Muslims starting boycot against Denmark.

[Only-now]

I see...well, in my OPINION that is a very naive point of view, but I will "try" no further.

~Kiva

[nathalie]

You may think about others opinions what you want, that's your choice.
But I happen to think about it like that.

[Juniper]

Personally, I'd very much like to avoid further confrontation, as I may end up fighting, and dying, in this war, and frankly, I'd very much prefer to not die like that. I don't think that's naive, cowardly, "Liberal", or whatever; I'd like to see anyone else here say they'd be happy to die in such a way, or wouldn't have second thoughts. I think people who say so are fools or liars. That doesn't mean I won't be there if my country needs me, if the military were to need me, I'd enlist; I do, however, think war should be avoided and used as a last resort. Personally, I think anyone who supports war in any instance where it isn't the absolute last resort better be the first in line to sign up.

[Only-now]

I never said it should be the first resort, in fact..I think the point was that that is what could end up being the only way to gain peace. I never said I would be happy to kill anyone, or fight, or die. I just said that to think that war should never be fought IS a naive viewpoint. That is what you teach to a child in gradeschool, who needs to understand that violence is bad. The world is more complex than that, and sometimes war IS the answer. There are people however, that believe that certain things in the world are worth fighting..and possibly dying for. That doesn't mean you embrace it..it means you are willing to stand up for it. That is exactly the point of it...that you are scared, but it means enough for you to give your life. The people who do believe in such things, ARE the first to sign up.

I guess anytime some endorses war, or says that this is the way to stop this violence, etc..they are instantly a war mongor. I mean, that IS the viewpoint..because for example..people ignore all the resolutions given to Iraq by the world...a peaceful diplomatic solution..and say that we went straight to war.

All I was saying is that it does get to a point where war is the only way to get peace..and if you are too naive to realize that sometimes people have to die (and are willing to) for a greater good...it is YOUR problem..and I do mean problem.

~Kiva

[Juniper]

Originally posted by Only-now
I never said it should be the first resort, in fact..I think the point was that that is what could end up being the only way to gain peace. I never said I would be happy to kill anyone, or fight, or die. I just said that to think that war should never be fought IS a naive viewpoint. That is what you teach to a child in gradeschool, who needs to understand that violence is bad. The world is more complex than that, and sometimes war IS the answer. There are people however, that believe that certain things in the world are worth fighting..and possibly dying for. That doesn't mean you embrace it..it means you are willing to stand up for it. That is exactly the point of it...that you are scared, but it means enough for you to give your life. The people who do believe in such things, ARE the first to sign up.

But you will you be signing up as well? I have little doubt that I'll be signing up within the next year or two. Do you believe that this freedom is worth you giving your life for, or is it only worth someone else giving their life for? I never said war shouldn't be fought, but I do get annoyed by people who call for war but have never considered fighting that war; if you're one of those people, then your opinion has little weight to me, if you're not, then I'm happy to see someone backing up their words with action.

[lion_roog]

haha....I like how peace is being mentioned as if it actually exists...The world has never known peace and it never will...there is always a conflict somewhere at sometime...hell, with just the United States alone we have invaded or militarily (is that a word) intervened in over 90 countries within the last century, to my knowledge.

[Juniper]

Perfect peace doesn't exist, but peace does. There's plenty of times in the past when we've been relatively peaceful, and there'll be those times in the future as well. Even if peace is nothing more than an idealistic thought, it exists because it has to exist. If it didn't exist, there'd be no reason to hate war and fighting (not that it isn't necessary, I do agre with Kiva that it's necessary in some situations).

[lion_roog]

I guess I was refering to the concept of World Peace.

[Juniper]

Ah, well, I think World Peace will happen some day, even if for just a few seconds in between the ever changing issues of nations. Something to look forward to/hope for at least.

[unregistered user]

I don't believe, no war isn't the only ulterior motif to peace. But dealing with the cards stacked against us, it's the only viable behaviour and recourse we have. So I WILL not voluntarily goto war; but if they need me, without question, I will! I'd also fight for most of Europe, Japan, and Australia.

