I could throw in a second cod4 comment here and mention how we'd all end up like Jackson, but I wontusmarine2005 wrote:
draft draft draft
I'm not saying it is justified. I'm saying there is a difference between propaganda out of the mouth of men and millions of people watching thousands die. One is a legitimate real threat and one is not. When it is a response it is defense. Again, I'm not saying genocide at all.. but the analogy isn't completely accurate.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not called defence.Kmarion wrote:
It does make a difference. It called defense. As for the rest of your nuke response, I addressed what I thought about that.Bertster7 wrote:
No. They weren't. Does that really make any real difference? It's still genocide for the same reasons, based on propaganda and anti-Islamic rhetoric - which is exactly what the holocaust was (though it was anti-semetic propaganda in that instance). Dropping one nuke only exacerbates the situation, to crush the idea of Islam would take dozens of nukes and a lot of rounding up into camps to effectively implement - I call that being a Hitler wannabe.
Dropping a single nuke on, lets say, Mecca, would probably lead to at least a tenfold increase in terrorism from Islamic extremist sources.
Defence doesn't apply to genocide. You could apply it to retaliation in many forms but genocide goes way beyond being defence.
Offence, maybe. Offensive, certainly. Not defence.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
Neither is/was a legitimate, real threat. Both are blown out of all proportion by the media.Kmarion wrote:
I'm not saying it is justified. I'm saying there is a difference between propaganda out of the mouth of men and millions of people watching thousands die. One is a legitimate real threat and one is not.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not called defence.Kmarion wrote:
It does make a difference. It called defense. As for the rest of your nuke response, I addressed what I thought about that.
Defence doesn't apply to genocide. You could apply it to retaliation in many forms but genocide goes way beyond being defence.
Offence, maybe. Offensive, certainly. Not defence.
No it isn't. Whether it is a response or not, it's not defence. Nor does defence have to be responsive, it can be pre-emptive, against potential enemies. But genocide falls into neither category.Kmarion wrote:
When it is a response it is defense.
Last edited by Bertster7 (2007-12-28 11:28:25)
Did people not die? Whether the threat was exaggerated or not does not exclude the fact that it existed.Bertster7 wrote:
Neither is/was a legitimate, real threat. Both are blown out of all proportion by the media.Kmarion wrote:
I'm not saying it is justified. I'm saying there is a difference between propaganda out of the mouth of men and millions of people watching thousands die. One is a legitimate real threat and one is not.Bertster7 wrote:
It's not called defence.
Defence doesn't apply to genocide. You could apply it to retaliation in many forms but genocide goes way beyond being defence.
Offence, maybe. Offensive, certainly. Not defence.
Pre-emptive without cause is not defence.Bertster7 wrote:
No it isn't. Whether it is a response or not, it's not defence. Nor does defence have to be responsive, it can be pre-emptive, against potential enemies. But genocide falls into neither category.Kmarion wrote:
When it is a response it is defense.
Xbone Stormsurgezz
did you two start out agreeing with each other
Groan.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
Hillary Clinton has just pledged to bring democracy to pakistan. we're safe now
Well, I guess we never should have told Musharraf to end his state of emergency.... Let the guy oppress Pakistan as much as he can, because they need a strong, ruthless leader right now. It's the only way they can kill off the extremists.
It's why we never should have taken out Saddam Hussein. I'd be happier and much more comfortable if a bunch of secular dictators were in charge over there bullying the people, oppressing them, and generally trampling on their rights. Those motherfuckers don't need freedom. Freedom only gives them the opportunity to create havoc. If they aren't dead the second best alternative is oppressed.
100% agreed, Dersmikner. For the most part, democracy is a pipe dream in the Third World.
I don't even think Musharaff even opressed that much (not on the Level of Saddam or the Taliban) - and most people say they like him. So I dunno what was even wrong with him in the first place (everyone keeps bitching about him), apart from the dictator bit. If he had just held the elections a few months ago when things were better, he would've probably won
As fucking terrible as that is.. it's true..Dersmikner wrote:
It's why we never should have taken out Saddam Hussein. I'd be happier and much more comfortable if a bunch of secular dictators were in charge over there bullying the people, oppressing them, and generally trampling on their rights. Those motherfuckers don't need freedom. Freedom only gives them the opportunity to create havoc. If they aren't dead the second best alternative is oppressed.
At the end of the day I really don't care about this women coz her being dead or alive won't change the colour of my backyard fence.
Just, why the big fuss?
Just, why the big fuss?
Last edited by velocitychaos (2007-12-29 01:13:36)
Gee, uh, I dunno, could destabilize a country already facing political chaos, facing a severe Islamic extreme threat and with a few hundred nukes?velocitychaos wrote:
At the end of the day I really don't care about this women coz her being dead or alive won't change the colour of my backyard fence.
Just, why the big fuss?
It won't change the colour of your backyard fence, 'cos there won't BE a fucking fence after a nuke goes off.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Now that makes sense.Dersmikner wrote:
It's why we never should have taken out Saddam Hussein. I'd be happier and much more comfortable if a bunch of secular dictators were in charge over there bullying the people, oppressing them, and generally trampling on their rights. Those motherfuckers don't need freedom. Freedom only gives them the opportunity to create havoc. If they aren't dead the second best alternative is oppressed.
Of course long term it's a bad idea, because eventually the society will move on (either naturally or not) and will go through the sort of turmoil that we currently see in Iraq.
It's certainly a solid short term fix though, which are the most predictable type. Musharraf is a good example of Saddam-esque secular military dictator. Having him in charge keeps the country at least moderately in line. He's not as brutal as Saddam and therefore less effective at preventing terrorism in his country and he's openly pro-west, which makes the country more of a target, but the principle is the same.
Pfft.....drama queenSpark wrote:
Gee, uh, I dunno, could destabilize a country already facing political chaos, facing a severe Islamic extreme threat and with a few hundred nukes?velocitychaos wrote:
At the end of the day I really don't care about this women coz her being dead or alive won't change the colour of my backyard fence.
Just, why the big fuss?
It won't change the colour of your backyard fence, 'cos there won't BE a fucking fence after a nuke goes off.
It seems it was matter or fact & common knoweledge to her that Osama Bin Laden is dead.. around 6minutes into the interview with Frost..
Is it just me, or is it a prerequisite to be a corrupt asshole in order to rule Pakistan? I know I've stated my support for Musharraf, but even his alternative was a corrupt asshole as well.
It's a region where corruption is pretty much endemic. The best you can hope for over a sensible timeframe is a less-corrupt leader with the best interests of the people in mind. Which is what Bhutto represented.Turquoise wrote:
Is it just me, or is it a prerequisite to be a corrupt asshole in order to rule Pakistan? I know I've stated my support for Musharraf, but even his alternative was a corrupt asshole as well.
Man... Britain never should have left that country (or that former region of India, I mean). Their version of self-rule is just pathetic. At least India is going somewhere.
