TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- Islamic nazis shoot the survivors of helicopter crash
Pages (3): « 1 [2] 3 »

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf wow there's a lot of ignorant people here

No, just you

Do you just jump from thread to thread without any real purpose because you can't really argue for what you believe in??

i love the passion the way people dicuss here..

The most hilarious thing here is when the US shoots down a civilian
on accident (maybe), the response will be " it's a war, get over it"

Other sides does something, suddenly they are animals

Fun fun.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou How come right wing neo nazi's in the US are almost always christian. Shadowolf, your just as much a nazi as the muslims are you ignorant right winger.

Hitler denounced Christianity, persecuted CHristians, and au pined that Islam was a religion better suited to a warring nation.


As to the Crusades, it was a defensive war designed to protect Christian pilgrims from the Muslims invaders.


It seems that you have a lot to learn.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf As to the Crusades, it was a defensive war designed to protect Christian pilgrims from the Muslims invaders. It seems that you have a lot to learn.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!....because he is serious

quote:

Originally posted by Massive84 i love the passion the way people dicuss here.. The most hilarious thing here is when the US shoots down a civilian on accident (maybe), the response will be " it's a war, get over it" Other sides does something, suddenly they are animals Fun fun.

there's a difference between shooting down a helicopter in guerilla warfare and shooting excution style an injuried soldier.

The second being a war crime.

quote:

Originally posted by malek there's a difference between shooting down a helicopter in guerilla warfare and shooting excution style an injuried soldier. The second being a war crime.

And you actually think they give a fuck?

get out your hole war is war, bad shit happens.

Americans kill civilians, insurgents and there allies with 'friendly fire'.....

Iraqis kill opposition soldiers and affiliates of the war (journalists etc.)

yes there methods (in western eyes) may be barbaric but the east is a totally different place.

quote:

Originally posted by Q5echo first off, you're an idiot. there i said it. been wanting to for a while.

You're the one who puts blind faith in your leaders not me.

quote:

secondly, tell a newly registered Iraqi voter that he's in denial or to snap out of it. tell the same thing to the Mayor of Baghdad. tell that crap to an Iraqi national guardsman walking his watch at a pipeline somewhere in the desert. you think your so hip and progressive that you don't believe anything the news tells you? are you in the cool little secret society that knows what really is going on over there and throughout the Greater Middle East?

I'm very skeptical of coorperate owned mainstream Amercian media. You don't need to be in a secret society to read alternative news sources, human rights reports etc.

quote:

you're a fucking fraud that fell for the anti-war excuses for hating you're own country for what you're country does best. live with it or grow up.

I'm not a fraud, just informed and not brainwashed like you. No, I don't hate my own country. Unlike you, I'm not eager to see my fellow citizens go and kill other people for oil and die in the process. Not top mention all the horrible human rights violations that are going on there rightnow, the prison abuse being one of the cases that leaked out and managed to make into mainstream american media.

quote:

Originally posted by Cyrus King WAR WAR WAR.. LETS ATTACK LETS ATTACK....WAR WAR WAR.. LETS ATTACK Youre the ignorant fuck who still supports this futile corporate venture that has really fucked up that region, yuor place in the world.. and the safety of your own country. WHo the fuck do you think you are going into a nation for your own selfish reasons you pathetic death lover

I'm sorry, who are you?

don't worry guys, we are getting to them .
Our guys put them down and they never see it coming like here. This is acutally fun cause you can see one of those bad ass 500lbs bombs level their building into smithereens http://www.sagoons.com/~iraq/movies/500.mpg

quote:

Originally posted by Nou I dont think that they have to follow those laws established, as only nations that signed the conventions that govern the treatment of injured soldiers are required to. Since these are rebel groups not associated with any sort of legitimate government they dont have to follow those rules. If a nation that has signed any of those conventions did what these people did then, yea thats a war crime. Im sorry, but if you were injured and I found you and your are an enemy soldier, I would do one of two things. Leave you injured to die or end your life. NOW, think about this... these are once again rebels so they dont exactly have the logistics to take care of prisoners or injured, ALSO if they leave the person alive there is the possibility of that person being returned to active duty. This is war, if you dont like how its going or how things happen, DONT SUPPORT IT! I'm sorry, but you cant have some parts of war with out the others, if you dont like or accept all of it, then you cant support any of it. So, ignore, accept, or resist, thats your only choice.

