Report, edit, etc...Posted by Slyence on 2005-09-11 at 12:55:41
Last night I got this problem into my head, and I'm wondering what the general public of blizzforums believes the best course of action to be.
Lets say that Islamic terrorism steps up a gear, and begins weekly bombings of not just the major cities, but the second, third and so on cities.
The government in your country decides that this cant go on, so it orders ALL islamic citzens out of the country. Any that stay face an open jail sentence (by open, I mean a jail term with no set time to finish).
A very harsh measure to be sure, but lets remember that hundreds of people (if not thousands) are dead at this point.
My question, is that is it morally right in our society to do such a thing?
Should a society based on freedom for all people be able to decide that "you, you and you" shouldnt be allowed in because some of your race are technically at war with us?
Is it a state of war? Is the situtation of terrorists repeatedly bombing civillian targets the same as a war?
A definition I found was:
Thus, I don't believe it would be possible to actually declare a war against the terrorists in any but a 'the media wants a good phrase' sense.
The fact is, it wouldn't really matter. Having an offical state of war or not would not stop the terrorist bombings.
So really, I'm asking two questions:
Is it morally right to ask a race of people to leave because a minority is killing civillians. (also, if you do not believe it is a right course of action, would you support your government regardless)
In this situation, should a state of war (or perhaps more appropriatly a state of emergency) be called and the action that that would bring. ie, curfews, possible martial law, army searching muslim houses and so on. Would you support your government when they are patrolling the streets in tanks?
I dont believe, that martial law would be neccesary, but I am trying to get an idea of how far you belive governments should be allowed to go when combating serious terrorism.
Lets say that Islamic terrorism steps up a gear, and begins weekly bombings of not just the major cities, but the second, third and so on cities.
The government in your country decides that this cant go on, so it orders ALL islamic citzens out of the country. Any that stay face an open jail sentence (by open, I mean a jail term with no set time to finish).
A very harsh measure to be sure, but lets remember that hundreds of people (if not thousands) are dead at this point.
My question, is that is it morally right in our society to do such a thing?
Should a society based on freedom for all people be able to decide that "you, you and you" shouldnt be allowed in because some of your race are technically at war with us?
Is it a state of war? Is the situtation of terrorists repeatedly bombing civillian targets the same as a war?
A definition I found was:
QUOTE
A Declaration of War is a formal declaration issued by a national government indicating that a state of war exists between that nation, and one or more others.
Thus, I don't believe it would be possible to actually declare a war against the terrorists in any but a 'the media wants a good phrase' sense.
The fact is, it wouldn't really matter. Having an offical state of war or not would not stop the terrorist bombings.
So really, I'm asking two questions:
Is it morally right to ask a race of people to leave because a minority is killing civillians. (also, if you do not believe it is a right course of action, would you support your government regardless)
In this situation, should a state of war (or perhaps more appropriatly a state of emergency) be called and the action that that would bring. ie, curfews, possible martial law, army searching muslim houses and so on. Would you support your government when they are patrolling the streets in tanks?
I dont believe, that martial law would be neccesary, but I am trying to get an idea of how far you belive governments should be allowed to go when combating serious terrorism.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-09-11 at 13:01:58
Terrorist - Goes into other countries
Rebel - Stays in his own
Besides that, they have a lot in common.
And any people of that race should be allowed to stay, simply disallow immigrants of that race.
Rebel - Stays in his own
Besides that, they have a lot in common.
And any people of that race should be allowed to stay, simply disallow immigrants of that race.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-11 at 23:31:51
I am *mildy* irritated right now and i was about to post something very mean. I agree with shapechanger. Just don't let anyone else of that group enter.
ADDITION:
Ok, i can't hold it in anymore.
KILL THEM ALL!!!! GENOCIDE IS THE ANSWER!!!!
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-09-11 at 23:36:27
Eh, I have no respect for human life.
I have a case of Contempt, if you will.
