Explosion in London this morning

[Jediphile]

Dosnt matter what state the economy is in as long as he has the oil and someone to sell it too. Remember the Russians and France ? They were the ones doing deals and allowing him to circumvent sanctions. They were also the ones who constantly held back the UN for their own selfish gain while people died in droves. Something to think about it isnt it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Not saying Russia and France don't share the responsibility. They do for their part. And as has already been said, the sanctions were hurting Iraqi civilians more than they were hurting Saddam - if he needed the money for his weapons program, then he was perfectly willing to take the food out of his people's mouthes and let the all starve to death...

 

But there is enough blame for the rest of us as well. For example, Reagan removed Iraq from the list of terrorist countries over the objection of congress in 1982, and in 1983 Iraq got about 5 billion in unreported loans through certain banks (apparently from Italy), which was then promptly used to equipment for Iraq's missile, chemical, biological and nuclear weapons programs with the approval of the US government.

 

Odd thats isnt. When Isreal do something good we didnt act and when they do something "wrong" its our fault for supporting them.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Point being that the west either supported the wrong side or did nothing. We were perfectly content to let Saddam butcher whomever he pleased. So long as it was in our own interests, we really couldn't care less...

[213374U]

I spout propaganda when I defend my democratic right to free speech and my own opinion? 

Yes, it's propaganda. The same progressist, do-nothing, it's-our-fault, ideals-alone-will-win propaganda that most politicians have been spouting for the last years. It's not only getting old, it's been proven a fallacy. Get some new stuff, you're making me sick.

 

 

Oh, I'll fight for my way of life if and when it comes to that. I just don't agree with you that I must necessarily shed blood in order to do so. And I will question governments who torture captives for information - that is *not* my way of life! Oh, and I have reported you to the moderator for all the good it'll do - calling me names is not permissible, and you won't see me calling you one.

This is a violent world. Sometimes it comes down to kill or be killed. Deal with it.

 

And about calling you names, well, I guess nobody likes to openly admit their cowardice.

 

 

That might be, but hopefully there are people around me who stop me from acting out of revenge in such a case, since I would then hardly be in a frame of mind to make rational decisions.

Ah, right. So you have the "proper frame of mind" now that you barely have an idea of what you're talking about, but if you experienced it first-hand, then you would not be able to make rational decisions. Please.

 

 

And which governments are those? Afghanistan has already been taken care of - and for the record, I supported that. Iraq, however, had nothing to do with terrorism, as Bush has admitted *after* the war...

Wow, you sure are a master at dodging the issue. You know which countries harbor and support islamic terrorism. Quit playing games.

 

 

Nor does war - soldiers are dying on a daily basis in Iraq in case you didn't know...

An ill-planned war that had nothing to do with terrorism, as you have admitted yourself. Any other non sequitur you wish to make?

 

 

I wouldn't call a terrorist rational, but then I wouldn't call a serial killer rational either, and yet the police catch those by making profiles. That suggests they are not beyond any form of understanding, in which case the same could be true for terrorists. We don't hear about that, though.

Another non sequitur. What, are you getting tired or is it just that the feeble grasp you had on reality is finally giving up?

 

Your previous statement was based on the assumption that islamic terrorists can be discouraged, by showing them they can't win.

However, religious fanaticism isn't rational, because it's based on belief. This means that any logical reasons you may give them aren't going to work - they kill because they feel it's their holy duty to do so.

This has nothing to do with logic and reason not being able to provide a solution for the problem.

 

Keep trying, but not too hard. I wouldn't want you to hurt yourself and report me because of it.

 

 

I'm not saying we should just do nothing against terrorism, but we should be wary of what it is we do and take care that we find the guilty people instead of committing acts of horrible injustice in our zeal to hav revenge. It's really just the principle of not giving in to terrorists, since that just encourages more of the same. If they see us changing our way of life and shredding our civil rights, then we are giving in. If we mobilize and become aggressive, then we are giving in. If we stay firm, they'll see that they can do whatever and we won't budge, so why bother...

It's not a matter of revenge. It's a matter of self-defense. And while attacking them may generate more potential terrorists, they will have no way of comitting terrorist acts if we do our part well enough. As for the part of them seeing such and such, read above.

 

Oh, and as a side note, that whole paragraph is a big contradiction. Great job.

 

 

Nazis hadn't any chance anyways, Russians would crush them sooner or later. There was no way for Hitler to win with russian reserves. US involvement only quickened the unavoidable.

Losing Stalingrad would have shattered the Red Army. That is a widely accepted statement. If it wasn't for the Americans opening a second front in Africa, Germany would have had enough troops to take Stalingrad and the rest of the USSR would have fallen into line.

 

Oh, wait. That's in the real world. In Nur Ab Sal's Wonder World, I don't know how the war went.

