Five questions non-Muslims would like answered

He still has one more touch down on the season than interceptions. But hey, it's always been that way. You throw the ball as much as Farve does, you are going to have interceptions. Even MJ failed more times than he suceeded. That is why he was great!

It's been a good game over all. Evenly matched, and exciting. Of course GB has more injuries than any other team in the NFL. There are only 2 or 3 big names I know of including Farve still on the field There's always next year.

 

hrblcantra wrote:

Keep saying your little mantra about my syatements being false, haven't i given your partially credit about you saying my statement is false? meaning that women did had some priviliges under saddam's ruling days in comparisement with other islamic countries. But a other part of my statement was that there was no intention by insurgents to bring freedom and democracy and that this invasion was a change for the better for the current iraqi people.

This was my statement and i still stand by it without the women equality part.

So don't tell me it's entirely false because it isn't.

And now your escaping responsibility for your verbal actions by not going into the counter question that i asked you namely what is so productive about the actions of the insurgency?

As in response to your question towards me why is it counterproductive? refering to this post of yours:

Let me ask you another question, is violence the answer when you are opposed to coming laws or constitution?

My answer would be NO and therefor the actions of the insurgents are counterproductive if they want to obtain freedom and democracy for their country.

Our personal discussion here is about:

If changes for the better (more freedom) are being made by the upcoming people in power?

and

If the actions of the insurgents are productive or counterproductive? (this part you started by questioning my statement that the insurgency are being counterproductive)

And you are right about the women part so please don't go into this anymore.
Without the regime of saddam people don't have to live in fear for their nations president so therefor a better quality of freedom.

Is this new constitution of iraq so horrible that there is no such thing as room for more freedom? to let you say that the upcoming people in power would be for the part in bold?

no education for women and other things that restrict people from living a free and enjoyable life

I'm kind of confused what argument you are trying to defend?

My views are that the upcoming power is a change for the better and that it would lift restriction of people leading a more freely and enjoyable life.

And second that the insurgency is being counter productive with their bombing actions.

You are disputing my first view by saying that the upcoming power is more for restricting people from leading a more freely life and enjoyable life.

And secondly you are questioning me about me saying that the insurgency is being counterproductive with thier bombing actions by asking me what is so productive about the actions of the insurgency?


So what exactly are your arguments and views? because the last view posts you made where only about my statement being entirely false, offcourse the women equality part keeps setting your mantra of to give you the oppurtunity not to answer my questions.

I answered your question regarding why is it counter productive?
Could you answer mine?

I can imagine that if you have extensive knowlegde about the new iraqi constitution and the upcoming people in power that you can say in advance that things will not change for the better. But i can not imagine this really... with all the lives of American troops lost over there and also the money that is spend on this war.

I sure do hope it's not going to be that way.

But i can't really get why you are asking me what is so productive about the actions of the insurgency?

 

Edz you have absolutely NO COMPREHENSION of what you are stating when it comes to that phrase. The rest of it I'm not even going to bother with until you research a bit and figure out what you stated is totally false. Anyone who has done even 10 seconds of research on the subject would know this to be the truth. Do some research, come back and I'll gladly debate you if I disagree with something you post. Until then it's like arguing with my 6 year old

 

Which phrase is that? This one?

What i can not comprehend what your backing is for such an question?

And what is it that i am stating is totally false?

Arguing with a 6 year old? So are you now at this point resorting in comparing me with a 6 year old to once again deflect the question i am asking you? namely this one...what is so productive about the actions of the insurgency?

When you asked me questions i answered them for you but can you for once answer my questions and stop behaving yourself like a 6 year old by avoiding to answer the questions you are being asked.

If it only takes about 10 seconds of research to know that what i have been writing is totally false (not sure what part you mean by this false statement apart from women not having any priviliges in the time saddam ruled iraq) then surely you can spare a minute to eloborate on this?

what is the truth you are talking about?
Don't try to deflect our discussion.

 

You have got to be kidding me? Go back to the first phrase you stated of which I posted that you were incorrect. Do some research and figure out why it is totally false, come back and post your findings. Then we can go from there, until that time it is like arguing with a 6 year old as you have no clue!

 

That will be this part.

Like i said before you are right about muslim women having some priviliges such as education and i agreed with you on this later on so this part is like you said false...however, if the insurgents are opposed to restricting people having their freedom and the joy that they deserve why are they bombing their own people with intent to kill? And how would the actions that they are doing now help in achieving a life of freedom and joy.

You can not combat coming laws or a constitution with violence! and if you would use violence it would only be counter productive.

What kind of research can convince me that they are doing the right thing? i'll tell you, NONE!!

So once again i am asking you to answer my questions to you in previous posts...the most important one what is so productive about the actions of the insurgency?

