I am sure that 8 of your posts are ok. And even more, just look here: http://forums.digitalpoint.com/search.php?searchid=8185442&pp=25&page=34
I think I will go with gtech on this one and wonder if they are buddhists...or maybe sikhs? nah, I know some local sikhs, and they are wonderful people!
I don't make excuses or have sympathy for terrorist actions as depicted in those pictures. See the posters above me, if you are looking for friends like that.
I have no sympathy for terrorists nor does anyone here. Those pictures however are terrorist how exactly? Every post you make makes it clearer and clearer that you trully have no idea what is going on and simply cloud everything all into one. The pictures depicted are horrible, done by terrorists however is another thing entirely. A hanging by a government if that's what it is is not terrorist, a stoning, although brutal and I certainly do not support it is not terrorist, a person of what appears to be arab in nature holding a gun to someones head does not equal terrorist, someone holding a sword above someone possibly about to behead might be a terrorist, we however do not know. Puzzling how all these images are 'terrorist' I could only assume someone would have to be totally blind to what a terrorist trully is in order do so. The pictures also do not portray muslims as a whole. But to correct you according to you would make one a terrorist supporter. Truth be told, if it was not for the blow back which HURTS our men and women, us as a nation I would not give a shit if terrorists were shot on site, no chance of surrender. That however is a bit short sighted, and one would have to be blind to the long term consequences, I'm sure you'll continue to have the blinders on though.
This is propaganda meant to inspire hatred and misunderstanding and nothing (NOTHING) positive. So why post it?
How would you classify someone chopping off another's head? A pillar of society? Someone deserving sympathy? I can't help but think the headless person was feeling a little terrorized at the time. But, we must strive to be more sthensthitive to their feelings and try to see the positive, that the beheader is just doing the poor infidel a favor. Well, let's not hurt their feelings by calling them terrorists I mean, those people being "terrorized" just didn't understand how much of a favor they were doing to them. How insthensthitive! I know, I "sympathize" with you. It's horrible to depict these pillars of society with such a brutal and horrible word, as a terrorist. My gawd, I bet they contact their lawyer to sue! How about "life challenged?" That would be a nice and friendly, politically correct term that invokes sympathy and understanding? No one said they did. Must all people have cancer before a cure is found? What was it that you corrected and on behalf of whom? "blow back?" Someone's been studying the ron paul terms and practicing their skills of "blaming America first." Why, I bet that guy chopping off another's head was doing so, because of "blow back!" Normally I'd insert my favorite quote from Ron White here, but I think it goes without saying
I can't remember the exact quote but it was a Latin-American president who said something along this line: "America is like a sadomasochistic woman. The more you beat her the more she gives to you." This is a sad quote, one that I am afraid was instituted because of the left's misguided attempt to give in to the terrorists demand.
Well, may I say that your post definitely answers my question. Judging an entire religion or culture by some picture(s) clearly shows your lack of understanding. Once again, this only shows your poor ability to keep an debate at an intellectual level.
What's terrorist about them? They are some pretty sick and backwards examples of corporal punishment, but many would argue that states in the USA are also guilty of that. Or are they just 'terrorist' becasue they're Muslims?
Matt, I condemn capital punishment in all its forms. Outside of an immediate, personal defense, when lethal response is the only thing available to protect oneself or another in harm's way, I think to kill is to live in a state of savagery. But I also think we should be clear. No state in the USA hangs children for being gay, shoots a woman for adultery, or stones a child for dating the wrong boy. These are wrong, and we cannot equivocate the wrong away by relativism.
Sigh, there simply is no point. Gtech then every single murderer in the US is a terrorist, every time our own government executes somone they are a terrorist, every time our military kills someone it's a terrorist action with your logic. Calling everything and everything a terrorist waters down the meaning of it. Blowback was not used because of Ron Paul, not one bit. I have not followed him that much to even know he used the term. Call it blow back, unintended consequences, whatever you wish it has the same meaning. I am not blaming American one bit, I however am not blind like you. You have been corrected, if you do not wish to see it 'as per your usual way' I will not be shocked one bit. Muslims are also not the only ones who stone people among others, this has already been proven but yep label it Muslim, your cancer statement does not work as others do these horrible acts, not simply muslims. Who is for giving into terrorist demand? Who is the 'left'? I am for following the laws, agreements our country has made. They were put there for a reason, you'd rather we be on the same level as the terrorists? You do understand the reasons such things as the geneva convention were put into place in the first place is to protect our own men and women do you not? By not following these agreements we can put our own men and women in danger in this war and future wars. In order to beat terrorism we also need global support, to be on their level quickly dwindles global support making the chances of defeating terrorism that much less, we actually create more of it!
I'm not aruging over the rights and wrongs of the actions. As I said, many people (as yourself) view both acts as being immoral. I'd be interested to hear how GTech justifies the death penalty being used in the US, though when it's used in a Muslim country it's 'terrorism'. How do you quanify the 'terror' involved in putting someone to death in either example? GTech's argument that in some way capital punishment is a 'terrorist' act has less to do with the fact people are being killed and more to do with the fact they're muslims.
I've not made any such argument or referenced such as capital or corporal punishment. Not sure why someone would attribute those terms to my post. There may be better methods for moral relativism, but this one doesn't fly. Remember, the real outrage is being aware, not the actual acts.
Why not? I don't know what the first picture is but second picture is execution by state in Afghanistan, Third is execution by state in Saudi Arabia and fourth is execution by state in Iran. Those government executing people according to their laws in the same as USA executing it's own prisoners. The only difference is the methods, using a sword instead of fancy drug injection and not permitting to take pictures of execution in USA. If the supporters of death penalty are right about execution being a deterrent against crimes, aren't those countries actually more correct in their method by making it public and scaring people? Stop being a hypocrite, either be against all executions as I am or approve all of it.
is anyone one approving the other pictures and think drug use is a good idea or better yet, did any one look at them?