|
|
Thwarted Terror Attack in Australia
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-09-20 15:23:08
Jet checked into full retard in this thread a few pages ago.
Systematic genocide to 'wipe them out'? Sounds like some atypical 'Murican ***with no basis in reality. You'll sit from your comfortable home while your country butchers innocent people cause you're scared? How 'Murican. How delightfully simple minded.
You're as dumb as the Islamists at that point.
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-09-20 15:24:39
Possible terrorists living on your block in an American city.
Your solution: Wipe out the whole block, who gives a ***about civilian casualties?
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:25:48
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Jet checked into full retard in this thread a few pages ago.
Systematic genocide to 'wipe them out'? Sounds like some atypical 'Murican ***with no basis in reality. You'll sit from your comfortable home while your country butchers innocent people cause you're scared? How 'Murican. How delightfully simple minded.
You're as dumb as the Islamists at that point.
The pro-terrorists in this thread checked into full retard long before this site was ever made, but I don't expect you to understand these things Sparth.
I never support genocide, nor am I scared of these asshats.
But coming from a coldblooded person such as yourself, well it comes as no surprise.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:26:01
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Possible terrorists living on your block in an American city.
Your solution: Wipe out the whole block, who gives a ***about civilian casualties? America isn't a warzone. (despite how much the neocons and terrorists want people to pretend it is).
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4415
By Cerberus.Senkyuutai 2014-09-20 15:27:11
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
I don't suffer from anything, thank you.
I'm saying that casualties happen in war and in a war zone when the targets are mixed in with others, with or without their knowledge (mostly likely with) and them protecting them. War is disgusting, I'm not going to get in a fuss over limiting casualties to just those within range of drone strikes, when we could just bomb the entire area and wipe them out completely.This sentence is contradictory.
I wouldn't say you're suffering from anything, you're just a case of low attention span or pure idiocy. Either way, the part bolded is a good example of you making no sense and spouting things that have no logic in them.
Oh and about the "terrorist" definition, you are correct in its meaning (there kind of is "terror" in it), I only explained that you very often used that word here on these forums when it wasn't the actual word to use. I also explained why you did so, so it's ok, you don't have to defend yourself, I already did that.
Example: what's happening in Gaza lately.
It makes perfect sense, you just aren't reading it properly. I simply stated that I'm not going to fuss over a few unintended casualties when the power exists to wipe the entire area out entirely, and in certain cases they would be justified in doing so, I at no time said an entire culture or people should be eradicated, nor do I wish that we or anyone else should do it. Reading comprehension: go.
I use the word terrorist quite accurately regardless of how you personally see it, it is the word to use, and just because certain individuals fit other definitions as well, they still fit the definition of terrorists. I'll still go for the low attention span, I'm nice.
If war disgusts you, why do you not try to think/find a different way to solve an issue?
Inb4 "you can't reason with terrorists/they'll come back again".
It's as simple as that. Here, logic, making sense, etc. Was it hard? Was it really that difficult?
I'll even go ahead and answer my own question: because you aren't in position to do so and you think that only the people in position should do so. But then, you look like an idiot actually trying to analyze and understand a topic for which you do not even go all the way.
Or, because of the inb4.
Either way, this is a waste of time at the end of the day. It does nothing but create an illusion of activity and worth. But this goes back to what was explained a few pages ago regarding sanity and brain.
The word terrorist is situational, much like any label. You can be a terrorist on Monday and become the exact opposite on Tuesday. Rigidity doesn't help solve issues, nor does it help understanding them.
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4415
By Cerberus.Senkyuutai 2014-09-20 15:29:06
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Jet checked into full retard in this thread a few pages ago.
Systematic genocide to 'wipe them out'? Sounds like some atypical 'Murican ***with no basis in reality. You'll sit from your comfortable home while your country butchers innocent people cause you're scared? How 'Murican. How delightfully simple minded.
You're as dumb as the Islamists at that point.
The pro-terrorists in this thread checked into full retard long before this site was ever made, but I don't expect you to understand these things Sparth.
I never support genocide, nor am I scared of these asshats.
But coming from a coldblooded person such as yourself, well it comes as no surprise. Internet tough guy reporting in.
How can you even say that when you literally have no clue what these people are like in real? You're one big mouth, I actually believed you liked guns as a hobby/interest, I didn't think you were actually a pussy hiding behind them because you are afraid of the unknown.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:29:58
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
I don't suffer from anything, thank you.