Because you where questioning my statement that violence by the insurgents is counterproductive so therefor you think it is productive.

WHY?

 

You are probably better off asking such questions at a muslim forum such as ummah.com/forum
or some other islamic website

Edit here u go found it:

ummah.com/forum/showthread.php?t=69502

 

No actually I took you attempting to add onto it while still justifying your original statement.

Secondly you are lumping all insurgent actions together with the terrorist actions also going on, do you understand the difference between the 2?

Thirdly even when civilians are killed, in most cases the insurgents are targetting Military and Police. Yes civilians do die, the insurgents also are not sitting in a nice armoured tank able to take their time with state of the art intelligence, communications and weapons are they? Of course with the few tactics they have available they are going to kill civilians, but then again look at our own smart bombs, they even kill civilians.

Lastly so you basically think that everyone should simply stand down, allow the US and it's new found allies in Iraq do whatever they wish as it's being counter productive to whom might I ask? Counter productive IMO as well as it'll take longer to get our troops out, counter productive to those actually fighting for love of their country however I do not think so. The minority being the Sunni have MUCH to fear about the Shi'a being in control, especially after we leave. You make it sound like a constitution is going to fix this FD'd up country, where it means more to those outside of Iraq in terms of stability than it will actually mean inside of Iraq. You realy need a further understanding about the history and the 3 main ethnic groups inside of the country. I do not side with the insurgents, if however the same thing happened in the US I would more than likely be on the side of the insurgents here even if I hated what the country had become and the former leader of the country.

 

what's to add? it's plain and simple fighting doesn't help anything, bombing U.S. forces or other forces and civilians doesn't produce any positive advancements, it's that simple and if the same was happening in the U.S. and you acting the same as the insurgency in iraq you are also the kind that doesn't have a clue about what is productive or not!

I do understand the difference between the two and they are both futile and counterproductive!

Yes, i do think it would better for the whole of iraq if those moranic insurgents would stand down.
Violence is counterproductive and standing down would result in a more fruitfull situation to give iraq the freedom and stability it needs.

So you are questioning U.S. intentions for the future of iraq?

If my country was under suppresion and ruled by a dictator i would be happy that it happend (an invasion by another country to provide the chance for freedom and democracy)

If you are the kind of person that would stand behind the insurgency in your own country if such similar situation would happen then you totally have the wrong view what's best for your country.

 

So then the US should have never invaded, the minute men of the US should have stood down? Violence is used when you have no other choice, in the insurgents stance they do not have a choice.

Not productive at all, wow that's funny because if you've followed the events they have actually gotten many smaller things changed including parts of the Constitution, and stances by the US and Iraqi government, but counter productive, interesting.

Not at all, simple statement if those who oppose the US occupation and those who side with them, I take that as you believe everyone should just stand down and have whatever happen to them that the US or Iraqi government pleases.

Help from a different country is a big difference than another country taking another one over, forcing it's views on the country, placing those in charge of the country in the beginning that are more pro the invaders stance among many other things. Assistance to over throw a dictator I don't have a problem with, an attempt to change what those in the country feel and to make up your own guidelines of how they should be ruled is a different story.

 

I mean the insurgency must stand down not U.S. Forces or allied Forces.

The insurgents do have a choice and they are making the wrong one. If they want changes they can not achieve this by violence from the insurgencies point of view.

Bullocks! You're trying to tell me those bombings by insurgents helped in negociating and achieving any standpoints from their side?

Not a single bombing had resulted in them getting what they want when sitting around the table.

Can you imagine it *i do not agree with this part, change it! or bombs will follow* next Kaboom, Bam...*Ok, i see your point we will now addapt to your convinience* such bullocks man!

Uhh, yes that would be the wisest thing to do at this point. Have a little trust in The U.S. and also the new iraqi goverment and their intentions.

If they are not standing down then they are questioning the intentions of the U.S. since they are combating them and of the new iraqi goverment.

Forcing it's views you say? That would be monetary reasons right? (oil flow) because that's the main thing The U.S. goverment wants to secure and i can't blaim them because if the U.S. is crumbling a lot of countries goes with it.

So a dictator can be removed to allow room for another dictator? because those opposed guidelines you talk about and how they should be ruled is the new constitution and you do not evidently concur with this new constitution.

And this new constitution is supposed to make room for more freedom and democracy is it not?

Do you have a link for this constitution to view in it's entire whole? because at this point it's my assumption that this constitution is a positive thing and not worth fighting against.

But would violence still be the answer?

 

lol you actually want me to respond to that side stepped and not fully answered responce.

Violence is bad, but lets totally not respond to the entire basis of your point of other points of violence.

