Drmiller and moderateman are terrorists. Note to moderateman, by the way, use a dictionary.

Now, these two people are terrorists. If they were Iraqi, they would be the insurgents. They are the same type of people. They are the type of people that say "hey, there are some Americans trying to control our lives. Fuck them. I don't like this. Let's blow them up". See. they would see the control by the Americans as "spitting in my face", and the terrorist acts they would perform would be the "punching in the eye".

Let's round these two up and send them to guantamano.

Well, when people insist that the Iraqis not use violence against the insurgents, what do you expect will happen? Do you honestly think the insurgents will simply give up?

I don't recall anyone saying the Iraqis shouldn't use violence. Reread the phrase. Two wrongs don't make a right. That means that when one wrong is added to another wrong, the outcome cannot be a right.

You're the one who brought up prison abuse and torture. From what I see, nothing in the original article was justifying torture or prison abuse.

The original article was an echoing of the sentiment that is used to justify the aforementioned atrocities. It is this system of justification that I have a problem with.

Using this logic, one might say that since it's all right for American soldiers and Iraqis to kill terrorists, it's all right for terrorists to kill American soldiers and Iraqis, implying that using violence against terrorists is wrong, right?

Now, if that's not what you're saying, and you agree that the Iraqis have every right to kill the people that are killing them, then why does videotaping it make it so wrong?

This is your logic! Your argument, if I understood it correctly, is that if Iraqis have every right to kill those that kill them, it isn't wrong for them to air videos of it. I simply added to your logic, pointing out that since American troops are killing terrorists, the terrorists have every right to kill those that are killing them. And if so, why is it wrong for them to show videos of that?

And for the record, my implication is, and always has been, that using violence against anyone is wrong. Some people push you, and with some people there is no other option, but my feeling will continue to be that violence is wrong. In some cases it is justifiable, but it continues to be wrong.

I don't recall anyone saying the Iraqis shouldn't use violence. Reread the phrase. Two wrongs don't make a right. That means that when one wrong is added to another wrong, the outcome cannot be a right.

Right. Two wrongs don't make a right, and as you say later, violence is wrong, even if it's Iraqis using it against people that are trying to kill them.

This is your logic! Your argument, if I understood it correctly, is that if Iraqis have every right to kill those that kill them, it isn't wrong for them to air videos of it. I simply added to your logic, pointing out that since American troops are killing terrorists, the terrorists have every right to kill those that are killing them. And if so, why is it wrong for them to show videos of that?

You want to know why it's wrong? Because the terrorists killing the innocent Iraqis and American soldiers itself is wrong. Now if you're saying that killing the terrorists is wrong too, even though it's to prevent themselves from being killed, and therefore self-defense, then tell me, if it's wrong, and you aren't saying they shouldn't commit such wrong acts, are you saying that it's sometimes right to do wrong things? If so, that's the difference. It might be wrong, but in this case, it's right.

The original article was an echoing of the sentiment that is used to justify the aforementioned atrocities. It is this system of justification that I have a problem with.

I still don't see any mention of justifying torture or prison abuse in the original article. So it was in another article. Discuss it in that article.

Reply #5 By: DNCdude - 2/6/2005 1:29:59 PM sure why not, as they do not even beging to respect our taking the higher ground. they laugh at us then behead us on t.v. There terrorists Moderateman, they have no respect for anything outside their own pittiful little world. The U.S. invaded Iraq to liberate the people from under Sadam's oppresive rule, now we go in and fill the place. Personally, it doesn't work for me.

come on man do you really think we want to stay there any longer than we have to? please

Reply #6 By: Philomedy - 2/6/2005 1:46:13 PM I think most people not just republicans feel that way philo... And you believe it's right, do you?

I believe it's JUST not right. get me?

Reply #10 By: DNCdude - 2/6/2005 2:56:13 PM

There is an old saying I once heard, it goes something along the lines of Two wrrongs don't make a right.

thats a real nice rule to live by...in fantasy land.... in the real world you kill 3000 members of my family I try to kill all of your.. is it right? nope/ it just IS.

Reply #11 By: Juxtaposition - 2/6/2005 3:01:35 PM There is an old saying I once heard, it goes something along the lines of Two wrrongs don't make a right. There's another old saying I heard. It goes, "I'd rather have millions of Iraqis raped and murdered than see Iraqis fight back and hurt even just one terrorist." Now, if that's not what you're saying, and you agree that the Iraqis have every right to kill the people that are killing them, then why does videotaping it make it so wrong?

JUST more bleeding heart crap.. they bleed for everyone BUT the right ones.

And if it isn't wrong for the Iraqis to show videotapes of them killing terrorists,

they now read real slow.. ok??? please do not let democratic demetia get in the way......THE iraqis are showing them capptive... cowering , apoligetic.... when in the heck did I say films of KILLING TERRORIST???

don't know. This was Moderateman's point, not mine. Just as a sidebar though, if airing videos of terrorists doesn't violate the Geneva condition, the terrorists airing videos of our troops doesn't violate it either.