I have a case of Contempt, if you will.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-13 at 11:13:41
QUOTE(Slyence @ Sep 11 2005, 09:55 AM)
Last night I got this problem into my head, and I'm wondering what the general public of blizzforums believes the best course of action to be.
Lets say that Islamic terrorism steps up a gear, and begins weekly bombings of not just the major cities, but the second, third and so on cities.
The government in your country decides that this cant go on, so it orders ALL islamic citzens out of the country. Any that stay face an open jail sentence (by open, I mean a jail term with no set time to finish).
A very harsh measure to be sure, but lets remember that hundreds of people (if not thousands) are dead at this point.
My question, is that is it morally right in our society to do such a thing?
Should a society based on freedom for all people be able to decide that "you, you and you" shouldnt be allowed in because some of your race are technically at war with us?
Is it a state of war? Is the situtation of terrorists repeatedly bombing civillian targets the same as a war?
A definition I found was:
Thus, I don't believe it would be possible to actually declare a war against the terrorists in any but a 'the media wants a good phrase' sense.
The fact is, it wouldn't really matter. Having an offical state of war or not would not stop the terrorist bombings.
So really, I'm asking two questions:
Is it morally right to ask a race of people to leave because a minority is killing civillians. (also, if you do not believe it is a right course of action, would you support your government regardless)
In this situation, should a state of war (or perhaps more appropriatly a state of emergency) be called and the action that that would bring. ie, curfews, possible martial law, army searching muslim houses and so on. Would you support your government when they are patrolling the streets in tanks?
I dont believe, that martial law would be neccesary, but I am trying to get an idea of how far you belive governments should be allowed to go when combating serious terrorism.
[right][snapback]310999[/snapback][/right]
Lets say that Islamic terrorism steps up a gear, and begins weekly bombings of not just the major cities, but the second, third and so on cities.
The government in your country decides that this cant go on, so it orders ALL islamic citzens out of the country. Any that stay face an open jail sentence (by open, I mean a jail term with no set time to finish).
A very harsh measure to be sure, but lets remember that hundreds of people (if not thousands) are dead at this point.
My question, is that is it morally right in our society to do such a thing?
Should a society based on freedom for all people be able to decide that "you, you and you" shouldnt be allowed in because some of your race are technically at war with us?
Is it a state of war? Is the situtation of terrorists repeatedly bombing civillian targets the same as a war?
A definition I found was:
Thus, I don't believe it would be possible to actually declare a war against the terrorists in any but a 'the media wants a good phrase' sense.
The fact is, it wouldn't really matter. Having an offical state of war or not would not stop the terrorist bombings.
So really, I'm asking two questions:
Is it morally right to ask a race of people to leave because a minority is killing civillians. (also, if you do not believe it is a right course of action, would you support your government regardless)
In this situation, should a state of war (or perhaps more appropriatly a state of emergency) be called and the action that that would bring. ie, curfews, possible martial law, army searching muslim houses and so on. Would you support your government when they are patrolling the streets in tanks?
I dont believe, that martial law would be neccesary, but I am trying to get an idea of how far you belive governments should be allowed to go when combating serious terrorism.
[right][snapback]310999[/snapback][/right]
That is very stupid. You don't just kick someone out because there are EXTREMISTS in their religion. It's morally, and unethically wrong.
And I want to ask all of you this question.
Isn't it kinda funny that all the terrorist attacks happen after President Bush becomes the president?
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-13 at 14:49:41
won't happen
Report, edit, etc...Posted by lonely_duck on 2005-09-13 at 15:42:17
there were terroists attack before bush as well Kellimus.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kow on 2005-09-13 at 15:47:00
Wasnt the aliens and seditions act repealed? Just wondering, becuase this example is on it.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-15 at 12:37:49
QUOTE(lonely_duck @ Sep 13 2005, 12:42 PM)
there were terroists attack before bush as well Kellimus.
[right][snapback]313011[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]313011[/snapback][/right]
I know this. I'm saying against OUR country.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-09-15 at 13:17:58
Yeah, there were terrorist attacks in the US prior to the election of George Bush.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-16 at 12:34:15
Name one.
