We will win in the war against the nihilistic jihadists, no matter how long it takes. Our society is based on compassion and the desire to improve our fellow man's lot in life, their philosophy is based on hatred and destruction. Our philosophy ensures the sanctity of life, all that the jihadists can offer is meaningless deaths and destruction.


LOL.Its your government that goes stirring **** up and blowing up other peoples countries all over the globe.Go charge at those windmills you fucking fanatic.

Also, I'd love to see people promote and wish for the rape of any woman that does similar things.

Damn, now I actually agree with you on something.

I wasn't around back then, but did people go this nuts on the Abu Ghraib incident? Maybe it was different because it was a woman, maybe because it was our enemies? People seemed pretty mad at the homophobic she-cop that punched out that guy in Canada, but the scale seems pretty different.

You do realise that doing the pig fat/blood/offal thing doesn't scripturally exclude anyone from paradise, yes? And that the General Pershing story about him pouring pig blood over Muslim prisoners before execution is most likely entirely made up?


Then let the pigs assrape him for a few hours before putting him in a wood chipper feet-first.

Nonsense, not least because this implies a collective responsibility or guilt. One can only be judged by one's actions, not those of others.

How is it nonsense?

It's a matter of choice to stand up and let the world know, "Hey, I'm a Muslim/Christian/Atheist/Pastafarian/Subgenius/Democrat/Republican/Communist/Anarchist/Capitalist/Monarchist/Pacifist/Throwafist/whatever". By doing so, you're presenting yourself as associated with that particular group, and consequently you assume responsibility for both the positive and negative aspects of that group.

If you claim to be an Environmentalist, you don't get to take any credit for saving trees without taking an equal amount of blame for the assholes who set fire to new housing developments. At the very least you need to either qualify your association with a statement that you don't support the actions of those assholes, or if you actually do, then reach down and find the testicles to admit it.

If you fly the flag of Assholia in your yard, you can't complain when you're mistaken for a Assholian, for good or ill. Either chose not to fly the flag, or own up to the fact that your country's main export is Assholes.

This is why I don't allow myself to be effectively nailed down on any particular ideology (beyond my contempt for rigid ideology in the first place); **** you if you want to make me responsible for the actions of other people.

No. You are not your brother's keeper, ever. Sheep is 100% correct. Demand apologies from involved parties only. Do you feel that individual US soldiers should feel ANY kind of responsibility for Haditha? I don't.

You're conflating separate issues.

I chose to be a soldier. If I see a soldier behaving in a way that makes us all look bad, it's my duty to call him on it. Otherwise, I don't give a **** about being a soldier.

Even if you don't actually SEE him doing it and just hear about it in the mass media? Do you then feel morally obligated to assure everybody that no, not all US soldiers are rapists and murderers, please don't judge me?

What you are demanding is for people completely unrelated to violent actions to apologise for them, just because they worship the same sky-deity, in spite of them obviously having very different views of what said sky-deity commands you to do.

I would not demand that random Christians publicly distance themselves from Srebrenica, the Lord's Resistance Army or Ku Klux Klan. I would not demand that random Irish people apologise for the IRA. Why should anyone have to distance themselves from ANYTHING they are not directly associated with?

This "WHY DON'T MUSLIMS DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM TERRORISM" **** is a media-created talking point, it is blatantly unfair in nature and has no relevance to the real world.

You are not your brothers keeper. Ever. Since you fancy yourself a great big libertarian/Randian individualist superman, you should realise this.

The Koreans should not have to apologize for Cho Seunghui.

Further, the collective guilt card is played by terrorists when they consider all American citizens to be combatants because our democracy makes each of us responsible for the actions of our government & military.

The duty of a soldier to stop his fellow soldier from committing murder has no bearing on the behavior of a religious man in bearing the guilt of another man of the same religion he has never met or influenced in any way. They are two completely separate ethical dilemma.

Islam is the cancer. Nukes are the answer.

Even if you don't actually SEE him doing it and just hear about it in the mass media? Do you then feel morally obligated to assure everybody that no, not all US soldiers are rapists and murderers, please don't judge me?

What you are demanding is for people completely unrelated to violent actions to apologise for them, just because they worship the same sky-deity, in spite of them obviously having very different views of what said sky-deity commands you to do.

I would not demand that random Christians publicly distance themselves from Srebrenica, the Lord's Resistance Army or Ku Klux Klan. I would not demand that random Irish people apologise for the IRA. Why should anyone have to distance themselves from ANYTHING they are not directly associated with?