"God save the World, because there's no one else who can."

[Only-now]

My point wasn't about me and you. It was about the concept of fighting for something greater than yourself. I said, that there are many people hwo exist who believe in such a thing, and that those people are the ones who join first. I was also using this, to show that her viewpoint was one that did not consider the greater good that comes from a war. That to get peace you need war...and the people who understand this, and feel strongly enough, will join the military to fight for it.

I was arguing with you, because you said you didn't want more confrontation. You actually proved what I was saying in your first post. I never said people didn't have second thoughts, etc...but that doesn't mean you don't believe. I don't join because I DO have second thoughts about dying, and leaving my family. That doesn't mean that I can't support the fact that you sometimes need war for peace, or that people do fight for something beyond themselves.

Obviously this is all being twisted out of what it was orginally supposed to be. I have considered fighting the war..and in all honesty..I don't think I would mind all that much. I do have a choice though...because of the freedom we have here...that others did believe in, sign up to defend, and died for.

Why do you think we honor out veterans so much? Because they did fight for it...for the people next to them, for the United States. They defended the people who weren't fighting..but that doesn't mean because not everyone in the US hasn't fought in a war, that they cannot support the cause that they fought for.

You really seemed to take my posts the wrong way. I never said war is the first resort, and I never said that the people who are fighting in it are just willing to die, hands down, no thought. I guess that is how you took it..somehow..but I think if you go back, that isnt what I meant.

[Juniper]

Actually, I wasn't even responding to your first post, I was putting a new idea into the discussion about the general topic of war. I had little to do with what you said any more than anyone else's posts until you responded to mine, and I needed to make sure you understand how serious a situation of war is. People die in war, people go through agonizng pain (mental, physical, or both), and people have their lives ruined; there is no real happiness in war, it is Hell on earth. There is no substitute for a human life, it is the most sacred thing on this earth. Yes, war is necessary in some instances, and I think the war going on now is somewhat necessary, but I've never held respect for someone saying freedom is worth fighting for if they haven't considered fighting for that freedom. If you realize that, and you'd at least consider fighting in the war, then I have no problem with you or your opinion, but if you're one of the many people around the world who will call for war but would never want to fight it, I'd say that's the epitome of selfishness and evil. As you fit into the former instead of the latter, I'd say we're arguing the same opinion to eachother.

[Huma]

Where do I start, well, might just start from what I want to say the most:

I want to make clear that I hate each and every minute I spend on this post. All the bits of my mind demands me to stay out, pretend never seen it, but if I do so, I would acquiescently defy my own words, my own deeds, now and forever since, and I can not drop this guilt until death.

Don??t mistake me offended for I am not, the things offended and threatened, I believe, are the things that Only-now and whom else I??m going to quote hold dear, and I will spend the rest of this post to show it to you. If those things you consider not worthy, or could be sacrificed, then call me wrong and loser.

I start here:

war DOES bring peace

Why? Maybe it??s because:

you have to feel pain before you feel pleasure. You have to makes things worse, to make them better.

Till here, this argument, like so many others, is just not making perfect sense. Not making perfect sense is not a sin, but then, some deeper voice arose:

The other side can't bring more violence, if they don't exist

-

Those statements are sins and offence and threat to the very concept you and I call ??peace??. The definition of ??peace?? is ??a static and stable state in which two or more different people/cultures/countries coexist??. I may not be accurate with definition, but the very core of both the ??peace?? and ??freedom?? concepts involve tolerance to difference. If annihilating one side in an opposition hence destroy the difference is someway to reach the peace, then the world ??peace?? could easily be attained by killing all humans on this earth to leave one, who could live in this ??peace?? and ??freedom?? never to reproduce and die. I do not want this ??peace?? and ??freedom??, I will fight to death with this ??peace?? and ??freedom??.

