Were I to ADVOCATE doing that yes, your right. I do not ADVOCATE killing 1.5 billion people but I would be will to accept it to stop the distruction of the rest of the world. It would however take a lot of stupidity on the part of alot of people to let it get to the point where no other option was available to us.

Besides as I have stated before, the people are not the enemy, the government is and you do not need to kill the population to distroy the leadership. Some feel that an idea cannot be distroyed, I disagee, ideas can be distroyed, so you distroy those who promote the idea and you reduse or eliminate the power of the idea. There are many ideas that should be distroyed like we have distroyed the idea that communism is a "good Idea". very few people now hold communism as the economic way to go.. We did not have to rush in and kill everyone who was a communist, just distroy the power of the idea.

Now that is how we stop Islamic governments, break the sprit of those who are supporters and it will fall. The idea will be distroyed.

John, by the grace of God King of England, Lord of Ireland, Duke of Normandy and Aquitaine, and Count of Anjou, to his archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, barons, justices, foresters, sheriffs, stewards, servants, and to all his officials and loyal subjects, greeting.

Know that before God, for the health of our soul and those of our ancestors and heirs, to the honour of God, the exaltation of the holy Church, and the better ordering of our kingdom, at the advice of our reverend fathers Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, primate of all England, and cardinal of the holy Roman Church, Henry archbishop of Dublin, William bishop of London, Peter bishop of Winchester, Jocelin bishop of Bath and Glastonbury, Hugh bishop of Lincoln, Walter Bishop of Worcester, William bishop of Coventry, Benedict bishop of Rochester, Master Pandulf subdeacon and member of the papal household, Brother Aymeric master of the Knights of the Temple in England, William Marshal, earl of Pembroke, William earl of Salisbury, William earl of Warren, William earl of Arundel, Alan de Galloway constable of Scotland, Warin Fitz Gerald, Peter Fitz Herbert, Hubert de Burgh seneschal of Poitou, Hugh de Neville, Matthew Fitz Herbert, Thomas Basset, Alan Basset, Philip Daubeny, Robert de Roppeley, John Marshal, John Fitz Hugh, and other loyal subjects:

1. First, that we have granted to God, and by this present charter have confirmed for us and our heirs in perpetuity, that the English Church shall be free, and shall have its rights undiminished, and its liberties unimpaired. That we wish this so to be observed, appears from the fact that of our own free will, before the outbreak of the present dispute between us and our barons, we granted and confirmed by charter the freedom of the Church's elections - a right reckoned to be of the greatest necessity and importance to it - and caused this to be confirmed by Pope Innocent III. This freedom we shall observe ourselves, and desire to be observed in good faith by our heirs in perpetuity. We have also granted to all free men of our realm, for us and our heirs for ever, all the liberties written out below, to have and to keep for them and their heirs, of us and our heirs:

2. If any earl, baron, or other person that holds lands directly of the Crown, for military service, shall die, and at his death his heir shall be of full age and owe a `relief', the heir shall have his inheritance on payment of the ancient scale of `relief'. That is to say, the heir or heirs of an earl shall pay for the entire earl's barony, the heir or heirs of a knight l00s. at most for the entire knight's `fee', and any man that owes less shall pay less, in accordance with the ancient usage of `fees'

3. But if the heir of such a person is under age and a ward, when he comes of age he shall have his inheritance without `relief' or fine.

4. The guardian of the land of an heir who is under age shall take from it only reasonable revenues, customary dues, and feudal services. He shall do this without destruction or damage to men or property. If we have given the guardianship of the land to a sheriff, or to any person answerable to us for the revenues, and he commits destruction or damage, we will exact compensation from him, and the land shall be entrusted to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be answerable to us for the revenues, or to the person to whom we have assigned them. If we have given or sold to anyone the guardianship of such land, and he causes destruction or damage, he shall lose the guardianship of it, and it shall be handed over to two worthy and prudent men of the same `fee', who shall be similarly answerable to us.

5. For so long as a guardian has guardianship of such land, he shall maintain the houses, parks, fish preserves, ponds, mills, and everything else pertaining to it, from the revenues of the land itself. When the heir comes of age, he shall restore the whole land to him, stocked with plough teams and such implements of husbandry as the season demands and the revenues from the land can reasonably bear.

6. Heirs may be given in marriage, but not to someone of lower social standing. Before a marriage takes place, it shall be' made known to the heir's next-of-kin.

