Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 19

 

2007-04-04 06:48:05
superfly_cox
soup fly mod
+717|7026

CameronPoe wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

weakness breeds terrorism.

iran did the same thing to britain in 2004 with captured soldiers paraded on tv.  what happened?  nothing.  so now it happens again on a larger scale.  soon it will be something else...and something else...

its called limit testing.
Weakness breeds terrorism?

So is the US army in Iraq weak?

There would not be peace in Northern Ireland today if it weren't for sworn enemies eventually sitting down and talking to each other.
We're both right in a sense.  Weakness does allow your enemies to become more ambitious and dangerous: case in point was appeasement of hitler during ww2.  On the other hand, if you want peace there does need to be compromise and you do got to sit down with your sworn enemy.

Only problem in this case is that Iran is not ready to sit down with their sworn enemy and negotiate over nuclear production.  Therefore at this point in time the allies should not show any weakness because then there won't be any way to get them to sit down at the negotiating table.

Bertster7 wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

weakness breeds terrorism.
That's a very silly statement.
yes, by itself it is a very silly statement which completely over-generalizes a very complex issue.  i am using it to emphasize the point that i make below.  if you show weakness, your enemies will try to exploit it...i'm sure sun tzu wrote that somewhere
2007-04-04 06:51:04
iphtnax
Member
+7|6868

CameronPoe wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

weakness breeds terrorism.

iran did the same thing to britain in 2004 with captured soldiers paraded on tv.  what happened?  nothing.  so now it happens again on a larger scale.  soon it will be something else...and something else...

its called limit testing.
Weakness breeds terrorism?
Indeed it does.

CameronPoe wrote:

So is the US army in Iraq weak?
Indeed it is.

CameronPoe wrote:

There would not be peace in Northern Ireland today if it weren't for sworn enemies eventually sitting down and talking to each other.
You're ignoring the fact that the terrorists (Gerry Adams and Co) realise that they can now achieve their goal politically rather than militarily, but do you doubt for a moment that they won't go back to the gun if their political methods fail.
2007-04-04 06:53:52
penguin.killer
Member
+75|6725
love england
2007-04-04 06:56:34
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6787|Texas - Bigger than France
Everyone knows he only let them go because they have been replaced by deadly robots which activate when someone says "Mr. Blair, would you like a spot of tea?"


No seriously, Amjemienelmlnlkenkjhgaq let them go because the whole affair was posturing, a charade for his people.  I believe he had no intention of holding the soldiers.  He just wanted to hold them long enough for them to make a public relations commercial, use them to get another meeting, and make himself look good for his people by letting them go.
2007-04-04 06:56:48
joker3327
=IBF2=
+305|6843|Cheshire. UK
As far as I am concerned..let both goverments bitch about who was right or wrong ..I am just glad our service men and women are being released unharmed...
2007-04-04 06:56:52
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6800

iphtnax wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

There would not be peace in Northern Ireland today if it weren't for sworn enemies eventually sitting down and talking to each other.
You're ignoring the fact that the terrorists (Gerry Adams and Co) realise that they can now achieve their goal politically rather than militarily, but do you doubt for a moment that they won't go back to the gun if their political methods fail.
So essentially you'd prefer it if everyone in the occupied six counties were still blowing the shit out of each other?
2007-04-04 06:57:41
iphtnax
Member
+7|6868

superfly_cox wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

superfly_cox wrote:

weakness breeds terrorism.

iran did the same thing to britain in 2004 with captured soldiers paraded on tv.  what happened?  nothing.  so now it happens again on a larger scale.  soon it will be something else...and something else...

its called limit testing.
Weakness breeds terrorism?

So is the US army in Iraq weak?

There would not be peace in Northern Ireland today if it weren't for sworn enemies eventually sitting down and talking to each other.
We're both right in a sense.  Weakness does allow your enemies to become more ambitious and dangerous: case in point was appeasement of hitler during ww2.  On the other hand, if you want peace there does need to be compromise and you do got to sit down with your sworn enemy.

Only problem in this case is that Iran is not ready to sit down with their sworn enemy and negotiate over nuclear production.  Therefore at this point in time the allies should not show any weakness because then there won't be any way to get them to sit down at the negotiating table.
It depends on the enemy.

Muslims are like Terminators - they can't be bargained or reasoned with.

Faced with a suicidal enemy such as pious Muslims, you cannot have negotiations which lead to a lasting peace. Negotiations at best lead only to what's known as a 'hudna', which is the Islamic concept of a temporary truce during which the Muslim forces gain strength until they can break the truce and carry on the fight.

