Muslims starting boycot against Denmark.

[la_reina]

So you and your Muslim friends had an arguement over this?

[Dijesolo]

This is crazy..

[Ravincal]

Well, yes.. But I spoke with them today, and they are apologizing for what they did.

Phew..

[la_reina]

That's great It's horrible how situations like these tear apart friendships, really...

[Only-now]

Wow, so now I am a liar as well? So you are saying that I KNOW war doesn't bring peace, but I choose to say it does instead. THAT would be a lie, and THAT is not the case at all. You need to get a lot of things straight man.

You know what IS a lie? The fact you said you didn't like this thread, because you wouldn't come back if you didn't (which is fine with me), and secondly that you aren't saying anything personal. ALL of your statements are directed towards me, personally. You have called me a liar and a sinner all because my view on the issue is that war can and does bring peace in certain situations. Given, it is not the first resort, but it is the last, and thus it will be used when the time is right, and it WILL bring peace. So I guess war did not bring any peace to Europe when Hitler took over? Instead, they should have allowed him to conquer and destroy as he pleased?

Also, the fact that he puts the blame somewhere else other than right on the terrorists IS justifying it. It is almost as if he was saying it isn't their fault. They make the choice whether to use violence or not. We have the choice too, and we would do a better job using it...but for some reason, that is NOT the idealogy of the United States, or most of Europe. The terrorists are human beings...evil human beings.

Oh, and yes Eva. Makes me upset too, but Im sure it won't last too much longer. This thread is dying, and so is the real issue in real life. On a side note: *hugs and kisses his lovely Eva* Love you!

~Kiva

[Dijesolo]

Kiva, think twice before putting WW2 in. The WW2 war didn't bring peace at all in Europe, maybe in the Pacific, I dno. But, what exactly happened after world war 2? The cold war came forth and it first ended in... What.. 88-89? So It took 45 years to get real peace into Europe once again.

As you know, it was VERY close to go into another war at the Berlin Wall, I don't remember the story, but I know it was VERY close.

- Dij

[nathalie]

Come on people ...

An opinion isn't something you can really argue about.
Everyone has it's own, we may agree with it, we may not agree with it.

[Dijesolo]

Yeah, sorry got off-topic there Nathalie =)

My opinion on this? Well, if it's getting any worse.. My officer tells me I'm being send out to guard... *sigh* a ambassade... And I doubt I will survive that =(

[nathalie]

Hopefully it won't come to that

[Only-now]

I know there wasnt complete peace, but you can't aruge that if we would have done nothing about Hitler in a military manner, Europe would have been more peaceful. The cold war didn't really involve any actual fighting (thus Cold War), but it was more peaceful than if we had avoided war and let Hitler do as he pleased.

~Kiva

[unregistered user]

Originally posted by nathalie
Come on people ...

An opinion isn't something you can really argue about.
Everyone has it's own, we may agree with it, we may not agree with it.

That's your opinion

[nathalie]

Well, I got that from someone else accually, haha


*edit*
And Hitler did kind of what he pleased back then.
All those Jews who "had" to die :s

[Only-now]

Well, what I meant was that he would have kept taking over countries..and though it was horrible that 6 million Jews died (11 million people in all) I think it would have been much higher had we done nothing. So it is another piece of evidence that points towards a good result from a war when it was necessary. In my OPINION that is

[Huma]

Wow, so now I am a liar as well? So you are saying that I KNOW war doesn't bring peace, but I choose to say it does instead. THAT would be a lie, and THAT is not the case at all. You need to get a lot of things straight man.

I am not all-knowing, but from my observation back when I posted, you don't love peace, you just use this term as cover and justification of your true favor - war and violance. If peace is truely what you seek, and war is your method, you are not lier, you're the one pretty screwed by this lie.

You know what IS a lie? The fact you said you didn't like this thread, because you wouldn't come back if you didn't (which is fine with me)

Call me whatever you want and I won't defend myself. I damaged my reputation to tell something, it's all that matters you and others are better informed.

You have called me a liar and a sinner all because my view on the issue is that war can and does bring peace in certain situations. Given, it is not the first resort, but it is the last, and thus it will be used when the time is right, and it WILL bring peace.

"war as last resort" is from what you said lately, never said in the post I quoted you, and it is a catchy phrase beside the point. wars are more the "last resort" for a political entity to sustain its life than the "last resort" for people to live. And how many times the war was used as the "last resort"? not once in twentieth century when materialism was behind most of conflicts.

So I guess war did not bring any peace to Europe when Hitler took over? Instead, they should have allowed him to conquer and destroy as he pleased?

Tell me how Hitler could take over the Europe if not by war? Defensive side in a war is just, who is defensive side? By well-writen laws and international agreement, the side that fought on their own ground.

Also, the fact that he puts the blame somewhere else other than right on the terrorists IS justifying it. It is almost as if he was saying it isn't their fault.