Of course, using that argument, one can fully justify the abandonment of POW conventions by the US when it comes to prisoner treatment of insurgents. It would be another simple fact of "war". I don't think Malek's comment had so much to to do with literal legality as it it had to do with morality in a combat zone. Is it morally justifiable to deprive terrorists in guantanemo bay of basic rights simply because they don't fall under the legal definitions of the geneva conventions? Of course not. Similarly, is it morally justifiable for these insurgents to have executed that civilian because they were never signatories to the geneva conventions or they're logistically challenged otherwise? Of course not. Or do atrocities have a weighting system asigned to them when one side becomes disadvantaged enough?

Supporting war doesn't mean you have to accept EVERY bad thing associated with war (and I can assure you, Malek doesn't support this war). Making that argument leaves you on a very slippery slope.

Human Rights Watch has called for Donald Rumsfeld and George Tenet to be investigated for their possible role in abuses in Iraq.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/americas/4475133.stm

Btw, the muslims were next on the list after the Nazis eradicate the jews.

So yeaaah........

quote:

Originally posted by malek there's a difference between shooting down a helicopter in guerilla warfare and shooting excution style an injuried soldier. The second being a war crime.

This whole war is one big fucking crime. The US is an agressor in this case and Iraq is a victim.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z This whole war is one big fucking crime. The US is an agressor in this case and Iraq is a victim.

Iraq was always a victim, but Saddam Hussein was not.

quote:

Originally posted by shaolin_Z This whole war is one big fucking crime. The US is an agressor in this case and Iraq is a victim.

that has been discussed a zillion time.

In this specific succession of events seen in that video (shootind down an helicopter then execution), the act of killing an injuried person who does not pose a threat is morally wrong.

animals have no morals.

these killers are (fucking) animals

quote:

Originally posted by trewqy Btw, the muslims were next on the list after the Nazis eradicate the jews. So yeaaah........

I thought that the Christians were going to be next, before the Muslims.

quote:

Originally posted by malek these killers are (fucking) animals

We're all animals. It's just that we're also supposed to have developed a certain level of mental cognition which should lead us to understand that ALL FORMS of killing are wrong.

War is a racket, and during every war there are people who will make TREMENDOUS profits!

quote:

Syrians celebrate the arrival of Syrian troops from Lebanon at the Syrian-Lebanese border of Jdeideh April 26, 2005. The last Syrian soldiers and intelligence agents left Lebanon on Tuesday, ending three decades of Syria's direct involvement in its small neighbour. As their buses crossed the frontier, many Lebanese hailed the completion of a withdrawal that had taken seven weeks as the start of a new era. But although Damascus's domination is past, many believe its influence in Lebanon is far from over. REUTERS/Khaled al-Hariri

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=...36&a=0&printer=


Note the black flag with that pseudo-swatstika in the middle. That's the flag of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP).

http://www.ssnp.com/
http://www.ssnp.net/

quote:

Originally posted by malek that has been discussed a zillion time. In this specific succession of events seen in that video (shootind down an helicopter then execution), the act of killing an injuried person who does not pose a threat is morally wrong. animals have no morals. these killers are (fucking) animals

i second this exact post

and so are hindu's i guess,

http://cache.gettyimages.com/comp/50475725.jpg?x=x&dasite=MS_GINS&ef=2&ev=1&dareq=EBEF9528AFF8E13372EA1A3E754048C17757C85AE85A779B

i dont think shadowolf wants us to take him seriously at all.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?g=...36&a=0&printer= Note the black flag with that pseudo-swatstika in the middle. That's the flag of the Syrian Social Nationalist Party (SSNP). http://www.ssnp.com/ http://www.ssnp.net/

Damn, long winter in Canada this year-eh?

quote:

Originally posted by Shakka Iraq was always a victim, but Saddam Hussein was not.

Yes, and he came to power with US support, supplied with chemical weapons by the US which he used to gased the Kurds WITH US SUPPORT!

Now what was your point again?

quote:

Originally posted by razmataz Damn, long winter in Canada this year-eh?

you have not refuted the Nazi/Muslim connection.

Baathism is in many ways the Arab version of National Socialism.

quote:

Originally posted by ShadoWolf you have not refuted the Nazi/Muslim connection. Baathism is in many ways the Arab version of National Socialism.

