It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

The "innocents", do they matter? ^

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Luxifero
27jd,

I'm quite sure that documentry on Afhgan children also did not provide a reason as to why the United States who liberated such a country were not funding massive efforts to reducate these children into a mentality which would let them criticaly discern between indoctrinated dogma, and rational objective thought, correct?

Both my roomates are Muslim and both can recite the Qu'ran by heart in thier sleep, and i've never seen them spout fundamentalist zeal; in fact, i'm quite sure the example you have provided cannot be assigned towards all the children of Afghanistan, but just a select few that were used to make this documentry for deceptive and manipulative purposes.


No, the documentary was not manipulative, it illustrated the lives of many children there, and not all were as radical as the child I mentioned, however none of them were actually "children". They were all forced to grow up pretty much as soon as they could walk, working grueling 16 hour days to try and help the family scrape by. They are not valued there, nowhere near the way our children are. So they in turn do not value human life the way we do, fundamentalist or not. It's very sad but it's true.




posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 03:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
There are 2 billion muslims out there...that's 2 billion possible terrorists. How do you deal with that?


Is that what you meant to say? Are you saying that every Muslim is a possible terrorist?


Originally posted by masterp
Well, if war is necessary to bring peace, so be it.


That's one of those justification statements I was talking about. It keeps people from taking responsibility.


[edit on 18-1-2006 by Benevolent Heretic]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:04 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Yes we do, but time is of the essence, and doing that type of attack will put more US troops in danger and it will decrease the level of success. Sending in Spec Ops has more unknowns then sending in a Predator.

Allright then. To you, US soldiers lives take precedent, even if it means killing people who aren't neccessarily part of the 'terrorist problem'. Thank you for the honesty that I asked for but please don't be surprised if people outside the US don't like that kind of action.

It must be a lot nicer for the soldiers nowadays then the ones 50 years ago. Now all the killing of innocents can be done by remote and nobody has to feel responsible for the deaths.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:07 PM
link   
What we the people need to do, all of us is stop abusing other countries and creating the type of anger against us that we do.

I dont see terrorists attacking any country that is not part of what they feel is invasion.

We worked as terrorists in our rebelion against King Goerge.

Why have we let big corporations get control of our foreign policy?

I don't see many lining up to self implode themselves in Switzerland!

We need to be a little less like the nazi, and do things a little closer to the heart.

[edit on 18-1-2006 by LoneGunMan]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:19 PM
link   

Allright then. To you, US soldiers lives take precedent, even if it means killing people who aren't neccessarily part of the 'terrorist problem'. Thank you for the honesty that I asked for but please don't be surprised if people outside the US don't like that kind of action.


Oh I can understand that, but in every military the lives of your men and the security of your country come before anyone else, if they dont, then theres something seriously wrong. I wouldnt want the burden of recklessly putting soldiers in danger because public opinion is against me.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
You present an excellent point... but what is your solution ? Wait untill terrorist auto-identify themselves with headband with bright red letters rading "TERRORIST" ? or just let them blow wahtever they want ... including me, you , my family, your family ... what exactly is the solution to this problem ...

how many "innocents" in Israel, 9/11, the TOO MANY hijacked planes, the be-headed hostages, have died already... aren't they colateral damage of the religious Islamic fanaticism ??

How do you intent to stop Terrorists without causing the sad "colateral damage" ?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:26 PM
link   
Getting into a discusion about children not bein innicents is a dangerous road of duhumanising as you can get. We already do it here, we judge children as adults.

A childs brain completely changes from child, to adolesont, then the final change to an adult. You can teach a child to do bad things, but to say they are bad people and not innocent before they have reached that change in there state of being is bad news. Because they are taught bad things, does not mean we can judge them so harshly.

We have been taught by the media in our country to first not trust each other, and place all self protection to the state. Then we have been taught to not even trust the children.

Look at the war on drugs, it was done to dehumanize people. Perps. Drug Dealers. Drug Smugglers. Let em rot. Then years later find out 750,000 people are incarcerated per year for having personal use cannibis. School shootings, so we dont even trust the kids.

The media doesnt cover the fact that in all of the shooting the children were prescribed and using serritonin uptake inhibiters. (SP)

Seems like we are being programed to only trust the state, strangers of all walks are a threat.

Next we will need cct cameras everwhere, etc. etc.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:27 PM
link   

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I don't see many lining up to self implode themselves in Switzerland!


That would be an amazing trick, it wouldn't do any damage, but I'd be very interested to see somebody implode themselves.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd


That would be an amazing trick, it wouldn't do any damage, but I'd be very interested to see somebody implode themselves.


typical... qhen presented with something that cant be denyed, recorring to the distraction of pointing out ortograpic errors, or typos...or whatever else may distract from the FACTS!

i wonder how many mistakes i have on my post....



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:35 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by LoneGunMan
I don't see many lining up to self implode themselves in Switzerland!


That would be an amazing trick, it wouldn't do any damage, but I'd be very interested to see somebody implode themselves.


Actually, I think Kate Moss has been to Switzerland, so it's already been done I guess.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
typical... qhen presented with something that cant be denyed, recorring to the distraction of pointing out ortograpic errors, or typos...or whatever else may distract from the FACTS!

i wonder how many mistakes i have on my post....


