Site Search:
 
Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Students and Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

really worth to argue about religion, isn't it childish?
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current News
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
flying_pig319



Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Wed Oct 11, 2006 4:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mirea wrote:
To start a war and to say we don't kill civilians "intentionally" is very cinical per se. As for me, I can't see any difference between the definition of terrorists and the Bushy government either.


Quite right!
Starting a war IS "killing intentionally". The wording is just propoganda.
_________________
peace-monger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Anuradha Chepur



Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 932

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 12:31 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

There is a country called the USA.
It is a proud superpower.
It has the most powerful military force in the world at its disposal.
It is one of the world’s best economies.
One day, terrorists from the Middle East crash a plane each into its centres of administration and economy.
Their aim is to hit both the administration and the economy of the country and upset its superpower status.
Thousands of innocent people die.
The economy surely slows down a bit.
And as if that wasn’t enough, the date they choose to attack (9/11) corresponds to the number of the US police (911).
This is a little more than provocation.
It is an open challenge.
It licenses a war.

So they decide they need to act. The idea is to clear up the middle east of its dictators and terrorist run governments. The world would be better off if these places are democracies. Now since those dictators can’t be requested to step down, invasion becomes a necessary evil. It was asked for.

If people expect the superpower to just forget everything and move on, it’s asking for too much. If Bush hadn’t acted and the attacks had continued, the very people who are (understandably) unhappy with the war would be unhappy for the government’s cowardly and lackadaisical attitude. Look at what Saddam did. He left his people to their fate and hid in a rabbit hole. It is sad that thousands of civilians died, but who is responsible? Those who asked for it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
flying_pig319



Joined: 01 Jul 2006
Posts: 369

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 3:32 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anuradha Chepur wrote:
If Bush hadn’t acted and the attacks had continued, the very people who are (understandably) unhappy with the war would be unhappy for the government’s cowardly and lackadaisical attitude.


No-- I think there are two different categories of people:
Those who are currently unhappy with the war, who would've loved it if Bush was a "coward", and
those who currently love the war, and would have hated Bush if he was a "coward".
Bush is obviously targeting that second group with all of his decisions, but I don't think ANY Americans fall into the category you're describing of *not wanting a war AND not wanting a coward*.
_________________
peace-monger
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Send e-mail
Anuradha Chepur



Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 932

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 4:19 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Bush being passive means more terror attacks. Who'd be fond of them?
On the other hand, war is a bitter pill nobody loves.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beancurdturtle



Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 5:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anuradha Chepur wrote:
If Bush hadn’t acted and the attacks had continued, the very people who are (understandably) unhappy with the war would be unhappy for the government’s cowardly and lackadaisical attitude. Look at what Saddam did. He left his people to their fate and hid in a rabbit hole. It is sad that thousands of civilians died, but who is responsible? Those who asked for it.

First, Saddam and Iraq had nothing to do with 911. Bush just used 911 to manufacture false pretenses for war. Go the The Project for a New American Century (it's real, not a hoax). See the names of the signers of the Statement of Principals. Look at the date on that document, and several others calling for regime change in Iraq. Learn who wanted to go to war with Iraq several years before they became the power elite in the Bush Administration.

Second, the US$300 Billion spent on the war in Iraq (a country that had nothing to do with 911) could have been better spent on setting up intelligence and defense strategies to prevent another attack. And it would have cost far fewer dollars and far fewer innocent civilian's lives.

Anuradha Chepur wrote:
Bush being passive means more terror attacks. Who'd be fond of them?
On the other hand, war is a bitter pill nobody loves.

Bush being aggressive has created a more dangerous world, more terror attacks around the world than any time in history, and has been the motivation for the highest number of new recruits for Islamic Extremist than ever before. Even Bush's own administration published a report that states these facts.