In the case of this fight against Islamic terror, whether it be Sunni or Shia, only a crushing defeat will work. The enemy must be incentivised not to fight. Inaction and appeasement only convince the enemy to fight harder.
2007-04-04 06:58:33
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6800

iphtnax wrote:

Muslims are like Terminators - they can't be bargained or reasoned with.

Faced with a suicidal enemy such as pious Muslims, you cannot have negotiations which lead to a lasting peace. Negotiations at best lead only to what's known as a 'hudna', which is the Islamic concept of a temporary truce during which the Muslim forces gain strength until they can break the truce and carry on the fight.

In the case of this fight against Islamic terror, whether it be Sunni or Shia, only a crushing defeat will work. The enemy must be incentivised not to fight. Inaction and appeasement only convince the enemy to fight harder.
Generalising bigot alert! Although I did meet one muslim who could shapeshift kind of like a T1000.

Last edited by CameronPoe (2007-04-04 06:59:37)

2007-04-04 07:00:08
crimson_grunt
Shitty Disposition (apparently)
+214|6899|Teesside, UK

bob_6012 wrote:

Yeah I guess it's a half empty look, I'm not trying to slam Britain here or anything, please don't get the wrong idea. I think that Ahmadinejad was just using them to see what Britain would do, now he knows they won't take any action, which is good and bad. I think it's bad because it might embolden Iran to make riskier moves, however it's good because any kind of attack would galvanize the people of Iran against Britain, the USA and all of our allies. If there ever is a conflict I believe we should not make the first move because of my aforementioned reason, we need popular opinion on our side although I'm not sure if that will ever happen. Diplomacy can work and I have nothing against it, I just think he got what he wanted out of the soldiers and that's why he's letting them go, that's all. Oh, also I don't think it's a pussy way, just so ya know.

Edit: wrong word
Fair enough.  I can mostly agree but I'm glad we didn't start bombing them, nothing good would have come out of it.  If those people had been in serious risk I'm sure the government would have attacked but they gave it some time and the people are coming back safe so I'm happy with that.  Just cause we didn't use force doesn't mean that we wouldn't if we had too, so far the biggest risk to the sailors has been through through boredom at all the rhetoric.
2007-04-04 07:00:48
Kmar
Truth is my Bitch
+5,695|6846|132 and Bush

I'm happy for the Brits. It looks like we avoided something that could have been catastrophic. This couldn't have turned out any better for Iran also. It sent a blow to the ego of the west, rallied Iranians around their leader, and showed a message of compassion to the rest of the world (no matter if they were right or wrong).

Last edited by Kmarion (2007-04-04 07:01:27)

Xbone Stormsurgezz
2007-04-04 07:01:10
too_money2007
Member
+145|6553|Keller, Tx
I say we bomb CP's city next. That'd be great fun!
2007-04-04 07:02:55
penguin.killer
Member
+75|6725
love england
2007-04-04 07:02:56
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6800

too_money2007 wrote:

I say we bomb CP's city next. That'd be great fun!
Yes I want to be free from my muslim overlords. Please reconstruct where I come from.
2007-04-04 07:03:11
iphtnax
Member
+7|6868

CameronPoe wrote:

iphtnax wrote:

CameronPoe wrote:

There would not be peace in Northern Ireland today if it weren't for sworn enemies eventually sitting down and talking to each other.
You're ignoring the fact that the terrorists (Gerry Adams and Co) realise that they can now achieve their goal politically rather than militarily, but do you doubt for a moment that they won't go back to the gun if their political methods fail.
So essentially you'd prefer it if everyone in the occupied six counties were still blowing the shit out of each other?
What I would prefer would be for the IRA to be entirely crushed, including it's leadership.

As it happens, the Government of Great Britain and Ulster was rather clever in creating the circumstances to force the terrorists to the table.

However, should the terrorists ever succeed in stealing part of my country from me (ie. absorbing Ulster into Ireland), then I'll be the first to encourage the Loyalists to go on the rampage against the Republican terrorists and their enablers. If it worked against us, it'll work against them ten times as strong
2007-04-04 07:04:36
bob_6012
Resident M-14 fanatic
+59|6900|Lancaster Ohio, USA

crimson_grunt wrote:

Fair enough.  I can mostly agree but I'm glad we didn't start bombing them, nothing good would have come out of it.  If those people had been in serious risk I'm sure the government would have attacked but they gave it some time and the people are coming back safe so I'm happy with that.  Just cause we didn't use force doesn't mean that we wouldn't if we had too, so far the biggest risk to the sailors has been through through boredom at all the rhetoric.
Like I said if you guys would have attacked them we'd be in a giant shit storm right now. I was just trying to show both sides there. I'm glad it worked out in the end. Come to think of it, I can see where force for no reason would have been bad, I mean using force when there was no threat. However if there was a threat then force should have been used, so since there was no threat there was no force. Thanks for making me think about it that way.
2007-04-04 07:06:05
too_money2007
Member
+145|6553|Keller, Tx

