• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

A Question For Forum Members

9-10ths_Penguin

1/10 Subway Stalinist
Premium Member
It seems that there is a little discord among members of this forum and in this country about the killing of the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is a designated terrorist organization. However we didn't see much discord over the killing of Osama bin Laden. Farqua Qatani, Abu Muhammad Adnani, Hafiz Saeed Khan, Rahman Mustafa Qaduli, Abu Nabil, Mohammed Emwazi, Mhusin Fadhli, Ali Awni Harzi, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, Adan Garar, Adam Gadahn, Hakimullah Mehsud, Malvi Nazir, Abu Yahya al Libi, Sakhr Taifi, Abdul-Rahman Awiaki, Ibrahim Banna, Anwar Awlaki, Atiyah Abdul Rahman, LLyas Kashmiri, Abdallah Umar Qurayshi, Sheik Said Masri, Hussein Yemeni, Baitullah Mahsud,
Just wondering what the difference is?
Which of them were official representatives of a country that the US was not at war with?

Which ones were acting as envoys for negotiations to defuse tensions with the US when they were killed?

Which ones were killed on the sovereign territory of an ally nation without the approval - or even knowledge - of that other nation?
 

esmith

Veteran Member
Which of them were official representatives of a country that the US was not at war with?

Which ones were acting as envoys for negotiations to defuse tensions with the US when they were killed?

Which ones were killed on the sovereign territory of an ally nation without the approval - or even knowledge - of that other nation?
Doesn't matter dead is dead
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Is supposed to mean something? Some would say that the IDF are terrorists. We don't even designate KKK or neo-Nazi groups as terrorists even when they're responsible for most of the domestic terrorism in the US. So that don't mean much to me. It's just a political thing.

US law regarding terrorism requires an external foreign organization link and political motivation for attacks. The KKK's acts predate the Patriot Act and fails to fulfill the criteria of the act. It is illegal to apply laws retrospectively.
 
Last edited:

Shad

Veteran Member
It seems that there is a little discord among members of this forum and in this country about the killing of the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is a designated terrorist organization. However we didn't see much discord over the killing of Osama bin Laden. Farqua Qatani, Abu Muhammad Adnani, Hafiz Saeed Khan, Rahman Mustafa Qaduli, Abu Nabil, Mohammed Emwazi, Mhusin Fadhli, Ali Awni Harzi, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, Adan Garar, Adam Gadahn, Hakimullah Mehsud, Malvi Nazir, Abu Yahya al Libi, Sakhr Taifi, Abdul-Rahman Awiaki, Ibrahim Banna, Anwar Awlaki, Atiyah Abdul Rahman, LLyas Kashmiri, Abdallah Umar Qurayshi, Sheik Said Masri, Hussein Yemeni, Baitullah Mahsud,

Just wondering what the difference is?

People are scare of Iran
 

Shad

Veteran Member
Which of them were official representatives of a country that the US was not at war with?

The US has not declared war since WW2. You are making one exception to the status quo.

Which ones were acting as envoys for negotiations to defuse tensions with the US when they were killed?

The claim is he was meeting Iraqis not American reps. Since when does Iraq represent the US? Oh wait... never.
 

tytlyf

Not Religious
Elect republicans, expect wars. The corrupt elitists in the MIC need some war ($$), Big Oil needs more foreign oil ($$)
They'll tell you they're doves, nope. More lies, history proves otherwise
 
Last edited:

Heyo

Veteran Member
I think your location, and lifestyle are accurately described as "far from harm". It's not at all equivalent to someone who lives in Israel or America. That is the point. It's relatively easy to be a pacifist when living in Norway was a hermit.
It is easy to be "far from harm" if your government hasn't pi$$ed off every country in the world.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
It seems that there is a little discord among members of this forum and in this country about the killing of the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is a designated terrorist organization. However we didn't see much discord over the killing of Osama bin Laden. Farqua Qatani, Abu Muhammad Adnani, Hafiz Saeed Khan, Rahman Mustafa Qaduli, Abu Nabil, Mohammed Emwazi, Mhusin Fadhli, Ali Awni Harzi, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, Adan Garar, Adam Gadahn, Hakimullah Mehsud, Malvi Nazir, Abu Yahya al Libi, Sakhr Taifi, Abdul-Rahman Awiaki, Ibrahim Banna, Anwar Awlaki, Atiyah Abdul Rahman, LLyas Kashmiri, Abdallah Umar Qurayshi, Sheik Said Masri, Hussein Yemeni, Baitullah Mahsud,
Just wondering what the difference is?
First, don't generalize. I did not approve of killing any of most of those either. It is downright shameful that so many people celebrate the killing of Bin Laden, no thanks to his actual deeds and creeds.

