Ambassadar

That isn't a period of 20 years so it is not "decades" like you said and that is mainly against one country that a league of Muslim nations fought side by side with the US in that war. Afganistan declared war on the US by openly supporting Al Quaida who had attacked the US repeatedly since the early 90's. That was the British. I am not British. I am from the US. Try again. Lebanese Muslims pushed the government to join the newly created United Arab Republic (Egypt and Syria), while the Christians wanted to keep Lebanon aligned with Western Powers. A Muslim rebellion and the toppling of a pro-Western government in Iraq caused President Chamoun to call for U.S. assistance. So lets see. We have Muslims rebelling against their elected government because their government didn't want to ally with other Muslim countries so they felt the need to try to kill people to get their way. Thanks for supporting my point that Muslims try to dominate the countries they live in and take all power and trample the rights of people of other religions in those nations. Then the President of that country asks for US help so the US sends 5,000 soldiers there to help maintain order. Only 1 troop was killed so that gives you an idea of the minuscule amount of fighting going on during that event. Not quite the "bombing for decades and mass oppression of Islam" you would like to portray. Threatening bombs is not dropping bombs so this doesn't support your statement that the US has been dropping bombs for decades. Secondly Iraq was going to invade Kuwait so this was supporting the Muslim nation of Kuwait by sticking up for the little guy. Would you rather the US allowed Iraq to go plunder, murder and pillage Kuwait? They stopped all that without firing a shot. That sounds like a good thing to me. Muslims attacked Jerusalem and took it from the rightful owners. This angered the west. The Pope authorized the creation of a "Crusade" to go free the Holy Land. How is that any different than the Allies declaring war against Hitler for taking Poland and fighting to free Poland? Each has an aggressive side greedily taking property and land that is not theirs and so third parties band together to go take it back. Also the pope is not headmaster of my religion. Let's see... the first Crusade never would have happened except people of a certain religion decided to go conquer all their neighbors and kill any resistance and take their land. Then all of a sudden it is bad if other people come and attack those militant people of a certain religion for doing what they did? I agree there was some screwy stuff going on with certain Crusades. Look at what happened to Constantinople. The difference is people at times have tried to exploit Christianity for their own selfish ends but the fundamental texts of Christianity condemn this as wrong. The fundamentalist texts of Islam support any warlike aggression that is waged. I don't get why you are having a problem understanding this point. What does this have to do with anything regarding Islam? What does this have anything to do with the US pressuring the Soviet Union? If you want to talk about Japan then I would say they were a brutal and murderous people until after WWII. A lot of the same flaws of Islam were there in Japan during the Shogunate and under the Emporers as well. Civilizations built on those principals are always violent and brutal and have to be stopped by force. Go read the book Flyboys if you want a history of Japan. The principals I am talking about in a nutshell are those that teach a group of people are superior to the rest of the people on Earth and that killing other lesser peoples to further your power or influence is ok. What's your point here? I seriously don't understand it how you took Winter war and Continual war here when we're talking about muslims. You were saying to offer appeasement to the Muslims in your original post. I just found that funny because your signature is the opposite of appeasement. Wow... funny, my country got literally attacked as well...

I doubt the Sudan is going to let some rich billionaire and an army of mercenaries come into their country to quell the violence if they won't even let the UN come to their aide.

Actually the Clinton controlled New York with a large army until the formal peace treaty ending the War for Independence. He quit all operations in this area because the British lost the will to fight. Many Brits supported the colonials rebelling to form their own nation. No British Army was completely captured until Yorktown when after years and years of struggle France finally joined the US and their Navy defeating a British Navy that was going to evacuate Cornwallis's army is what made the US victory possible. The guns didn't solely win the war but the made the war possible in the first place. They made it so the revolution could persist long enough to get some help in the form of France. If England had thrown it's full military might against the US theres no way the US would have won. They didn't. At the same time those guns allowed the revolution to persist and survive while guys like Benjamin Franklin were in Great Britain and France raising support for the cause. The guns didn't solely win the war but they allowed the war to be won.

And what country in the near east has the yes been bombing for DECADES like you said? That means 20 years or more. Several points on this one. 1. The Bible does not support a violent holy "Crusade" in any shape form or fashion. The Koran does support the idea of Jihad. Jesus spread Christianity for dying on the cross. Muhammad spread Islam by putting people to the sword. 2. If Muslims should still be angry over the Crusades then the Aztecs should still be trying to murder Spaniards because of Cortez. 3. The Crusades are nowhere near as bloody as Islamic expansionism. Muhammad wiped out every single Christian, Jew and pagan on the entire Saudi peninsula when he was alive. That is called genocide. That set the standard for how Islam spreads. Wow, you are condemning Western culture for threatening the Japanese who were conducting the rape of Nanking and slaughtering hundreds of thousands of innocent Chinese people and threatening the Soviets who were trying to take over the world and killing millions and millions of people in the process? Japanese soldiers were violating Chinese female babies and cutting them open to be able to do so and violating every woman they could get their hands on. The officers would practice chopping off heads of Chinese civilians for sport. Yeah... Western culture is obviously the one at fault here... Go read a history book. The point is appeasement never works against an aggressive enemy regardless of the context.