 

 

buhu. people die, deal with it. as long as i'm not affected directly or indirectly(people i know), i really don't care if and how others die.

That's trolling. It's neither elegant, nor subtle or funny. Get the f*ck out.

[Nur Ab Sal]

Or to just dehumanize humanity, to cull all ideas that might lead to war. To utterly remove the meaning of love, hate, society, difference, acceptance. Of course, I'd rather we were all extinguished before my individuality was neutered and ripped away from me for the sake of the 'greater good' or peace.

 

This, assuming the success of world peace is entirely and exclusively dependant on the extinction of the human race.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Discovering life on other planets is a good start. It will explode the human idea of self importance for one thing. As well as give religion a bloody nose which is never a bad thing.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Yeah it can take 2000 years so...

 

And about calling you names, well, I guess nobody likes to openly admit their cowardice.

 

This one is really appalling. According to mr. 1345218 or whatever, anyone who

doesn't want to be an arrogant jerk like him, is a coward!

 

Losing Stalingrad would have shattered the Red Army. That is a widely accepted statement. If it wasn't for the Americans opening a second front in Africa, Germany would have had enough troops to take Stalingrad and the rest of the USSR would have fallen into line.

 

Oh, wait. That's in the real world. In Nur Ab Sal's Wonder World, I don't know how the war went.

 

There were millions of german forces on the Eastern Front already and only 150.000 Germans in North Africa, so their transfer wouldn't change much. Soviets had three times bigger population and two times bigger industry on Ural. Germans put 80% of their entire army on the East and they lost. Your illiteracy is terryifying.

Apparently trolling is the only thing you are competent in.

[Jediphile]

First, true democracy is a mith

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Oh, so no point in pursuing it I guess... I'm glad I'm not quite that defeatist...

 

and yes democracy must come from the will of the people but even if that happens in S.Arabia it would fail. With your military facilities you are enforcing the current regimes, those bases are clear sign to any other country that US will defend Saudi Arabia, better say, they will defend the current regime because of the reasons I noted before.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I don't agree with that position. The US has had bases in many other countries without being suspected of enforcing totalitarian regimes, so I don't see why Saudi Arabia would be such a special case.

 

You know why you want change? Because resources on this planet are running out, and in order for the US to keep its "title" as a world superpower you will have to take more and more radical steps in order to be so....and believe me those steps won't be democratic.....and if you really do change, which I doubt, you just won't be able to maintain a favourable financial envoirment and you would eventually go bankrupt by fully obbeying international law, you're already in deep sh*t with the deficit way over 700 billion $. That is way you will stick to your imperialist tendencies, and like all empires, one way or another, as they all did, you will fall and burn....

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Don't accuse me of imperialist tendencies, when I've actually criticized US behavior. And what's with all the "you" - I'm not even an american! But if you cannot accept the mere possibility that I might support change for idealistic reasons over convenient ones, then you're beyond reasoning, since anything I say will automatically be vowen into the lie of self-supporting arguments that you seem to impose in me. In that case there is no point in arguing, since you are clearly seeing anything I say as coming from a bias that you must oppose, no matter what I say.

[213374U]

...well I always knew you were an as*hole, but I really didn't know you are such a pathetic fu*k!!!

 

 

You know what 213374U? I know more about WW2 then you will ever know, and as always, your comment on Stalingrad is bullsh*t, go play general in the backyard.

Yeah, yeah. And your dad can beat up my dad, too. No one cares, really.

[Walsingham]

I'm afraid I'm going to leave this thread alone from now on. I don't enjoy trying to reason with people who are simply hurling abuse. Call it running away if you like. I'm going to get back the sane world while I still can.

 

Terrorism is real, it is not an invention by the powerful. The daily incidence of terror across the world involves the killing of ordinary people. The deliberate murder of ordinary people. This would be bad enough. but when the stated aim of the persons responsible is the overthrow of every country that pretends to the title of 'free',, and their replacement with ignorance and blind fanaticism, it becomes totally repellant.

 

I have and will continue to oppose such people. Have fun.

[Nur Ab Sal]

Losing Stalingrad would have shattered the Red Army. That is a widely accepted statement. If it wasn't for the Americans opening a second front in Africa, Germany would have had enough troops to take Stalingrad and the rest of the USSR would have fallen into line.

 

Oh, wait. That's in the real world. In Nur Ab Sal's Wonder World, I don't know how the war went.

 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You know what 213374U? I know more about WW2 then you will ever know, and as always, your comment on Stalingrad is bullsh*t, go play general in the backyard.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

Don't bother yourself with that loser. His life job is flaming and writing nonsenses.

 

And it's not his fault that he fell prey to the american education system that produces idiots...

[213374U]

This one is really appalling. According to mr. 1345218 or whatever, anyone who

doesn't want to be an arrogant jerk like him, is a coward!