7. At her husband's death, a widow may have her marriage portion and inheritance at once and without trouble. She shall pay nothing for her dower, marriage portion, or any inheritance that she and her husband held jointly on the day of his death. She may remain in her husband's house for forty days after his death, and within this period her dower shall be assigned to her.

8. No widow shall be compelled to marry, so long as she wishes to remain without a husband. But she must give security that she will not marry without royal consent, if she holds her lands of the Crown, or without the consent of whatever other lord she may hold them of.

9. Neither we nor our officials will seize any land or rent in payment of a debt, so long as the debtor has movable goods sufficient to discharge the debt. A debtor's sureties shall not be distrained upon so long as the debtor himself can discharge his debt. If, for lack of means, the debtor is unable to discharge his debt, his sureties shall be answerable for it. If they so desire, they may have the debtor's lands and rents until they have received satisfaction for the debt that they paid for him, unless the debtor can show that he has settled his obligations to them.

10. If anyone who has borrowed a sum of money from Jews dies before the debt has been repaid, his heir shall pay no interest on the debt for so long as he remains under age, irrespective of whom he holds his lands. If such a debt falls into the hands of the Crown, it will take nothing except the principal sum specified in the bond.

11. If a man dies owing money to Jews, his wife may have her dower and pay nothing towards the debt from it. If he leaves children that are under age, their needs may also be provided for on a scale appropriate to the size of his holding of lands. The debt is to be paid out of the residue, reserving the service due to his feudal lords. Debts owed to persons other than Jews are to be dealt with similarly.

12. No `scutage' or `aid' may be levied in our kingdom without its general consent, unless it is for the ransom of our person, to make our eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry our eldest daughter. For these purposes ouly a reasonable `aid' may be levied. `Aids' from the city of London are to be treated similarly.

13. The city of London shall enjoy all its ancient liberties and free customs, both by land and by water. We also will and grant that all other cities, boroughs, towns, and ports shall enjoy all their liberties and free customs.

14. To obtain the general consent of the realm for the assessment of an `aid' - except in the three cases specified above - or a `scutage', we will cause the archbishops, bishops, abbots, earls, and greater barons to be summoned individually by letter. To those who hold lands directly of us we will cause a general summons to be issued, through the sheriffs and other officials, to come together on a fixed day (of which at least forty days notice shall be given) and at a fixed place. In all letters of summons, the cause of the summons will be stated. When a summons has been issued, the business appointed for the day shall go forward in accordance with the resolution of those present, even if not all those who were summoned have appeared.

15. In future we will allow no one to levy an `aid' from his free men, except to ransom his person, to make his eldest son a knight, and (once) to marry his eldest daughter. For these purposes only a reasonable `aid' may be levied.

16. No man shall be forced to perform more service for a knight's `fee', or other free holding of land, than is due from it.

17. Ordinary lawsuits shall not follow the royal court around, but shall be held in a fixed place.

18. Inquests of novel disseisin, mort d'ancestor, and darrein presentment shall be taken only in their proper county court. We ourselves, or in our absence abroad our chief justice, will send two justices to each county four times a year, and these justices, with four knights of the county elected by the county itself, shall hold the assizes in the county court, on the day and in the place where the court meets.

19. If any assizes cannot be taken on the day of the county court, as many knights and freeholders shall afterwards remain behind, of those who have attended the court, as will suffice for the administration of justice, having regard to the volume of business to be done.

20. For a trivial offence, a free man shall be fined only in proportion to the degree of his offence, and for a serious offence correspondingly, but not so heavily as to deprive him of his livelihood. In the same way, a merchant shall be spared his merchandise, and a husbandman the implements of his husbandry, if they fall upon the mercy of a royal court. None of these fines shall be imposed except by the assessment on oath of reputable men of the neighbourhood.

21. Earls and barons shall not be amerced save through their peers, and only according to the measure of the offence.

22. No clerk shall be amerced for his lay tenement ecept according to the manner of the other persons aforesaid; and not according to the amount of his ecclesiastical benefice.

23. Neither a town nor a man shall be forced to make bridges over the rivers, with the exception of those who, from of old and of right ought to do it.

24. No sheriff, constable, coroners, or other bailiffs of ours shall hold the pleas of our crown.

25. All counties, hundreds, wapentakes, and trithings--our demesne manors being exccepted--shall continue according to the old farms, without any increase at all.

