Search results

ok, based off that alone....i will say its certainly something to be concerned about, i just don't have the time atm to do much additional searching to find out what happened with circumstances and all, but i will say that for a count that high, it is very questionable as to how that could be...

i'm saying that i've not heard of said massacres, hense my asking about sources for that. and i'm not saying the casualities caused by Israel using, say, a missle to get one or two people is acceptable. I have my questions about if its really justified to do that vs trying to capture them...

ok, so the definition we have to work with is creation of fear through murder and constant abuse. would you further agree to a differentiation that the point of whatever acts happen must be the creation of fear, so that we don't simply reach a point where any act that frightens anyone counts as...

Define terrorism then. Give a definition of what terrorism means, in your view. you claim that the american forces are terrorists because of suicide bombings...they AREN'T suicide bombing. Al Queda, as well as Iraqi nationalist and Baathist groups are the ones doing that. THOSE are the ones...

done it....hit the tragic downfall, and thats where things stay

the viewpoint more is that, and i think its the state's job to protect lives, including those of the unborn. the criticism of abortion coming from its people being irresponsible (basicly, having sex but not wanting to deal with going through a pregnancy) without age as a factor

and you guess wrong. i'm agnostic...not athiest, nor do i have an anti-religion viewpoint outright, i just have disagreements with it

your definition of terrorism is, imo, absurd. it seems to be any negative action towards any group or people, real or imagined, intentional or accidental, defines terrorism. i would define terrorism as any attack that is targeted at a civilian population with the expressed intent of creating...

and thats exactly what this is about...what counts as harm or good caused by religion, and subsequently which is the greater effect of religion...that which is good or that which is harmful

ok, then i'm gonna stop implying my point, as you seem to not get it. creating a situation where people are essentially just fearing the gov't and punishments are extravant is not getting better. at that point, things are WAY beyond the law of diminishing returns.

ok, why don't we just lock everyone up in jail cells?

why don't we just create a giant computer system we plug everyone into so that they can't actually do anything to one another?

just to comment....it doesn't matter what the intent of religion was, imo. harm vs good is determined by how its actually practiced and what actually comes of it, not what someone simply intended.

considering the u.s. has a major deficit right now and seriously needs to cut spending? and so, any country should be obligated to give money to a country or organisation that has less money than it? i'm not saying i'd not like to see the u.s. helping other countries more, but you have...

he makes a good arguement

if by discrimination you mean being selective. which the u.s. has every right to do. the u.s. has a limited amount of money. i didn't say no country should give no other country aid, just that it shouldn't be EXPECTED and so...you're saying, its ok that Hamas wants to destroy israel because...

what do you mean our morals and ethics? it has influence on law, yes, but my morals and ethics, on a personal level, aren't from religion

first of all, no one has exactly explained why the U.S. HAS to give aid. American money is not an entitlement for other countries or organisations. Second....Hamas, I believe, had part of its platform be the distruction of Israel and the Israeli people. Israel has wanted land, but not the...

so....the us is at fault because they're not giving? you're acting like the u.s. is supposed to give money outright and that theres not a factor of choice. granted, i don't like the lack of contact being planned....personally, my angle would be the the u.s. should've said that they would talk...

Re: should gays be allowed to marry in NSW gays can get married already just, not to each otehr.