Second, you can't in good faith expect people who are not hypocrites or criminally irresponsible to support a deliberate and murderous attempt at fanning the flames in Iran and Iraq. Right there is a big difference from at least some of those killings.

Back at you. What do you have to say about that shamefull bloodbath?
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
The US has not declared war since WW2. You are making one exception to the status quo.
No. The GOP did.

The claim is he was meeting Iraqis not American reps. Since when does Iraq represent the US? Oh wait... never.
Sigh. Why do I even try to make sense of this sort of talk?
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I agree. Seriously. It's a big complicated problem, but, I don't see pacifism as being the solution. Everyone would need to agree to be pacifists. When that happens I'm on board. Till then it's risk assessment, and mitigation of threats.
I|m not a total pacifist. My pacifism goes as far as not to start a conflict. If you hit me, I won't turn the other cheek, I'll hit back. The problem of the US is that they have started so many conflicts that there is some backlog of being hit back. They would have to make a lot of amends before even getting into a zone where they could sleep the sleep of the rightuous.
 

Heyo

Veteran Member
I agree. The USA is the only world power left with any interest in preserving the rule of law and democratic principles (even though Trump is doing his damnedest to undermine that noble heritage). So it inevitably falls to the USA to try to show enough world leadership to rein on the other contenders. And that inevitably has a military dimension.

But it should also mean exercising military power judiciously, so as to promote stability and lawful relations between nations, and not to generate failed states and chaos, as has happened in Iraq.
and Korea, and Vietnam, and Argentina, and Chile, and Nicaragua, and Afghanistan, and Libya, and Venezuela, and Egypt, and Syria, and where else has the US intervened, military or through the CIA?
Nobody has asked the US to be the world police.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
It seems that there is a little discord among members of this forum and in this country about the killing of the leader of the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps, which is a designated terrorist organization. However we didn't see much discord over the killing of Osama bin Laden. Farqua Qatani, Abu Muhammad Adnani, Hafiz Saeed Khan, Rahman Mustafa Qaduli, Abu Nabil, Mohammed Emwazi, Mhusin Fadhli, Ali Awni Harzi, Mokhtar Belmokhtar, Adan Garar, Adam Gadahn, Hakimullah Mehsud, Malvi Nazir, Abu Yahya al Libi, Sakhr Taifi, Abdul-Rahman Awiaki, Ibrahim Banna, Anwar Awlaki, Atiyah Abdul Rahman, LLyas Kashmiri, Abdallah Umar Qurayshi, Sheik Said Masri, Hussein Yemeni, Baitullah Mahsud,
Just wondering what the difference is?

Which of them were official representatives of a country that the US was not at war with?

Which ones were acting as envoys for negotiations to defuse tensions with the US when they were killed?

Which ones were killed on the sovereign territory of an ally nation without the approval - or even knowledge - of that other nation?

Doesn't matter dead is dead

Great message to send to those who feel ill at ease with the USA's policies, man...
No fact is fact. Just because those that I referenced were killed did not meet @9-10ths_Penguin classification has no bearing of the fact that they were killed by order of the previous administration.
 

esmith

Veteran Member
There are two significant differences.
  1. The possible scope and magnitude of intended and unintended consequences.
  2. The fact that we have a grossly ignorant, pervasively cruel, pathological liar with zero impulse control pampering his sick narcissistic ego and wholly unworthy of our confidence -- a President who is now boasting of his willingness to engage in war crimes by targeting cultural targets.
#1. You can speculate all you want. However, you and others do not know for sure that there might have been attacks that will not happen after his death.
#3. Opinions are like ********....everyone has one.
 
Top