If I remembered correctly, the above quotation demonstrate word ??imperialism??, the exact opposite of ??peace?? and ??freedom??, in which one voice, one power make the righteousness. Actually someone just provided an example:

-

Formal British Empire sells imperialism, but they don??t advertise it using ??peace?? or ??freedom??. Thus, if someone here like this version of world, go forth say it: ??I love slavery.?? Don??t try deluding yourself by mixing war and peace, freedom and power, good and evil for all these are lies and sins.

Furthermore, there are some additional comment provided in relationship of peace and war:

The way in which the United States (since thats the only place I can speak for) fights wars, is MUCH more humane, and precise than WW1, or WW2.

This new style, or imporvement will allow us to do so without losing a large amount of men, property, or killing innocent civilians.

It??s good for Only-now that he still feels:

that is sort of a selfish viewpoint.

Nonetheless, this is not selfish, this is criminal. Method doesn??t justify the cause, this is too simple to cost my time proving, but that aside for now. The worse part is that Only-now was suggesting U.S. to go into a war in which she has no business by a reason that U.S. can hardly harm herself doing that. It is the equivalent to suggesting a man go into murder because ??guns are so good you risk little yourself??. This is a clear sin.

United States can fight a war so humane that by giving her enemies euthanasia yet it won??t be a humane war, it won??t be humane to innocent Americans who absently share a part in a wrong even evil plot, it won??t be humane to U.S. soldiers to shred their blood in a bad cause.

And are wars precise today? Maybe in the battlefield, but not the whole picture. Even weapon is precise, hatred is not. Wars today are using labeled bomb, missiles wrapped by ideology to create delusion, they suck more and more formally innocent and peaceful people into this mass by mixing truth with lie. No, war are less precise then they used to be.

I am not an antiwar enthusiast, and I??m not saying this to protect world peace. Whether U.S. or some poster here like or enjoy wars are not my business, but I??m speaking in the absence of voice that should be present for the interest of U.S. and you, Only-now??s good conscious. I won??t blame any foreigner to love to see U.S. wars, but as self-declared U.S. citizen, I accuse you, Only-now, a crime, in wishing and publicly motivating your own country into an unnecessary war.

Finally

I think if the world wants peace from these terrorists. They have to be destroyed.

This is not specifically against whom I quoted from, but against a common sense today and the biggest lie I saw in my entire life.
Terrorists, they appears in papers, TVs, video games everyday. But what are they?

Are terrorists human beings?

If they??re not, they are some highly dangerous yet highly intelligent life form besides human. We should have protected them for the use of scientific study like wildlife or started building relationship with their civilization, yet we did not. That is saying they are still human.

If terrorists are human, what do they want? Killing other human? This doesn??t fit into our understanding, history and definition of humanity. The media want us to believe that terrorists want nothing other than killing and destruction, but hell, knowledge and logic doesn??t support such existence on earth.

Terrorism is the unlawful use or threatened use of force or violence by a person or an organized group against people or property with the intention of intimidating or coercing societies or governments, often for ideological or political reasons.

So, terrorists are up for ??ideological and political reasons??. To put it more simply, they are persons have unpopular ideas as myself, but only state their mind by guns.

By this definition, if a country unlawfully(unjustly) open or threaten to open a war against another country, this is indeed a practice of terrorism. And ??because a comic made by a paper?? or ??because we have difference in freedom of speech?? are ??unlawful?? cases, so as ??they are terrorists??.

Terrorism was made by wars, abuses of violence, insufficiency and absence of listening. ??Anti-terrorist war?? is a self-contradictory term. ??anti-terrorist defense?? is more appropriate, ??anti-terrorist war?? is using the very idea of terrorism to fight terrorists only turned its own fighters into terrorists.

Indeed, terrorism must be destroyed. terrorism, not ??terrorists??, who are only human bent under this evil thought. But be warned: ??terrorism?? is not an invention of terrorists and not their patent, they??re not specific to poor people in mid-eastern countries, but rather, it lurks in all minds.




I end it here.

These are not all things I can quote and I can show, but mains are here. This is not my final comment on the subject. I do hope the truth is cleared and this can be over, but if it??s not, I will go on. Now I accused a named member and probably offended a lot more. However much freedom of speech is here, I used it. I never considered ??freedom of speech?? as ??speak whatever you want??, so I will count myself and my world lucky if this post survived.