What, other than the Bush Administration's insistence, makes you believe your assertion?
_________________
Daniel

�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
pugachevV



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 2295

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:29 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Reality check - Coulda, woulda, shoulda, is pointless.
America DID go to Iraq. All the whining and complaining from the left hand side of America is not helping the country.
In case you weren't in New York on 9/11 and are too obtuse to realise it - America is in a war. Because it is not being fouight like all the other wars doesn't mean that the barbarians are not at the gates.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
pugachevV



Joined: 16 Jan 2003
Posts: 2295

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 6:38 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

BTC I googled the press conference you referred to and Bush barely mentioned god at all, so if you're going to say you have conclusively proved this, that and the other then get your source straight.
And for god's sake - can the pomp and circumstance.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
beancurdturtle



Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:01 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Your quote:
pugachevV wrote:
Bush is doing what he is doing in the name of the USA.
When he talks about God he is doing it on his own behalf.
Bin Laden and his ilk say they are doing their dirty deeds in the name of God.
Bush has never said that.


You say "Bush has never..." I provide proof that Bush has done deeds because he believes God tells him to do them. Your response is:
pugachevV wrote:
Bush barely mentioned god at all, so if you're going to say you have conclusively proved this, that and the other then get your source straight.

You said "never." You were wrong. Get your own quote straight.

pugachevV wrote:
And for god's sake - can the pomp and circumstance.

I use simple argumentation; assertions supported by fact or valid sources. That's not pomp and circumstance.

It seems that you try to discredit me personally when you find the facts I present to be inconvenient to your arguments. I have more regard for facts than my own ego, so your groundless attempts to discredit me have no effect as far as I am concerned.
_________________
Daniel

�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Edoardo



Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Venice, Italy

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:21 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

beancurdturtle wrote:
Edoardo wrote:
In any case, Iraqi war has not been made in order to kill civilians.

I understand your explanation, but I disagree with your logic. You are also re-defining the word "terrorist" in saying "But a terrorist thinks just..." to support your position.

We build our language, not the dictionary. We aren't supposed to follow strictly our dictionary. We are supposed to update it constantly.



beancurdturtle wrote:

You seem to be saying that terrorism requires a specific intent to kill civilians, and therefore the Bush administration should be absolved for the atrocities it has sponsored. Please re-examine the definition of terrorism. Specifically "the calculated use of violence (or threat of violence) against civilians..."

I do not want to absolve anyone. War is war. People die. But confusing ordinary war and terrorism is the kind of thought we do not need.



beancurdturtle wrote:

I'm sure you heard of the "Shock and Awe" strategy employed by the U.S. during the pre-invasion bombardment of Baghdad. The "Shock and Awe" requires the effective demonstration of the capacity to destroy civilian targets to create an implicit threat of violence.

Yes. That's way they call them "shock and awe". Because they just show their capacities. It is a very old strategy, that has always been applied in every modern war...



beancurdturtle wrote:

The official Bush administration rhetoric regarding the justification for the war against Iraq has changed so many times that neither you or I can say why it was "made." But I can say that "civilian targets" were destroyed, and tens of thousands of civilians have been killed in an unnecessary war. To call it "collateral damage" does not excuse this fact. And the end (which in any case can no longer be identified) does not justify the means.

The end justifies the means. This statement was written by italian thinker Niccolò Machiavelli (1469-1527) in his political essay The Prince (1513).
The Prince is the head of the state. (If written nowadays, the essay would have been entitled, probably, The President.). For his highest status, the prince must not follow any religious or moral rules, nor any law, but only the interests of the country.
His only end, which is high and noble, is the safety of the state. Only such a noble purpose justifies the means. To reach this target, the prince is allowed to strumentalize religion, kill people, make wars, and many other immoral and outlaw things that the author himself suggests in his book.
That's it. Bush broke out this war because it was thought to be useful to both the countries, Iraq and USA. As I've already say, this is the only thing which could justify him.

(You will tell me "yeah, 500 year ago people were all stupid, now we live in the space age..." If they were, we wouldn't talk about these themes anymore. Leaders do never follow ordinary rules. Most of all, leaders still read The Prince. Think about it...)



beancurdturtle wrote:

Again, I do not support, and will not and cannot make excuses for, the actions of Islamic Extremists. But Islamic Extremists are not the only "terrorists" in this case. I strongly denounce all terrorism, including Bush Administration sponsored terrorism.