CameronPoe wrote:

too_money2007 wrote:

I say we bomb CP's city next. That'd be great fun!
Yes I want to be free from my muslim overlords. Please reconstruct where I come from.
No problem. One h-bomb coming your way.
2007-04-04 07:06:07
iphtnax
Member
+7|6868

CameronPoe wrote:

iphtnax wrote:

Muslims are like Terminators - they can't be bargained or reasoned with.

Faced with a suicidal enemy such as pious Muslims, you cannot have negotiations which lead to a lasting peace. Negotiations at best lead only to what's known as a 'hudna', which is the Islamic concept of a temporary truce during which the Muslim forces gain strength until they can break the truce and carry on the fight.

In the case of this fight against Islamic terror, whether it be Sunni or Shia, only a crushing defeat will work. The enemy must be incentivised not to fight. Inaction and appeasement only convince the enemy to fight harder.
Generalising bigot alert! Although I did meet one muslim who could shapeshift kind of like a T1000.
Rather than throwing the coverall, oh-so-offensive charge of 'bigot' around, perhaps you'd like to point out the errors in my statement.

But then again, you've never read the Qur'an, Hadith or Sira and you know nothing about Islam other than what your teachers lie to you about, so I won't hold my breath for the rebuttal.
2007-04-04 07:07:44
iphtnax
Member
+7|6868

Kmarion wrote:

I'm happy for the Brits. It looks like we avoided something that could have been catastrophic. This couldn't have turned out any better for Iran also. It sent a blow to the ego of the west, rallied Iranians around their leader, and showed a message of compassion to the rest of the world (no matter if they were right or wrong).
It almost seems like you are happy for them too.
2007-04-04 07:07:51
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6800

iphtnax wrote:

What I would prefer would be for the IRA to be entirely crushed, including it's leadership.

As it happens, the Government of Great Britain and Ulster was rather clever in creating the circumstances to force the terrorists to the table.

However, should the terrorists ever succeed in stealing part of my country from me (ie. absorbing Ulster into Ireland), then I'll be the first to encourage the Loyalists to go on the rampage against the Republican terrorists and their enablers. If it worked against us, it'll work against them ten times as strong
Sorry buddy but the political representatives of the IRA speak for what constitutes more than 40% of the population of the six counties. You can't crush nationalist fervour, an ethos, resistance to injustice, etc. I don't get your fucking problem anyway. The weapons have all been decommissioned - a result of DIPLOMACY.

Point of information: Northern Ireland != Ulster. Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan in the Republic are in Ulster also. It's funny how you refer to 'terrorists stealing part of my country' when that's just exactly what Britain did back in the 1200s and again in the 1600s. We are reacting exactly as you described how you would react. Funny that!
2007-04-04 07:08:12
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6826|SE London

CameronPoe wrote:

iphtnax wrote:

Muslims are like Terminators - they can't be bargained or reasoned with.

Faced with a suicidal enemy such as pious Muslims, you cannot have negotiations which lead to a lasting peace. Negotiations at best lead only to what's known as a 'hudna', which is the Islamic concept of a temporary truce during which the Muslim forces gain strength until they can break the truce and carry on the fight.

In the case of this fight against Islamic terror, whether it be Sunni or Shia, only a crushing defeat will work. The enemy must be incentivised not to fight. Inaction and appeasement only convince the enemy to fight harder.
Generalising bigot alert! Although I did meet one muslim who could shapeshift kind of like a T1000.
I thought it was the Jews who could shapeshift
2007-04-04 07:09:55
comet241
Member
+164|7010|Normal, IL

superfly_cox wrote:

so let's see.  some guy steals your dog out of your yard and then threatens to kill the dog because he claims that it was trespassing on his property even though there's proof to the contrary.  then he engages in a long winded string of propaganda events which even shows your dog dressed in doll's clothes blaming you as he begs for dog biscuits.  finally he says that he found it in his heart to forgive your dog...but continues to chastise you for being a deadbeat and irresponsible dog owner.  i bet 99% of you would not stand for this...

Diplomacy FTW...I think not.  I'm glad that the soldiers are going home and that's the most important thing.  But this thing is far from over.