I'm saying that casualties happen in war and in a war zone when the targets are mixed in with others, with or without their knowledge (mostly likely with) and them protecting them. War is disgusting, I'm not going to get in a fuss over limiting casualties to just those within range of drone strikes, when we could just bomb the entire area and wipe them out completely.This sentence is contradictory.
I wouldn't say you're suffering from anything, you're just a case of low attention span or pure idiocy. Either way, the part bolded is a good example of you making no sense and spouting things that have no logic in them.
Oh and about the "terrorist" definition, you are correct in its meaning (there kind of is "terror" in it), I only explained that you very often used that word here on these forums when it wasn't the actual word to use. I also explained why you did so, so it's ok, you don't have to defend yourself, I already did that.
Example: what's happening in Gaza lately.
It makes perfect sense, you just aren't reading it properly. I simply stated that I'm not going to fuss over a few unintended casualties when the power exists to wipe the entire area out entirely, and in certain cases they would be justified in doing so, I at no time said an entire culture or people should be eradicated, nor do I wish that we or anyone else should do it. Reading comprehension: go.
I use the word terrorist quite accurately regardless of how you personally see it, it is the word to use, and just because certain individuals fit other definitions as well, they still fit the definition of terrorists. I'll still go for the low attention span, I'm nice.
If war disgusts you, why do you not try to think/find a different way to solve an issue?
Inb4 "you can't reason with terrorists/they'll come back again".
It's as simple as that. Here, logic, making sense, etc. Was it hard? Was it really that difficult?
I'll even go ahead and answer my own question: because you aren't in position to do so and you think that only the people in position should do so. But then, you look like an idiot actually trying to analyze and understand a topic for which you do not even go all the way.
Or, because of the inb4.
Either way, this is a waste of time at the end of the day. It does nothing but create an illusion of activity and worth. But this goes back to what was explained a few pages ago regarding sanity and brain.
The word terrorist is situational, much like any label. You can be a terrorist on Monday and become the exact opposite on Tuesday. Rigidity doesn't help solve issues, nor does it help understanding them.
War at times is inevitable, I still don't have to like it.
But you're funny aside from that, kudos on giving me a good laugh.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:32:29
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Jet checked into full retard in this thread a few pages ago.
Systematic genocide to 'wipe them out'? Sounds like some atypical 'Murican ***with no basis in reality. You'll sit from your comfortable home while your country butchers innocent people cause you're scared? How 'Murican. How delightfully simple minded.
You're as dumb as the Islamists at that point.
The pro-terrorists in this thread checked into full retard long before this site was ever made, but I don't expect you to understand these things Sparth.
I never support genocide, nor am I scared of these asshats.
But coming from a coldblooded person such as yourself, well it comes as no surprise. Internet tough guy reporting in.
How can you even say that when you literally have no clue what these people are like in real? You're one big mouth, I actually believed you liked guns as a hobby/interest, I didn't think you were actually a pussy hiding behind them because you are afraid of the unknown.
So you're saying we should cower in fear of the unknown? While rather natural, I tend to not worry myself with things I can't control with my reach, but that's a very pragmatic approach, so I don't expect you or anyone else here to comprehend that.
I like guns, yes. But as a expression of our freedoms and power as individuals, definitely not to cower in fear, but kudos on twisting reality, it's become quite a common trend in this thread.
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4415
By Cerberus.Senkyuutai 2014-09-20 15:33:48
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
I don't suffer from anything, thank you.
I'm saying that casualties happen in war and in a war zone when the targets are mixed in with others, with or without their knowledge (mostly likely with) and them protecting them. War is disgusting, I'm not going to get in a fuss over limiting casualties to just those within range of drone strikes, when we could just bomb the entire area and wipe them out completely.This sentence is contradictory.
I wouldn't say you're suffering from anything, you're just a case of low attention span or pure idiocy. Either way, the part bolded is a good example of you making no sense and spouting things that have no logic in them.
Oh and about the "terrorist" definition, you are correct in its meaning (there kind of is "terror" in it), I only explained that you very often used that word here on these forums when it wasn't the actual word to use. I also explained why you did so, so it's ok, you don't have to defend yourself, I already did that.
Example: what's happening in Gaza lately.
It makes perfect sense, you just aren't reading it properly. I simply stated that I'm not going to fuss over a few unintended casualties when the power exists to wipe the entire area out entirely, and in certain cases they would be justified in doing so, I at no time said an entire culture or people should be eradicated, nor do I wish that we or anyone else should do it. Reading comprehension: go.