I do not follow this kind of relativism. You can't put so different cultures and societies on the same plan.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edoardo



Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Venice, Italy

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:36 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

flying_pig319 wrote:

Starting a war IS "killing intentionally". The wording is just propoganda.


I agree with you. War is always supposed to kill people. And wars are fought only if the one who starts believes to gain, first of all, some economic advantage. First, the money. Then come freedom, liberties, democracy, and all the rights... Rolling Eyes
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Edoardo



Joined: 19 Sep 2006
Posts: 111
Location: Venice, Italy

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:45 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Anuradha Chepur wrote:
Being passive means more terror attacks.


No, that's the opposite... When we are passive, then terrorists pass to the good manners, while if we fight them and their ideas, then they start fighting, too... In fact, In Europe it is so... Coward politicians fear terrorists attacks and for this they respect their ideas and try to do not anything which could offend fanatics... It sounds crazy but it's true.
I think it is worth to fight. First of all, culturally.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ClarissaMach



Joined: 18 May 2006
Posts: 642
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brazil

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 8:59 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Mrs Anuradha, I usually agree with most of the things you say, but this is not the case this time.

Just a few comments over your words:

Anuradha Chepur wrote:

One day, terrorists from the Middle East crash a plane each into its centres of administration and economy.


They way it’s written, it sounds like the terrorist simply choose to attack the USA for no reason at all. I’m not saying that the Americans deserved what happened; but please, let’s not pretend that the terrorists picked up the USA “by chance”. There are historical reasons for that.


Anuradha Chepur wrote:

So they decide they need to act. The idea is to clear up the middle east of its dictators and terrorist run governments. The world would be better off if these places are democracies. Now since those dictators can’t be requested to step down, invasion becomes a necessary evil. It was asked for.


My only question is: why only now the USA found out that the world would be better off if these places were democracies? Why they didn’t think of it during the years of Reagan’s term, when the government collaborated with Saddam Hussein’s dictatorship (not to mention other thousands of dictatorships supported by it all around the world, including in Latin American countries like Brazil and Argentina).

Please, understand that I am not saying that the USA administrators should do nothing to protect their country; what I’m trying to say is that what’s going on there nowadays is a consequence of years of the “big stick” policy, and these terrible things will continue to happen unless the American government changes its foreign policy. Instead of simply invading and attacking more and more countries in the Middle East, I think they should ask themselves: “hey, why is it happening to us?”. Some argue the other countries envy the USA… it’s ridiculous! If it was a question of envy, a lot of countries would be trying to destroy Canada or Sweden, don’t you think?

Can’t Americans see that all the destruction their government is causing will keep getting back to them?
_________________
Stormy Weather.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
ad-miral



Joined: 01 Sep 2006
Posts: 1488

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 9:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

beancurdturtle wrote:
However, examining what Bush DID say proves a great deal.
George W. Bush wrote:
I am driven with a mission from God. God would tell me, 'George go and fight these terrorists in Afghanistan'. And I did. And then God would tell me 'George, go and end the tyranny in Iraq'. And I did. And now, again, I feel God's words coming to me, 'Go get the Palestinians their state and get the Israelis their security, and get peace in the Middle East'. And, by God, I'm gonna do it.

This proves that the most powerful Armed Forces in the world are under the control of a man who follows the direction of voices in his head. And that is nothing less than frightening.

I will grant you that the Islamic (and Christian) Terrorists do invoke the word of God in their actions. And I believe that this is the height of perversion of the intent of spiritual faith. But this is an entirely different issue than George Bush hearing voices in his head.


RedRose wrote:
Edoardo wrote:
In any case, Iraqi war has not been made in order to kill civilians.
.


In any case, Iraqi war has been made in order to snatch Iraqi oil and wealth.


