I am glad you agree with me that there is no justification in
killing of innocents.
But I am sadden that you would view terrorists as people.
At the time when men, on free will, started seeking divine
guidance, the world was a different and more barbaric than the one
today.
As such, sacred religious texts were a record of divine
instructions to handle the barbarism of yestereons, which has
little relevance to today, as mankind had evolved into civilised
and thinking beings, saved for those who still live in backward
regions of our world with little or no freedom or even basic human
rights of which religions were the basic building blocks so that we
may all live in peace with one another in a civilised and shared
world.
Whatever religion one believes in, the very basic belief is that we
were created by a Supreme Being. Just as a father or a mother whom
will weep when their innocent son or daughter is cut down
brutually and senselessly, so to will our creator weep at
the destruction of His creation, given the precious gift of
life.
In us, lays a part of His nature and that is love and concern.
How else can we account for miracles - seemingly impossible odds
becoming possible, even as a man of science that i am and cannot
account for it scientifically, excpet to put in down to the love
and concern shown by our Creator?
Each of us in time, eventually will seek our Creator, the way a
prodigal son will return to seek his parents after realizing that
we are flawed and imperfect despite the hubris of our intelligence
and limits to our humanly capabilities to effect changes.
Thus, who has that right to claim the lives of innocents,
destroying the work and gifts of our Creator, except beasts who
deny all rights to humans such as wild animals or a destructor
commonly known amongst the religious as Satan?
And isnt it worse if you sympathise with these animals and going
against our Creator?
I will not deny that there are disagreements that would cause
unhappiness. But we thinking and rational beings. Diplomacy is
always the best solution to find ways of compromises, which had
worked for centuries.
Strikes, protests, riots, and even unavoidable wars are
comprehensible, for in our flawed ways, we have yet to evolve to
full enlightenment.
We need to learn from our mistakes inorder that we grow. At
least in the above mentioned cases, it happens only amongst
combatants, people whom are prepared mentally and physically to
give as much as they will receive and know full well the price they
have to pay.
There is no need to resort to killing of innocents or sympathising
with the animals. Specific targetting of innocents is an
abomination, to both religious and secularists humans!
By saying that "terrorists" are not people, not human beings,
you are showing how barbaric and
hypocritical YOU are while at the same time, using
religious connotations to put on a pretense of moral superiority.
It is this kind of sick mentality that fuels the Eugenics movement.
That not all human beings are equal. Darwin's Origins of Species is
also titled "The Preservation of Favoured Races in the
Struggle For Life". Hitler also believed in this kind of sick
thinking and that resulted in the Holocaust of 6 million+ human
beings.
Who gave you the right to strip another human being of his
inherent nature? Are you God?
I absolutely agree that killing civilians is deplorable. If
Islamic radicals do it, they should be punished under the Law. But
if (Western) governments do it, everything is whitewashed?
During WWII, the Allies firebombed Dresden and killed about 40,000
civilians even though the Germans were by all standards defeated.
Thats not including the many instances of indiscriminate bombing of
civilian targets. Granted, it was a war against fascism (really?),
but I still dont understand why Standard Oil, IBM and
others, supported IG Farden's militarist transformation of
Germany. Then the US atomic-bombed Japan even though Japan
was also by all means defeated. Even the 1946 US Strategic
Bombing Survey concluded that the atomic bombings were unnecessary.
In fact, it was a psychological tool to scare the world (and the
Soviets) into submission. During the Korean War, the US bombed
refugees. Have all these been conveniently ignored?
When the US/NATO bombed Yugoslavia and balkanised that country,
backing war criminal Hashim Thaci, was for freedom and
democracy?
A while ago, I posted this on another thread:
"Under the the "Violent Radicalisation and Homegrown Terrorism
Act", HR 1955 awaiting senate vote in the US:
"The term `homegrown terrorism' means the use, planned use, or
threatened use, of force or violence by a
group or individual..."
What is the difference between force and violence in the
physical sense? Or are they supposed to mean two things?
Besides the sense of physical violence, force could mean:
1. Intellectual power or vigor, especially as conveyed in
writing or speech.
2. A capacity for affecting the mind or behavior
Substituted into the definition of HR 1955, these two
definitions of "force" makes HR 1955 seem designed to criminalise
dissent. Now, is this too far-fetch'd a conclusion to reach?"
Decades ago, governments usually called their opponents
"communist". Today, the label seems to be "terrorist". In the US,
the TSA has a terrorist watch-list which has surpassed 1 million
and growing. Do you think that there are 1 million potential
terrorists in the US? For your information, many on that list are
dissidents or activists that have been criminalised for opposing
the US Government. When you and other people take away from
"terrorists" inherent rights of human beings, how are you morally
superior to say, the people in charge of Guantanamo Bay? As
important, like how HR 1955 and the PATRIOT Act show,
dissent can be labelled as "terrorist" acts and punished
accordingly.
If there are really Islamic terrorists wrecking havoc, then I
also condemn that. But not as far as to deny them humanity.
Excusing all other perpetrators of barbaric acts of violence and
focusing on demonised groups that the MSM puts on, is just plain
idiotic.
Accuse me of putting forward "conspiracy theories" all you want.
The violence against US forces in Iraq is mostly resistance
from the Iraqi people to the occupation. While the US invades a
overwhelmingly inferior country in the name of non-existent WMDs in
a blatant act of aggression, to steal its oil wealth, it can call
its opponents "'terrorists" and people like you swallow that lie,
and conveniently forget the inconvenient truth.
You're probably as Christian as GWB then.
