Iraq Issues

Acriku · February 20, 2003

Tell me how they are alike in terms of the Iraqi. I find it insulting to the former slaves and their relatives to make a comparison like that.

emprworm · February 20, 2003

Tell me how they are alike in terms of the Iraqi. I find it insulting to the former slaves and their relatives to make a comparison like that.

lol, insulting? Are you kidding? The iraqi people are slaves. Again how is that insulting to another person that was a slave? I can see that it is insulting ....insulting to human decency, to God, and to humanity itself. So yea, if thats what you mean, I agree with it.

Acriku · February 20, 2003

You have not answered my request, simply DODGED it. You seem to be doing what you so despise.

Now prove the Iraqi are under full servitude and submission.

emprworm · February 20, 2003

You have not answered my request, simply DODGED it. You seem to be doing what you so despise.
Now prove the Iraqi are under full servitude and submission.

O lol! That was your primary reqeust? Eeeks, sorry, I thought that was a given. Seriously, I cannot believe you need proof of this. Well since you want proof, I guess I'll give it to you.

Saddam Hussein is a dictator of Iraq.

Main Entry: dic

Acriku · February 20, 2003

So what you are saying is, dictatorship begets slavery?

emprworm · February 20, 2003

So what you are saying is, dictatorship begets slavery?

without question.

Iraq is a place

Where the people are not free...

What more of a definition of slave do you require? Someone working in a cotton field?

emprworm · February 20, 2003

EMPRWORM: Re:Iraq Issues

Acriku · February 20, 2003

My definition of a slave requires some form of forced labor, or progression. Which is what the traditional slave did (that is, as shown in the past, slaves from Rome and America both were put into forced labor, and the Jews in nazi camps).

emprworm · February 20, 2003

my definition of a slave is someone who has no freedom- regardless of whether or not the master decides to beat them that day is irrelevant.

A human being who is property of someone else is a slave. Your definition is twisted. But fine- you can keep your definition, and I"ll simply reword my accusation:

"America and her allies want to free Iraqi's from living in the state of being human property to the will of a single man. We want to liberate humans from being property and white protesters are trying to force those people to continue to exist as property"

Miles · February 20, 2003

What does it matter if they can be defined in accordance to Hoyle as slaves. They are not free and they are opressed by a mass murderer.

They need to be liberated, just as the slaves of 1820 did. They have no freedom so who cares if you define it as slavery?

emprworm · February 20, 2003

What does it matter if they can be defined in accordance to Hoyle as slaves. They are not free and they are opressed by a mass murderer.
They need to be liberated, just as the slaves of 1820 did. They have no freedom so who cares if you define it as slavery?

thank you miles.

who cares is exactly right. they are human property regardless of what semantic acriku wants to apply to them. a human slave is not defined by whether or not his master does to him, but whether or not he has a master to begin with. acriku's definition is bizzarre.

Acriku · February 20, 2003

There you go again with your prejudice emprworm, sigh.

How is my definition twisted? One who is another's property is slavery, sure, but throughout history people under dictatorship were never referred to as slaves, just oppressed or subdued, and those who were forced to labor like the roman slaves, the african slaves, the jews, were referred to as slaves - servants without pay.

emprworm · February 20, 2003

There you go again with your prejudice emprworm, sigh.
How is my definition twisted? One who is another's property is slavery, sure, but throughout history people under dictatorship were never referred to as slaves, just oppressed or subdued, and those who were forced to labor like the roman slaves, the african slaves, the jews, were referred to as slaves - servants without pay.

they have always been slaves. the concept of slavery was changed in colonial times because people were bought and sold. now people define slavery mainly in these terms: buying/selling of humans. But this is not philosophically accurate. Any human being who is completely subservient to someone else is a slave- buying/selling not required..

Miles · February 21, 2003

The issue at hand is whether or not these "slaves/opressed ones/whatever the hell you want to call them" deserve to be liberated from thier dictator who murders those who oppose him. They certainly are not free which is all that really matters slave or no. We have sat around and watched too many injustices happen in the name of diplomacy, it is time that we do something about it, especially agains one who is violating multiple international laws.