Lighten up a bit. I wasn't arguing his/her point, so it wasn't meant to distract anything, I was just being a smartarse as usual. Oh yeah, and you typed qhen instead of when.


[edit on 18-1-2006 by 27jd]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
typical... qhen presented with something that cant be denyed, recorring to the distraction of pointing out ortograpic errors, or typos...or whatever else may distract from the FACTS!

i wonder how many mistakes i have on my post....


Lighten up a bit. I wasn't arguing his/her point, so it wasn't meant to distract anything, I was just being a smartarse as usual. Oh yeah, and you typed qhen instead of when.


[edit on 18-1-2006 by 27jd]


dang it ... i could swear you wouldnt have noticed that ....

well, if you're just beeing a smart ass than thats just fine...one less gift for christmas ...



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:49 PM
link   

Originally posted by masterp
Well, if war is necessary to bring peace, so be it. But I really doubt killing "top" muslims will ever do something for terrorism. There are 2 billion muslims out there...that's 2 billion possible terrorists. How do you deal with that?


That statement speaks volumes. Damn my head hurts. That is the big problem here, THEY"RE MUSLIMS THEY MIGHT HURT US . This is EXACTLY the type of mindset I'm talking about, they're Muslims, not PEOPLE.

:shk:



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   
You mean one less lump of coal in my stocking?


But back on topic, I think the whole issue is a catch 22. Ideally, humans wouldn't be so violent, but did anybody ever stop to think that since we're on top of the food chain, maybe nature intends for us to be this way as a population control? Just a thought, but it seems strange that everybody wants to live in peace, but have to kill in order to do so.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:51 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh I can understand that, but in every military the lives of your men and the security of your country come before anyone else, if they don�t, then there�s something seriously wrong. I wouldn�t want the burden of recklessly putting soldiers in danger because public opinion is against me.


Whoa dude, I thought that soldiers trained to be put in harms way. Isn't that their job?

Look at it in line with this thread:

Soldier= trained.

Innocent= untrained

I would think the onus would be on the individual that is trained to protect themselves as opposed to just axing one that wasn't.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:53 PM
link   

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Oh I can understand that, but in every military the lives of your men and the security of your country come before anyone else, if they don?t, then there?s something seriously wrong. I wouldn?t want the burden of recklessly putting soldiers in danger because public opinion is against me.

That's the catch-22 right there.

The burden of being responsible for the death of someone who has signed up with an army vs. the responsibility of taking the life of an 'innocent' simply because they happened to be born in the wrong country, to the wrong parents.

On one hand we have someone who has willingly placed themselves in a situation where there is the possibility of them being killed or killing someone else. On the other, we have someone who didn't have the luxury of being born in a Western nation and is subject to the whims of fathers/husbands.

Who deserves to die? Neither of them.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 04:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by BaastetNoir
how many "innocents" in Israel, 9/11, the TOO MANY hijacked planes, the be-headed hostages, have died already... aren't they colateral damage of the religious Islamic fanaticism ??



Sounds a lot like revenge to me.


How do you intent to stop Terrorists without causing the sad "colateral damage" ?


Are you telling me that with all the money that the US spends on offen, er, I mean defense, they couldn't figure out means to spare the ones that should be spared.

I think the point of this thread is being lost on a lot of people, it's no longer humans you folks are thinking about but they ARE humans. Not Muslims, terrorist, they are people.



[edit on 18-1-2006 by intrepid]



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:03 PM
link   

Originally posted by intrepid
I think the point of this thread is being lost on a lot of people, it's no longer humans you folks are thinking about but they ARE humans. Not Muslims, terrorist, they are people.


I said humans, look at my last post. ^

But I think you're asking people to reverse ages of "us vs. them" instincts. It's nothing new that Bush, Rumsfeld, Bin Laden, or Hussein invented. Most people have always fancied themselves and their like as superior to all others, no matter how much they try and deny it. I think it's subconcious even.



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:15 PM
link   

Originally posted by 27jd

Originally posted by intrepid
I think the point of this thread is being lost on a lot of people, it's no longer humans you folks are thinking about but they ARE humans. Not Muslims, terrorist, they are people.


I said humans, look at my last post. ^

But I think you're asking people to reverse ages of "us vs. them" instincts. It's nothing new that Bush, Rumsfeld, Bin Laden, or Hussein invented. Most people have always fancied themselves and their like as superior to all others, no matter how much they try and deny it. I think it's subconcious even.


Sorry 27jd, that post wasn't directed at you.

That is a lot to ask, I know but isn't it worth thinking about? Stopping the mass manipulation?



posted on Jan, 18 2006 @ 05:21 PM
link   
Hum if I am not guessing here but in Christian religion we are told that if you do not believe in Jesus the Saviour you are going to die a sin and go to hell.

And people live their lives by this, so what is the difference from other ethnic and religious groups believing what the do.

In western society is allowed to believe death by sin and salvation through believe.

So what is the difference, I get it we don't kill others we fight terror in others nations lands is not the same as killing. right?

The means will justify the ends.



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join