Not anyone. You, for instance, are not a coward. You're just retarded.

 

 

There were millions of german forces on the Eastern Front already and only 150.000 Germans in North Africa, so their transfer wouldn't change much. Soviets had three times bigger population and two times bigger industry on Ural. Germans put 80% of their entire army on the East and they lost. Your illiteracy is terryifying.

Apparently trolling is the only thing you are competent in.

150k men could easily have been the difference between winning and losing. You're not even trying.

[Nur Ab Sal]

This one is really appalling. According to mr. 1345218 or whatever, anyone who

doesn't want to be an arrogant jerk like him, is a coward!

Not anyone. You, for instance, are not a coward. You're just retarded.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

*sigh* subjectives...

 

 

150k men could easily have been the difference between winning and losing. You're not even trying

 

 

No they couldn't against endless soviet reserves. You are just too big illiterate to understand that, just like any other aspect of the WWII. Go to european school, maybe they will teach you something, dumbass (I doubt IMO but there's hope )

[213374U]

No they couldn't against endless soviet reserves. You are just too big illiterate to understand that, just like any other aspect of the WWII.

REAL WORLD - Battle of Stalingrad

 

"Millions of forces" lol...

[Jediphile]

Yes, it's propaganda. The same progressist, do-nothing, it's-our-fault, ideals-alone-will-win propaganda that most politicians have been spouting for the last years. It's not only getting old, it's been proven a fallacy.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nobody's tried it, so that's a poor argument.

 

Get some new stuff, you're making me sick.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Take an asperin and call me in the morning...

 

This is a violent world. Sometimes it comes down to kill or be killed. Deal with it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

I am. I'm disagreeing. There is a certain "let's just drop the bomb and be done with it"-mentality going on, as if peace is somehow impossible. I will not support that.

 

And about calling you names, well, I guess nobody likes to openly admit their cowardice.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, I showed trued cowardice by speaking my mind here and sticking with it... "

 

Ah, right. So you have the "proper frame of mind" now that you barely have an idea of what you're talking about, but if you experienced it first-hand, then you would not be able to make rational decisions. Please.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

That's only a valid argument if everyone who has tried it "first-hand", as you put it, agree with you. That is not the case, however.

 

Wow, you sure are a master at dodging the issue. You know which countries harbor and support islamic terrorism. Quit playing games.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

No, I don't, but since you do it's interesting that you don't share that wisdom with all us dumb saps out here.

 

Another non sequitur. What, are you getting tired or is it just that the feeble grasp you had on reality is finally giving up?

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Well, you claimed that my position wouldn't save me from shrapnel, and I responded that things in Iraq don't exactly suggest that your aggreesive view is helping any either. But then you don't seem to like that perspective either, so...

 

Your previous statement was based on the assumption that islamic terrorists can be discouraged, by showing them they can't win.

However, religious fanaticism isn't rational, because it's based on belief. This means that any logical reasons you may give them aren't going to work - they kill because they feel it's their holy duty to do so.

This has nothing to do with logic and reason not being able to provide a solution for the problem.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Yes, because they are not beyond understanding. However, you are determined that they are just evil people of evil convictions and doing things for evil reasons that we cannot ever understand, so let's not even try and instead just kill them... Not quite as bad a position as the extremists themselves, but still pretty far gone - it's becoming clear that arguing with you is about as hopeless as arguing with the terrorists themselves, which should tell you something.

 

It's not a matter of revenge. It's a matter of self-defense. And while attacking them may generate more potential terrorists, they will have no way of comitting terrorist acts if we do our part well enough. As for the part of them seeing such and such, read above.

 

Oh, and as a side note, that whole paragraph is a big contradiction. Great job. 

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

You say that your position will create more terrorists, but that they won't be able to retaliate. And then you accuse me of contradiction?

 

Thanks. I needed a laugh, and that was pretty good

[213374U]

I am. I'm disagreeing. There is a certain "let's just drop the bomb and be done with it"-mentality going on, as if peace is somehow impossible. I will not support that.

Who said peace is impossible?

 

Peace with religious fundamentalists is impossible, because that's the definition of a fundamentalist. They won't settle for nothing less than the destruction of our culture. When they do, they will no longer be fundamentalists.

 

 

Yes, I showed trued cowardice by speaking my mind here and sticking with it...  "

No, you showed true cowardice by refusing to fight for your way of life.

 

 

That's only a valid argument if everyone who has tried it "first-hand", as you put it, agree with you. That is not the case, however.

Non sequitur. I am not judging the validity of anyone's opinions based on their experiences. You, on the other hand, claim that suffering that experience prevents you from making rational choices. Your arguments were just flawed before, now you're not even making sense.

 

 

No, I don't, but since you do it's interesting that you don't share that wisdom with all us dumb saps out here.