26. If any one holding from us a lay fee shall die, and our sheriff or bailiff can show our letters patent containing our summons for the debt which the dead man owed to us,--our sheriff or bailiff may be allowed to attach and enroll the chattels of the dead man to the value of that debt, through view of lawful men; in such way, however, that nothing shall be removed thence until the debt is paid which was plainly owed to us. And the residue shall be left to the executors that they may carry out the will of the dead man. And if nothing is owed to us by him, all the chattels shall go to the use prescribed by the deceased, saving their reasonable portions to his wife and children.

27. If any freeman shall have died intestate his chattels shall be distributed through the hands of his near relatives and friends, by view of the church; saving to any one the debts which the dead man owed him.

28. No constable or other bailiff of ours shall take the corn or other chattels of any one except he straightway give money for them, or can be allowed a respite in that regard by the will of the seller.

29. No constable shall force any knight to pay money for castleward if he be willing to perform that ward in person, or--he for a reasonable cause not being able to perform it himself--through another proper man. And if we shall have led or sent him on a military expedition, he shall be quit of ward according to the amount of time during which, through us, he shall have been in military service.

30. No sheriff nor bailiff of ours, nor any one else, shall take the horses or carts of any freeman for transport, unless by the will of that freeman.

31. Neither we nor our bailiffs shall take another's wood for castles or for other private uses, unless by the will of him to whom the wood belongs.

32. We shall not hold the lands of those convicted of felony longer than a year and a day; and then the lands shall be restored to the lords of the fiefs.

33. Henceforth all the weirs in the Thames and Medway, and throughout all England, save on the sea-coast, shall be done away with entirely.

34. Henceforth the writ which is called Praecipe shall not be to served on any one for any holding so as to cause a free man to lose his court.

35. There shall be one measure of wine throughout our whole realm, and one measure of ale and one measure of corn--namely, the London quart;--and one width of dyed and russet and hauberk cloths--namely, two ells below the selvage. And with weights, moreover, it shall be as with measures.

36. Henceforth nothing shall be given or taken for a writ of inquest in a matter concerning life or limb; but it shall be conceded gratis, and shall not be denied.

37. If any one hold of us in fee-farm, or in socage, or in burkage, and hold land of another by military service, we shall not, by reason of that fee-farm, or socage, or burkage, have the wardship of his heir or of his land which is held in fee from another. Nor shall we have the wardship of that fee-farm, or socage, or burkage unless that fee-farm owe military service. We shall not, by reason of some petit-serjeanty which some one holds of us through the service of giving us knives or arrows or the like, have the wardship of his heir or of the land which he holds of another by military service.

38. No bailiff, on his own simple assertion, shall henceforth any one to his law, without producing faithful witnesses in evidence.

39. No freeman shall be taken, or imprisoned, or disseized, or outlawed, or exiled, or in any way harmed--nor will we go upon or send upon him--save by the lawful judgment of his peers or by the law of the land.

40. To none will we sell, to none deny or delay, right or justice.

41. All merchants may safely and securely go out of England, and come into England, and delay and pass through England, as well by land as by water, for the purpose of buying and selling, free from all evil taxes, subject to the ancient and right customs--save in time of war, and if they are of the land at war against us. And if such be found in our land at the beginning of the war, they shall be held, without harm to their bodies and goods, until it shall be known to us or our chief justice how the merchants of our land are to be treated who shall, at that time, be found in the land at war against us. And if ours shall be safe there, the others shall be safe in our land.

42. Henceforth any person, saving fealty to us, may go out of our realm and return to it, safely and securely, by land and by water, except perhaps for a brief period in time of war, for the common good of the realm. But prisoners and outlaws are excepted according to the law of the realm; also people of a land at war against us, and the merchants, with regard to whom shall be done as we have said.

43. If any one hold from any escheat--as from the honour of Walingford, Nottingham, Boloin, Lancaster, or the other escheats which are in our hands and are baronies--and shall die, his heir shall not give another relief, nor shall he perform for us other service than he would perform for a baron if that barony were in the hand of a baron; and we shall hold it in the same way in which the baron has held it.

44. Persons dwelling without the forest shall not henceforth come before the forest justices, through common summonses, unless they are impleaded or are the sponsors of some person or persons attached for matters concerning the forest.

45. We will not make men justices, constables, sheriffs, or bailiffs unless they are such as know the law of the realm, and are minded to observe it rightly.

46. All barons who have founded abbeys for which they have charters of the king of England, or ancient right of tenure, shall have, as they ought to have, their custody when vacant.