Scottish, Irish, English, Cherokee Indian and Italian in me... From the US.

The people fighting the US in Iraq want the US to leave. When the US leaves then they win. This is a very likely situation and they will have done it with nothing more than improvised bombs and the types of low grade weaponry you scoff at. Once again then why hasn't the war in Iraq been won? Why is there an insurgency going on? Why haven't all those helicopters and tanks killed every insurgent by now? Why is the US debating pulling out and withdrawing from the conflict thus losing the war? Actually not very handy because at that point in the war when the allies had entered German territory when the civilians would have been able to fight they had completely exhausted their manpower. They had boys serving in their army units that they had armed with their latest weaponry. How handy would it have been? Not handy at all because there would have been no one left to use all those guns in private hands since all the men were already at war.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of looking up the data Locke and nice point. As to this... I wasn't aware the US had bombed Jerusalem or Mecca which are the two holiest places in Islam if I'm not mistaken. Saudia Arabia was the birthplace of Islam and not one US bomb ever to my knowledge. Mind clarifying this point more because it sounds like empty rhetoric to me... If a fat yankee in your country was going to hurt people then if I was you I would search every yankee that came into your country to make sure they weren't fat so that your people could be safe. As a yankee I would understand this and if I didn't like it I just wouldn't go visit your country... If I was a fat Yankee I would avoid your country. How is that a problem? It's perfectly reasonable and fair on your part to require that of yankees if fat yankees were a danger. I guess convert or die is working well for them. And which genocide or act of murderous terrorism or travesty of justice that Muslims have committed against non Muslims are you referring to? Interesting because I was aware of only one religion going around declaring holy wars (or jihad as they like to call it) against others. I don't think Western culture is the culture having difficulty "living together" with the rest of the world. Maybe it's that other culture... you know... the one that is fighting and murdering in pretty much every single place their culture overlaps another culture. Funny how all those cultures that they are fighting for the most part have no problems on their other borders... By anti-Islamic politics do you mean because we don't follow Sharia and delegate women to the role objects and have different penalties if a Muslim vs. a non Muslim commits a crime and murder anyone that wants to change to another religion other than Islam, etc etc etc? Actually Muslims have done a good enough job of putting themselves in another group since they try to bring their own form of government(Sharia) to every country they immigrate to instead of adopting the traditional customs and values of the nation they move to. Oh yeah and that whole thing where if you want to quit being a Muslim your family is supposed to MURDER you. I think this quote sums up why Muslims get put in another group "A speaker ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwho called himself Zachariah ... preached that the non-believers were dispensable: ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¹ÃâTheyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re kuffar. TheyÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢re not people who are innocent. The people who are innocent are the people who are with us or those who are living under the Islamic state.ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ

Back then the Continental Army didn't have cannons until Nathaniel Green and Benedict Arnold took the British fort of Crowne Point and looted the cannons from the port and sent them to Washington's Army. The British had a better musket than the Americans. The Americans didn't have as good of or near the amount of cannons the British had. The British had a massive state of the art indestructible fleet they could cream anything the American's threw at them for the most part. By all logical reasonings Washington's Army should have been crushed. They were outnumbered, undersupplied, underfed, undertrained, underarmed, and had worse weapons than the British. Besides, if airplanes and tanks and bombs can automatically win wars then why hasn't Iraq been won yet? The War for Independence was a bunch of farmers and clerks taking on the greatest military power on the face of the planet and they won. How would that be any different if there was a second revolution one day(God forbid that ever happens)? Another thought... Imagine if all the Jews in Germany during Adolph Hitler's reign had owned guns... Think there might have been some people saved from that and think a lot more Gestapo would have been killed as well?

This was referring more to absolutely rebellious kids that would not obey authority no matter what. My guess is a reasonable comparison to this would be these guys that join gangs and start dealing drugs and killing people and stuff when they are 15 or 16. In Biblical times they would have been killed. I bet if this was still around we wouldn't be having the gang problems and violence in schools like we have... :P

The reason the US Constitution has the second amendment is because personal guns are what made this country in the first place. Since the Founding Fathers had just used their own personal guns to create the United States they realized how important it was to pass on the ability to usurp the government if it was found to be trampling the rights of it's citizens and being tyrannical. The right to own guns enables citizens to stand up to the government and defend the rights they are entitled to. I know the response to this is going to be "but for real... when are you actually going to have to fight the US government." I agree... at first glance that statement would appear like a good statement. When you think about it more you realize that no government ever lasts forever. The Founders of this nation knew that the present government will not last forever. When the government finally falls one of two things will happen. Citizens will be able to create a better and more free government or they will fall victim to a person/organization which will trample their rights into the ground. Having guns helps ensure the former is what happens. Hopefully nothing will happen in my lifetime. Hopefully nothing will happen in my grand children's grand children's lifetimes(Once I get married and have kids that is...) but eventually one day those guns will be needed to ensure the rights and freedoms of our future offspring. If you disagree just look at how history has played itself out time and time again when countries governments fall and how the people can suffer in those times when they can't defend themselves.