Libya, Iran, Saudi Arabia... ring a bell? I'm sure you can dig up a few more.

 

 

Well, you claimed that my position wouldn't save me from shrapnel, and I responded that things in Iraq don't exactly suggest that your aggreesive view is helping any either. But then you don't seem to like that perspective either, so...

Do I really have to go step by step? Perhaps a crayon drawing would do the trick? Jeez.

 

Your position won't save you from terrorist attacks. That is a fact. That however, has nothing to do with soldiers dying on terrorist attacks because they're an occupying force in a country that had nothing to do with terrorism to begin with. You know, deductive reasoning is not about making random assumptions and then linking those to even more random conclusions through impossibly convoluted arguments.

 

 

Yes, because they are not beyond understanding. However, you are determined that they are just evil people of evil convictions and doing things for evil reasons that we cannot ever understand, so let's not even try and instead just kill them... Not quite as bad a position as the extremists themselves, but still pretty far gone - it's becoming clear that arguing with you is about as hopeless as arguing with the terrorists themselves, which should tell you something.

You should go out and have some fresh air. You're not making ANY sense.

 

Let's see. Our being able to understand their irrationality doesn't preclude the fact that they are impervious to reason. And say what you will, but children raised in hatred can't be turned just with good words. And I didn't say they're evil, please leave your straw men for somebody that will appreciate them.

 

 

You say that your position will create more terrorists, but that they won't be able to retaliate. And then you accuse me of contradiction?

 

Thanks. I needed a laugh, and that was pretty good 

No. I said it will create more potential terrorists. But a willing terrorist without the means to attack is nothing. Dumb people always laugh when they don't understand something.

[random evil guy]

buhu. people die, deal with it. as long as i'm not affected directly or indirectly(people i know), i really don't care if and how others die.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Spoken like a true ignorant selfish westerner...............

 

And believe me if terrorists or somebody else kills some of your loved ones or people you know it will be VERY significant to you, be sure of it.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

are you dyslectic or something? i specifially said i don't care UNLESS it affects me or someone i know/love.... jees.

 

btw, everyone is selfish. at least to some degree...

[random evil guy]

buhu. people die, deal with it. as long as i'm not affected directly or indirectly(people i know), i really don't care if and how others die.

That's trolling. It's neither elegant, nor subtle or funny. Get the f*ck out.

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

 

because you don't agree. oh, please, shut up newbie...

[Calax]

MY BRAINS ARE ON FIRE MY BRAIN WHY MUST YOU ARGUE SO :'(

[taks]

His life job is flaming and writing nonsenses.

 

And it's not his fault that he fell prey to the american education system that produces idiots...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

OY VEY! the HYPOCRISY astounds... back to back sentences to create the hypocritical phrase as well, almost a record (i've seen it happen within a sentence, sadly).

 

good thing you're one of the elite, to which you are allowed to make such statements about other countries' educational systems. otherwise, where would poor old lowly americans be without such enlightened guidance. you go man... fight the good fight.

 

taks

[Diogo Ribeiro]

MY BRAINS ARE ON FIRE MY BRAIN WHY MUST YOU ARGUE SO :'(

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

Nature of the social beast with a mind of its own. No one budges, no one cares, merry go round of idealism. My point is better than yours because morality is a bore as long as its not my own. As long as I can replace the impact and worth of death with side issues; replace the loss of life with hollow numbers, pointless statistics, abstract myself from victims so I can promote my own ideals; I can sleep better. Who cares for lives that never were, never became, dreams left unfulfilled, paths never taken, when its so much convenient to me to reduce it all to a number and conjure reasons that satisfy my ego? Its easier to keep killing than stop doing it; much easier to hate than to love.

 

Welcome welcome hypocrits smiling. Your words are as murderous as bullets and bombs.

[213374U]

buhu. people die, deal with it. as long as i'm not affected directly or indirectly(people i know), i really don't care if and how others die.

That's trolling. It's neither elegant, nor subtle or funny. Get the f*ck out.

because you don't agree. oh, please, shut up newbie...

[random evil guy]

buhu. people die, deal with it. as long as i'm not affected directly or indirectly(people i know), i really don't care if and how others die.

That's trolling. It's neither elegant, nor subtle or funny. Get the f*ck out.

because you don't agree. oh, please, shut up newbie...

<{POST_SNAPBACK}>

 

why? you're not a mod, so why should i care what you say/write newbie...?

[213374U]

Then why do you keep replying?

 

Just go be an attention whore elsewhere.

[Hydrogen]

Since it seems that people can't keep the conversation civil, at least not for very long, this thread is now officially closed.

 

The whole thing is a great tragedy no matter what people feel they are fighting for, but getting personal on these boards about ones beliefs isn't going to make a bit of difference to the fight, though it might result in obsidian getting annoyed enough with people that they leave bugs in just to spite us - and I really don't want that.