Is a truce possible?

[BattleCookiee]

Power loss of Dictators can only be gained by military efford resulting in many casualties.

 

That is atleast 1 thing we learned from Iraq...

[BattleCookiee]

And a little bit further on the Muslim killed more/Christian killed more from before;

 

Also the cause of my thinking Christians killed more is because with the Christians there is a direct way of seeing their wars/killings... as they have... "The Pope" and "The Church". The Islamatic do not have such figureheads, and thus do not have people who actually influence all of the belief-holders (against the Taliban and such who only reach the radical part) saying that wars should be started to widen their "view" and heretics should be executed, just because they don't believe (the same).

 

And on religions themselves. I still wonder why 1000's of years later people still believe in books which have been scientifically proven false 100's of years ago and caused millions of deads in the process. You would suspect that if people are proven to be lied to and numbers mentioned of people died due to such a thing it would vanish. See this and all other "war threads". You need proof, or nobody would believe you. Everything proven false 100's of years ago do no longer count in any way? What about the cassualties? You would still wan't to preach for something that caused suffering for the millions?

I don't mind if people would believe in God. Maybe he even exists. But man can believe in Him without books with "scientifically falsified" facts and rules who ended the lives of several (millions of) people in the past... and even now on the moment this is written...

Edited January 21, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[Dark Moth]

And a little bit further on the Muslim killed more/Christian killed more from before;

 

Also the cause of my thinking Christians killed more is because with the Christians there is a direct way of seeing their wars/killings... as they have... "The Pope" and "The Church". The Muslims do not have such figureheads, and thus do not have people who actually influence all of the belief-holders (against the Taliban and such who only reach the radical part) saying that wars should be started to widen their "view" and heretics should be executed, just because they don't believe (the same).

 

And on religions themselves. I still wonder why 1000's of years later people still believe in books which have been scientifically proven false 100's of years ago and caused millions of deaths in the process. You would suspect that if people are proven to be lied to and numbers mentioned of people died due to such a thing it would vanish. See this and all other "war threads". You need proof, or nobody would believe you. Everything proven false 100's of years ago do no longer count in any way? What about the casualties? You would still wan't to preach for something that caused suffering for the millions?

I don't mind if people would believe in God. Maybe he even exists. But man can believe in Him without books with "scientifically falsified" facts and rules who ended the lives of several (millions of) people in the past... and even now on the moment this is written...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No? You say that as if religion is directly responsible. You fail to consider the possibility that it is only because people misuse it, not that the religion itself condones it. Mankind has waged war ever since its beginning, religion is just another excuse for it. And what about the good things it has done, hmm? 5th Commandment, anyone? Love your neighbor? Love your enemies? Do unto others as you would have them do unto you? "He who draws the sword dies by the sword"? You can't just go and blame religion for wars. Otherwise, you'd have to blame every other system/institution for its "crimes". Example: a policeman may abuse his authority. Does that mean all policemen are bad, or that law enforcement agencies in general are corrupt? NO.

[moreKOTORplz]

it would be nice if people like bin laden didn't represent muslims or bush didn't represent christians, sadly those kinds of people are the most noted. i do agree that the way each religion is conducted against one another makes them more futile than useful (ala the middle east). people are just flawed and doomed might as well except it and carpe diem .

[BattleCookiee]

Mankind has waged war ever since its beginning, religion is just another excuse for it.

 

Indeed. But one major difference between Christianity and the Islam is here that with the Islam it has actually been used mostly by violent conquering type of guys to explain their violence (Bin Laden), while the crimes of the Christians have actually been done by an institution (The Church) that is the "official voice" of Christianity, and thus "in order of God".

 

It is one thing to blame your violence on a believe.

It is an other thing when you are The representive of your religion arguing for the killing of thousands of people...

Edited January 22, 2006 by Battlewookiee

[Guest MacLeodCorp]

Is this possible is your opinion? While it would not eliminate terrorism (there are many groups) it would remove a rather large player from the scene. What do you think he wants in return for ceasing terrorist activities? Why is he offering this?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Not a chance.. Out of all the failures that the Bush Administration has made, Osama being alive was the largest... I know the war on Iraq was important, but he should have delivered the head of Osama first. He wants a truce after killing 2,000 plus people in the U.S.... Tufff.... There is no mercy for a mass killer of innocence.

[thepixiesrock]

Of course a truce is possible.

[Dark Moth]

Mankind has waged war ever since its beginning, religion is just another excuse for it.

 

Indeed. But one major difference between Christianity and the Islam is here that with the Islam it has actually been used mostly by violent conquering type of guys to explain their violence (Bin Laden), while the crimes of the Christians have actually been done by an institution (The Church) that is the "official voice" of Christianity, and thus "in order of God".

 

It is one thing to blame your violence on a believe.

It is an other thing when you are The representive of your religion arguing for the killing of thousands of people...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Again, you're wrong. What do you think Muhammad's conquests were in the name of? Did you even read the Islamic Conquests link I gave you? These were Muslims, the supposed voice of Allah, waging war, including Muslim clerics themselves supporting them. They were waged in the name of religion. Even if there's no official institution involved, it can still be done in the name of religion. And even still, the institution doesn't always represent the religion.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Mothman

[213374U]

Hmm. This sounds like facts bouncing off BW's forehead.

 

So, what's new?

[Judge Hades]

It does have the same sound that when facts bounce off your head, numberman.

