213374U

Is that an example to follow? How many traditional tribal conflicts have evolved into full-blown wars because of hasty and ill-planified de-colonisation?

Sure. But now it's up to the Palestinians to tidy up the house. They brewed it, they are going to drink it. Israel has already made their move.

Moderators are supposed to lead by example. His comment seemed to hint that his view on whether or not I had contradicted myself was final, and refused to continue the argument. That's what I was aiming at. But in your example, the house has an inherently superior value to that of the dog. That is a straw man, as in WWII, the Japanese didn't just intend to "annoy" the US. The US were fighting to prevent the Japanese from repeating their stunt at Pearl Harbor as soon as they got another chance. Human lives, not houses, not pets. Right. Which means you just aren't going to acknowledge any further arguments, regardless of their validity. My point exactly. And yes, I'm off-topic. But I didn't start it.

Shh... It's SW. Logic doesn't apply, remember?

That's more like it. Sure, but he's not a terrorist, he's not the one that we're talking about. Oh, right. So now they have gone rogue, haven't they? And when will it be a good time for them to knock it off? If we are to believe what they say, they won't stop until every jew is kicked out of the place. Whatever.

If the only way to prevent my neighbor from attacking me again after he has attacked me is to bulldoze his house, then it is perfectly valid as self-defense, provided that my life is at risk. It's exactly the way it goes when you are trying to justify your use of lethal force against an aggressor in front of a court of law. I don't care if you accept it or not. Fact is, your feeble grasp of laws is beginning to leave you in a difficult situation. "Na na na, I don't care what you say, I win, I'm not listening." Seriously, I hope your attitude towards moderation issues is a bit more open to arguments that differ with your viewpoint, or we are in some serious sh*t.

How about making a declaration? A truce? Handing over their weapons? Are you really that obtuse?

No, no. That's not how diplomacy and negotiations work. The Israeli have already abandoned their settlements. That's a gesture of good will. Now it's up to the terrorists to make a similar gesture. I don't see it happening. Huh? What? Where is it? I don't see anything. Are you trying to make me trust the good intentions of terrorists? Are you sick or just perverted?

Again, you fail to acknowledge my point. I'm beginning to think this is personal. You are not convicted of murder if you kill in self-defense. Self-defense is what the US did in Japan. Thus, it was not murder, regardless of what a dictionary says. If you want to get technical, get a law dictionary, and look it up there. Colloquial definitions are not good enough.

There has been no official declaration of war from the NPA, for starters. The militant groups aren't "officially" sanctioned by said authority, either. So yeah. Sorry buddy, but "it doesn't count", because it's not war. Dissatisfaction is not equal to armed militancy. And again, I haven't denied that there were underground movements. I have denied they had any significant impact, which they didn't. Among other things because terrorism feeds on publicity, and one of the soviet tenets was to give dissidents and their actions none. Yes, that's basically it. Yes, it's about damned time. But what has been Hamas and the rest of the terrorists' answer? Have they made any good will gestures? No, they haven't and they never will. For they are fundamentalists and the only thing they will settle for is the complete destruction of the Israeli state. That's why it's not possible to negotiate with those people. When you can provide adequate proof that they have a real intention to give peace a chance, then I will believe it. Then I will be the first supporter of negotiations. Until then, you're just playing games. End of story.

I guess that depends on what you understand by "murder". Note that I used the word "murder" and not just "kill", for a reason. Murder is not when you kill in self-defense, and that's what it ultimately came down to in Japan. So no, I'm not contradicting myself, no matter how you put it.

No. In war, the rules are different. And again, it was a war they started. If the US hadn't demolished Japan, they would just have rearmed, and charged forward again. Stop trying to milk your Hiroshima example, it's getting old already, and it should be obvious by now that you aren't going to accomplish anything. Huh? And here I was thinking that Glasnost, Perestroika, and the rest of the reforms undertaken by Gorbachev were due to his wish to revive the soviet people's interest and faith in the Party, and to give an impulse to the economy in an attempt to keep up with the US. Wait, that's the most widely accepted theory. I guess the world is wrong then, and you are right. Your particular preference for personal vengeance is of no concern to me. It's still illegal. If you wish to live outside the law, and outside any rules that make convivence possible, that's your choice. As somebody said before, vengeance is the moral equivalent of drinking sea water. Sorry, but no. I don't accept your reasons for murdering anyone. It's still wrong. But even if I accepted those particular reasons, they still have nothing to do with the topic at hand. But perhaps you are not as interested in debating as you are in "winning", even if that means making arguments so circular that they aren't related at all. Well, I hope you "win". I for one will keep just debating.