You're the only nazi here. An anti-Muslim Nazi.

quote:

Originally posted by Nou So I'm sure that Buddhists that have an ACTUAL swastika (ok maybe it goes the other way, but it looks A HELL OF A LOT MORE LIKE THE NAZI ONE THAN THAT FLAG) are also Nazi's too right?

OMG, OMG, OMG, it's the Buddhist Nazen

Seriously though:

quote:

OMG, it's the history of the swastika!!!1 The swastika appears in art and design from pre-history symbolising, in various contexts: luck, the sun, Brahma, or the Hindu concept of samsara. In antiquity, the swastika was used extensively by Hittites[3] (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Swasti...te_crystallinks), Celts and Greeks, among others. It occurs in other Asian, European, African and Native American cultures – sometimes as a geometrical motif, sometimes as a religious symbol. Today, the swastika is a common symbol in Hinduism, Buddhism and Jainism, among others. The ubiquity of the swastika has been explained by three main theories: independent development, cultural diffusion, and external event. The first theory is that the swastika's symmetry and simplicity led to its independent development everywhere, along the lines of Carl Jung's collective unconscious, or just as a very simple symbol. part of the Han dynasty "silk comet atlas" Enlarge part of the Han dynasty "silk comet atlas" Another explanation is suggested by Carl Sagan in his book Comet. Sagan reproduces an ancient Chinese manuscript that shows comet tail varieties: most are variations on simple comet tails, but the last shows the comet nucleus with four bent arms extending from it, recalling a swastika. Sagan suggests that in antiquity a comet could have approached so close to Earth that the jets of gas streaming from it, bent by the comet's rotation, became visible, leading to the adoption of the swastika as a symbol across the world. Theories of single origin as a sacred prehistorical symbol point to the Proto-Indo-Europeans, noting that the swastika was not adopted by Sumer in Mesopotamia, which was established no later than 3500 BC, and the Old Kingdom of Egypt, beginning in 2630 BC, arguing that these were already well-established and codified at the time of the symbol's diffusion. As an argument ex silentio, this point has little value as a positive proof. The swastika symbol is prominent in Hinduism, which is considered the parent religion of Buddhism and Jainism, both dating from about the sixth century BC, and the swastika symbol transferred as well. Buddhism in particular enjoyed great success, spreading eastward and taking hold in southeast Asia, China, Korea and Japan by the end of the first millenium. The use of the swastika by the indigenous Bön faith of Tibet, as well as syncretic religions, such as Cao Dai of Vietnam and Falun Gong of China, is thought to be borrowed from Buddhism as well. Similarly, the existence of the swastika as a solar symbol among the Akan civilization of southwest Africa may have been the result of cultural transfer along the African slave routes around 1500 AD. The existence of the swastika symbol in the Americas is a clear challenge to the diffusion theory. While some have proposed that the swastika was secretly transferred to North America by an early seafaring civilization on Eurasia, a separate but parallel development of religious symbolism is considered the most likely explanation. Regardless of origins, the swastika had generally positive connotations from early in human history, with the exceptions being most of Africa and South America. [edit] Adoption of the swastika in the West The discovery of the Indo-European language group in the 1800s led to a great effort by archaeologists to link the pre-history of European peoples to the ancient Aryans. Following his discovery of objects bearing the swastika in the ruins of Troy, Heinrich Schliemann consulted the leading Sanskrit scholars of the day, Emile Burnouf and Max Müller. Schliemann concluded that the swastika was a specifically Aryan symbol. This idea was taken up by many other writers, and the swastika quickly became popular in the West, appearing in many designs from the 1880s to the 1920s. The positive meanings of the symbol were subverted in the early twentieth century when it was adopted as the emblem of the National Socialist German Workers Party. This association occurred because Nazism stated that the historical Aryans were the modern Germans and then proposed that, because of this, the subjugation of the world by Germany was desirable, and even predestined. The swastika was used as a convenient symbol to emphasize this mythical Aryan-German correspondence. Since World War II, most Westerners see the swastika as solely a fascist symbol, leading to incorrect assumptions about its pre-Nazi use and confusion about its current use in other cultures.

Final conclusion: Schliemann was the naziest nazi and wanted to get rid of hindus, buddhists and pretty much eveything that could either eat curry or eat with chopsticks, because he couldn't do either

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.