Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

MerlinsByte · Jul 7, 2005, 12:07 pm

We should change the name terrorists to cowards. I can at least understand why a freedom fighter would resort to guerrilla tactics against military targets to accomplish their goals. It is a rather unsavory tactic but an accepted one.

Only cowards intentionally target babies and mothers. And subhuman cowards gloat about it. As a open theist christian all life is sacred, but god help me I would kill these disgraceful bastards myself. Yes I would.

Trotsky · Jul 7, 2005, 12:15 pm

Quote:

Quote by: MerlinsByte

We should change the name terrorists to cowards. I can at least understand why a freedom fighter would resort to guerrilla tactics against military targets to accomplish their goals. It is a rather unsavory tactic but an accepted one.

Only cowards intentionally target babies and mothers. And subhuman cowards gloat about it. As a open theist christian all life is sacred, but god help me I would kill these disgraceful bastards myself. Yes I would.

Merlin, don't lower yourself to that level mate, not worth it. Its just exactly what they want!

tinybear · Jul 7, 2005, 12:16 pm

I agree with Merlin. Terrorists deserve no mercy because they have shown none.

Trotsky · Jul 7, 2005, 12:23 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

I agree with Merlin. Terrorists deserve no mercy because they have shown none.

Nope can't do that, punish the guilty to the fullness of the law. BUT we must retain our dignity and our respect for the rule of law, and not decend into the barbarism of these monsters.

gr8fuldaniel · Jul 7, 2005, 12:30 pm

Quote:

Quote by: MerlinsByte

As a open theist christian all life is sacred, but god help me I would kill these disgraceful bastards myself. Yes I would.

Your religion is only superficial then?
Why cowards though? It seems they are brave enough, but you want to hurt their feelings.
Who is they? Are you directing your anger (which is justified and normal) toward the right people? Do you know who did it or are you willing to believe the terrorists are Iranian, if your own government tells you it was, just to have an excuse to attack Iran. Why do terrorists choose civilian targets?
Your government wants you to turn to them as a savior. Your government wants you to be so afraid you will surrender your civil rights even though this will not make you safer at all. Dont beg the government for a police state, once you have that, do you ever go back to freedom? No.
Abolish the Patriot Act.

ibm · Jul 7, 2005, 12:34 pm

no one will think killing the innocent, esp. women and children, is not an evil and barbaric act. but personally, i don't see the terrorists as cowards. and i don't believe what they gloat is the part of killing women and children. as much as i hate them, i don't see them as cowards.

**Matt W** · Jul 7, 2005, 12:35 pm

How is this political, mb? Moving to Misc.

gr8fuldaniel · Jul 7, 2005, 12:37 pm

Keep in mind that civilians were probably targeted because we (or rather bush/blair) target civilians. If the attack was not coordinated by our (not including me) coalition black death squads, that is.

If our mercenaries will attack Iraqi hospitals and weddings and women and children, why not a subway in London?

gr8fuldaniel · Jul 7, 2005, 12:40 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Matt W

How is this political, mb? Moving to Misc.

So terrorists are a social club?

lsbskins1 · Jul 7, 2005, 12:50 pm

I would like Tiny Bear or someone of similar ideology to explain how they can believe that it is acceptable to respond in kind to what they say they deplore. If you believe that every human deserves to be afforded certain rights, how can you advocate taking those basic fundemental rights away just because the person you take them from does not adhere to that view-point? I fall back on this argument (a Christian one) because it seems to me to be fairly self-evident: Jesus did not come for the saints, he came for the sinners. Work with me and extend the logic. It is when you are dealing with those who do not share that fundemental ideal (that all life matters, that when you show callous indifference to any human, you set yourself on the path to indifference to everyone) that it is most essential to adhere to that principle. Am I insane? Do I completely miss the essence and point of ethical principles?

**Matt W** · Jul 7, 2005, 12:58 pm

Quote:

So terrorists are a social club?