This is called limit testing and it didn't work out so well for saddam.  Keep pushing Ahmedinejad...I'm sure its going to work this time.
I will say that this is an obscure, but surprisingly accurate analogy. Basically Ahmedinejad is just testing the waters (no pun intended) of what the hell he can do. Does anybody else think this sounds like hitler in the 1930's???

Hey, let's rearm the rhineland. it's against a treaty we signed 15 years ago? fuck 'em.

Hey, better idea yet. Let's invade Czekoslovakia. nobody will miss them, right?

80 years later.....

Hey, lets throw all UN sanctions to the wind, we need nukes!

Hey, let's take some soldiers of a world power hostage and mock their country for a couple weeks.

what's next.....

Ahmedinejad: "Hey! I got it! Let's invade Poland!!!!"

???????
2007-04-04 07:10:15
CameronPoe
Member
+2,925|6800

iphtnax wrote:

Rather than throwing the coverall, oh-so-offensive charge of 'bigot' around, perhaps you'd like to point out the errors in my statement.

But then again, you've never read the Qur'an, Hadith or Sira and you know nothing about Islam other than what your teachers lie to you about, so I won't hold my breath for the rebuttal.
I think you are dealing with the wrong person here. I have read large swathes of the Q'uran (almost as boring as the bible), have travelled to Palestine, Israel, Jordan & Morocco, and have two muslim colleagues here at work. It is a subject I take great interest in.
2007-04-04 07:11:36
Bertster7
Confused Pothead
+1,101|6826|SE London

Kmarion wrote:

I'm happy for the Brits. It looks like we avoided something that could have been catastrophic. This couldn't have turned out any better for Iran also. It sent a blow to the ego of the west, rallied Iranians around their leader, and showed a message of compassion to the rest of the world (no matter if they were right or wrong).
Ditto.

It turned out fairly well for all concerned. Good result.

It also sounds like the Iranians will (probably) get access to the US held Iranian prisoners. Which is what should happen under international law anyway. I found it very hypocritical that everyone was condemning the Iranians for lack of consular access to the British prisoners, while few seemed to pick up on the fact the Americans have not been allowing consular access to the Iranian prisoners. I should point out I'm not trying to excuse the actions of the Iranians in not allowing consular access, merely pointing out the double standards and that they are not the only ones not playing by the rules.

Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-04-04 07:16:46)

2007-04-04 07:13:34
iphtnax
Member
+7|6868

CameronPoe wrote:

iphtnax wrote:

What I would prefer would be for the IRA to be entirely crushed, including it's leadership.

As it happens, the Government of Great Britain and Ulster was rather clever in creating the circumstances to force the terrorists to the table.

However, should the terrorists ever succeed in stealing part of my country from me (ie. absorbing Ulster into Ireland), then I'll be the first to encourage the Loyalists to go on the rampage against the Republican terrorists and their enablers. If it worked against us, it'll work against them ten times as strong
Sorry buddy but the political representatives of the IRA speak for what constitutes more than 40% of the population of the six counties. You can't crush nationalist fervour, an ethos, resistance to injustice, etc. I don't get your fucking problem anyway. The weapons have all been decommissioned - a result of DIPLOMACY.
There probably ARE a couple of simpletons (with eyebrows on their cheeks, lol) in Ireland who believe that the IRA has got rid of all it's weapons.

CameronPoe wrote:

Point of information: Northern Ireland != Ulster. Donegal, Cavan and Monaghan in the Republic are in Ulster also. It's funny how you refer to 'terrorists stealing part of my country' when that's just exactly what Britain did back in the 1200s and again in the 1600s. We are reacting exactly as you described how you would react. Funny that!
The big island to the west of England was taken in the age of conquest. It belonged to no-one then but the strongest. I think we were rather generous in giving it away 100 years ago. Perhaps we should take it back.
2007-04-04 07:16:17
iphtnax
Member
+7|6868

CameronPoe wrote:

iphtnax wrote:

Rather than throwing the coverall, oh-so-offensive charge of 'bigot' around, perhaps you'd like to point out the errors in my statement.

But then again, you've never read the Qur'an, Hadith or Sira and you know nothing about Islam other than what your teachers lie to you about, so I won't hold my breath for the rebuttal.
I think you are dealing with the wrong person here. I have read large swathes of the Q'uran (almost as boring as the bible), have travelled to Palestine, Israel, Jordan & Morocco, and have two muslim colleagues here at work. It is a subject I take great interest in.
If you really had read the Qur'an, you wouldn't be disagreeing with me, unless you are some kind of hard lefty who treats their political views as a religion, outside the realm of fact.

So which one is it - you're lying about reading the Qur'an or you ignore any facts which get in the way of your 'leftism'?

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 … 19

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard