Robin Williams for Pres

killswitch83 · Post by **killswitch83** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:22 pm

of course, I was taking that into consideration, and thought that to be an unwritten, unsaid law of nuclear war- you want backers, and plenty of them, to quell whatever backlash might occur. I would never advocate diving headfirst into a nuclear war without proper precautions, just let that be known (I'm not that soulless and wanton).

kenc51 · Post by **kenc51** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:28 pm

I think ALL nukes should be dismantled...

they kill 100% of all life.... too many innocent people die.. also they land is destroyed...

killswitch83 · Post by **killswitch83** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:30 pm

I can second that, all weapons in the entire world should be dismantled, except for simple firearms for police use against criminals. I'm 100% for a culture of life, not death. I'm pretty sure it's fairly peaceful where you live though, is it not?

-mogwai · Post by **-mogwai** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:31 pm

kenc51 wrote:Even if you nuked the whole region, it would make it worse
Thats apart from the enviromental damage etc.

The enemy is propoganda! Thats always the enemy in war
It's not the "normal" type of war tough.. feck your soldiers are killing combatants who @ 2pm are farmers and to feed their families @ night they take pot shots, lay roadside bombs etc.

They hate america because they feel you let them down..

AMERICA THE LAND OF THE FREE -> they belived that.. they belive you were coming to free them.. They now have no power, food, water etc. they live in fear of being either being lifted as "terrorists" or being shot by terrorists

When saddam (this applies to afganistan too) was ruling, they feared being picked up (just like now), but were able to walk down the road and had food and water..
If that region was wiped... that WOULD cause a REAL JIHAD...
the middle east is not the only place muslims live

IF you nuke korea, the exremist muslims will used that to scare more people to attacking the us

as I said b4 I don't have any solution.. but all out attack is not the answer without proper backing!

i like this guy...

by the way, a jihad was meant to be taken as an internal religious battle... a personal thing. it wasn't meant to be taken as killing your infidel enemy or someone who didn't agree with your religious point of view.

kenc51 · Post by **kenc51** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:36 pm

audiophile wrote:i like this guy...

by the way, a jihad was meant to be taken as an internal religious battle... a personal thing. it wasn't meant to be taken as killing your infidel enemy or someone who didn't agree with your religious point of view.

Nuking or killing 100's of muslims.. I don't think this has anything to do with religion! -> also a Jihad CAN be called if there is a serious threat to the religion... Like extermination of the people!

-mogwai · Post by **-mogwai** » Fri Sep 09, 2005 6:40 pm

true... but as it was written, it was meant to be most commonly used as a personal battle against things that would mess with your religious beliefs.

hainer36 · Post by **hainer36** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:38 pm

dont know if it was said yet........HES CANADIAN, he cant be president....hes gonna be the Prime Minister.....probably ya really never know, after all canadian politics is basically a joke

sbohdan · Post by **sbohdan** » Tue Sep 27, 2005 9:40 pm

right said...