Technology5 mins ago
Two British Medical Students Who Joined Isis Killed In Iraq.
294 Answers
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by anotheoldgit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Naomi - // andy-hughes, //we are thinking like they do, and being as barbaric in our joy as they are in theirs. //
There is no comparison. //
Of course not.
No-one looks in the mirror and says "I am a truly evil person and a drain on the resources of the world, which would be better if I was vaporised immediately."
You don't do it, neither do it, but the important thing is, neither do the terrorists.
We all think we are valid important valuable people, that is human nature.
They think they deaths of their enemies are a wonderful thing - I suggest that we should not think the same way - because, in terms of human nature, there is absolutely a comparison. It's just more comfortable to think that they are wrong, and we are right.
There is no comparison. //
Of course not.
No-one looks in the mirror and says "I am a truly evil person and a drain on the resources of the world, which would be better if I was vaporised immediately."
You don't do it, neither do it, but the important thing is, neither do the terrorists.
We all think we are valid important valuable people, that is human nature.
They think they deaths of their enemies are a wonderful thing - I suggest that we should not think the same way - because, in terms of human nature, there is absolutely a comparison. It's just more comfortable to think that they are wrong, and we are right.
piggynose - //shouldn´t we as a civilised society be looking at the root causes of the terrorist´s actions instead of wishing they were vaporised, or is this just too logical? //
An absolutely valid point I feel.
The response of successive western governments in terms of reacting to terrorists is, in illustrative terms, to look across from our mountain to theirs, and shoot at it, and see them shoot back, without either side walking down to the valley floor for a genuine exchange of views.
Those on here who claim an education in Islam, and therefore believe that they can understand and speak for the extremists, reckon that you cannot reason with them, so there is no point in talking.
I have never, and will never subscribe to that view.
Without every effort made to establish and maintain a flow of communication, the world remains locked in this endless war of attrition that shows no sign of resolution.
Simply saying 'They are different ...' is to do what the extremists do, and I like to think that as a society, we are beyond such twelfth-century attitudes.
I live in hope.
An absolutely valid point I feel.
The response of successive western governments in terms of reacting to terrorists is, in illustrative terms, to look across from our mountain to theirs, and shoot at it, and see them shoot back, without either side walking down to the valley floor for a genuine exchange of views.
Those on here who claim an education in Islam, and therefore believe that they can understand and speak for the extremists, reckon that you cannot reason with them, so there is no point in talking.
I have never, and will never subscribe to that view.
Without every effort made to establish and maintain a flow of communication, the world remains locked in this endless war of attrition that shows no sign of resolution.
Simply saying 'They are different ...' is to do what the extremists do, and I like to think that as a society, we are beyond such twelfth-century attitudes.
I live in hope.
Let's use the so rule shall we?
So, if a terrorist is on top of a building mowing down innocent passers by, and then armed policeman shoots the terrorist so he falls from the high building goes through a glass roof and then falls into a vat of boiling water, I think most could rejoice at that, taking into consideration the poor souls who he had previously killed and maimed.
Or should we continue to let the terrorist carry on killing or perhaps somehow kill him without it being a violent death and then in a more humane way gather round with our bouquets of flowers, mourning at his demise?
After all we don't want it be seen that we have sunk to his level now do we?
So, if a terrorist is on top of a building mowing down innocent passers by, and then armed policeman shoots the terrorist so he falls from the high building goes through a glass roof and then falls into a vat of boiling water, I think most could rejoice at that, taking into consideration the poor souls who he had previously killed and maimed.
Or should we continue to let the terrorist carry on killing or perhaps somehow kill him without it being a violent death and then in a more humane way gather round with our bouquets of flowers, mourning at his demise?
After all we don't want it be seen that we have sunk to his level now do we?
AOG - //Let's use the so rule shall we? //
By all means - as long as you know what it means - and this post suggests that you don't.
The 'So' rule means someone starting a post with the word 'So...', and then either completely misunderstanding the post to which they are replying, or adding in statements that were not in the original post, in order to disagree with them, or both.
Simply starting a post with the word 'So...' has nothing to do with it - it is just a post that starts with 'So ...'.
OK - glad to clear that up.
Now, to your post -
// So, if a terrorist is on top of a building mowing down innocent passers by, and then armed policeman shoots the terrorist so he falls from the high building goes through a glass roof and then falls into a vat of boiling water, I think most could rejoice at that, taking into consideration the poor souls who he had previously killed and maimed. //
Most - but not all, since there appears to be an inbuilt assumption of sadism in your scenario, that people will be pleased that the terrorist suffered an agonising death, because he was busy killing innocent people.
