If you need urgent support, call 999 or go to your nearest A&E. To contact our Crisis Messenger (open 24/7) text THEMIX to 85258.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨
Options
September 11, um no disrespect but
Former Member
Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
(Remember i'm not trying to disrespect, just trying to help cause that's what i do)
Is it just me or are you getting sick of hearing about 9/11? Serious, Cause No doubt it was a bad time cause in reality we all suffer at some point in this life, but 9/11 is over and i feel like this:
*Is it not the truth that: NOBODY should dwell in past times that bring up bad times of Tribulation, therefore it is better to get over the pass(Which peter told us to do) and look towards the future wherein better times are indeed coming from mankind, the future is hope & the pass is not "
Y'all agree right? That's words that are str up legendary!
Is it just me or are you getting sick of hearing about 9/11? Serious, Cause No doubt it was a bad time cause in reality we all suffer at some point in this life, but 9/11 is over and i feel like this:
*Is it not the truth that: NOBODY should dwell in past times that bring up bad times of Tribulation, therefore it is better to get over the pass(Which peter told us to do) and look towards the future wherein better times are indeed coming from mankind, the future is hope & the pass is not "
Y'all agree right? That's words that are str up legendary!
0
Comments
Perfect. Couldn't agree more.
Theres a difference between dwelling on the past and remembering.
We can only hope and pray that none occur.
I disagree, no correction i really disagree.. The past times that has bad times is the past times of ignorance, therefore the future is the only way & G.O.D. Is the only way that will bring & create a better future....
What's the point of Talking about 9/11 if you cant even understand What's going on - By U.2.K.
The Bible is about remembering the past, or do you think Moses, David, Daniel, Jesus, Peter, Paul, Simon, etc. are yet to live?
No I don't agree, str isn't a word and the bible has no relevance to whether you choose to respect the memory of the dead or not.
However, in each case we must still try and learn the correct message, rather than a false one.
This is my reason, respect does not enter into it. Respect is a personal choice, learning not to make mistakes is everybodys duty.
Where I work we have to show a pass to get into the buildin and this morning there were two security guards instead of one yet neither of them looked at my pass as they were too busy talking about what was on TV lastnight!!
And they say we are safe!
The one thing that would make sure this does not happen again still has not been done.
This is not putting bars on your windows, increasing the nuclear stockpile, invadeing the land of you enimies or imprinting bar codes on the foreheads of all legitimate citizens...
...Its altering foriegn policy so it takes the feeling, needs and laws into consideration.
I'm not saying bend over backwards for other countries, but when a policy affects another world power, consider if there is anything unfair thats being proposed.
Going to war with "rogue states" is simply a way to recruit more terrorists for the other side.
If only life were so simple.
Islamic fundalmentalists (as an example) want the world to be run according to their religion.
How do you avoid pissing them off, unless you capitulate?
MoK:
Islamic fundalmentalists (as an example) want the world to be run according to their religion.
Yes that is what they want, but they will settle with (and be quite happy with) the country they have direct control over being run according to the religion.
In fact thats what most civilised countrys want : To live their lives according to their own moral values and judgements. (obviously this is not always true, the crusades and WW2 spring to mind)
These countrys object to having value systems and moral judgements that were spawned by the west imposed upon them, and i really don't blame them.
Yes, excellent. Except we have some fundamentalists here, there are some in the US. In fact there will be some in most countries of the world.
The point here is that they are religious fanatics, they will not settle for anything, unless as an interim step.
MoK -
True, but if they want to change the way we live they can run for pariment, become PM and change a lot of laws....
OR
They can try and blow stuff up and make a "protest" in which case they will be caught and arrested.
OR
They can go back to the countrys that are run in the way they want...
unless of course those countries have been bombed or forced to make changes by other countries not respecting the views of the inhabitants.
Is respecting other countries cultures really so much to ask?
The argument put forward was that to avoid terrorism you should just avoid pissing them off.
I'm saying that isn't possible when you have so diametrically opposed views. Views which don't allow middle ground...
It has nothing to do with respecting their culture, and more about respecting ours.
I don't want to live in an Islamic state. Do you?
So, are you suggesting that New Guinea should be allowed to return to cannabalism? And if a person from New Guinea wanted to eat your sister, you would respect their culture?
My argument is that each countrie, while doing as it likes (so to speak) within its own borders, should acknoledge that other countries may not see what they are doing as right.
This means that how you act in your own country is not nessicarily how you should act when in another.
e.g. Marketing ciggerettes in every manner the law allows, is not so bad in western countries because we have many charities and gov funded programs to tell people they are BAD FOR YOU and ADDICTIVE, and the law is restrictive..
