Your profile reflects your reputation, it will build itself as you create new debates, write arguments and form new relationships.
Make it even more personal by adding your own picture and updating your basics.
Reward Points: | 7 |
Efficiency:
Efficiency is a measure of the effectiveness of your arguments. It is the number of up votes divided by the total number of votes you have (percentage of votes that are positive). Choose your words carefully so your efficiency score will remain high. | 93% |
Arguments: | 9 |
Debates: | 0 |
Belief in God, religion irrelevant is good and has been proven to be beneficial to the psyche of the average person. Humans can't comprehend with the notion that someday your life will end. So a psychological response was made. The idea of a benevolent being watching over you after you die. I for one DO believe in a place after life , despite not believing the most widely accepted religions.
However abuses of the idea are common, for instance dying/killing/sacrificing yourself or somebody else for GOD because that is supposedly the greater good.
Would a benevolent God send people to hell? Is that more likely than the more likely chance that "God" just doesn't care (for the sake of argument that he/she/it does exist).
Would you care about the suffering of 1 man in the sea of 6 billion. Even caring for humanity as a whole is redundant, seeing as how we murder more and more of us through wars and the like, but doesn't matter because we populate the world like locusts. Humanity isn't going anywhere, just it's quality of life is changing.
31912 people died from the Spanish inquisition. -Google
Seeing as how Jihad is a declaration to attack by an imam against for all believers to attack them, depending on the imam's popularity if anyone will care what he has to say. For instance something completely moronic like a jihad against Barney (yes the purple dinosaur) has been instituted and dismissed by other normal Muslims.
Don't exclude Islam as the only religion capable of mass murder. The global jihad you're mentioning is being executed by a small extreme percentage of the Muslim faith.
http://www.theskepticalreview.com/
So you argument is invalid because the two can't be compared.
I ask the OP to find one religion that isn't a religion of peace. It's always a small percentage in the perspective religion that follows it's tenets very loosely.
American, Mormon, and gay. Yeah and you're perfect. Luckily you represent a small minority of Americans, who really "like their mom", practice bad oral hygiene, and collect welfare checks while watching Jerry Springer with their cousing Bubba.
P.S. delivering weed to your local college doesn't make your a college grad.
Based on what? His rhetoric? Probably.
He wasn't due to the fact that major military operations were stalled because his astronomical charts told him otherwise.
Overall, persons that were about to die because of their actions didn't care which of these dictators is "a little" worse or better.
2000+ people died in Pearl Harbor next to the hundreds of thousands in both cities, of those 2000, 68 were civilians.
And seeing as how the Soviet union was about to attack them as well, plus the fact that the Japanese people were starving, there were other alternatives. American soldiers would have died? Don't want to fight, don't go in the first place.
As far as i know Pearl harbor was almost entirely a military base, whereas Hiroshima and Nagasaki, were targets of minor military significance.
But screw my argument. The policy is, 1000 dead, guilty, innocent or whatever, for 1 American, right?
Amongst other things i think that the war in Iraq was also fought over oil.
The reason that Iraq had WMDs and were sponsoring terrorism has been disproven time and time again yet it has still been the basis for the attack by the US and it's allies and it's subsequent war on terror.
Seeing as how Iraq doesn't have any other resources valuable enough to go to war over it leaves to the conclusion that oil was the determining factor in attacking Iraq. Most likely the people planning this were planning to reap the rewards over the long run not just over a year or so.
My conclusion is that controlling Iraq's oil is just a reward in a larger scale of
operations that the US has in the middle eastern area.
I would like to invite the opponents of my statement to give me their opinion.
The fact that Iraq didn't comply with sanctions is a weak argument because i could name a lot of countries that don't comply with them. Example being Syria and it's like minded countries. There are other countries that sponsor terrorist actions against the US like Libya, Iran, North Korea. Libya for one has been proven to have commited terrorist actions, and still they have their "president" in power, proving only that if you keep your mouth shut and don't make trouble you'll stay in power. The US doesn't go to war if it doesn't have anything to gain, no country does and there are a lot more peaceful and cheaper ways of removing Saddam
I am probably a good person but I haven't taken the time to fill out my profile, so you'll never know! |