I use the word terrorist quite accurately regardless of how you personally see it, it is the word to use, and just because certain individuals fit other definitions as well, they still fit the definition of terrorists. I'll still go for the low attention span, I'm nice.
If war disgusts you, why do you not try to think/find a different way to solve an issue?
Inb4 "you can't reason with terrorists/they'll come back again".
It's as simple as that. Here, logic, making sense, etc. Was it hard? Was it really that difficult?
I'll even go ahead and answer my own question: because you aren't in position to do so and you think that only the people in position should do so. But then, you look like an idiot actually trying to analyze and understand a topic for which you do not even go all the way.
Or, because of the inb4.
Either way, this is a waste of time at the end of the day. It does nothing but create an illusion of activity and worth. But this goes back to what was explained a few pages ago regarding sanity and brain.
The word terrorist is situational, much like any label. You can be a terrorist on Monday and become the exact opposite on Tuesday. Rigidity doesn't help solve issues, nor does it help understanding them.
War at times is inevitable, I still don't have to like it.
But you're funny aside from that, kudos on giving me a good laugh. You always have the choice.
If you do not like something but have to do it, do it in a way that makes you like it. If you do not want to go to war and kill people, resort to economy war, for example.
It's like there is a lock on your brain preventing you from thinking.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:37:06
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
I don't suffer from anything, thank you.
I'm saying that casualties happen in war and in a war zone when the targets are mixed in with others, with or without their knowledge (mostly likely with) and them protecting them. War is disgusting, I'm not going to get in a fuss over limiting casualties to just those within range of drone strikes, when we could just bomb the entire area and wipe them out completely.This sentence is contradictory.
I wouldn't say you're suffering from anything, you're just a case of low attention span or pure idiocy. Either way, the part bolded is a good example of you making no sense and spouting things that have no logic in them.
Oh and about the "terrorist" definition, you are correct in its meaning (there kind of is "terror" in it), I only explained that you very often used that word here on these forums when it wasn't the actual word to use. I also explained why you did so, so it's ok, you don't have to defend yourself, I already did that.
Example: what's happening in Gaza lately.
It makes perfect sense, you just aren't reading it properly. I simply stated that I'm not going to fuss over a few unintended casualties when the power exists to wipe the entire area out entirely, and in certain cases they would be justified in doing so, I at no time said an entire culture or people should be eradicated, nor do I wish that we or anyone else should do it. Reading comprehension: go.
I use the word terrorist quite accurately regardless of how you personally see it, it is the word to use, and just because certain individuals fit other definitions as well, they still fit the definition of terrorists. I'll still go for the low attention span, I'm nice.
If war disgusts you, why do you not try to think/find a different way to solve an issue?
Inb4 "you can't reason with terrorists/they'll come back again".
It's as simple as that. Here, logic, making sense, etc. Was it hard? Was it really that difficult?
I'll even go ahead and answer my own question: because you aren't in position to do so and you think that only the people in position should do so. But then, you look like an idiot actually trying to analyze and understand a topic for which you do not even go all the way.
Or, because of the inb4.
Either way, this is a waste of time at the end of the day. It does nothing but create an illusion of activity and worth. But this goes back to what was explained a few pages ago regarding sanity and brain.
The word terrorist is situational, much like any label. You can be a terrorist on Monday and become the exact opposite on Tuesday. Rigidity doesn't help solve issues, nor does it help understanding them.
War at times is inevitable, I still don't have to like it.
But you're funny aside from that, kudos on giving me a good laugh. You always have the choice.
If you do not like something but have to do it, do it in a way that makes you like it. If you do not want to go to war and kill people, resort to economy war, for example.
It's like there is a lock on your brain preventing you from thinking. It must be nice to live in fantasy land, I'll stick with reality thanks, even as *** up as it is.
More insults though from the go who's pro-terrorist, amusing.
Serveur: Cerberus
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4415
By Cerberus.Senkyuutai 2014-09-20 15:37:22
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Jet checked into full retard in this thread a few pages ago.
Systematic genocide to 'wipe them out'? Sounds like some atypical 'Murican ***with no basis in reality. You'll sit from your comfortable home while your country butchers innocent people cause you're scared? How 'Murican. How delightfully simple minded.
You're as dumb as the Islamists at that point.
The pro-terrorists in this thread checked into full retard long before this site was ever made, but I don't expect you to understand these things Sparth.
I never support genocide, nor am I scared of these asshats.
But coming from a coldblooded person such as yourself, well it comes as no surprise. Internet tough guy reporting in.