[unregistered user]

"Those statements are sins and offence and threat to the very concept you and I call ??peace??." As I said, I apologized and I will not disavow anything that I've said.

"If I remembered correctly, the above quotation demonstrate word ??imperialism??, the exact opposite of ??peace?? and ??freedom??, in which one voice, one power make the righteousness. Actually someone just provided an example:" You know I believe you're right. I think virtual dominance is rather empirical.

You made some well-defined points yourself there, Huma. And it's very easy to sling etymologies around, but the majority of the point still shows its rearing head.

[Only-now]

Well, for one I could barely understand your post due to the way it was written, and two, I think you are totally wrong. I believe it was a bit far to call what I beleive in a sin. I do think the war is necessary, and to me, it sounds like you are trying to justify terrorism.

I guess you chose the wrong way to repsond to someone's opinion.

[lion_roog]

I don't think he was defending terrorism...just stating that people look at terrorists as being all evil, when they're human just like anyone else...but instead they are under the spell of violence and the power it wields. And I guess the other point he was trying to make is that terrorism is not just a product of the Middle East...that it's everywhere. I guess here in the United States you can say a few different groups use terrorist acts, like gangs and the KKK and the like.

[Ravincal]

There are surely Al-Qaeda in Denmark, but I doubt they are possessing bombs (As stated).

Well, no matter.. I got this link from a friend: www.sorrynorwaydenmark.com

What's your opinion in THIS?

[Huma]

Originally posted by Only-now
[B]Well, for one I could barely understand your post due to the way it was written, and two, I think you are totally wrong. I believe it was a bit far to call what I beleive in a sin. I do think the war is necessary, and to me, it sounds like you are trying to justify terrorism.

Think as you want that the war is necessary, but for whatever necessity it is, it's not for peace. If you don't believe in peace, fine, again, I'm not pacificist. But it's not me justifying terrorism for I said it should be destroied, it's you who seek justification of war in peace. That's why I have to give those words their true meaning.

You might consider what you said not a big deal, but it has its effects and consequences. One of them is my anger. I admit my accusation is out of anger, but it's a anger not of mind but of conscience.

I guess you chose the wrong way to repsond to someone's opinion.

As long as you're trying to justify wrongness by some fancy good term, there isn't any opinion here, there is only right or wrong here. If you just say:" I love wars", you put your bet on my repsond is "oh yeaaah". But what you said is "war is right because war brought us peace." no matter you realized it or not, you're stating not on the level of "opinion", it's on the level of "lie". If you want to use facts, examples or logic or even more lies to prove "war DOES bring peace", go ahead and I will defeat each and every one of them. If you don't have anything more on this matter, let's say it is a lie.

I think I don't have to prove that I hold nothing personal againt you or your ideology, you barely know me. But now, you have raisen this into the level of justification. if you say "I just think that way, I don't seek justification." I will apologize to you and go back to "opinion" level, otherwise, I won't back down to tolerate a lie in any form of an "opinion".

[Eva Janus]

I'm quite irritated and getting more tense as I read more about this situation. I just read an article on this event in my class right now and it's making me so angry. My reasoning is more personal, I guess... but... It makes me angry that the burning of flags and trying to raid an embassy etc was all because of a comic being published. The Christians and Jews etc don't do those kind of acts because they are offended by something. There are tons of comics and such criticizing or whatever of the varioud religions and the Muslims are the only ones who decide to bomb or burn things, etc. It makes me so angry... Also, (the reason it's kind of personal) I have a good friend who lives over in Denmark. He's quite angry about the whole ordeal as well. I tend to be one of the friends where: e.g. My friend is sad, therefore I'm sad aslo. Not all the time, but for my close friends I usually am.

It's insane and it's getting me all worked up. I hope it gets all sorted out though... I don't want to hear of another war breaking out or something. That would really suck...

[Ravincal]

Alot of danish people is sad, including me. I had so much muslims friends.. Well I THOUGHT they were my friends.. Until that horrible day.