As you source from Wikipedia, here is what it has to say on the Crusades. Make sure to read the boldend parts

 

The immediate cause of the First Crusade was Alexius I's appeal to Pope Urban II for mercenaries to help him resist Muslim advances into territory of the Byzantine Empire. Although the East-West Schism was brewing between the Catholic Western church and the Greek Orthodox Eastern church, Alexius I expected some help from a fellow Christian. However, the response was much larger, and less helpful, than Alexius I desired, as the Pope called for a large invasion force to not merely defend the Byzantine Empire but also retake Jerusalem.

 

When the First Crusade was preached in 1095, the Christian princes of northern Iberia had been fighting their way out of the mountains of Galicia and Asturias, the Basque Country and Navarre, with increasing success, for about a hundred years. The fall of Moorish Toledo to the Kingdom of Le

Edited January 21, 2006 by Mothman

[BattleCookiee]

Who said I wanted anyone dead? I was referring to clerics losing their power,i.e. becoming as irrelevant as christian priests and generally ignored by most people. Or do you really think Arabs would be as fervently anti-West without all the "kill the infidel" crap they're constantly force fed.

 

Well, you said when the leaders were dead there would have been peace. But killing a few leaders and more would show up, so the only way to actually end such a thing is to kill every "potential recruit". And I don't think anybody will ever do that...

And christian priests ignored and such? Damn, when the Americans go to school they have to hail God. No Christianity anywhere ofcourse... "

 

And I would think that the Arabs would be less Anti-West if we don't invade them, convict every moslim as terrorist and help that little country that bothers them alot from being overrun..., not by removing radical leaders.

 

And for every Iranian president there is a Bush, a Chirac and a Blair... and for every mulsim cleric and following there are an equal number of people who wish all Muslim dead...

Yes, but everyone you just mentioned are idiots...

 

And yet we listen and follow these and convict the others as warmongering/evil etc.

 

See the thread about Chirac. If an Arabic country would have done that it would probably been enough reason to invade. Since; nukes (actual or non-existant) = Invasion, no?

[BattleCookiee]

And what you posted does nothing to prove your point.  In many ways, what you posted just proves my point.  Why do you think he called for help?  Because of Islamic conquest which was threatening him.

 

Yeah, it would be so bad if they had to give the country the conquered with the Roman Empire would have to be given to some other religion. Christians had a real hatred for other religions, did you know? Maybe that was the reason. Why do they strike at the Moslim, but not the Vikings?

 

As for Jerusalem, how do you think it was occupied by Muslims in the first place?  Through bloodshed.  Also, post a link to the whole article, darnit, don't just post the parts you think support your views.  Wait, I'll do it for you.  LINK

 

No objection here

 

And if you think the Jews and Christians lived in perfect happiness under the Muslims, then you know nothing about the Jizyah (Jizrah) and Islam's stance toward Jews and Christians, which in some cases included them not even being allowed to practice their own religion.

 

OMG. Not being able to practice your own religion! How freakingly mean. LOADS less worse than the Christian way of just murdering, locking up and torturing everybody having another a religion. Look like the Cathar for example. The were all killed by the Church...

Reason: Heretic

 

Don't forget the Muslims had been forbiding Christian pilgrims from Jerusalem, and had destroyed the Church of the Holy Supulchre.    The Christians had been fighting to stave off the Muslims who had been conquering and subjugating the Christians and Jews for years.  And they did the exact things you accuse Christianity of doing.  What you fail to realize is the Crusades were really started by Islam, not Christianity.  Had it not been for Islamic aggression, it's likely the Crusades would never have occured.

 

I don't accuse the Christianity for anything else than that they did. I am not saying any of the religions was good, or they were either *peacefully* in any way, but the conquering and laws of the Muslims was alot less worse than the wars and laws of the Christian...

 

And the Crusades because of "Muslim aggression", eh? Maybe they looked like it from the same way as "Christian aggression", and they were the liberators. Hey, that looks alot like the current situation in the middle east, no (we should really get away from arguing about silly religions). The Christian Liberators saving people from the Muslim Aggression. But for the Muslim it shows Christian Aggression and they have to the Liberator stuff...