I'm so happy that redrose also contributed herself to this talk and I'm so glad that you all understand what I wanted to say so well.
_________________
If I say "I love you" to someone, then I also have to say "I also love everyone else inside you, I love the whole world because of you, I also love myself inside you." -- Erich Fromm, the Art of Love
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
beancurdturtle



Joined: 23 Aug 2006
Posts: 1041
Location: Southern California

PostPosted: Thu Oct 12, 2006 10:43 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Edoardo wrote:
We build our language, not the dictionary. We aren't supposed to follow strictly our dictionary. We are supposed to update it constantly.
Language evolves through common usage. You cannot arbitrarily change the definition of a word to support your personal opinion or argument.

Edoardo wrote:
I do not want to absolve anyone. War is war. People die. But confusing ordinary war and terrorism is the kind of thought we do not need.
I did not confuse anything. I provided a concise definition for the word "terrorism" provided by a very reputable source (Princeton University). Then I demonstrated that some of the actions of the Bush administration meet the definition. The fact this causes you cognitive dissonance does not mean it is not true - and certainly shouldn't preclude it from being discussed.

I understand you disagree with my opinion, but your dismissal "[it] is the kind of thought we do not need" is neither constructive nor convincing. If you disagree, state your opinion and support it. That's completely appropriate as far as I am concerned.

Edoardo wrote:
Yes. That's way they call them "shock and awe". Because they just show their capacities. It is a very old strategy, that has always been applied in every modern war...
You could also say that torture during interrogation is a very old strategy. Stating an irrelevant fact doesn't prove your point. Just because shock and awe is a "very old strategy" doesn't excuse it's use. It's designed to create fear in civilians, and is therefor a form of terrorism. Do you condone terrorism because it is a very old strategy?

Edoardo wrote:
(You will tell me "yeah, 500 year ago people were all stupid, now we live in the space age..." If they were, we wouldn't talk about these themes anymore. Leaders do never follow ordinary rules. Most of all, leaders still read The Prince. Think about it...)
I will tell you nothing of the sort. I am a Philosophical Daoist, which means I live my life in accordance with a philosophy more than 2,000 years old. I am completely cognizant of the fact that space age science has nothing to do with wisdom. And even regular people like me have read The Prince - though I read it more than 20 years ago.

Leaders in the U.S.A. are supposed to follow ordinary rules. The U.S. Constitution requires that everyone - including the President - follow the rule-of-law. Just because the Machiavellian George Bush finds the law inconvenient to his goals does not excuse him from following the law.

Edoardo wrote:
I do not follow this kind of relativism. You can't put so different cultures and societies on the same plan.
I did not put different cultures and societies on the same plane. I showed how actions of the Bush administration can be interpreted as terrorism according to a valid definition of the word. Objective analysis of the definition and the actions puts the actions (not the cultures and societies) in the same class.
_________________
Daniel

�Be who you are and say what you feel because those who mind don't matter and those who matter don't mind.�
--Dr. Seuss
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website
Anuradha Chepur



Joined: 20 May 2006
Posts: 932

PostPosted: Fri Oct 13, 2006 1:42 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Clarissa, I’m happy to know you and I think alike mostly. To say “US was picked for attacks because of its policies. . .” is to justify terrorism. Terror is in other countries too. It happens in India day in and day out. We are so used to it, that we just skip the column in the newspaper and read the next.

Edoardo, in most places, leaders try to keep fanatics in good humor. But here we have a country with some guts.

BCT:
Quote:
What, other than the Bush Administration's insistence, makes you believe your assertion?


I will always allow some self interest to every political leader in the Milky Way. As long as the the “hidden interest” theories are inconsistent – sometimes oil, sometimes God’s voice, sometimes self interest of coterie, father’s revenge you name it; I will believe in what is glaringly obvious - 911 triggered the war. Had it not been for 911, I doubt if they would visit Iraq.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Dave's ESL Cafe's Student Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current News All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 5 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


Dave's ESL Cafe is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Banner Advertising | Bookstore / Alta Books | FAQs | Articles | Interview with Dave
Copyright © 1995-2011 Dave's ESL Cafe | All Rights Reserved | Contact Dave's ESL Cafe | Site Map

Teachers College, Columbia University: Train to Teach English Here or Abroad
SIT
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group