47- A11 forests constituted as such in our time shall straightway be annulled; and the same shall be done for river banks made into places of defence by us in our time.

48. A11 evil customs concerning forests and warrens, and concerning foresters and warreners, sheriffs and their servants, river banks and their guardians, shall straightway be inquired into each county, through twelve sworn knights from that county, and shall be eradicated by them, entirely, so that they shall never be renewed, within forty days after the inquest has been made; in such manner that we shall first know about them, or our justice if we be not in England.

49. We shall straightway return all hostages and charters which were delivered to us by Englishmen as a surety for peace or faithful service.

50. We shall entirey remove from their bailwicks the relatives of Gerard de Athyes, so that they shall henceforth have no bailwick in England: Engelard de Cygnes, Andrew Peter and Gyon de Chanceles, Gyon de Cygnes, Geoffrey de Martin and his brothers, Philip Mark and his brothers, and Geoffrey his nephew, and the whole following of them.

51. And straightway after peace is restored we shall remove from the realm all the foreign soldiers, crossbowmen, servants, hirelings, who may have come with horses and arms to the harm of the realm.

52. If any one shall have been disseized by us, or removed, without a legal sentence of his peers, from his lands, castles, liberties or lawful right, we shall straightway restore them to him. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this matter it shall be settled according to the judgment of the twenty-five barons who are mentioned below as sureties for the peace. But with regard to all those things of which any one was, by king Henry our father or king Richard our brother, disseized or dispossessed without legal judgment of his peers, which we have in our hand or which others hold, and for which we ought to give a guarantee: We shall have respite until the common term for crusaders. Except with regard to those concerning which a plea was moved, or an inquest made by our order, before we took the cross. But when we return from our pilgrimage, or if, by chance, we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway then show full justice regarding them.

53. We shall have the same respite, moreover, and in the same manner, in the matter of showing justice with regard to forests to be annulled and forests to remain, which Henry our father or Richard our brother constituted; and in the matter of wardships of lands which belong to the fee of another--wardships of which kind we have hitherto enjoyed by reason of the fee which some one held from us in military service;--and in the matter of abbeys founded in the fee of another than ourselves--in which the lord of the fee may say that he has jurisdiction. And when we return, or if we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway exhibit full justice to those complaining with regard to these matters.

54. No one shall be taken or imprisoned on account of the appeal of a woman concerning the death of another than her husband.

55. All fines imposed by us unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, and all amerciaments made unjustly and contrary to the law of the land, shall be altogether remitted, or it shall be done with regard to them according to the judgment of the twenty five barons mentioned below as sureties for the peace, or according to the judgment of the majority of them together with the aforesaid Stephen archbishop of Canterbury, if he can be present, and with others whom he may wish to associate with himself for this purpose. And if he can not be present, the affair shall nevertheless proceed without him; in such way that, if one or more of the said twenty five barons shall be concerned in a similar complaint, they shall be removed as to this particular decision, and, in their place, for this purpose alone, others shall be subtituted who shall be chosen and sworn by the remainder of those twenty five.

56. If we have disseized or dispossessed Welshmen of their lands or liberties or other things without legal judgment of their peers, in England or in Wales,--they shall straightway be restored to them. And if a dispute shall arise concerning this, then action shall be taken upon it in the March through judgment of their peers- -concerning English holdings according to the law of England, concerning Welsh holdings according to the law of Wales, concerning holdings in the March according to the law of the March. The Welsh shall do likewise with regard to us and our subjects.

57. But with regard to all those things of which any one of the Welsh by king Henry our father or king Richard our brother, disseized or dispossessed without legal judgment of his peers, which we have in our hand or which others hold, and for which we ought to give a guarantee: we shall have respite until the common term for crusaders. Except with regard to those concerning which a plea was moved, or an inquest made by our order, before we took the cross. But when we return from our pilgrimage, or if, by chance, we desist from our pilgrimage, we shall straightway then show full justice regarding them, according to the laws of Wales and the aforesaid districts.

58. We shall straightway return the son of Llewelin and all the Welsh hostages, and the charters delivered to us as surety for the peace.

59. We shall act towards Alexander king of the Scots regarding the restoration of his sisters, and his hostages, and his liberties and his lawful right, as we shall act towards our other barons of England; unless it ought to be otherwise according to the charters which we hold from William, his father, the former king of the Scots. And this shall be done through judgment of his peers in our court.