How is advocating a 'name change' anything but a rant? Is it a serious political discussion? Answers on a postcard....

ibm · Jul 7, 2005, 12:59 pm

isbskins1, i am not a christian, but i appreciate the way you addressed it.

tinybear · Jul 7, 2005, 01:02 pm

Quote:

Quote by: lsbskins1

I would like Tiny Bear or someone of similar ideology to explain how they can believe that it is acceptable to respond in kind to what they say they deplore. If you believe that every human deserves to be afforded certain rights, how can you advocate taking those basic fundemental rights away just because the person you take them from does not adhere to that view-point? I fall back on this argument (a Christian one) because it seems to me to be fairly self-evident: Jesus did not come for the saints, he came for the sinners. Work with me and extend the logic. It is when you are dealing with those who do not share that fundemental ideal (that all life matters, that when you show callous indifference to any human, you set yourself on the path to indifference to everyone) that it is most essential to adhere to that principle. Am I insane? Do I completely miss the essence and point of ethical principles?

Did you just describe these beasts as humans?

**Matt W** · Jul 7, 2005, 01:14 pm

And there you have it. Rant central.

ibm · Jul 7, 2005, 01:44 pm

Quote:

Quote by: tinybear

Did you just describe these beasts as humans?

i seriously hope that was just a rant.

yes, no matter how terrible of an act those terrorists have done, they ARE humans - technically and figuratively speaking.

**Jack** · Jul 7, 2005, 01:53 pm

People on both sides of this debate that only hate the other side and can only suggest killing them are equal in my eyes. Is either side more "right" than the other? Both have historic and religious reasons for their attitudes. Both feel the only solution is the elimination of the other. I don't see any difference. Obviously that tactic doesn't work. We've been fighting like this for thousands of years with no resolution. We need to find a new way to not only protect ourselves from those who would like to destroy us but to also neuter the threat they represent to the world at large. We have to have new solutions, more humane and effective solutions. The old ones aren't working, and frankly never have.

ibm · Jul 7, 2005, 02:01 pm

Quote:

Quote by: Isherwood

People on both sides of this debate that only hate the other side and can only suggest killing them are equal in my eyes. Is either side more "right" than the other? Both have historic and religious reasons for their attitudes. Both feel the only solution is the elimination of the other. I don't see any difference. Obviously that tactic doesn't work. We've been fighting like this for thousands of years with no resolution. We need to find a new way to not only protect ourselves from those who would like to destroy us but to also neuter the threat they represent to the world at large. We have to have new solutions, more humane and effective solutions. The old ones aren't working, and frankly never have.

well said. logically tolerance and respect will be amongst the first things to be called for. but if the gloabl population doesn't stop exploding, as space to survive and all natural resources get more and more scarce, i'm kinda pessimistic on the forward-looking.

Prometheus · Jul 7, 2005, 02:18 pm

Quote:

Quote by: MerlinsByte

We should change the name terrorists to cowards. I can at least understand why a freedom fighter would resort to guerrilla tactics against military targets to accomplish their goals. It is a rather unsavory tactic but an accepted one.

Only cowards intentionally target babies and mothers. And subhuman cowards gloat about it. As a open theist christian all life is sacred, but god help me I would kill these disgraceful bastards myself. Yes I would.

You kow very well that this is a stupid proposal. The word has such a broad meaning that actually doing this is ludicris.

If you want to make a point, make your point, but don't do it with a dummy proposal that you know no one takes seriously, including yourself.

MerlinsByte · Jul 7, 2005, 08:26 pm

Quote:

know no one takes seriously, including yourself.

Again I say that you think yourself a mystic and can read my mind. Not so, so keep your job. You would starve as a mystic.

From now on I will call them cowards and not terrorist because they use innocents as targets. If I were a talk show host I would call them cowards.

Why would you think it is a stupid idea? These cowards and murderous ... infidels are just that. C-O-W-A-R-D-S..Yes, I think it is a very good idea.

If I were a politico I would introduce legislation to officially change the name!

Thanks for your opinion prom. it was read and filed.

mb

MerlinsByte · Jul 7, 2005, 08:35 pm

Quote:

yes, no matter how terrible of an act those terrorists have done, they ARE humans - technically and figuratively speaking.

Yes it was a rant and my true feelings when I wrote it and I stand by the part about the coward termonloigy.

