Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:
No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.
If you are already a member then feel free to login now.
Kilkrazy wrote:I think there were some Purple Hearts earned at Pearl Harbour in late 1941.
Were Japanese kamikaze pilots terrorists, or regular members of their country's armed forces?
The human rights issue in the Swiss case is that the constitution has been amended so that members of one specific religion now have fewer civil rights than any other.
That is against the Universal Declaration of Human Rights, and the former constitution of the Swiss Confederation.
If you cannot see what is disturbing about that, imagine that atheists, muslims and non-denominationals, being the majority in a country, win a referendum that Roman Catholics should not be allowed to burn incense because the smell is offensive. Anyone else can still burn incense, but not Roman Catholics.
Frazzled wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
legally they declared war on us. I don't think there were any Kamikaze attacks in Pearl, mayhaps some impromptu crashing planes but not "Kamikazes." Angels dancing on the head of a pin argument though as you correctly point out.
KillKrazy you are correct, and I amd remaking that statement their hasnt been any in "continental U.S" I bleieve since the 1920's coal miners strike. Also the alaska territory is not continental.
@Frazz the Kamikazis were an actual wing created byt he japanies to suicide attack our troops. They took a vile of some form of pain killer so as to give them as little pain as possible.
@Shuma by literal definition yes the U.S soldiers are committing acts of terrorism, and also if you look it up we are also barbarians. What honestly it all comes down to is who's side your on in the end because that is what is going to lead to how we interpret things. To me they are my enemy, but to them I am the devil you get my meaning?
@SGT_Scruffy: where are you getting your info because when I looked at army times the other week it made no mention of him being a open supporter of Al'Queda, and I would think that Army Times would post such a thing, or at least I hope they would. If you saw it on the news then it is not a fully reliable source.
Listen, my children, as I pass onto you the truth behind Willy Wonka and his factory. For every wonka bar ever created in existance, Mr. Wonka sacraficed a single Oompa Loompa to the god of chocolate, Hearshys. Then, he drank the blood of the fallen orange men because he fed them a constant supply of sugary chocolate so they all became diabetic and had creamy, sweet-tasting blood that willy could put into each and every Wonka bar. That is the REAL story behind willy wonka's Slaughter House!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Empy that was my reasoning. the kamikazis weren't formalized until later, although there were impromptu suicide attacks throughout the war.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/02 20:25:52
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Empy that was my reasoning. the kamikazis weren't formalized until later, although there were impromptu suicide attacks throughout the war.
You brought this upon yourself, and everyone has only you to blame.
perhaps, open supporter was a bit strong - however, as stated in my other post, the CIA said he was under investigation for links to Al Qaeda and he openly advocated muslims rising up against American "aggressors"
Army Times? Seriously? C'mon Man!
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/02 20:29:47
Empchild wrote:@Frazz the Kamikazis were an actual wing created byt he japanies to suicide attack our troops. They took a vile of some form of pain killer so as to give them as little pain as possible.
Wouldn't exploding make for a relatively painless death?
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:perhaps, open supporter was a bit strong - however, as stated in my other post, the CIA said he was under investigation for links to Al Qaeda and he openly advocated muslims rising up against American "aggressors"
I hadn't seen that part before. I'd heard that he was talking to a radical imam, but not that he was actually advocating Al-Qaeda beliefs.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:perhaps, open supporter was a bit strong - however, as stated in my other post, the CIA said he was under investigation for links to Al Qaeda and he openly advocated muslims rising up against American "aggressors"
This is true, but as per our current threat levels anytime something like this happens to this kind of capacity they look to insure he was not a member of a known terrorist organisation or sympathizer. I would be much to the same avail as me saying to you that you were caught drunk drivng so I think you MAY be a terrorist not an attack of coarse towards you just an example, but you are right on the fact he felt muslims deserved to be on top.
Listen, my children, as I pass onto you the truth behind Willy Wonka and his factory. For every wonka bar ever created in existance, Mr. Wonka sacraficed a single Oompa Loompa to the god of chocolate, Hearshys. Then, he drank the blood of the fallen orange men because he fed them a constant supply of sugary chocolate so they all became diabetic and had creamy, sweet-tasting blood that willy could put into each and every Wonka bar. That is the REAL story behind willy wonka's Slaughter House!
