(February 26, 2015 at 8:49 pm)abaris Wrote: Yeah, next. You're not getting it, that's obvious.No, you're not getting it. And that's surprising because it's a pretty basic distinction, so much so that it's the law.
Quote:Murdering civilians is a means to an end. Which is provoking a violent reaction to get more people to join their cause. And the West gladly obliges to make these ends meet - for the last 14 years.So you want to discuss what foreign policy to deal with it is rational?
Quote:According to Iraq body ocunt, there have been anywhere between 135.000 and 153.000 killed civilians.Which was a war crime that W Bush and his administration should be prosecuted for. If that's your point, I agree.
Quote:They all had relatives, who loved them. Do you think, they would engage in a debate with anyone, if these deaths were intentional or just a mistake?Appeal to emotion that has no relevancy on a rational discussion on the morality of military action vs. terrorism.
Quote:That's why this whole discussion from the comfy armchair is so inane that it hurts.Our exchange continues at your pleasure.
"Doctor, it hurts every time I do this."
"Well, don't do that anymore."
Atheist Forums Hall of Shame:
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
"The trinity can be equated to having your cake and eating it too."
... -Lucent, trying to defend the Trinity concept
"(Yahweh's) actions are good because (Yahweh) is the ultimate standard of goodness. That’s not begging the question"
... -Statler Waldorf, Christian apologist