Oklahoma City bomber was not one because he was not affiliated with terrorists
Oklahoma City bomber was not one because he was not affiliated with terrorists
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-16 at 14:17:13
QUOTE(Kellimus @ Sep 15 2005, 10:37 AM)
I know this. I'm saying against OUR country.
[right][snapback]314599[/snapback][/right]
[right][snapback]314599[/snapback][/right]
Nope. First of all, there has been only one terrorist attack in this country after Bush became president.
Second, we were attacked abroad well before Bush, and you know it (why did you lie)? It even happened at the end of Clinton's term (right after the vice-presidential debate) one of our boats was attacked by a suicide bomber.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Shapechanger on 2005-09-16 at 15:34:57
QUOTE
Oklahoma City bomber was not one because he was not affiliated with terrorists
Um, why does he have to be affiliated with terrorists to be one?
Or are you saying he's not a terrorist because he wasn't affiliated with Al-Quida? (Spelling?)
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-09-18 at 02:50:05
QUOTE(Kellimus @ Sep 16 2005, 08:33 AM)
Name one.
Oklahoma City bomber was not one because he was not affiliated with terrorists
[right][snapback]315407[/snapback][/right]
Oklahoma City bomber was not one because he was not affiliated with terrorists
[right][snapback]315407[/snapback][/right]
World Trade center bombing.... (not 9/11)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/World_Trade_Center_bombing
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2005-09-18 at 03:05:09
QUOTE
KILL THEM ALL!!!! GENOCIDE IS THE ANSWER!!!!
Can I get a warn on aisle 5? (No not me.)How about starting with you demaris. You probably support the holocaust. Its people like you that make me sick and should be shot. I don't give too blams if its your opinion so don;t even use that excuse. If it IS your opinion then keep opinions like that to yourself. I would usually respect you have opinions but people also respected hitlers opinions until they got out of hand.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Staredit.Net Essence on 2005-09-18 at 03:08:20
Okieday. I never heard that one Stars.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Dr.Shotgun on 2005-09-18 at 12:33:53
U.S.S Cole, I con't find the link though...
Also, I believe a U.S embassy was bombed.
Also, I believe a U.S embassy was bombed.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by TheDaddy0420 on 2005-09-18 at 14:56:30
QUOTE(Dr.Shotgun @ Sep 18 2005, 08:33 AM)
U.S.S Cole, I con't find the link though...
Also, I believe a U.S embassy was bombed.
[right][snapback]316556[/snapback][/right]
Also, I believe a U.S embassy was bombed.
[right][snapback]316556[/snapback][/right]
well I think we were trying to talk about 'American soil' bombings, those two were against America but were in different countires.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Demaris on 2005-09-18 at 22:44:46
QUOTE(Euro @ Sep 18 2005, 02:04 AM)
Can I get a warn on aisle 5? (No not me.)
How about starting with you demaris. You probably support the holocaust. Its people like you that make me sick and should be shot. I don't give too blams if its your opinion so don;t even use that excuse. If it IS your opinion then keep opinions like that to yourself. I would usually respect you have opinions but people also respected hitlers opinions until they got out of hand.
[right][snapback]316393[/snapback][/right]
How about starting with you demaris. You probably support the holocaust. Its people like you that make me sick and should be shot. I don't give too blams if its your opinion so don;t even use that excuse. If it IS your opinion then keep opinions like that to yourself. I would usually respect you have opinions but people also respected hitlers opinions until they got out of hand.
[right][snapback]316393[/snapback][/right]
What can I say? I was angry at the moment then. In war you must fight back. My comment was not specific towards anyone in specific. "Them" could be the terrorists. In which case i support my earlier statement.
Report, edit, etc...Posted by Kashmir on 2005-09-21 at 14:32:45
doesn't matter who. Genocide is not the answer. Ok so lets gather you and your family and anyone that looks like you and systematically exterminate you.
how about that? Like that? didn't think so.
how about that? Like that? didn't think so.