So did ya'll have a lot of people getting attacked by blowgun or mace wielding assailants? hehe

Wow, I didn't realize the UK had knife laws. Have baseball bats been outlawed yet? :P

These are the ones when played them had the most wow effect... Maybe now they aren't the best but at the time they rocked. Super Mario Brothers 1 and 3 DOOM Golden Eye NCAA Football series on playstation Warcraft Everquest

I used to go to Ashtara and kill gold farmers for fun. It was the one area my weak little dwarven priest could kill multiple rogues and shamans because I had raised my rep so the little furbolgs were my friends but autoattacked the farmers. It was great. All these little teddy bear looking critters swarming people trying to kill me. Fun times.

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles on the NES. I killed Shredder once and then Krain creamed me in the final battle. After that I never got close to finishing it.

I did a google search and the only bombers I could find linked to Africa were from Morocco. When he says African I assume he is mainly referring to black people. Morocco is majority Arab/Berber mix ever since the Arabs conquered it in their great conquest for Islam where the only thing that stopped them from converting everyone was their armies being defeated all the way up in France and Vienna.

How many African suicide bombers do you know of? As you so put it... "Oops"

In the entire history of abortion clinics there has been one single death attributed to abortion clinic bombings and that was the one from Eric Rudolph in 1998 which was 9 whole years ago... I try not to be rude but that isn't a very convincing argument.

If a black woman was raped by three white guys would you put an Asian man in the line up of suspects? If a Zippy mart was regularly robbed by Eskimo people that happened to be an incredibly small minority at that location wouldn't it be wise to become wary of Eskimos if you worked at that store? Would there be any point in being wary of Russians that walked in if it was always Eskimo's holding you up? Now to put some realism on it... If something bad happened where grown men of a certain type declared war on the US and operated using guerrilla style tactics where no uniforms were worn and had staged multiple attacks on US interests does it make any sense to search Grandma at the airport?

Whatever it is I appreciate Vik having the guts to just flat out say he wasn't sure.

I know we cleared that thought up between us Vik. I was just restating the conclusion for Satenza since I guess he didn't see our dialogue earlier on the topic.

If a person could "buy" their way into heaven with good deeds in the first place then why did Jesus have to come die for us? Actually Jesus wants us to love him above all else. He then goes on to say "but if you love me you will obey my commandments." A Christian is "good" not because he has to be but because he loves God and wants to please him. In programmer lingo it is an If Then statement. The focus is on loving God and loving others but due to this the good works will follow not as an obligation but rather out of love. I think this is just a difference of perspective. My guess is Defender is only taking the time to write out all he is saying because he cares about the people on this forum and he believes that accepting Christ is the best thing anyone can do with their life. Because he believes this and because he cares about the people he is talking to he feels driven to share what has made such a difference in his life because he wants others to feel what he feels. On the other perspective Duke is sitting here cruising the forums and sees some guy telling him he is wrong in what he believes for what he sees as no reason and rightfully from his perspective gets annoyed. So out of curiosity did I sum that up about right Duke and Defender?

I'll give some input on what the Bible says on the topic. Jesus said he didn't come to replace the law but rather to fulfill it. The law(referring to old testement law) says homosexuality is wrong and Jesus said to support the law. Jesus was also against sexual immorality between a man and a woman. It's not like its a one way street against just homosexuals 1. It can't be shown it is genetic. 2. If it was genetic then every pair of identical twins that had one homosexual member would mean automatically that both of them were homosexual. That isn't the case. 3. They can't find a "gay" gene. 4. People have reverted from being homosexual which wouldn't be possible if it was genetic. I personally think people are born with natural inclinations but these natural inclinations are not written in stone which is what would happen if it was purely genetic. Just because someone had the natural inclination to have a short temper and want to beat their head against a tree when they got mad doesn't mean "God made them this way so we should just accept how God made them and let them be." It is the same concept.

It says in the Bible to tithe 10% of your money.

Hey assassin_696 I understand your reasonings for disagreeing with defender. I would be curious to hear your thoughts on my above post. If there is no afterlife or deity or supernatural then all we are left with is evolution and the fact that we are a mutated lump of chemicals. Without some sort of supernatural element out there that transcends the mere proteins and what not that make up our bodies then all that leaves us is the fact that we are just a bunch of complex chemical chain reactions. That's it. I completely agree with you. I called this concept of good/bad each individual decides they believe as subjective morality That is the only type morality that can exist without a higher being creating an absolute morality. That's the whole point of what I am saying. I addressed this as well in my example. Look at number 1 in the list of reasons it might be bad and refutations of why those can't create absolute moralities. Exactly!