OH FOR gods sake man... its iraqis showing them, not american troops...

Reply #16 By: sandy2 - 2/6/2005 3:42:09 PM Drmiller and moderateman are terrorists. Note to moderateman, by the way, use a dictionary. Now, these two people are terrorists. If they were Iraqi, they would be the insurgents. They are the same type of people. They are the type of people that say "hey, there are some Americans trying to control our lives. Fuck them. I don't like this. Let's blow them up". See. they would see the control by the Americans as "spitting in my face", and the terrorist acts they would perform would be the "punching in the eye". Let's round these two up and send them to guantamano.

um sandy???? try it and find out what it's like to bleed for real.... I am an american patriot... and side note to sandy use a breath strip your stinking up the cyber air.

Reply #18 By: Juxtaposition - 2/6/2005 4:27:35 PM

The original article was an echoing of the sentiment that is used to justify the aforementioned atrocities. It is this system of justification that I have a problem with. I still don't see any mention of justifying torture or prison abuse in the original article. So it was in another article. Discuss it in that article.

naw jux aint gonna happen its typical democratic dementia... when they cannot make a point they type a reply to WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY SAW.. OR SAW last year.. or dreamed last night.

My problem is not with videotapes, as I don't see what rights they violate. My problem is with the Republican attempt to justify the violations that have been committed, i.e. torture, prison abuse, etc

philo by definition what your doing right now {bending truth and answering things NOT in my post is TORTURE.

I believe it's JUST not right. get me?

So someone punches you. You punch them back. Then you incapacitate them. Then you take pictures of the body. Then you show it to their family. Just, yes?

OH FOR gods sake man... its iraqis showing them, not american troops...

Alright, so then the terrorists showing videos of Iraqis wouldn't be wrong either. Satisfied?

thats a real nice rule to live by...in fantasy land.... in the real world you kill 3000 members of my family I try to kill all of your.. is it right? nope/ it just IS.

Let us know when your president, as you like to call him, actually catches the guy who killed those 3000 by the way.

I still don't see any mention of justifying torture or prison abuse in the original article. So it was in another article. Discuss it in that article.

naw jux aint gonna happen its typical democratic dementia... when they cannot make a point they type a reply to WHAT THEY THOUGHT THEY SAW.. OR SAW last year.. or dreamed last night.

Alright look...lets try again...I am arguing a system of illogical justification, which is echoed in the article. I don't expect you to understand the concept of reading between lines or introspection or trying to devise a deeper meaning from what is said, since when someone insults you, it's apparantly just to insult them back, and beat them a little for good measure.

And BTW, moderateman, I have not deviated from contradicting ideas...It is you who starts saying this and that about democrats when you can't find anything useful to say anymore.

philo by definition what your doing right now {bending truth and answering things NOT in my post is TORTURE.

Yeah it is Webster, thanks. I would hope that you have enough common sense to differentiate between torture in this sense and torture in the violent sense, which is how I meant it, but there is nothing that tells me you possess the logic to do this when it comes to political discussion.

So yeah, keep thinking that my "torture" and "torture" in war is the same if it makes you feel better. Cuz the pictures from Abu Ghraib were of American soldiers "distorting the truth" of the POWs.

Alright, so then the terrorists showing videos of Iraqis wouldn't be wrong either. Satisfied?

If you consider incarcerating a violent insurgent as wrong as beheading an innocent civilian, then I guess it wouldn't be wrong. If you do though, then well... It's bad enough you think killing in self-defense is as wrong as murder (and saying "it's wrong, but it could be justified", because if it's justified, then how is it wrong? That sounds like pandering).

Alright look...lets try again...I am arguing a system of illogical justification, which is echoed in the article. I don't expect you to understand the concept of reading between lines or introspection or trying to devise a deeper meaning from what is said, since when someone insults you, it's apparantly just to insult them back, and beat them a little for good measure.

Could I start bringing up that old argument concerning gay marriage and polygamy in any thread you start, since something you say in any thread could apply in some obscure way to that discussion?

If you consider incarcerating a violent insurgent as wrong as beheading an innocent civilian, then I guess it wouldn't be wrong.

My apologies again, as I forget I am talking to those who need to be spoon-fed. I did not mean to equate civilians with those that are fighting. I did not mean civilians, I meant Iraqi troops.

It's bad enough you think killing in self-defense is as wrong as murder

Alright, I never said that, but you can keep putting words in my mouth. It's rather amusing from this end.

and saying "it's wrong, but it could be justified", because if it's justified, then how is it wrong? That sounds like pandering).

Because killing is wrong! Are you saying killing is not wrong? Killing in self-defense is justifiable, because it is a last resort that stems from extenuating circumstances. The act of killing, however, is wrong. I hope this clears that up.

Could I start bringing up that old argument concerning gay marriage and polygamy in any thread you start, since something you say in any thread could apply in some obscure way to that discussion?

If what I say could apply, then yeah, go ahead. Say whatever the hell you want about it.