Why Do People Throw Themselves in Front of Tanks?

[Rocinante]

Musikguy said:

Now I'll say this: I am sick of Christians standing in judgement of people.

Roz sez:

This from a guy who just got through judging some tragically killed Muslims as being idiots, fanatics and being motivated by their need for a harem.

Hmmmm.....

Musikguy said:

Christians like you make Christians like me consider Islam rather than hate it.

Roz sez:

Ok with me.....do you think they want you after what you've said about them?

Musikguy said:

I wonder how much interaction like this (between brothers) draws people to our faith? I would really like an answer from you personally.
This is possibly the most arrogant post I have ever read.

Roz sez: My Christian brothers don't trash those of other faiths, and I doubt that a Muslim who read our posts would conclude that we are brothers, so I think the answer to your question is: My compassion toward THEIR dead brothers (while you show NONE) would probably draw them to MY faith.

Musikguy said:

You didn't bother to ask why I said what I did, you just saw fit to attack.

Roz sez:

What you said was callous, hurtful and inappropriate toward the dead brothers and sisters of Muslims.

What good reason could there possibly be for that?

Also, I didn't "attack" you......I pointed out that your comments were inappropriate.

If you don't like my posts in response to your saying these hurtful things about Muslims, perhaps it would be better not to say hurtful things about Muslims.

If you wish to withdraw the hurtful things you said about these casualties of this tragic war, that WOULD be appropriate.

 

[sedders]

They don't even bother to filter out embellishments, agendas, or opinions..

I agree, people should only listen to the UN, as it is the only body with no national intrest. People should listen to the UN that said the invation is probably not legal, and to unscom that said there's probably no WMDs.

I have yet to see REAL research proving that we had no probable cause for military action in Iraq.

And who would you believe anyway? If the UN brought out REAL research, would you believe it or pass it of as "embellishments, agendas, or opinions" Which of these things that I believe to be fact do you disagree with:

1. International law only allows for the invation of another nation in self defence. There is no allowance for "Pre-emptive strikes".

2. There was no imminent threat to the US or any other nation from Iraq before the war.

3. There are no WMD's or ability to make them

4. There are no links between Iraq and Al-queda (other than their hatred for the US)

5. Around 10,000 innocent civilians have died in Iraq (compared to 3,000 at WTC)

6. Iraq is now more unstable than before the war and on the brink of civil war.


So given that all these facts can not be disproven, the US had "no probable cause for military action in Iraq." There was no imminent threat, no WMDs, and no link to your war on terror. Under international law, it was illegal and there was no UN sanction allowing the military action.

If it was right for a county to invade another country because they thought they were evil, thought they had WMDs, thought they had terrorists, thought they were a threat, thought they were slaughtering their own, then there would be countries rightly attacking the US every day. International law, the UN, and WMDs is what prevents this.

 

[Rocinante]

1. International law only allows for the invation of another nation in self defence. There is no allowance for "Pre-emptive strikes".

2. There was no imminent threat to the US or any other nation from Iraq before the war.

3. There are no WMD's or ability to make them

4. There are no links between Iraq and Al-queda (other than their hatred for the US)

5. Around 10,000 innocent civilians have died in Iraq (compared to 3,000 at WTC)

6. Iraq is now more unstable than before the war and on the brink of civil war.

Great post!