How can you even say that when you literally have no clue what these people are like in real? You're one big mouth, I actually believed you liked guns as a hobby/interest, I didn't think you were actually a pussy hiding behind them because you are afraid of the unknown.
So you're saying we should cower in fear of the unknown? While rather natural, I tend to not worry myself with things I can't control with my reach, but that's a very pragmatic approach, so I don't expect you or anyone else here to comprehend that.
I like guns, yes. But as a expression of our freedoms and power as individuals, definitely not to cower in fear, but kudos on twisting reality, it's become quite a common trend in this thread. I'm saying you should actually carry your balls and learn things with an open mind rather than thinking the way you do, which is making things into a conflict right away, like some media would do. Remember that guy earlier who said you sounded like a documentary from FOX? Did you spend 5 seconds thinking about what you are saying and this? Or did you just dismiss it because it's something against you, therefore wrong?
The bolded part is a part of how I see things. Yet I do not have the same reaction as you as I would try to avoid war rather than you just bombing things and asking questions after.
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »Quetzalcoatl.Maldini said: »Quote: Jetackuu said: »
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what?
On the death penalty thread you said that the death penalty was never necessary for convicted criminals.
Yet, here you are saying it is perfectly fine to kill innocent people as long as you kill the intended target.
So tell me, how long have you suffered from whatever the actual F_CK it is that you suffer from?
I don't suffer from anything, thank you.
I'm saying that casualties happen in war and in a war zone when the targets are mixed in with others, with or without their knowledge (mostly likely with) and them protecting them. War is disgusting, I'm not going to get in a fuss over limiting casualties to just those within range of drone strikes, when we could just bomb the entire area and wipe them out completely.This sentence is contradictory.
I wouldn't say you're suffering from anything, you're just a case of low attention span or pure idiocy. Either way, the part bolded is a good example of you making no sense and spouting things that have no logic in them.
Oh and about the "terrorist" definition, you are correct in its meaning (there kind of is "terror" in it), I only explained that you very often used that word here on these forums when it wasn't the actual word to use. I also explained why you did so, so it's ok, you don't have to defend yourself, I already did that.
Example: what's happening in Gaza lately.
It makes perfect sense, you just aren't reading it properly. I simply stated that I'm not going to fuss over a few unintended casualties when the power exists to wipe the entire area out entirely, and in certain cases they would be justified in doing so, I at no time said an entire culture or people should be eradicated, nor do I wish that we or anyone else should do it. Reading comprehension: go.
I use the word terrorist quite accurately regardless of how you personally see it, it is the word to use, and just because certain individuals fit other definitions as well, they still fit the definition of terrorists. I'll still go for the low attention span, I'm nice.
If war disgusts you, why do you not try to think/find a different way to solve an issue?
Inb4 "you can't reason with terrorists/they'll come back again".
It's as simple as that. Here, logic, making sense, etc. Was it hard? Was it really that difficult?
I'll even go ahead and answer my own question: because you aren't in position to do so and you think that only the people in position should do so. But then, you look like an idiot actually trying to analyze and understand a topic for which you do not even go all the way.
Or, because of the inb4.
Either way, this is a waste of time at the end of the day. It does nothing but create an illusion of activity and worth. But this goes back to what was explained a few pages ago regarding sanity and brain.
The word terrorist is situational, much like any label. You can be a terrorist on Monday and become the exact opposite on Tuesday. Rigidity doesn't help solve issues, nor does it help understanding them.
War at times is inevitable, I still don't have to like it.
But you're funny aside from that, kudos on giving me a good laugh. You always have the choice.
If you do not like something but have to do it, do it in a way that makes you like it. If you do not want to go to war and kill people, resort to economy war, for example.
It's like there is a lock on your brain preventing you from thinking. It must be nice to live in fantasy land, I'll stick with reality thanks, even as *** up as it is.
More insults though from the go who's pro-terrorist, amusing. >pro terrorist
Either you're just saying this jokingly to upset, or you're serious.
I guess you understand where I'm going.
Anyway, I like to call things how they are. You are either one bored person killing time or you are actually mentally impaired. Whichever, if you're not even unable to give proper answers, what's the point.
Serveur: Lakshmi
Game: FFXI
Posts: 10394
By Lakshmi.Sparthosx 2014-09-20 15:38:08
But coming from a coldblooded person such as yourself, well it comes as no surprise.
What planet are you on?
You're advocating needless deaths then trying to moralize to me? Lol, ok pal. Have at it. You've long since abandoned internal consistency anyway.