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
here it is. This thread has reached critical OT mass that prevents useful information from being distributed. Plus, I just quoted myself
Empchild wrote:@Frazz the Kamikazis were an actual wing created byt he japanies to suicide attack our troops. They took a vile of some form of pain killer so as to give them as little pain as possible.
Wouldn't exploding make for a relatively painless death?
Yeah, but the knowledge that it won't hurt helps you go through with it. It also kept them going after being hit by flak, you get a lot of stories of burning destroyed planes still careening towards their targets, largely because the pilots we're physically destroyed but still alive enough to aim for the giant grey thing, the painkillers had a lot to do with that.
This message was edited 3 times. Last update was at 2009/12/02 20:34:52
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
And hell, if the SS gets to be on meth no one's going to tell the Kamikazes what they can't be on.
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
here it is. This thread has reached critical OT mass that prevents useful information from being distributed. Plus, I just quoted myself
Ok so im gonna give you a brief low down as because of personal reason I don't trust most major news networks. An officer in the military especially one inhis area has to go through a lot to become said officer. Their are a number of securaty clearances that this man has to go through. I am not saying some may not have fallen through the crack in the past but that is beyond the point right now. If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand. Their fore though I do accredit you for putting forth this evidence it holds little bearing for anyone who knows enough about how the military runs. Againnot an attack against you just a statement to the disscussion.
Listen, my children, as I pass onto you the truth behind Willy Wonka and his factory. For every wonka bar ever created in existance, Mr. Wonka sacraficed a single Oompa Loompa to the god of chocolate, Hearshys. Then, he drank the blood of the fallen orange men because he fed them a constant supply of sugary chocolate so they all became diabetic and had creamy, sweet-tasting blood that willy could put into each and every Wonka bar. That is the REAL story behind willy wonka's Slaughter House!
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
here it is. This thread has reached critical OT mass that prevents useful information from being distributed. Plus, I just quoted myself
Ok so im gonna give you a brief low down as because of personal reason I don't trust most major news networks. An officer in the military especially one inhis area has to go through a lot to become said officer. Their are a number of securaty clearances that this man has to go through. I am not saying some may not have fallen through the crack in the past but that is beyond the point right now. If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand. Their fore though I do accredit you for putting forth this evidence it holds little bearing for anyone who knows enough about how the military runs. Againnot an attack against you just a statement to the disscussion.
I know, I hold a secret clearance. If I kept up with my user name it would read CW2_Scruffy. I've been in 8 years and have 3 tours in Iraq.
Automatically Appended Next Post: wow, I just responded to your post before you postd it! my internet -fu is stong!
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/12/02 20:39:09
If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand.
What about the large number of service personnel with active gang affiliations?
----------------
Do you remember that time that thing happened?
This is a bad thread and you should all feel bad
Sgt_Scruffy wrote:according to news reports, he made comments of that nature to his superiors and patients as well as at presentations while working at Walter Reed.
Specifically, about half way down, there's a quote. "At Fort Hood, he told a colleague, Col Terry Lee, that he believed Muslims should rise up against American 'aggressors'."
here it is. This thread has reached critical OT mass that prevents useful information from being distributed. Plus, I just quoted myself
Ok so im gonna give you a brief low down as because of personal reason I don't trust most major news networks. An officer in the military especially one inhis area has to go through a lot to become said officer. Their are a number of securaty clearances that this man has to go through. I am not saying some may not have fallen through the crack in the past but that is beyond the point right now. If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand. Their fore though I do accredit you for putting forth this evidence it holds little bearing for anyone who knows enough about how the military runs. Againnot an attack against you just a statement to the disscussion.
I know, I hold a secret clearance. If I kept up with my user name it would read CW2_Scruffy. I've been in 8 years and have 3 tours in Iraq.
Automatically Appended Next Post: wow, I just responded to your post before you postd it! my internet -fu is stong!
seriously, I don't know what's happening... all my posts are being appended even though there is a response after it.
