There goes the neighborhood - Tunisia Edition

if bombs solved everything, america would be issue free. things just typically aren't that simple though.

Of course you're right, Christians do nothing but perpetrate violence on others. Nice you needed to reach back hundreds of years for your references.

A recent example? Damn, you got me... wait, except for this minor incident. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/07/23/world/europe/23oslo.html?pagewanted=all) And these... (http://www.prochoice.org/about_abortion/violence/history_violence.html)


While we're cutting through shit, let's cut through your shit. You're quite anti-religious and paint with a very broad brush in your negative (and very condescending) statements against those who are religious.

All true, and I often forget to account for the power of prayer. (Now that's condescending!)


And while agnostics/atheists may not have a "supernatural father figure" that tells them to commit murder, those that want to commit violence for secular reasons (money/power/statism) don't have any moral compass to hold them back from mass murder. For example; tens of millions murdered by Communist regimes such as the USSR, China, Cuba, etc.

No these regimes do not require holy authority, which is why in addition to my normal anti-religion shit talking I was also coming out against US Foreign Policy. (remember, there were two components of my argument...) We potentially kill innocents with every drone strike, let's not pretend we operate on a higher moral level. Also... with all of our awesome dedication to the sanctity of human life, we're still the only society that's ever done this:

AtSt5XZ7fq4


Look at the violence in U.S. society today, most of it is over $$$, drugs, etc....purely secular.

Sammy, I don't know you personally, but I love you. In a completely old testament, love thy neighbor sort of way. That said, the above quote is borderline retarded. It's a complete straw man argument in that I never said Christians were run amok throughout the US causing mayhem. Or the majority of mayhem. But certainly SOME mayhem. When I think of crimes involving money, sex and drugs (oh so secular), i can't help but think of this (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/01/26/ted-haggard-sex-drugs-bri_n_160954.html) and this (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_PTL_Club#Scandal_and_subsequent_demise), and, just because I'm originally from Lancaster, PA, i've got to include this. (http://www.cnn.com/US/9807/01/amish.unholy.alliance/)

pfffftttt
You played the Hiroshima card?
Do you have any clue how many people would have died if we would have had to invade Japan?
You may be polarized by the atomic bomb but it was the best option at the time.

Purely a matter of opinion, and since we are invited their by their govts in most cases that argument never held any water with me. Especially in Bin Ladens case.
Islam and Islamic extremists are not a govt nor are they a uniformed army.

Surely, and of course the opinion of the invaders should carry more weight than that of the invaded. Also... for ****'s sake, let's remember that the US and USSR played a role in creating these terrorists. Would they exist in the same context as they currently do had those two nations not spent decades using them as pawns? I think it might have played a role. /condescending!

Sure, I'm a commie bastard... but what about our Secretary of State?

Dqn0bm4E9yw

pfffftttt
You played the Hiroshima card?
Do you have any clue how many people would have died if we would have had to invade Japan?

No, do you?

And by the way... played the Hiroshima card? Seriously??? We vaporized two cities. And then have the audacity to make sure that other nations never get their hands on this dangerous technology (yet we made sure to buy enough of them to wipe out all life on the planet) because we can't trust them not to use it. We can't be trusted not to use it! In short... that's a big ****ing card when you're talking about hypocrisy.

I can't say whether that was right or wrong. Not making that argument. Just saying that we as country get really preachy when history shows that we're not shy about ****ing people up who are ideologically opposed to us.

No, do you?

Yea, and so do a lot of other people.
Far more than that what the nukes killed.

No, do you?

And by the way... played the Hiroshima card? Seriously??? We vaporized two cities. And then have the audacity to make sure that other nations never get their hands on this dangerous technology (yet we made sure to buy enough of them to wipe out all life on the planet) because we can't trust them not to use it. We can't be trusted not to use it! In short... that's a big ****ing card when you're talking about hypocrisy.

I can't say whether that was right or wrong. Not making that argument. Just saying that we as country get really preachy when history shows that we're not shy about ****ing people up who are ideologically opposed to us.

If you understood and or lived thru the entire cold war you would understand why we did that.

Yea, and so do a lot of other people.
Far more than that what the nukes killed.

I'm looking for a number, since you're being definitive on one quantity vs. another. Obviously there is no such number. It's hypothetical.

That said, I think we can agree that it was the biggest single attack on a civilian population in the entire history of human civilization. And why do we hate terrorists? Oh yeah, because they're willing to blow up non-combatant citizens. You can't make the argument for one and not the other. It just doesn't exist. The only differentiator is scale.

I'm looking for a number, since you're being definitive on one quantity vs. another. Obviously there is no such number. It's hypothetical.

That said, I think we can agree that it was the biggest single attack on a civilian population in the entire history of human civilization. And why do we hate terrorists? Oh yeah, because they're willing to blow up non-combatant citizens. You can't make the argument for one and not the other. It just doesn't exist. The only differentiator is scale.

Hiroshima was a military target that was chosen because of its industry, naval ports and military headquarters. Not because of its civilian population.
Pretty common knowledge.....

If you understood and or lived thru the entire cold war you would understand why we did that.

Would there have been a cold war if the US wasn't so goddamned self assured that their form of government didn't have to be the prevailing form of government for other nations? No, we played the who's got a bigger dick game and, luckily, won. Doesn't mean that we didn't open pandora's box.

Look, this is getting really off track... I think i've made my case, which is simply that the US is both hypocritical and grossly arrogant in it's foreign policy, and that as a partial result of that hypocrisy/arrogance the Middle East pays a price in terms of borderline constant destabilization. The region has historically been a cluster ****, but that doesn't mean we haven't contributed a whole lot of f*ckery to the equation.