 

From all points of view; "Aggression" and "Liberation" just depends on your POV. There is no wrong to either thinking... but not everybody will agree with your "right choise"

Edited January 21, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[WinterSun]

Who said I wanted anyone dead? I was referring to clerics losing their power,i.e. becoming as irrelevant as christian priests and generally ignored by most people. Or do you really think Arabs would be as fervently anti-West without all the "kill the infidel" crap they're constantly force fed.

 

Well, you said when the leaders were dead there would have been peace. But killing a few leaders and more would show up, so the only way to actually end such a thing is to kill every "potential recruit". And I don't think anybody will ever do that...

 

I just said I didn't say that.

 

And christian priests ignored and such? Damn, when the Americans go to school they have to hail God. No Christianity anywhere ofcourse...  "

 

I can't speak for the Yanks, but in England christian priests are ignored on a regular basis.

 

And I would think that the Arabs would be less Anti-West if we don't invade them, convict every moslim as terrorist and help that little country that bothers them alot from being overrun..., not by removing radical leaders.

 

Vicious circle perhaps? We **** them, they **** us, we **** them back, etc.

 

And for every Iranian president there is a Bush, a Chirac and a Blair... and for every mulsim cleric and following there are an equal number of people who wish all Muslim dead...

Yes, but everyone you just mentioned are idiots...

 

And yet we listen and follow these and convict the others as warmongering/evil etc.

 

See the thread about Chirac. If an Arabic country would have done that it would probably been enough reason to invade. Since; nukes (actual or non-existant) = Invasion, no?

 

I don't like Bush and I wouldn't vote for Blair if you held a gun to my head. The way B.liar is taking away our rights in the name of protecting us from a threat he's worsened makes me sick.

 

MOD EDIT - Fixed quotes. tarna

[Dark Moth]

Yeah, it would be so bad if they had to give the country the conquered with the Roman Empire would have to be given to some other religion. Christians had a real hatred for other religions, did you know? Maybe that was the reason. Why do they strike at the Muslims, but not the Vikings?

 

(w00t) You idiot! Do you have any idea when Jerusalem was taken over by the Romans? Answer: before Christianity even existed.

 

OMG. Not being able to practice your own religion! How freakingly mean. LOADS less worse than the Christian way of just murdering, locking up and torturing everybody having another a religion. Look like the Cathar for example. The were all killed by the Church...

Reason: Heretic

Muslims have done the same thing to others for the same reasons.

 

I don't accuse the Christianity for anything else than that they did. I am not saying any of the religions was good, or they were either *peaceful* in any way, but the conquering and laws of the Muslims was alot less worse than the wars and laws of the Christian...

And I'm saying maybe you should learn about them instead of spouting your usual rabble. Then again, I guess facts have never been a necessity for you, have they? Nor has offending anyone who is of the Christian or Islamic faith. I am not saying here that one faith is worse than the other, just disproving your rediculous statement claiming Christianity has killed more people than Islam has when facts prove otherwise.

 

And the Crusades because of "Muslim aggression", eh? Maybe they looked like it from the same way as "Christian aggression", and they were the liberators. Hey, that looks alot like the current situation in the middle east, no (we should really get away from arguing about silly religions). The Christian Liberators saving people from the Muslim Aggression. But for the Muslim it shows Christian Aggression and they have to the Liberator stuff...

How is it not Muslim aggression, eh? If you're expanding offensively using war to conquer territories, that is aggression. That is how Jerusalem was captured. That is how Constantinople was sacked.

 

From all points of view; "Aggression" and "Liberation" just depends on your POV. There is no wrong to either thinking... but not everybody will agree with your "right choise"

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not if facts prove otherwise.

Edited January 21, 2006 by Mothman

[BattleCookiee]

Well, you said when the leaders were dead there would have been peace. But killing a few leaders and more would show up, so the only way to actually end such a thing is to kill every "potential recruit". And I don't think anybody will ever do that...

 

I just said I didn't say that.