[+]
 Valefor.Sehachan
Serveur: Valefor
Game: FFXI
Posts: 24219
By Valefor.Sehachan 2014-09-20 15:41:00
I don't expect you or anyone else here to comprehend that. At least admit you're being conceited as ***.
 Asura.Ccl
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1997
By Asura.Ccl 2014-09-20 15:41:04
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Possible terrorists living on your block in an American city.
Your solution: Wipe out the whole block, who gives a ***about civilian casualties? America isn't a warzone. (despite how much the neocons and terrorists want people to pretend it is).
So when you guys attacked Iraq it was ok if civilian died cause it was a war zone, but if an iraqi bombed a city in the US it was an act of terrorism cause only their country is a war zone not yours, is that how it work in your head ?
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:43:22
Cerberus.Senkyuutai said: »I'm saying you should actually carry your balls and learn things with an open mind rather than thinking the way you do, which is making things into a conflict right away, like some media would do. Remember that guy earlier who said you sounded like a documentary from FOX? Did you spend 5 seconds thinking about what you are saying and this? Or did you just dismiss it because it's something against you, therefore wrong?
The bolded part is a part of how I see things. Yet I do not have the same reaction as you as I would try to avoid war rather than you just bombing things and asking questions after.
I'm saying that you're a complete moron who's incapable of reading comprehension if you don't understand that I don't approach this with an open mind.
I read his comment, it was stupid then and even dumber now when you bring it back up, as I don't sound like that at all, but you're too stuck up your own *** to see that.
This war is unavoidable, it's unfortunate but true. I don't like how it's gone about until this point, but it most definitely will happen regardless of what you think.
But you're too worried about casualties in a war zone, instead of realizing how many more would die in the alternative ways than using targeted drone strikes. It's laughable.
I honestly don't see an end to any of these conflicts within my lifetime unless the status-quo changes, and it doesn't seem to be changing anytime soon.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 15:46:13
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Possible terrorists living on your block in an American city.
Your solution: Wipe out the whole block, who gives a ***about civilian casualties? America isn't a warzone. (despite how much the neocons and terrorists want people to pretend it is).
So when you guys attacked Iraq it was ok if civilian died cause it was a war zone, but if an iraqi bombed a city in the US it was an act of terrorism cause only their country is a war zone not yours, is that how it work in your head ?
This obvious inconsistency in all his arguments is why I think he is racist. If he isn't, then he is insane or just.. well stupid.
The people that constitute ISIS are no different. Jet and ISIS are like bad english football hooligans, just supporting different teams.
He is ok with genocide and terrorism as long as its his team that are doing it.
He is not ok with convicted murderers being executed, but brushes off innocent people being killed as a byproduct of bombings.
How the hell can these positions be consolidated in a healthy rational mind?!
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:47:58
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »But coming from a coldblooded person such as yourself, well it comes as no surprise.
What planet are you on?
You're advocating needless deaths then trying to moralize to me? Lol, ok pal. Have at it. You've long since abandoned internal consistency anyway. Not at all, you're the one who advocates for needless deaths, not I.
I don't expect you or anyone else here to comprehend that. At least admit you're being conceited as ***.
Born and raised, yo!
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Possible terrorists living on your block in an American city.
Your solution: Wipe out the whole block, who gives a ***about civilian casualties? America isn't a warzone. (despite how much the neocons and terrorists want people to pretend it is).
So when you guys attacked Iraq it was ok if civilian died cause it was a war zone, but if an iraqi bombed a city in the US it was an act of terrorism cause only their country is a war zone not yours, is that how it work in your head ?
Doesn't matter who's country was who's, but the one was a war zone and the other was not.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:48:43
Lakshmi.Sparthosx said: »Possible terrorists living on your block in an American city.
Your solution: Wipe out the whole block, who gives a ***about civilian casualties? America isn't a warzone. (despite how much the neocons and terrorists want people to pretend it is).
So when you guys attacked Iraq it was ok if civilian died cause it was a war zone, but if an iraqi bombed a city in the US it was an act of terrorism cause only their country is a war zone not yours, is that how it work in your head ?
This obvious inconsistency in all his arguments is why I think he is racist. If he isn't, then he is insane or just.. well stupid.
The people that constitute ISIS are no different. Jet and ISIS are like bad english football hooligans, just supporting different teams. There's no inconsistency, nor racism, or insanity or stupidity in my posts, but I see what your arguments have boiled down to.
You don't see that I'm your opposite and that you're supporting ISIS with your words, but of course not, you'll just keep being an apologist and excusing what they do left and right because you think "America deserves it." It's ludicrous.
