Terrorist Attack: If you were President of the United States

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:47 am

Beena wrote:Let's assume that no one wants to hurt another deliberately, without reason. That means there's a problem of misunderstanding on both sides. So, let's say I get slapped violently. If I give my slapper the benefit of doubt by turning my other cheek for the time until the issue gets resolved, who loses? It will be the person who created the misunderstanding. The slapper already slapped, and I already got hurt, but for the future, if this person who brought the slapper to me for me to get slapped does not get put in his place, the slapping will continue. Won't it? But if I forget my pain for a little while and expose the middle man by not taking the offensive which he intended me to take, then this middle man loses and the slapper feels shame and is mortified for slapping me and even though my hurt cannot be erased but the middle man is exposed so crime cannot be there anymore. Don't you think that when Christ advocated, turning the other cheek, this was the reason why?

Answer me this, if Joe Schmo purposely stabs you in the arm with a knife and it appears he is going to do it again. Would you stand there and "turn the other cheek?" At what point do you decide to defend yourself? Do you turn the other cheek until your dead?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 11:36 am

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 1:30 pm

Beena wrote:If someone purposefully stabs me in the hand with a knife and has the full intention to do it again, first, I will try to stop him because stop him I must. If in stopping him I end up hurting him that is fine but from my side I did not try to be violent. If I'm able to stop him I'll ask him why he stabbed me because no one stabs another for no reason so I would like to know that reason, so the problem can be resolved and enemity disappear.

Turning the other cheek does not imply that one put himself open to attack or another attack or open to danger. Turning the other cheek means giving the slapper the benefit of doubt so that we can know what the problem is, get to the heart of it and resolve it.

I agree. However, I know what the reason is without speaking with terrorists. They want you and I dead. Do not get me wrong, Beena. If a muslim knocked on my door and needed something to eat, I would give him something to eat. If he needed help in any way, I would help him. But I would not turn the other cheek and leave myself open for an attack.

I guess what it boils down to is whether or not you believe Islamic terrorism poses a threat to our way of life. I believe it does.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:21 pm

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 2:36 pm

Beena wrote:But turning the other cheek does not mean that you make yourself vulnerable to another attack, no! It means that you try and see the slappers point of view, that's all. It would be foolish and also violent to let yourself be slapped again because being violent to yourself is also violence and in as much as we should be good to another we should be good to ourselves too as we are also another. Anyway...

I think you and I agree here. I just believe I know the point of view of the "slappers" we call terrorists.

Beena wrote:I think this whole terrorism and Islam thing is not limited to just muslims, believers and Islam. I think there is another party that creates misunderstandings between the middle east and the US because in some way it stands to benefit from strife and violence. So don't just blame muslims and Islam. 'There is no clapping with one hand, it takes two to tango' and two for a high five.

Don't hold back! What "party" are you refering to? Who benefits from the strife and violence?

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:15 pm

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:42 pm

anyone know which nation reversed to terrorism tactics first ?

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:51 pm

They're as old as mankind itself.

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:57 pm

You do know the difference between freedom fighters and terrorists right

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 5:58 pm

Deborah · Post by **Deborah** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 6:11 pm

Problem is terrorism tactics can achieve

Israel proved this, they used terror tactics to get there own Nation.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:35 pm

Beena wrote:Slappers are not the terrorists here, the terrorists are the middle men who create misunderstandings. I don't know the answer to who the third party is or who the terrorists are, and even if I knew I wouldn't put it out here. People do what they do because of their circumstances. Whoever they are, whatever they are, wherever they are, they did not come out in this world and declare as a child, that I'm going to become a terrorist. No! Something made them who they are, what they are and where they are, so this something is to be blamed the most. I think that there is a lot of misunderstanding between the middle east and the US and because of that if none takes offence to anything but try to resolve any violence in a peaceful manner then these misunderstandings will gradually disappear and so will terrorism for good.

You say there is a third party and a middle man but then you say you do not know who they are?

I believe you are correct when you say something made them the way they are. That would be the influence of Islam in their everyday lives.

Mastermind · Post by **Mastermind** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 7:44 pm

Islam has nothing to do with it. If Islam turned people into bloodsucking monsters, then how come I have muslim friends who are perfectly normal? If Islam hates Christians, how come they ALWAYS defend Christianity in internet discussions when angry atheists blame us for every one of Bush's moves? I may disagree with muslims on religious issues, but blaming Islam for the bad crap a minority did is no different than having atheists point out on how we killed a couple of million with the Inquisition.

Anonymous · Post by **Anonymous** » Sun Feb 06, 2005 9:46 pm

Ok the U.S. attacked Iraq based on false pretenses and it was a preemptive strike, meaning we attacked first. Since you can't prove to me Al quada was linked to Hussein, then we are actually the one's slapping the cheek.

Thinking someone might attack you in the future doesn't give you the right to go and disable them so that you don't have to worry about it.
It's essentially what the U.S. did with Iraq.