If I had one of them hands tied behind his back, and a cocked . 45 at his/her temple would I send him to meet his God. No.....well let me think on it, no I am anti death penalty, but pro deadly force to protect my loved ones so, no I would do something else with the coward. (rather than execute him/her)...no not that either I would turn him in to the authorities, which I don't trust either.

mb

time exists so everything won't happen at once.....J Wheeler

Jul 7, 2005, 12:07 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
MerlinsByte BANNED Posts: 1,267	change the name from terrorists to cowards We should change the name terrorists to cowards. I can at least understand why a freedom fighter would resort to guerrilla tactics against military targets to accomplish their goals. It is a rather unsavory tactic but an accepted one. Only cowards intentionally target babies and mothers. And subhuman cowards gloat about it. As a open theist christian all life is sacred, but god help me I would kill these disgraceful bastards myself. Yes I would.

Jul 7, 2005, 12:35 pm	#7 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 7,212	How is this political, mb? Moving to Misc. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Jul 7, 2005, 12:37 pm	#8 (permalink) (top)
gr8fuldaniel Fire the Liars Location: California Posts: 7,090	Keep in mind that civilians were probably targeted because we (or rather bush/blair) target civilians. If the attack was not coordinated by our (not including me) coalition black death squads, that is. If our mercenaries will attack Iraqi hospitals and weddings and women and children, why not a subway in London? ~~ Helpful Linx * Huff Post * WRH * RAW STORY ~~

Jul 7, 2005, 12:50 pm	#10 (permalink) (top)
lsbskins1 Redskins Rule Location: South-Western Virginia Posts: 2,574	I would like Tiny Bear or someone of similar ideology to explain how they can believe that it is acceptable to respond in kind to what they say they deplore. If you believe that every human deserves to be afforded certain rights, how can you advocate taking those basic fundemental rights away just because the person you take them from does not adhere to that view-point? I fall back on this argument (a Christian one) because it seems to me to be fairly self-evident: Jesus did not come for the saints, he came for the sinners. Work with me and extend the logic. It is when you are dealing with those who do not share that fundemental ideal (that all life matters, that when you show callous indifference to any human, you set yourself on the path to indifference to everyone) that it is most essential to adhere to that principle. Am I insane? Do I completely miss the essence and point of ethical principles? All I see when I look down, something jumpin' on the ground, Scratchin' dirt, cluckin' in the barnyard - Tell me, could that be you? John Kay

Jul 7, 2005, 01:14 pm	#14 (permalink) (top)
Matt W Moderator Location: Reading, UK. Posts: 7,212	And there you have it. Rant central. I spent a lot of money on booze, birds and fast cars. The rest I just squandered. -George Best, on being asked what he did with his footballing fortunes.

Jul 7, 2005, 12:16 pm	#3 (permalink) (top)
tinybear Volcanic Erupter Location: Los Angeles, CA Posts: 7,336	I agree with Merlin. Terrorists deserve no mercy because they have shown none.

Jul 7, 2005, 12:34 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
ibm Igneous Magma Posts: 672	no one will think killing the innocent, esp. women and children, is not an evil and barbaric act. but personally, i don't see the terrorists as cowards. and i don't believe what they gloat is the part of killing women and children. as much as i hate them, i don't see them as cowards.

Jul 7, 2005, 12:59 pm	#12 (permalink) (top)
ibm Igneous Magma Posts: 672	isbskins1, i am not a christian, but i appreciate the way you addressed it.

Jul 7, 2005, 01:53 pm	#16 (permalink) (top)
Jack formerly Isherwood Location: San Diego, CA Posts: 14,223	People on both sides of this debate that only hate the other side and can only suggest killing them are equal in my eyes. Is either side more "right" than the other? Both have historic and religious reasons for their attitudes. Both feel the only solution is the elimination of the other. I don't see any difference. Obviously that tactic doesn't work. We've been fighting like this for thousands of years with no resolution. We need to find a new way to not only protect ourselves from those who would like to destroy us but to also neuter the threat they represent to the world at large. We have to have new solutions, more humane and effective solutions. The old ones aren't working, and frankly never have. The Forum Rules Radical Atheist Heathen Queer Let's agree to respect each others views, no matter how wrong yours may be. (Ashleigh Brilliant)