60. Moreover all the subjects of our realm, clergy as well as laity, shall, as far as pertains to them, observe, with regard to their vassals, all these aforesaid customs and liberties which we have decreed shall, as far as pertains to us, be observed in our realm with regard to our own.

61. Inasmuch as, for the sake of God, and for the bettering of our realm, and for the more ready healing of the discord which has arisen between us and our barons, we have made all these aforesaid concessions,--wishing them to enjoy for ever entire and firm stability, we make and grant to them the folIowing security: that the baron, namely, may elect at their pleaure twenty five barons from the realm, who ought, with all their strength, to observe, maintain and cause to be observed, the peace and privileges which we have granted to them and confirmed by this our present charter. In such wise, namely, that if we, or our justice, or our bailiffs, or any one of our servants shall have transgressed against any one in any respect, or shall have broken one of the articles of peace or security, and our transgression shall have been shown to four barons of the aforesaid twenty five: those four barons shall come to us, or, if we are abroad, to our justice, showing to us our error; and they shall ask us to cause that error to be amended without delay. And if we do not amend that error, or, we being abroad, if our justice do not amend it within a term of forty days from the time when it was shown to us or, we being abroad, to our justice: the aforesaid four barons shall refer the matter to the remainder of the twenty five barons, and those twenty five barons, with the whole land in common, shall distrain and oppress us in every way in their power,--namely, by taking our castles, lands and possessions, and in every other way that they can, until amends shall have been made according to their judnnent. Saving the persons of ourselves, our queen and our children. And when amends shall have been made they shall be in accord with us as they had been previously. And whoever of the land wishes to do so, shall swear that in carrying out all the aforesaid measures he will obey the mandates of the aforesaid twenty five barons, and that, with them, he will oppress us to the extent of his power. And, to any one who wishes to do so, we publicly and freely give permission to swear; and we will never prevent any one from swearing. Moreover, all those in the land who shall be unwilling, themselves and of their own accord, to swear to the twenty five barons as to distraining and oppressing us with them: such ones we shall make to wear by our mandate, as has been said. And if any one of the twenty five barons shall die, or leave the country, or in any other way be prevented from carrying out the aforesaid measures,--the remainder of the aforesaid twenty five barons shall choose another in his place, according to their judgment, who shall be sworn in the same way as the others. Moreover, in all things entrusted to those twenty five barons to be carried out, if those twenty five shall be present and chance to disagree among themselves with regard to some matter, or if some of them, having been summoned, shall be unwilling or unable to be present: that which the majority of those present shall decide or decree shall be considered binding and valid, just as if all the twenty five had consented to it. And the aforesaid twenty five shall swear that they will faithfully observe all the foregoing, and will caue them be observed to the extent of their power. And we shall obtain nothing from any one, either through ourselves or through another, by which any of those concessions and liberties may be revoked or diminished. And if any such thing shall have been obtained, it shall be vain and invalid, and we shall never make use of it either through ourselves or through another.

62. And we have fully remitted to all, and pardoned, all the ill- will, anger and rancour which have arisen between us and our subjects, clergy and laity, from the time of the struggle. Moreover have fully remitted to all, clergy and laity, and--as far as pertains to us--have pardoned fully all the transgressions committed, on the occasion of that same struggle, from Easter of the sixteenth year of our reign until the re-establishment of peace. In witness of which, more-over, we have caused to be drawn up for them letters patent of lord Stephen, archbishop of Canterbury, lord Henry, archbishop of Dubland the aforesaid bishops and master Pandulf, regarding that surety and the aforesaid concessions.

63. Wherefore we will and firmly decree that the English church shall be free, and that the subjects of our realm shall have and hold all the aforesaid liberties, rights and concessions, duly and in peace, freely and quietly, fully and entirely, for themselves and their heirs from us and our heirs, in all matters and in all places, forever, as has been said. Moreover it has been sworn, on our part as well as on the part of the barons, that all these above mentioned provisions shall observed with good faith and without evil intent. The witnesses being the above mentioned and many others. Given through our hand, in the plain called Runnymede between Windsor and Stanes, on the fifteenth day of June, in the seventeenth year of our reign.

The Magna Carta owns you.

Yuck! Coffee evil! Coffee bad!



Let me just point out that he (appears) to be implying the extermination of the leadership (via the comparison to Germany). And when it comes to those who planned and authorized 9/11... I'm highly sympathetic to much, much worse than killing them. (Sewing them up in pig skins, then burying them alive comes to mind...)



You should pay more attention to Christianity's (historical) actions. A lot more.