 

Let's see;

And the whole idea of a truce is utter sh!te. We'll only have peace in the middle east when the religious leaders lose their power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't exists, right?

 

I can't speak for the Yanks, but in England christian priests are ignored on a regular basis.

 

And here in Holland the largest part in the Parlement in Catholic...

 

Vicious circle perhaps? We **** them, they **** us, we **** them back, etc.

 

Killing their leaders would be the **** them then, and be sure you will be ****ed back worse than 9/11... Ofcourse, that will make you guys more pissed off than ever. Who talks about peace, let's have war!

 

I don't like Bush and I wouldn't vote for Blair if you held a gun to my head. The way B.liar is taking away our rights in the name of protecting us from a threat he's worsened makes me sick.

 

As it seems that is a "common thought" in the UK things may finnally work out their after all and prevent you guys from becoming a mini-US.

(And just to add Blair doesn't even goes that far for "protecting" as some other politicians)

[BattleCookiee]

(w00t)  You idiot!  Do you have any idea when Jerusalem was taken over by the Romans?  Answer: before Christianity even existed. 

 

Who said I was talking about Jerusalem?

 

Muslims have done the same thing to others for the same reasons.

 

If the muslim go killing other religions for being other relegions then why do you only post about how THEY EVEN dared to give a Tax to Non-Muslims

 

And I'm saying maybe you should learn about them instead of spouting your usual rabble.  Then again, I guess facts have never been a necessity for you, have they?  Nor has offending anyone who is of the Christian or Islamic faith.  I am not saying here that one faith is worse than the other, just disproving your rediculous statement claiming Christianity has killed more people than Islam has.

 

By pointing out that the Muslims made alot of wars for their belief to spread? Wow, newsflash, also alot of wars spread Christianity, and also alot of "diplomatic missions", which included learn or die.

And hey, even before religions war were fought... how odd is that? Just to blame wars only on the spreading of believes...

Atleast we were sure that it was by the Church that all the Cathar and Heretics have been tortured and killed. Do you have evidence that it was a Muslim order to start these wars to spread their belief? Or was it just a "we need more land, let's conquer and right away spread our beliefs"... as that happened damn often here in Europe too, but it was seldom that it was actually called upon by the leaders of the religion and more by the leaders of the land...

And yes, I am not afraid to tell I find religion ridicilous, especially if millions of people die or have died for it, and yet there people didn't think it was extremely wrong...

 

How is it not Muslim aggression, eh?  If you're expanding offensively using war to conquer territories, that is aggression.  That is how Jerusalem was captured.  That is how Constantinople was sacked. 

 

But was it Muslim? Or was Islamitic believe just a secondary goal. I have to note that there have been quite some other races, like the Monguls, that have been able to conquer the whole of Asia without having the Islamatic believe, and still gave alot of their "experience and beliefs" to the people they conquered.

 

Not if facts prove otherwise. 

 

But there are no facts. If two sides fight, and both think they do it for the good stuff, who are we to say that one is "good" and the other "bad"... mainly if they both do the same?

[Judge Hades]

Yep. Christianity has done more death and destrutction than Islam. mainly because it has been around longer.

[WinterSun]

Well, you said when the leaders were dead there would have been peace. But killing a few leaders and more would show up, so the only way to actually end such a thing is to kill every "potential recruit". And I don't think anybody will ever do that...

 

I just said I didn't say that.

 

I think you're getting my quotes and yours slightly mixed up here...

 

Let's see;

And the whole idea of a truce is utter sh!te. We'll only have peace in the middle east when the religious leaders lose their power.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Doesn't exists, right?

 

No, I meant exactly what I wrote.

 

 

Vicious circle perhaps? We **** them, they **** us, we **** them back, etc.

 

Killing their leaders would be the **** them then, and be sure you will be ****ed back worse than 9/11... Ofcourse, that will make you guys more pissed off than ever. Who talks about peace, let's have war!

 

Again, I said nothing about killing. I really can't see where you're getting this from. Unless of course, "lose their power" is Dutch for "die a variety of unnecessarily painful deaths".