The posters on here that have made their position clear about the joy of a death such as this would side with you.
I would not, insofar as I would take no pleasure from the death, or the manner of the death, but I would be grateful that the death of innocent people has been stopped in this instance.
// Or should we continue to let the terrorist carry on killing or perhaps somehow kill him without it being a violent death and then in a more humane way gather round with our bouquets of flowers, mourning at his demise? //
That is somewhat bizarre and fanciful nonsense, and does not connect in any way with any of the various ways I have tried to make clear my view on the point we are discussing.
Sarcasm can be a powerful weapon, but tacked onto the end of an imaginary scenario that is nothing to do with anything simply looks rather foolish.
I appreciate that you prefer not to debate with me directly, but making up fairy stories is not in the spirit of debate, and is not going to get anyone anywhere - but if you have something valid and connected to your own OP to post, I will be delighted to respond.
By all means - as long as you know what it means - and this post suggests that you don't.
The 'So' rule means someone starting a post with the word 'So...', and then either completely misunderstanding the post to which they are replying, or adding in statements that were not in the original post, in order to disagree with them, or both.
Simply starting a post with the word 'So...' has nothing to do with it - it is just a post that starts with 'So ...'.
OK - glad to clear that up.
Now, to your post -
// So, if a terrorist is on top of a building mowing down innocent passers by, and then armed policeman shoots the terrorist so he falls from the high building goes through a glass roof and then falls into a vat of boiling water, I think most could rejoice at that, taking into consideration the poor souls who he had previously killed and maimed. //
Most - but not all, since there appears to be an inbuilt assumption of sadism in your scenario, that people will be pleased that the terrorist suffered an agonising death, because he was busy killing innocent people.
The posters on here that have made their position clear about the joy of a death such as this would side with you.
I would not, insofar as I would take no pleasure from the death, or the manner of the death, but I would be grateful that the death of innocent people has been stopped in this instance.
// Or should we continue to let the terrorist carry on killing or perhaps somehow kill him without it being a violent death and then in a more humane way gather round with our bouquets of flowers, mourning at his demise? //
That is somewhat bizarre and fanciful nonsense, and does not connect in any way with any of the various ways I have tried to make clear my view on the point we are discussing.
Sarcasm can be a powerful weapon, but tacked onto the end of an imaginary scenario that is nothing to do with anything simply looks rather foolish.
I appreciate that you prefer not to debate with me directly, but making up fairy stories is not in the spirit of debate, and is not going to get anyone anywhere - but if you have something valid and connected to your own OP to post, I will be delighted to respond.
RandyMarsh - //it is ok to shoot the terrorist as long as you are not smiling AOG. //
I am secure in my view, which is why I don't feel the need to snigger along with another AB'er who disagrees with me.
If you are insecure in your view, and need the security of others to gang up with, that says more about you than anything I am posting.
I am secure in my view, which is why I don't feel the need to snigger along with another AB'er who disagrees with me.
If you are insecure in your view, and need the security of others to gang up with, that says more about you than anything I am posting.
AOG - //Always best to look across from our mountain to theirs, where a horde of them are shooting at us, but being the good guys we walk down to the valley floor hoping for a genuine exchange of views, but more important hoping that they follow suit. Lmao. //
You really must try to stop this strange habit of reading something, and seeing something that is not there, and then responding to that.
I did not say that " ... being the good guys we walk down to the valley floor hoping for a genuine exchange of views, but more important hoping that they follow suit." What I did say was " ...without either side walking down to the valley floor for a genuine exchange of views." which is not the same thing at all.
By all means laugh off any part you wish, but try and laugh at something I have said, not something you have made up.
You really must try to stop this strange habit of reading something, and seeing something that is not there, and then responding to that.
I did not say that " ... being the good guys we walk down to the valley floor hoping for a genuine exchange of views, but more important hoping that they follow suit." What I did say was " ...without either side walking down to the valley floor for a genuine exchange of views." which is not the same thing at all.
By all means laugh off any part you wish, but try and laugh at something I have said, not something you have made up.
If one can't feel sorrow for the loss of a terrorist, and I assume that means his/her demise,what death would one advocate if they object to the violence of their death? Death by drone missile or death by bullet/bomb are all violent. We can't just let them die peacefully in their sleep if capturing them first is not possible.
Latest Posts
Crosswords7 mins ago
Crosswords11 mins ago
Tree Slayers Case Moved To The Crown...
News43 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.