Or even just take a look at Europe's arrival in the Americas -- the whole enslave, conquer, and enforce Christianity on anything that moves.

again ron, those are widespread cases of a few circumstances, the religion itself does not state anything about orientation mattering.

thats the best you can come up with?

if he means leadership, fine, but it sounds to me like he's saying "exterminate them all"

Thank you for making my point



Yeah, and its a pretty thin veil...



Yeah, he does.

I was thinking more along the lines of sew them together hang them from meat hooks, burn them with second degree burns (third degree dont hurt after everything is shed) dunk them in ice cold water for hours at a time, watershed them

etc.

you're very welcome.

  

huh?

talking about bin laden and the other terrorists.

Wasn't exactly a direct line of thought from the comment you quoted. You probably meant to quote my one about pig skins, which I got from a book I read.

Basicly the idea is to humiliate the SoBs as much as possible, and for whatever reason pigs aren't the kinda things they like. So sew 'em up in pig skins. And burying them alive... is just plain mean.

Yea that will solve the problem. Killing them. One day i hope enough people would understand that it's the killing that made them in the first place. I hope that maybe some would start to reflect on why "they" hate us(a). Hint: It's not our freedom.

Here's a hint

http://www.mindfully.org/Reform/2002/US-Peaceful-Nation.htm

No Theleif, we stand in their way. That is why they hate us. They hate us for the same reason the communists hated us. It's not really our freedoms... it's out ability and willingness to disrupt their conquest. These groups to a man all want to destroy Israel. They all want religious dictatorships... whether we have one or not isn't nearly as important as us not stopping them from taking over the holy land and turning the whole thing into a giant islamic circle jerk.


That we're willing to stop Iran's nuclear ambitions. That we're willing to back allies in the area... and thus occasionally kill Muslims *gasp*... that's all it takes for these people to hate us.


And that's fine. Hate us... let it fill you up until that's all you are... It doesn't matter. This is beyond one generation and beyond the lifes of anyone currently alive right now. So they can think or believe whatever they like. We're playing long ball now. It's a war over the minds of their children and children's children.

That's a war we can win... with economics and cultural pressure we can build a wedge that will expand dramatically after it's hit critical mass.


I really don't care why they hate us... it doesn't really matter. In the same way I don't really care why a bear attacks someone. It has done so... and now will be dealt with.

And that's the reason why they will keep attacking.

By the way, nice analogy with the bear. It's really a peaceful creature (except the grizzly and the polar bear, but even they usually needs to get provoked or scared to attack). The only fatalities come from stupid hunters with even more stupid dogs. Dog attack bear. Dog gets beaten. Dog runs back to master. Master gets attacked and killed. Pretty much sums up the state of the world, don't you think?

We are beating a dead horse here. No matter what the truth is a percentage of people will still side with death cults no matte what the facts. Some people just are unable to accept that they are hated just for breathing. These are the same people who wave a piece of paper in the air proclaiming “Peace in our time has been achieved”

And Karma, this is the third time you have come in behind me and have said things so much more eloquently than myself.

Thank you for the articulate presentation.

I have read some of the quran, and i can say that it is by no means peacefull. But its also rather confusing since it sometimes talks about peace and other times how non believers should be killed.
But i object against any kind of religion and ideology that try to limit free speech. I agree we should respect each other, but i reserve my right to say anything about anyone at any time.
With that said i can only say that anyone who disagree with me on the right to free speech could pack his bags and leave my country. This be muslims who want to restrain my rights to joke about muhammed. Christians who want to restrain my rights to make fun of jesus. Jews who want to restrain my right to make fun of holocaust. WW2 vets who want to restrain my right to joke about the 50 millions dead in WW2. The people who want to restrain my rights against joking about 9/11.
Of course we have laws that prevent people from preaching hate and who advocate the killing of other people. And im not saying that people shouldn't object if i made fun of holocaust or muhammed, but they should also understand that it is still my right to do so.

Im from denmark. I guess everyone or most, have heard about the cartoons. I think those cartoons was stupid. because they was only made to stir the pot. But i still think the newspaper had every right to publish them. And the muslim world did not have the right to freak out the way they did. Yes they can object... but they cant burn our embassies.
The only universal rights is that of free speech and that others cant force there will on you.
I get scared when some countrys like egypt want sweeden to enforce laws that prohibit people from making fun of muhammed. People who think that there will should be enforced on others should be fought. I know that what im saying here is that, we(west) should enforce our will on them. But then again i rather people who don't want to live under our will, here in the west go back home or learn to live with it.
I wouldn't go live in the middle east since i don't agree with there culture and law.
If they still insist on forceing there will on us, we have to do the same if they dont stay on there home turf.

