The wildly ignorant notion that 'different' means less value. Even the worst terrorist groups have a better grasp of human life than these western powers. As the worst terrorist groups target innocents knowing the value of killing them, knowing the pain it will cause, and NATO? The ignorance of not understanding the worth of every single life.
I'm sorry, but that's a pretty bold and pretty antagonistic statement. You (and others) openly condemn the US, but you deliberately downplay the heinous acts of other groups in order to exaggerate your points.
That's just untrue. In fact it's disgusting saying that I or anyone else here "downplays the heinous acts of other groups in order to exaggerate your points", without even providing an example of that.
and that post of mine you quoted, Read it in context. It's by and large very true. Terrorist terrorize innocent people and understand how much pain killing civilians causes. That's why they do it.
As far as NATO goes, if they wanted to end terror (so to speak), they would not be causing terror, and understand that their actions are creating it. and every one terrorist they kill, they create 100 more because they are seemingly ignorant of the cost of human life. when the life is not one of their own.
You asked for an example and I provided one. It's your choice whether you accept it or not.
The fact that you can differentiate between murders committed by NATO and murders committed by a terrorist organization means that we will never see eye-to-eye. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who openly takes the life of another has no understanding of the value of human life. I have no problem if my words disgust you.
As I mentioned earlier; I'm in no mood for a battle with you or any other poster looking for a fight.
Again with the battle, and the fight.
-
Nevertheless, I stand behind what I have said in this thread, if the meaning and intention of my earlier posts have not been expressed well enough or is not being understood in the manner in which it was intended, Then the fault perhaps is mine. Maybe I have not been clear enough.
I dunno, just reading your posts, it's just obvious how you came in as the aggressor with an issue, first saying something to bait, then saying you didnt want to get into it etc.
You know what? I have no interest in this, I'm done.
You asked for an example and I provided one. It's your choice whether you accept it or not.
The fact that you can differentiate between murders committed by NATO and murders committed by a terrorist organization means that we will never see eye-to-eye. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who openly takes the life of another has no understanding of the value of human life. I have no problem if my words disgust you.
Sorry, not done yet.
Read what the question was. Go over it all again. If you break down everything. You should be able to see what the issue is and where/what our split actually is.
http://electronicintifada.net/content/b ... srael/5955
'...As for “terrorism”, which he defines as “random violence against non-combatants”, he [Michael Neumann] distinguishes it from “collateral damage” with the assertion that the latter “involves knowingly killing innocent civilians” while “Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians”, concluding that “the moral difference is too academic even for an academic.” Why, then, is “terrorism” considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while “collateral damage” tends to be taken in our moral stride?
“Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: ‘To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don’t need to plant bombs.’ As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work.”
I'm in no mood for a battle with you or any other poster looking for a fight.
Nobody's asked to get into a fight or battle with you. If you're not interested in getting involved in the discussion then don't post comments accusing people of double standards, or of defending terrorism.
Comments
You asked for an example and I provided one. It's your choice whether you accept it or not.
The fact that you can differentiate between murders committed by NATO and murders committed by a terrorist organization means that we will never see eye-to-eye. As far as I'm concerned, anyone who openly takes the life of another has no understanding of the value of human life. I have no problem if my words disgust you.
As I mentioned earlier; I'm in no mood for a battle with you or any other poster looking for a fight.
-
Nevertheless, I stand behind what I have said in this thread, if the meaning and intention of my earlier posts have not been expressed well enough or is not being understood in the manner in which it was intended, Then the fault perhaps is mine. Maybe I have not been clear enough.
I dunno, just reading your posts, it's just obvious how you came in as the aggressor with an issue, first saying something to bait, then saying you didnt want to get into it etc.
You know what? I have no interest in this, I'm done.
Sorry, not done yet.
Read what the question was. Go over it all again. If you break down everything. You should be able to see what the issue is and where/what our split actually is.
'...As for “terrorism”, which he defines as “random violence against non-combatants”, he [Michael Neumann] distinguishes it from “collateral damage” with the assertion that the latter “involves knowingly killing innocent civilians” while “Terrorism involves intentionally killing innocent civilians”, concluding that “the moral difference is too academic even for an academic.” Why, then, is “terrorism” considered to be particularly morally repugnant, while “collateral damage” tends to be taken in our moral stride?
“Imagine trying to make such a claim. You say: ‘To achieve my objectives, I would certainly drop bombs with the knowledge that they would blow the arms off some children. But to achieve those same objectives, I would not plant or set off a bomb on the ground with the knowledge that it would have that same effect. After all, I have planes to do that, I don’t need to plant bombs.’ As a claim of moral superiority, this needs a little work.”
Nobody's asked to get into a fight or battle with you. If you're not interested in getting involved in the discussion then don't post comments accusing people of double standards, or of defending terrorism.
Trailer
The above video is part 1, (click on the top right corner for the other parts of the film)