Automatically Appended Next Post: oh, and the man had been in the military for years (prior to 9/11 IIRC) and a secret clearance is only updated everyt ten years. Since, by all accounts, this is a fairly recent shift towards readicalism, it is entirely possible it slips through the cracks.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/02 20:43:48
If an officer was even remotely believed to have contacted any extremist group weather it be skinheads, black panthers, or Al'Queda they would be removed from their position and put into holding until a CID(criminal investigative division) can do a full investigation into the situation at hand.
What about the large number of service personnel with active gang affiliations?
Though I am sure their are active gang member inside the military, as part of an agreement you sign when you join you have unaffiliated yourself with your gang. The military allows former gang members in as long as they are not found to be active. If somone is found out to be active they are looking at jail time.
@scruffy: two things one is grats on the chief I am decideding weather to go that route myself, two if you post in a certain ammount of time frame after or before somone else posts then it just appends itself.
Listen, my children, as I pass onto you the truth behind Willy Wonka and his factory. For every wonka bar ever created in existance, Mr. Wonka sacraficed a single Oompa Loompa to the god of chocolate, Hearshys. Then, he drank the blood of the fallen orange men because he fed them a constant supply of sugary chocolate so they all became diabetic and had creamy, sweet-tasting blood that willy could put into each and every Wonka bar. That is the REAL story behind willy wonka's Slaughter House!
Automatically Appended Next Post: Empy that was my reasoning. the kamikazis weren't formalized until later, although there were impromptu suicide attacks throughout the war.
You brought this upon yourself, and everyone has only you to blame.
I surrender someone get me a battleship and a top hat to make this official.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/02 22:01:40
-"Wait a minute.....who is that Frazz is talking to in the gallery? Hmmm something is going on here.....Oh.... it seems there is some dispute over video taping of some sort......Frazz is really upset now..........wait a minute......whats he go there.......is it? Can it be?....Frazz has just unleashed his hidden weiner dog from his mini bag, while quoting shakespeares "Let slip the dogs the war!!" GG
-"Don't mind Frazzled. He's just Dakka's crazy old dude locked in the attic. He's harmless. Mostly."
-TBone the Magnificent 1999-2014, Long Live the King!
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
I find the hell comment kind of offensive. The US has the MoH for actions very similar to the Kamikaze attacks with the only difference is that US soldiers face death in the hope that perhaps they will not die while Kamikazes were sure that they were going to die.
Code of Federal Regulations wrote:"conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States."
So if you want to disrespect members of the armed forces of Japan that chose (no matter how mistaken they were) the ultimate sacrifice for their country I want an open day on the 3467 recipients of the MoH or the 1356 VC.
M.
Jenkins: You don't have jurisdiction here!
Smith Jamison: We aren't here, which means when we open up on you and shred your bodies with automatic fire then this will never have happened.
About the Clans: "Those brief outbursts of sense can't hold back the wave of sibko bred, over hormoned sociopaths that they crank out though."
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
I find the hell comment kind of offensive. The US has the MoH for actions very similar to the Kamikaze attacks with the only difference is that US soldiers face death in the hope that perhaps they will not die while Kamikazes were sure that they were going to die.
Code of Federal Regulations wrote:"conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States."
So if you want to disrespect members of the armed forces of Japan that chose (no matter how mistaken they were) the ultimate sacrifice for their country I want an open day on the 3467 recipients of the MoH or the 1356 VC.
Hugely different circumstances. When you KNOW you're going to die(e.g. a mortal wound as in a number of Medal of Honor cases), and you're intending to do everything you can to take the bastards with you?
Very different than purposely killing yourself just to take down a target.
Kanluwen wrote:Well, to be fair: The United States wasn't officially at war with Japan or Germany, as far as I recall.
But they were providing materiale to Britain and Russia under the lend-lease act, if I remember it right.
Either way, kamikaze pilots would be put into a special category of hell now for their actions.
I find the hell comment kind of offensive. The US has the MoH for actions very similar to the Kamikaze attacks with the only difference is that US soldiers face death in the hope that perhaps they will not die while Kamikazes were sure that they were going to die.
Code of Federal Regulations wrote:"conspicuously by gallantry and intrepidity at the risk of his life above and beyond the call of duty while engaged in an action against an enemy of the United States."
So if you want to disrespect members of the armed forces of Japan that chose (no matter how mistaken they were) the ultimate sacrifice for their country I want an open day on the 3467 recipients of the MoH or the 1356 VC.