Its a clash of ideology. I believe blindly in mine, if some believe blindly in theres there is no middle ground and can be no compromise.

And thus our response will remain. The only difference is that we have the power to change them and they don't have the power to change us.


The difference in power, wealth, and sophistication is so great that like the bear in the end they stand no chance if they really want to make a fight of it.


You missed the point of the analogy. Does it matter why a bear attacks a man? How does it effect your response to the situation?


It doesn't really. You stop the bear and then typically destroy it. It could be entirely justified... it simply doesn't matter.

Terrorism like 9/11 can't be justified to us... it just can't it's reasons and motivations are all morally inferior in our minds and will remain so.

Causes and effects might be studied to control terrorists but not to respect them. We might do something to make them happy if it suits our needs at the time. But ultimatley we don't rspect terrorist or tribal culturals. That's our cultural bias. That said, most tribal cultures only respect their own. We do respect nations. If these people wish our respect then they need to act civilized. If they act like barbarians then we will treat them like barbarians.


They can scream and bash their shields and yell to their Gods all they like... we'll just close ranks and crush them.

And the waitress is practicing politics, while the bussinessmen slowly get stoned...

Tbh i don't like the the whole story about a bear attacking a man. Its not all muslims who are terrorists. And im not saying terrorism is justified but i do understand why some people in the middle east get upset at times.

I get upset when i see how the west act. The difference is i don't have bombs dropping in my back yard. Religion is fine as long as you don't demand other people live under the rules of said religion. And in general islam is used by terrorists as a mean of focus and an excuse to get young people to blow them self up. Its just as much a questions about some poor people who see nothing but hopelessness in there life, and they fall easy pray for terrorists and religious fanatics.

Karma the west has not been kind to the middle east. The greivances between Islam and the West go back a long time. They did start the aggression by attacking the byzantines but Western European Christians didn't have much justification for attacking the holy land in the crusades other than religious fanaticism and desire for control trade routes. Then there was the Western occupation of the Middle East after WW1 and the setting up of puppet governments. Then there has been the West's constant interference with the Middle East due to oil. I'm not condoning what the terrorists are doing and I don't think that they have the right response...but their culture is different than ours and half the problem is how the West often looks down on all other cultures (historically speaking, we've been getting better at that in my opinion though we're not perfect at it). I will grant you that any culture which is preeminent gets rather self-righteous (or even non-preeminent cultures for that matter). However, the West's self-righteousness has led it to think that nations aren't ready for independence unless under pro-Western governments. I reject the idea that the terrorists are trying to conquer us. Terrorism is not a tactic for conquest. Terrorism is a tactic used to gain concessions or independence from a stronger power. Probably the best way to handle terrorism is to get out of the Middle East and stop interferring with that region. Howver, that is not practical given the West's reliance on oil. However, even when the West's dependence on oil is eliminated, Israel would still bring the West into Middle East affairs. Israel is a strong democracy and ally of the US who we should not just abandon. Terrorists will still attack to destroy Israel (which the terrorists see as an occupation of Arab lands so kicking Israel out would not be a conquest but as an end to an occupation, just like the IRA aren't trying to conquer Northern Ireland, they're trying to "liberate" it). Perhaps Israel should not have been created, that's up for debate. However, I find the terrorists supporting the destruction of Israel far more at fault in what happened subsequent to Israel's independence than Israel. First of all, Israel is far more tolerant, has one million Arab citizens out of a population of seven million, has Arab members of parliment and even an Arab on its supreme court. For another, Israel is willing to have a two-state solution with Palestinians having the West Bank and Gaza while Palestinian groups like Hamas have as part of their charter the destruction of Israel as their goal. Israel has taken unilateral actions such as removing Gaza strip settlements in order to further peace. If Israel accidently kills some Palestinian civilians along with the terrorists, the Palestinians specifically target Israeli civilians in their suicide bomb attacks and kill far more civilians than Israel. So I come to the point of all this. I have to agree with Karma (for once   ) that the only viable solution to terrorism is to respond with force whenever we are attacked. Leaving the Middle East is not an option because of a) oil and b) Israel who we should not abandon. No not all muslims are terrorists, but not every German was a Nazi. Does that mean that we should have left Nazi Germany alone because only a minority of Germans were Nazis? No. The only way to stop the Nazis was to defeat Germany. If Islam refuses to stop the terrorists themselves, then the West must act in its own defence and attack Muslim countries that harbor terrorists (but also not attack countries which DON'T harbor terrorists thereby provding fertile ground for new terrorist strongholds to form...like Iraq).