Just turn your dictionary or whatever source you can find besides media and look for word "Terrorists". I doubt if they would write "Terrorists are Afghanistani, Irani, and Sadam". In mine, it says

Terrorist. n. One that engages in acts or an act of terrorism.

According to this source, the word "terrorist" is appended to "terrorism" instead of other way around. In fact, you can't define terrorists without term "terrorism" and then condemn everything they do "an act of terrorism", you have to distinguish which deed is "an act of terrorism" first. So, I will say terrorism is not terrorists' fault, rather, terrorists are produced by terrorism. That is exactly what I said in my second last post, and I made another important point in same section:terrorism is an idea very close to the idea of war, they are built on same base: "violence makes submission." that's why war can never eliminate terrorism, you killed/incapacitate terrorists only to strengthen their ideology and make more people believe in it.

We have the choice too, and we would do a better job using it...but for some reason, that is NOT the idealogy of the United States, or most of Europe. The terrorists are human beings...evil human beings.

I don't concern what your and your nation's choices are and I take no interest in altering them. Acutually, I don't even consider this is my place to consult between you and your blind patriotism. "that is NOT the idealogy of the United States, or most of Europe." exactly, and why? Because the some vioce within them have failed to speak, or because some ear of their people have failed to listen. Either case, it is the responsibility of her people and of her people only to keep a country's deed just. Thus I never criticized one single country though I count quite a few of them evil bringers. I will keep this to you, and your country, consider what's the best for by yourself, and you're informed.

[unregistered user]

I don't mind the point of views guys, but please keep it off a personal level I'd appreciate it...

=)

[Huma]

I used figuration, logic and literature to prove my point, if that's what you want to ask. But otherwise, yeah, truth is "THE" truth, everyone has the right and responsibility to clarify the truth from lies including me.

[lion_roog]

I agree with kiva on WW2. that was a nasty situation to be in...one the United States tried hard to stay out of (until Pearl Harbor)...so many people were killed by everyone, even though Hitler killed them willingly. Besides the Holocaust, carpet bombings accounted for many civilian deaths...I know that 100,000 people alone died in the carpet bombing of Dresden, Germany...can't name any other instances, even though Tokyo comes to mind, can't put a number on it, though.

And someone brought up the Cold War, which was another nasty time in history, with the threat of nuclear war very real.

And let's not get into semantics on the word "terrorist" and "terrorism"...we all should know that an act of terrorism would make the offending party a terrorist

[Sadiki]

Originally posted by lion_roog
can't name any other instances, even though Tokyo comes to mind, can't put a number on it, though.

do you mean Atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? if you do, then in Hiroshima there died 145 000 people which 70 000 died immidietly and around 75 000 because of radiation within next 5 years. In Nagasaki died around 75 000 people plus that thousends got serious injuries.

I seriuslly wish people would open their eyes and discuss about problems and try to prevent any haras actions in any way it is possible. for me it just seems that for some people, dignity is more important then thousends of lives... like if Denmark had appology in a way they asked them to, would of this all happend? just beacause of not thinking where something may lead, thousends will suffer. even thought I have to say that both sides have act stupid in many ways... and both are being way stubborn about the whole thing.

[lion_roog]

Originally posted by SimbaTheMighty
do you mean Atomic bomb in Nagasaki and Hiroshima? if you do, then in Hiroshima there died 145 000 people which 70 000 died immidietly and around 75 000 because of radiation within next 5 years. In Nagasaki died around 75 000 people plus that thousends got serious injuries.

Naw, the atomic bombs were pretty much a given...but I believe Tokyo and other cities were carpet bombed...but Dresden, to my knowledge, is where actual neighborhoods were targeted for the purposes of killing the Nazis who had taken refuge in the city limits.

[Only-now]

I don't want to make this personal again, but it was made personal agianst me. The only reason I am going to say what I will, is because it is the only thing left to say.

Huma, you did not prove anything with what you said. In fact, many of the quotes you put in your post, you refuted with something that was irrelevant to what you posted. I don't want to waste anymore energy trying to explain my point of view to someone who obviously has the logic of a 5 year old. You REALLY need to grow up and, oh yeah your "naive" is showing.

I didn't say this because he disagrees with my point of view, but because 1) He is SO misinformed about reality, and 2) He has insulted me personally by calling me a liar and a sinner because I do not agree with his point of view.

I find it hard to believe that I came across as someone who just wants to promote war in any circumstance immediately. So one last thing, and then I will move on with CIVILIZED discussion:

Most disliked person on Lea: -! (no that isn't supposed to make you feel bad, etc, just stating my opinion on THAT one too)

*pats all the SMART people on the back* (sorry, I am just annoyed with this person)

~The Truthful, Honest, Caring, Intelligent, Lion Kiva!