To make it even simpler if you are so against violence then why not do what I do? Look at all sides and why it is happening instead of one side and cloud the facts? I do not agree with the insurgents, but understanding why they are doing what they are doing is the only way to possibly win without yet more 'violence' that you appear to have a problem with. As far as nothing changing because of insurgent activity, give me a break you honestly do not watch the news at all do you?

--edit you might want to read the news article I posted before http://forums.digitalpoint.com/showthread.php?t=40203 this is only one of a long list of items accomplished by the insurgency. Accomplished in at least thier actions being taken into account for the overall decision.

 

What side step? And i did respond with a full answer unlike you everytime not answering mine!

I do look at all sides! and it's my point of view at this time that even though it's not a good thing to have U.S. Forces present in iraq it's not the right thing to uphold this futile resistance because they will never win.

And if they stand down (the insurgency that is) then things can speed up for the better. I do not cloud the facts, how do i cloud the facts? what did i say to try to mislead you?

Funny guy, yeah i do watch the news and i haven't seen any evidence that the bombings helped in accomplishing things for the insurgency.
And that article you are refering to only tell us that the iraqi leaders are fed up with U.S. presence in Iraq, what i can understand but that would be unwise to do since there military strenght is not trustworthy enough to uphold the resistance against the insurgency.

Therefor U.S. will still stay and that article doesn't mean anything that they ( the insurgency) actually accomplished something.

I agree if U.S. troops would leave, the most part of the insurgents that are only fighting against the U.S. because of their presence and doing so also killing iraqi citizens would stop.

But if they are going to leave anyway why keep up this futile resistance? i know it's a holy land and that non-islamic powers are not wanted but swallow the pride for a second and let it role out. It's not the U.S. is planning to stay do they? So when they are finally gone what have you as the insurgency accomplished? Nothing only unneccesary killings!

 

Violence is never the answer, but then don't respond to other acts of violence.
I don't answer when the item being put forth had nothing to do with the original discussion or in cases of where it trully is not factual I may gloss over it or call you on it.

Cloud the facts as it appears your only knowledge of the war is from a few clips of news. Maybe I'm wrong but you sound like talking points, nothing more.

Do you think any article is going to come outright and state the insurgency caused this? You have to have a little logical thinking of your own, their have been many instances. The article states that even the Iraqi government agrees they do have a “legitimate right” of resistance sure shows me that they have at least molded to an extent the view point of the government, otherwise all we would see is a continued banter of 'terrorists'.

 

You are not even answering questions regarding your own statements and answers that i asked you where part of the original discussion.
You are deflecting my questions, to hold a discussion it is the norm within reason offcourse so to stay on topic (and i did) and to answer the questions of the one you are holding a discussion with.

It's not that difficult to understand what's the problem overthere and what has to be changed and by who.

Surely they have the right to fight against the U.S. because it's their belief to fight against any military non-islamic force but what do they at this point accomplish really?

U.S. forces will be staying there for another year at least.

They are going to leave anyway so like i said before it's time for the insurgency to swallow their pride and stop attacking U.S. forces and causing civilians to die in the process.

When the U.S. is gone and the part that is still discontent with the people in power then it's still unavoidable that violence is still going to happen and citizens will be killed in the process.

But that's iraq for you can you imagine the state of texas putting up arms to blow up policestations and killing citizens in the process if they where for instance opposed to a new constitution in The United States? Because them being the only one being opposed?

I don't think so, they will sit back and take it and have the healthy vision to not resort to this stupid violent acts and lashes that you would expect form children. And a more sain solution will be searched for.

 

Please reread your posts


Texas would depend on A are the people patriotic enough and brave enough to stand for what they believe in, or B simply pussies willing to take it up the ass. Thank god our forfathers in the US were option A!

 

What are you trying to say?

If Texas would stand up then the constitution must be affecting them in such a way that are being treated as non-humans. And all hell would certainly break loose, understandable.

Something i can not believe the new constitution of iraq stands for!

 

Reread your posts, if you want to start over go for it.

If you believed the constitution will be followed to a T once the occupation forces leave than maybe so, do you honestly believe that? Have you read the constitution in full? Do you understand the history of the groups, not just the past of Saddam?

 

Just answer the question if you feel the decancy to uphold a mature discussion.

Then this is never going to end and U.S. forces will stay there forever to protect the oil flow.

If iraqi goverment forces are strong enough they can battle against the ones that will not follow the constitution.
There will be continues unrest as long as the oil flow is being maintained by Iraqi goverment.

But as unrest will always be present and insurgency never going to win then there will always be useless killing.

 

That would be true if you honestly felt that the goverment is going to stay together and not fracture into each side, sunni, shi'a and kurd.