AGH!!!
paragraphs, for the love of god!

I agree. I say we end this pointless convesation.

Killing people is wrong. Period.

Sorry Schem, I;ll do paragraphs from now on   .

TGE that is such a Kantian perspective and personally I hate Kant's philosophy. For those of you not conversant with Kant, his moral philosophy was that there are certain acts known as "moral imperatives" which under no circumstances can one commit. This means no matter the outcome one could not, for instance kill another person. Not lieing was another of Kant's "moral imperatives." One of the implications of Kant's theory is that you cannot break a "moral imperative" in order to prevent something bad from happening. For instance if a friend is hiding at your house from a murderer and that murderer asks you where your friend is, Kantian philosophy would say that not lieing is a "moral imperative" and you cannot lie to the murder about the whereabouts of your friend even if that means his/her death. The potential consequences do not determine the morality of an act in Kantian theory.

In contrast, utilitarianism is the theory that what determines the morality of an act is if that act is going towards the greastest good of the greatest possible number of people while doing the least harm to the least amount of people. As you can probably tell, the greatest weakness of utilitarianism is that the balance is very hard to maintain. Getting the answer exactly right is probably near impossible. However, it is an ideal to strive for, like equality and justice. Shouldn't the goal of human actions be to better the greatest number of people the most while harming the smallest number of people the least? Kantian philosophy is easier to follow in that the choice is simple, but how often are the correct answers to problems so simple?

I would not say that an act should NEVER be done, just that the circumstances for the commision of some acts must be extreme (one of the consequences a person has to take into account is if circumstances aren't extreme and you commit a certain act, that sets a precident for commiting that act in other non-extreme circumstances in the future). For instance, if a certain disease had evolved which would kill 80% of humankind and the only way to make drugs fast enough to cure it was to perform forced human medical tests, then the answer I would give is to say yes. Civilization would collapse if eight out of every ten people on earth died. However, if a disease threatens to kill only 20%, then I would say no. Because civilization has survived disease that bad and worse. Will there be a lot of suffering over the short term (relatively), yes. However, for a situation where humanity itself or civilization is not threatened, then manditory human medical testing could be used for progressively more minor diseases thus causing long term suffering. The choices aren't easy, but they're better then categorically saying, for example, killing is wrong.

scourge, we've very much alike in some ways so I think it makes what little difference there is almost harder to bare. We're both fairly logical and capable of opperating in reasonable theoretical frameworks. We both also seem to have a fairly robust grasp of the history involved.


The primary distinction between your point of view and mine is that while I take all the objective information into consideration. My final decision on the matter is subjective.


That is to say, I don't attempt to be impartial. I attempt simply to render a decision that is in our best long term interests. What I want above all is sustainable peace in a profitable and dynamic environment.


That requires some explaination... What I want is not peace in our generation but peace that doesn't have to be continually fought for or worried over to maintain. We are peace with Canada, we are at peace with france, we are at peace with China... these countries are not going to war in the forseeable future. They each have disagreements with each other but they also respect each other and are much more comfortable with negociating then declaring war or seeing each other with terrorists. We don't need to be their friends and they don't need to be ours. We simply need a relationship in which it is understood that you don't cross certain lines. We also need to be able to trust that the other party is rational. Declaring that israel will soon be wiped off the map is not rational. Continually making that a center piece of your foreign policy is not rational.

Expecting the US to be intimidated by simply acting crazy is insulting, annoying, and futile. It's like the bank calling a loan due and then you "suddenly" come down with amnesia... Great... pretend to be crazy... and I'll pretend I care.


These issues are too big for sentement, too big for other people's feelings, and too big for issues of ego. This is where the metal meets the meat... it's the time when if you're not rational you're going to get cut.


As to the it remaining profitiable and dynamic... we can't have another situation like North Korea where we have peace but at the price of bribing them for it. That is unacceptable... even in NK's case it's something that will end. We'd like some kind of mutually benifical trade that binds our societies together.


By dynamic I simply mean a system capable of change or evolving as it goes. If we get locked into some static and unchangable agreement it will fall apart.

very nice