Hugely different circumstances. When you KNOW you're going to die(e.g. a mortal wound as in a number of Medal of Honor cases), and you're intending to do everything you can to take the bastards with you?
Very different than purposely killing yourself just to take down a target.
When you KNOW you're going to die=killing yourself and you're intending to do everything you can to take the bastards with you=to take down a target.
Metal of Honor=Eternal Honor=100 Virgins
This message was edited 2 times. Last update was at 2009/12/03 03:25:19
I am a damaged individual screaming random obscenities into the internet, sorry if I upset you.
"Dig what you dig. Don't take any fool's madness, just dig what you dig."
-Corey Taylor (Not Saying you're a fool )
"You guys are nuttier n fruitbats who just sucked a three week old pineapple." -Frazzled
What if the marine wasn't wounded, and could flee the battle and survive, but was still willing to die to defeat the enemy in the bunker (because if the enemy in the bunker wasn't defeated they would go on to kill more of his comrades)?
I wouldn't call that immoral.( Or at least, I wouldn't if I didn't think his killing the enemy without killing himself was immoral.) I mean, everyone who goes into a warzone is increasing the chances of their death. What's the difference between a 90% certainty that you will die and a 100% certainty?
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
Frazzled wrote:the Fort Hood terrorist was a psychiatrist as well.
And the entirety of the Cavalier King Charles breed comes from just six dogs remaining after the Second World War.
This is a fun game, but why are we spouting random statements?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
Orlanth wrote:No, one of the parties supporting the initiative is racist.
That party wrote the policy and submitted it for referendum. I have no idea why you’re trying to claim otherwise, except in some belief that you need to say nuh-uh to every single element of the other person’s argument.
The policy was instigated by the Swiss government and for good reason, it draws a line and says to Islam here and no further.
But it doesn’t. It just jerks around some people that want to build a place to pray. Any nutter who wants to build a European caliphate won’t be swayed or affected by this.
as for the myth that Western culture is under siege, ok, look at the policies of Islamic fundamentalism. They are quite open about it, Islam must replace Christianity and Islamic law must be introduced. Whether it is practical or not doesn't stop it from being a threat, especially if some continue to profess that it is all a myth even after Islamic fundamentalists admit full face that this is what they want to do.
Except you’re missing the very important point that fundamental Islam does not characterise the entirety of the billion Muslims on the planet. ‘Drawing a line’ by restricting the freedoms of an entire group because you’re worried about a slight minority is idiotic.
The poster is unclear and you are confused.
What is a black sheep? You narrowed it down to 'black immigrants', in fact a black sheep can be any misfit or minority as stated above. You need to look closely at propoganda to understand it, you have not and thus you are confused.
Look again, the poster is not anti black, its anti black sheep and mentions security as the issue. This can be used to represent ANYONE the pary considers a black sheep. homosexuals Jews, immigrants black or otherwise, other faiths etc etc etc. The poster IS unclear.
Take a deep breath and then think about what you’re doing here. You’re claiming there is nothing racist to be found in a poster from an explicitly racist party showing white sheep kicking a black sheep out of their country.
You can, of course, pretend anything means anything you want it to. But you’re kidding yourself if you thought the creators of that poster weren’t aware of how it would be understood by everyone that saw it, supporter and opposition alike.
Nope you are wrong again. Its not racism to believe your culture is under threat if the threat is open and undisguised. Read what the Islamic Fundamentalists say they want to do. You are also wrong because they are not 'jerking around people who just want somewhere to pray'. The ban is on minarets, not mosques, its sends a message against proliferation but says that within that limit Moslem citizens can continue as normal. If Mosques were to be banned yes I would agree, but Minarets are not core to Islamic teaching, just tradition and the Swiss have every right to insist that their indigenous tradition takes precedence..
Please read what I said, it was clear and it’s annoying you’ve misread it so badly. Racism can be a cause of believing one’s culture is under threat (and there are lots of other reasons to also believe your culture is under threat, such as being generally paranoid, believing the wrong people, falling into the myth of the golden age, and just occasionally because your culture actually is under threat.)
And yeah, note that I’ve said that if a ban on mosques and other non-traditional architecture was installed in historical and particularly beautiful parts of the country, that’d be fine. But that isn’t what they’ve done – they’ve put a constitutional ban on one specific type of building across the entire country.