Tekken owns SC. Hey, you said rants on other games' inferiority, not superiority. "

Sure. But metal still gets rusted there. They still use cables, chips, and that sort of stuff. The kind of stuff that melts with prolongued use. The kind of stuff that can't survive severe temperature changes, you know, that kind of stuff. 47 got seriously wasted in a five year lapse. But yeah, I guess it could easily last for 4,000. Honestly, I don't really care what kind of garbage they add to an already crappy game that I don't even own. But it's still a stupid idea, and I'm calling it.

It was the lesser of two evils. Carpet bombings, artillery bombings, famine and the rest of side effects of a continued land campaign would have killed many more, both Japanese and North American. I don't advocate murdering civilians, but that was war. A war they started, mind you. And what did they achieve? What were their successes? What was their effect? International projection? My point exactly. If you are trying to say that the Soviet Union was inefficient at managing internal dissidence (which if left unchecked may lead to armed resistance), perhaps it is you who needs to do some research. Non sequitur. Nobody has raped and killed anyone's family here, not politically, not literally. If anyone, it's been the palestinian suicide bombers. That kind of twisted logic and maliciously presented straw men may work to confuse some people, but you are going to have to do better with me.

Um... O: b00bs (also: language filter) U: Legs

There are no militant dissident groups in Denmark, to speak of. Care to post any other blatant non sequitur? Fair enough. But you are conveniently disregarding the fact that the Japanese were damn well entrenched and a land invasion of Japan to force their surrender would have arguably taken a much higher toll in human lives. It was war remember? No, it's not kind of self-defeating. As I said, it worked in the Soviet Union. But again, I don't advocate the murder of innocent civilians. Sending terrorists (and perhaps their families) to concentration camps is a different story entirely. Read above. Let's put it simply. My lawn is private property. But if you trespass into my lawn, and I shoot you dead, I am a criminal, regardless of my reasons for shooting you. That's why I don't care about their reasons, and I'm not even willing to listen to them until they stop it. I'm not against negotiating. In fact, I'm all for it. But I wouldn't be willing to do it until they stopped harboring and encouraging terrorists.

Umm... I think I might have something for you, then. "

Well, logic is useful when you are trying to make sense. If what you mean is that you don't care whether or not you make sense, then fair enough.

No, not really. As "better" and "worse" are both human concepts. And without humans to apply them, their value is lost. And that in of itself would be sublime. The same reasoning applies to any subjective evaluation of the situation. Your logic fails to deliver, once again.

Nice try. You are talking about Russia, I was talking about the Soviet Union. In the Soviet Union there was virtually no terrorism. Nobody wants to see their family end in a gulag in Siberia, no matter how miserable their lives are. Oh, right. How polite of you. In the end it is nothing but accepting conditions imposed by means of murdering civilians. Call it what you will, but that's what it is. Wait, now it's my turn to be polite. It's not oppression. It's called "security". No. There is only black and white. It all comes down to accepting the demands of murderers or not. Simple as that. And force alone hasn't worked because we aren't really using force. Don't be mistaking the particular brand of "peacemaking" that the US military is exercising in Iraq with force, because it's not the same thing. This is all the proof I need. Unlike you, I don't care about their reasons. I don't tolerate murdering civilians, under any circumstances. You, on the other hand, seem to establish degrees of tolerance depending on their reasons. Yes, it must be truly great to have such an infallible universal moral compass that helps you to establish when is it fair for people to get murdered and when it isn't. You would be funny, if we weren't talking about innocent people getting murdered. Oh, wait. They are not so innocent, are they? Right. They were oppressing the Palestinians.

No, not really. As "better" and "worse" are both human concepts. And without humans to apply them, their value is lost. OH NOES! FOILED AGAIN!

Huh? How does being an ass about everything yield better results? At best it forces companies to close. Oh, wait. I'm talking with the guy that wants the entire world to shut down. My mistake. Really now, wouldn't you be happier telling a psychologist about all of this? At least he wouldn't flame you about it. Oh, wait. A psychologist would charge you. My mistake. My, am I sloppy today.

Another "DUH" argument from the naysayer par excellence. Yes, Hades, we could do that. But then again, that logic applies to some 95% of everything. So, yes, Hades. We could all be like you. But the thing is, we'd rather not. )