[213374U]

Well, that has yet to happen, so how would you know?

[thepixiesrock]

Oooooohhh.

 

 

Come on Hades, whats your rebuttle?

[Guest MacLeodCorp]

Of course a truce is possible.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

If any American official signs a truce with Osama, they would be commiting political suicide. If Osama or any of his Al-Quaks comes back to our country, he will be signing a death warrant. Not only will he face the furry of the United States people, but we will be moving the location of Hates to Afganistan. I don't mean the country...

Edited January 22, 2006 by MacLeodCorp

[Judge Hades]

Well, that has yet to happen, so how would you know?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Okay: Fact: A rubber ball will bounce off your head if thrown hard enough.

 

Now record that sound and play it. :D

 

*tee hee freaking hee*

 

[Dark Moth]

Hmph. If I were Bush, I would have told Osama that I would accept his truce if and only if he and the top leaders of al-Qaida turned themselves over to us. I'm sure Binny boy would have been a lot more hesitant to offer a "truce" then. I think this is a good sign, though. It shows he's starting to falter.

[Guest MacLeodCorp]

Hmph.  If I were Bush, I would have told Osama that I would accept his truce if and only if he and the top leaders of al-Qaida turned themselves over to us.  I'm sure Binny boy would have been a lot more hesitant to offer a "truce" then.  I  think this is a good sign, though.  It shows he's starting to falter.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

You know what... You have an idea... Offer Osama a hand in truce. When he comes to the table to sign a treaty, he will pick up his pen, then he starts to sign the treaty, and for some reason a bullet hits his head....Bush sitting in the corner, and then says, "Oops... Was this gun loaded?"

[alanschu]

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

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

And where is their empire now?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Many of those colonies peacefully ceded from the Empire.

 

 

She is right, your original comment was dumb. It's not like the US soldiers are holding people at gunpoint (your words) saying have an election, and forcing people out to the polling stations.

[Lucius]

Mothie I think both Muslims and Christians were equally bloodthirsty and warmongering back in those days, the difference is that some Islamic nations (and fundamentalists in general?) are still stuck in the Dark Ages... Although some extreme Christian movements in the US seems to be stuck in the Dark Ages too, more or less.

[Fighter]

It's not like the US soldiers are holding people at gunpoint (your words)

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not my words, read again... and yes US soldiers roam a foreign country at will, arresting people who are not their citizens at will, for good or bad but I call that controlling a country at gunpoint. People will never accept such rule, therefore there will always be resistance.

 

No free elections are possible while a country is being controled by a foreign power, regardless of whenever you lead people there at gunpoint or not. Those elections are simply irrelevant since people that are elected have no control over anything. Believing otherwise is dumb...

 

I dont deny that US perhaps wishes, say, Iraq to be independent and free, but now it is by no measures' free'. They have a government that for obvious reasons leans on foregn power therefore has no independent politics of its own and no control of their own country.

 

When US leaves, you still end up with an essentially US made government and US made army. Iraq still has a long way to go to real freedom.

[Kaftan Barlast]

Mothie I think both Muslims and Christians were equally bloodthirsty and warmongering back in those days, the difference is that some Islamic nations (and fundamentalists in general?) are still stuck in the Dark Ages... Although some extreme Christian movements in the US seems to be stuck in the Dark Ages too, more or less.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

Thats is completely true, it is a moral Dark Age more than a cultural one but it is still a dark age.

 

 

It is curious that a society based on religious dogma is always infinently more cruel and inhumane that one based on philosophic ethics and reason, when the very aim of the religion is to prevent this cruelty and inhumanity.

 

 

edit: Oh, and although Im sure its already been said. Bin Laden is in no way able to declare a truce as he has no real power over the loose groups who make up what has become known as Al-Qaeda. There are also plenty of active groups who do not consider themselves part of Al-Aaeda.

Edited January 22, 2006 by Kaftan Barlast

[Darth Launch]

Mothie I think both Muslims and Christians were equally bloodthirsty and warmongering back in those days, the difference is that some Islamic nations (and fundamentalists in general?) are still stuck in the Dark Ages... Although some extreme Christian movements in the US seems to be stuck in the Dark Ages too, more or less.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Thats is completely true, it is a moral Dark Age more than a cultural one but it is still a dark age.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Would you both care to explain what you mean by "Dark Age"?

[Kaftan Barlast]

I mean it in the sense that many islamic countries for an example still practise forms of punishment that are unacceptable by any reasonable humane standard

 

 

It is also a question of the separation of church and state, which is a cornerstone in the idea of a fair and democtratic society.

[julianw]

It is curious that a society based on religious dogma is always infinently more cruel and inhumane that one based on philosophic ethics and reason, when the very aim of the religion is to prevent this cruelty and inhumanity.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Then perhaps the fault lies within the society itself and not its religion, and it's fortunate that the religion that preaches against cruelty and inhumanity actually reached the people that practices so much cruelty and inhumanity. If religion was not present in the region, things just might get infinitely worse.

[Gorgon]

Opium for the masses I guess. Easier to get everyone to sing the same tune if you ingrane dogma into them from birth.

[213374U]

It is curious that a society based on religious dogma is always infinently more cruel and inhumane that one based on philosophic ethics and reason, when the very aim of the religion is to prevent this cruelty and inhumanity.

Like the Third Reich?

 

Like Soviet Russia?

 

Um... right.