Gobalopper · February 21, 2003

Love at first sight

Iraq Shipping Large Crude Cargoes, Violating U.N. Rules

Saddam shifts jets from Baghdad

Nyarlathotep · February 21, 2003

I wonder what would happen if I posted mistakes the US made in the past...

Gobalopper · February 21, 2003

In this thread? As long as they deal with Iraq that would be fine.

Nyarlathotep · February 21, 2003

In this thread? As long as they deal with Iraq that would be fine.

Uhm no, I wouldn't dare going off topic again. I basicly meant posting the mistakes here or in another (new) thread. But why state that to me, this topic has gone off topic with several posts already :)

emprworm · February 21, 2003

Love at first sight
Iraq Shipping Large Crude Cargoes, Violating U.N. Rules
Saddam shifts jets from Baghdad

you know, Gob, you post a lot of evidence. I seriously wonder if even a single anti-war person even reads them. no one really comments on the luminious volume of evidence you post. and most of the anti-war comments have no evidence themselves.

o well

nampigai · February 21, 2003

ok I'll comment then. I have through it all said that I'd support a UN resolution, however I'm affraid how the Arabic world will react. You say you don't care Emprworm, then how will you get rid of terrorism do you know how the 'normal' Saudi think of westernes? Even in Kuwait many people support Bin Laden. This war will benifit him well IMO.

This is why I think this war is to rushie the politicians haven't thought of the longterm consequence of a war on Iraq.

emprworm · February 21, 2003

ok I'll comment then. I have through it all said that I'd support a UN resolution, however I'm affraid how the Arabic world will react. You say you don't care Emprworm, then how will you get rid of terrorism do you know how the 'normal' Saudi think of westernes? Even in Kuwait many people support Bin Laden. This war will benifit him well IMO.
This is why I think this war is to rushie the politicians haven't thought of the longterm consequence of a war on Iraq.

Terrorism is religiously based. You cannot get rid of it through diplomacy or appeasement. Only through conversion.

"Strike terror into the hearts of the enemies of God and your enemies."

Surah 8:60

"Fight them, Allah will punish them by your hands and bring them to disgrace, and assist you against them and heal the hearts of a believing"

people.

Surah 9:14

" I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers, smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips off them. It is not ye who slew them; it was God."

Surah 8:13-17.

These are just a few verses that support killing in the name of Allah from the Qur'an.

Now, I understand that most Muslims do not interpret these verses literally....but I can also understand that there are many who DO. A plain, simply, casual reading of these verses clearly teach a young Muslim that infidels are enemies of God that need to be converted or killed. There should be little surprise by anyone that among a billion people who believe a book called the Qur'an, that there will be a certain percentage that will read those passages and carry them out. STopping terrorism means changing and/or stopping Islam. But how do you fight a religion? You can't. You can minimize the power of terrorism, however, by hitting it at is financial sources. That is the best way- a world shift off of oil and onto alternate power sources.

nampigai · February 21, 2003

Christianity was like that too Emprworm, but one thing's for sure you wont be able to rid the world of terrorism by killing all Moslems. It will only make themm hate the west even more and they'll be ready to harvest for Bin Laden and his kind. We have abused them and the only reason for any relations we have with i.e. Saudi Arbia is their oil.

emprworm · February 21, 2003

Christianity was like that too Emprworm, but one thing's for sure you wont be able to rid the world of terrorism by killing all Moslems. It will only make themm hate the west even more and they'll be ready to harvest for Bin Laden and his kind. We have abused them and the only reason for any relations we have with i.e. Saudi Arbia is their oil.

you miss an important difference, Nam. "Christians" have been like that , but Jesus does not teach that. When a Christian kills, he acts not according to Christ, for Christ killed no one. When a Muslim kills, he acts according to Muhammad, for Muhammad killed many.

nampigai · February 21, 2003

ok so we should kill all moslems.

emprworm · February 21, 2003

huh? :( we were having such a good discussion. where did this come from? too bad. :'(

Sign In

Iraq Issues

Recommended Posts

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Miles

emprworm

Acriku

emprworm

Miles

Gobalopper

Nyarlathotep

Gobalopper

Nyarlathotep

emprworm

nampigai

emprworm

nampigai

emprworm

nampigai

emprworm

Join the conversation

Activity

Important Information