Home› Politics & Debate
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

Muslim anger at vatican

123457

Comments

  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Democracy doesn't support terrorism
    Bless :)
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Yes it is a soverign state but so was Germany before WWII.

    Relevant...how?
    luke88 wrote:
    Democracy doesn't support terrorism, hence why we're in Afganistan and Iraq.

    Democracy is just a word max. It can't support or not support anything.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    If I did ask them, which one would be right?

    Right according to who?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Relevant...how?
    You're saying that we should not have invaded Iraq because it's a soverign state right?

    Therefore we shouldn't have invaded Germany either as that was a soverign state.

    Sometimes it needs to be done.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Right according to who?
    Exactly... who is right?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    You're saying that we should not have invaded Iraq because it's a soverign state right?

    Therefore we shouldn't have invaded Germany either as that was a soverign state.

    Sometimes it needs to be done.

    Different situations luke, they're not comparable. The legality of the Iraq war is very much in doubt. Something to do with it being pre-emptive.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    Bless :)
    Terrorism, in theory should not exist in a democracy I feel.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Terrorism, in theory should not exist in a democracy I feel.

    It does though.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Different situations luke, they're not comparable. The legality of the Iraq war is very much in doubt. Something to do with it being pre-emptive.
    The Iraq war is quite similar. We invaded Germany so stop what was happening there, it took 5 years but we did it.

    We invaded Iraq to stop Saddam murdering thousands and it's going to take a fair few years.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Germany was a threat to us. Iraq wasn't. Different situations luke.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    It does though.
    Well you would say that as you think the USA is a terrorist. :lol:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Germany was a threat to us. Iraq wasn't. Different situations luke.
    I don't think Iraq was a direct threat but it would of been in the future I thought. Second to this, it housed people with similar views to terrorists in Afganistan.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Well you would say that as you think the USA is a terrorist. :lol:

    Yes, they funded the contras, they supported Pinochet and Suharto, they're guilty of using torture against their enemies, they illegally invaded Iraq. These all seem to fit the defintion of terrorism that you posted.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I don't think Iraq was a direct threat but it would of been in the future I thought.

    How so?
    luke88 wrote:
    Second to this, it housed people with similar views to terrorists in Afganistan.

    Nonsense. Afghanistan was home to the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islam regime. Iraq was secular and Saddam was hostile to Islam.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Terrorism, in theory should not exist in a democracy I feel.
    No it shouldn't. But democractic countries are very much guilty of promoting and financing terrorism and sadly it's incorrect to assume otherwise.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    Yes, they funded the contras, they supported Pinochet and Suharto, they're guilty of using torture against their enemies, they illegally invaded Iraq. These all seem to fit the defintion of terrorism that you posted.
    Pakistan used to support the terrorists in Afganistan but now they don't.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    How so?
    Saddam was murdering his own people, there weren't many opportunities for minorities, or even the majorities actually. I felt Saddam and his regime were similiar to other Islamic terrorists.
    Blagsta wrote:
    Nonsense. Afghanistan was home to the Taliban, a fundamentalist Islam regime. Iraq was secular and Saddam was hostile to Islam.
    Saddam was a saint too. :rolleyes:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Saddam was a saint too. :rolleyes:
    So?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    So?
    I felt as though he was trying to claim Saddam was no where near as bad as the Taliban. Both slaughtered their own people on a daily basis for no reason.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Saddam was murdering his own people, there weren't many opportunities for minorities, or even the majorities actually. I felt Saddam and his regime were similiar to other Islamic terrorists.

    And that was a threat to us...how exactly?
    luke88 wrote:
    Saddam was a saint too. :rolleyes:

    Now you're just being silly.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    Pakistan used to support the terrorists in Afganistan but now they don't.

    And...what?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I felt as though he was trying to claim Saddam was no where near as bad as the Taliban. Both slaughtered their own people on a daily basis for no reason.

    Maybe you should try reading what I write, rather than what you imagine I write.
  • Options
    Teh_GerbilTeh_Gerbil Posts: 13,332 Born on Earth, Raised by The Mix
    Blagsta wrote:
    Now you're just being silly.

    When did he stop or an amount of time?
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    And that was a threat to us...how exactly?
    I had already said Iraq wasn't a direct threat to us on this particular day but I also feel it would of been in the future since Islamic extremism was on the rise and Saddam and his cronies slughtered their own people on a daily basis just like the taleban for example.
    Blagsta wrote:
    Now you're just being silly.
    Well i'm glad you don't think he was.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I felt as though he was trying to claim Saddam was no where near as bad as the Taliban. Both slaughtered their own people on a daily basis for no reason.
    That unfortunately didn't justify embarking in an illegal war and subsequent occupation that has made things far, far worse.

    There are more people being tortured and killed in Iraq today than they were under Saddam.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teh_Gerbil wrote:
    When did he stop or an amount of time?
    Right it's started. Bye.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    I had already said Iraq wasn't a direct threat to us on this particular day but I also feel it would of been in the future since Islamic extremism was on the rise and Saddam and his cronies slughtered their own people on a daily basis just like the taleban for example.

    You still haven't explained how Iraq was going to be a threat to us, especially seeing as Saddam had nothing to do with Islamism.
    luke88 wrote:
    Well i'm glad you don't think he was.

    Glad we got that cleared up then. :confused:
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote:
    That unfortunately didn't justify embarking in an illegal war and subsequent occupation that has made things far, far worse.
    So what is your solution on stopping Saddam murdering his own people and such?
    Aladdin wrote:
    There are more people being tortured and killed in Iraq today than they were under Saddam.
    There is no proof of this but as far as I know, Muslims are killing them selves, the terrorists are killing innocent Iraqis.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Blagsta wrote:
    You still haven't explained how Iraq was going to be a threat to us, especially seeing as Saddam had nothing to do with Islamism.
    I have already said that Saddam had commited similar crimes as his cronies. He had friendly relations with Syria which is one of many bases of terrorism.
  • Options
    Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,323 The Mix Honorary Guru
    luke88 wrote:
    There is no proof of this but as far as I know, Muslims are killing them selves, the terrorists are killing innocent Iraqis.

    "There's no proof, but its scientific fact" :D:D
Sign In or Register to comment.