This "WHY DON'T MUSLIMS DISTANCE THEMSELVES FROM TERRORISM" **** is a media-created talking point, it is blatantly unfair in nature and has no relevance to the real world.

You are not your brothers keeper. Ever. Since you fancy yourself a great big libertarian/Randian individualist superman, you should realise this.

I don't care what the media is doing/saying/etc. I care about the reality of the situation, which is if you chose to fly a certain flag, you by default accept all the associations and responsibilities which come with it.

Otherwise, don't make that choice; you can't have it both ways. Only cowards would try.

Depends a lot on what will be uncovered / disclosed by the investigations; but when I saw the news I was reminded of the WWI mutinies on the Marne front, and DerAus friend's letter seemed a dire confirmation.

LOL.Its your government that goes stirring **** up and blowing up other peoples countries all over the globe.Go charge at those windmills you fucking fanatic.

Actually the amount of ordinance used to "blow up other people's countries all over the globe" has been minimal. If I am wrong please provide examples of the number of countries that have been "blown up" and the amount of damage that has been inflicted.

Since the 9/11 incident the emphasis has been on using ground troops using direct fire on select point targets versus indirect fire on area targets. This selective use of force places our ground forces at much greater risk but minimizes damage to non-combatants and their infrastructure.

I do not accept your challenge to go charging at windmills because:
1. windmills are environmentally sound sources of clean energy, and
2. I don't have a horse.

Actually the amount of ordinance used to "blow up other people's countries all over the globe" has been minimal. If I am wrong please provide examples of the number of countries that have been "blown up" and the amount of damage that has been inflicted.

Since the 9/11 incident the emphasis has been on using ground troops using direct fire on select point targets versus indirect fire on area targets. This selective use of force places our ground forces at much greater risk but minimizes damage to non-combatants and their infrastructure.

I do not accept your challenge to go charging at windmills because:
1. windmills are environmentally sound sources of clean energy, and
2. I don't have a horse.

Damn right, the US doesn't destroy countries full of civilians. Now cities, well.......

if you chose to fly a certain flag, you by default accept all the associations and responsibilities which come with it

Which are always your standards of association and responsibility, right?

You may want to look into the word atheist a little more, it covers a large enough umbrella of human experience that we may as well say all men capable of growing facial hair are responsible for all other men with functioning beard factories.

**** all that. For someone with an alleged problem with rigid ideology, you sure seem awful dogmatic and ready to brand a fool with the first label or idea you feel comfortable with.

Which are always your standards of association and responsibility, right?

You may want to look into the word atheist a little more, it covers a large enough umbrella of human experience that we may as well say all men capable of growing facial hair are responsible for all other men with functioning beard factories.

That makes no damn sense.



**** all that. For someone with an alleged problem with rigid ideology, you sure seem awful dogmatic and ready to brand a fool with the first label or idea you feel comfortable with.Don't call yourself a fucking bagel if you have a problem with being covered in cream cheese.

It's a choice to label yourself. By making that choice you assume a degree of responsibility for the actions of those who also label themselves accordingly. You're perfectly free to refrain from adding the label, and you're perfectly free to remove the label should it conflict with your actual views.

But what you cannot do is call yourself a square peg if you expect to be treated like a circle peg; because you're just going to get yourself painfully crammed into the wrong hole.

The group of people in the world the word atheist applies to is as unified and cohesive a group as people with dark hair. To say nothing of the other words you bandy about.

People can use terms to describe themselves without pledging allegiance to everyone else in the world who also uses that term. Religious views, nationality, ethnicity and culture standards tie me to anyone who shares them as much as wearing the same color shirt.

The group of people in the world the word atheist applies to is as unified and cohesive a group as people with dark hair. To say nothing of the other words you bandy about.

That's because it's idiotic to have an ideological group based on what you don't believe. Ideological labels are positive affirmations and ultimately everyone's atheist to one degree or another (unless you believe all theologies are equally valid).



People can use terms to describe themselves without pledging allegiance to everyone else in the world who also uses that term. Religious views, nationality, ethnicity and culture standards tie me to anyone who shares them as much as wearing the same color shirt.

Who said they're pledging allegiance? Labeling yourself is an expression of group identity, and that group identity (whether you fucking like it or not) is a shared with the group you with which you chose to identify yourself.

If you do not like the behavior of the group, you can either chose to make efforts towards changing it, or you can chose to label yourself differently.

Anything else is just intellectual cowardice.