And the thing is, the tradition of architecture in most of Zurich is grey cement cubes – seriously, it’s pretty commonly considered the number one biggest let down for tourists to Europe. There is no beautiful aesthetic to most of the city, and a mosque would not look out of place among the 1970s fugly that is most of the city.
Actually many of the people fighting is Afghanistan are European moslem converts, a frighteningly large number from the UK. Just don't expect the British government to admit this, ask veterans instead. By sticking heads in the sand this nation has birthed a Chimera. You are utterly wrong.
What in the world? Seriously, you understand how conversation works, right?
I mean, I make a point about there being a billion Muslims, and the violent fundamentalists making up a small number of them, and it therefore being wrong to set policy against the religion as a whole. From there you could attempt a point about how majority are really in support of the violent minority, or how the religion will inevitable produce that violent minority therefore the religion as a whole must be strictly controlled, or you could concede the point, or something else.
But you didn’t do that. You just said that a portion of the minority of violent fundamentalists come from the same continent as the people affected by this policy, ignoring entirely that they remain a minority of Muslims, and then you declared I was wrong.
We agree on something. Part of the problem in the US is a very vocal Irish American lobby which has been quieter once 9/11 taught the US that terrorism against a democratic state was not heroic or positive. You should see some of the crap that they taech on Irish history in some American schools, calling it one sided would be an understatement. I remember US news articles about Irish history school curriculum books in New York, ALL were from a very slanted Republican viewpoint. If you read those at face value in school you would be forgiven for thinking the UK is a colony of the Third Reich.
Interesting, thanks for that.
Automatically Appended Next Post:
Kanluwen wrote:Wounded Marine pulling the pin on a satchel charge and running through MG fire to drop it into a dug-in pillbox
vs
Flying a fully armed warplane into the deck of an aircraft carrier, with the intention of NEVER engaging other than to get to that target.
Huge difference.
No, there isn't. Not in the act itself, anyway. In the two situations, 'going to kill the enemy' and 'going to kill the enemy and knowing you'll die' the only differing factor is what happens to you. Given that our lives are our own, I don't see how it becomes grossly immoral when we add the element of dying to the equation.
Really, as with all these things the factor that really matters is what motivates the actor. If the Japanese fellow is sacrificing himself because he believes he can cripple a US ship, stop the US advance and protect his friends and family from US invasion, well then he would be wrong but his morals would be understandable. On the other hand, if he was sacrificing himself because he knew the war was lost and he just wanted to kill some Americans before he died, then that'd be immoral.
This message was edited 1 time. Last update was at 2009/12/03 04:11:41
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
A fanatical devotion, and blindly following directives to sell your life for crippling a warship and the honor of your ancestors is far differing from acting in the interests of your comrades in the warzone.
So it's still matter of motivation and thought behind it, though.
If an American pilot volunteered to fly a plane into a Nazi battleship (don't ask) in an effort to stop the Nazis from taking over the United States (which is a real possibility), knowing full well what he's doing and what he's giving up, then would that be justified?
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
How about embarking in a dangerous mission (with a 50% chance of dying) to destroy a ship half as important?
Anuvver fing - when they do sumfing, they try to make it look like somfink else to confuse everybody. When one of them wants to lord it over the uvvers, 'e says "I'm very speshul so'z you gotta worship me", or "I know summink wot you lot don't know, so yer better lissen good". Da funny fing is, arf of 'em believe it and da over arf don't, so 'e 'as to hit 'em all anyway or run fer it.
What about the 300 at Thermopylae, fighting to the last as a rear guard action to give the Greeks time to gather their army?
Are you saying that every single instance of someone going to fight, knowing they will die, is immoral?
“We may observe that the government in a civilized country is much more expensive than in a barbarous one; and when we say that one government is more expensive than another, it is the same as if we said that that one country is farther advanced in improvement than another. To say that the government is expensive and the people not oppressed is to say that the people are rich.”
Adam Smith, who must have been some kind of leftie or something.
not an attack of coarse towards you just an example, but you are right on the fact he felt muslims deserved to be on top.
Especially after heated debates.
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
--
)