In africa there is no such thing, and no restrictive laws, so when the cig. companyes roll in, organising shows and fairs, and giving out free ciggerettes, people turn up and think what wonderful people they cig companies are.
American law tells the componies how they are allowed to act in america, but does not tell these american companies how they are allowed to act in other countries. That would adversly affect the profits the produce.
OK, its not the best example, as its concerning a company rather than gov. policy, but you get my point. Hopfully.
Not really, but to continue that thread, I'm sure that the US Govt policy pisses the cigarette companies off somewhat.
So is it right that they resort to terrorism?
I think we both know the answer to that, but that is the suggestion which was put forward. That if you upset someone, you should accept that they may resort to terror tactics instead.
Terrorists will look for an excuse to act in the manner that they do. Just avoiding upsetting them isn't a solution. Yes you should avoid deliberate provocation, such as shown by Israel, but you cannot avoid everything that may cause offence. If we did then we would start to find that we were living by their rules.
You complain about western influence on culture, but fundamentalists want us to live according the their culture...
You complain about western influence on culture, but fundamentalists want us to live according the their culture...
some do, yes, but just becasue they are acting badly, it does not excuse us if we are acting the same.
Added to that most of the islamic fundimentalists that commit acts of terrorism, and show such blatent disregard for other countries cultures are not world leaders.
I would say "they should know better" but i think that trivilises the issue.
I have to say that I am struggling to keep up with the thread of your argument.
The question was about how we stop terrorists, the solution proposed was that we stop pissing them off :rolleyes:
My argument is that it doesn't matter what we do. Unless the every nation state lives by Islamic law, fundamentalists will never be satisfied.
That makes it better?
They may not be "world leaders" themselves, but they are funded and supported by nation states. That is enough.
I certainly don't want Muslims to live according to my culture, but I do believe in standard human rights and that these should be enforced by the UN. This includes sexual equality (which would upset some Muslims) but also the death penalty (which would upset the US and some Muslims) amongst other things.
However, when it comes to fundamentalists there is little that we would agree with. Like I said, I don't want to live in an Islamic State, which is what so many of these zealots want. Because they can't convince me in any other way, they chose bully tactics. I can accuse the US of many things, but this isn't one of them.
The problem is that there are such diverse opinions on how people should live, and this leads to conflict. Terrorists just chose the most cowardly approach to solving these differences.
Issue being that they want to practice their cannibalism in your country, and all others of the world, or did you miss that?
If you look at my previous posts in this thread you'll see i've been saying when we are in another country we should respect that countrys laws and culture. We may want them to act in a different way, but by forcing them to we only upset the inhabitants.
Just as other cultures need to respect our laws and customs when in this country. They may want us to live in a different way, but they have no right to force it upon us, and if they do try and force it upon us they will end up in prison.
The alternative is to run for government, become PM yada yada yada....
Like i said, i did miss that, who said that and when? Where was that particular aspect of the issue raised?
Read more carefully. And the Islamic fundamentalists don't agree with you, after all, you're an infidel.
They can call me what they like, from whatever country they are in.
In fact they can call me what they like standing in the street with me, and i will be open to debate about comparative religions.
If they try to hurt me, herang me or intimidate me I will inform the police and take legal action.
If they kill me then they will be sent to jail, and people will have that much less respect and time for Islamic fundamentalists and the ways of Islam generally, meaning the act was self defeating.
I have read the whole thread again. I don't see where any-ones suggested that every country has to follow every other countrys customs and laws at all times through-out the world.
But as I have said on other threads, If i read a lot of text I can miss out bits, so please point out to me where some-one has said this, or where I have agreed.
Really, i have read as carefully as i can, so please point it out to me.
___________________________________________
MoK : If the islamic fundementalists really want the entire world to change, why have they so far only attacked 1 country? OK, there have been sounds about attacks on other countrys, but nothing yet... And as most of this info comes from the US, who want more worldwide support, forgive me if I am sceptical.
I think that it is possible to live in peace and not piss them off. IF we (the west) stopped started live with respect to other cultures, didn't screw them financailly, didn't allow 90% of the profit from there cash crops go to the US companys, then maybe there would be less terrorists.
There would still be the Tim McVeighs of the world....
But even if it only reduce the number of people with "terrorist" on their passport by 10% wouldn't it be worth it?
Added to that it would make the population of the other countries happier, even if they would never turn to terrorism, thats got to be a good thing.