Not to mention that they're over there killing their own people, to fight some sort of holy war.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:53:53
He is ok with genocide and terrorism as long as its his team that are doing it.
He is not ok with convicted murderers being executed, but brushes off innocent people being killed as a byproduct of bombings.
How the hell can these positions be consolidated in a healthy rational mind?!
I'm not ok with genocide or terrorism, you confuse me with you.
I don't agree that all of those people are innocent like you do, they're harboring terrorists. But yes I don't usually fret much over innocent deaths in an active war zone unless it was entirely deliberate to attack said civilians.
I say the same thing of you.
Asura.Ccl
Serveur: Asura
Game: FFXI
Posts: 1997
By Asura.Ccl 2014-09-20 15:55:04
Doesn't matter who's country was who's, but the one was a war zone and the other was not.
Ok; you're insane.
[+]
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:55:16
At least when Kara and her man post they're separated from it, but your bias is very strong, and it reeks.
I'm personally not a fan of sole US foreign policy but this goes way beyond just the US, and you keep ignoring that fact, or just don't comprehend it.
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 15:55:38
Doesn't matter who's country was who's, but the one was a war zone and the other was not.
Ok; I'm insane. ftfy
 Bahamut.Milamber
Serveur: Bahamut
Game: FFXI
Posts: 3691
By Bahamut.Milamber 2014-09-20 15:59:11
Yet again (what, the 3rd time now?), no sourced information, no specific statements that can be verified. Just more hand waving.
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still). ***.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. No, you have not provided any yet facts, nor any particularly logical arguments grounded in a factual basis. Emotions, yes. Facts? Where?
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think. Then you need to read where people have explicitly stated that they are not excusing, condoning or otherwise defending ISIS in particular, or terrorism in general.
And in order to short circuit this entire damn discussion:
Oxford said: Apologist
A person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial:
an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s Saying simply that western society plays a non-insignificant role in the fact that they exist and have power isn't excusing, condoning or otherwise defending them.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %. Which point would that be? And percentage of the total number of followers is absolutely relevant when you use a religion as a basis for blame.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. How was it already corrupt? How has it changed in the past century, 50 years, 10 years? And not blaming a religion? I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first. I'll perfectly admit what I believe is the cause of the problem, and what the actual cause of the problem may very well be different.
What would you say the is cause of the problem? Because "they are terrorists because they are terrorists" isn't a cause. Neither is "they are breeding terrorists". They people who have been radicalized, and extremized. Well yes, pretty much by definition. So how has it been possible for so many to be radicalized?
Why would they be radicalized? Because doing so gave someone more power. Why were they able to gain such a significant power base in such a limited time? When existing power structures are toppled, you don't necessarily get to choose how the new ones get built up.
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then.
I state in known facts, I can't help it if you and the other terrorists apologists don't understand history or current events properly, no emotion, but that's apparently what you guys work with. Since you once again don't actually provide any information.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date
The first entry is in 1977, for the Hanafi Siege.
By the way? Not even in the same vicinity as the remainder. Wikipedia said:
On March 9–11, 1977, three buildings in Washington, D.C. were seized by 12 African American gunmen, led by Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, who had broken from the Nation of Islam but blamed it for murder. They took 149 hostages and killed a radio journalist.
...
The leader of the attack was former national secretary of the Nation of Islam Hamaas Abdul Khaalis. Khaalis was born in Indiana in 1921 and named Ernest McGhee. Discharged from the U.S. Army on grounds of mental instability, he worked as a jazz drummer in New York City before converting to Islam and changing his name to Hamaas Khaalis. He became prominent in the ministries and school of the Nation of Islam and was appointed its national secretary in the early 1950s.
Khaalis split with the Nation of Islam in 1958 to found a rival Islamic organisation, the "Hanafi Movement".[3] In 1968, he was arrested for attempted extortion but released on grounds of mental illness.
In 1972, he published an open letter attacking the leadership and beliefs of the Nation of Islam. A year later five men broke into Khaalis' Washington home and murdered five of his children, his nine-day-old grandson and another man.[4] The murderers were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. A grief-stricken Khaalis claimed the men were associated with the Nation of Islam, and that the judge in the cases had not pursued this link.
...
Khaalis and his followers wanted those convicted for the 1973 murders handed over to them, presumably for execution. They also wanted to receive visits from Warith Deen Mohammed and champion boxer Muhammad Ali, long an active Black Muslim supporter. Khaalis also demanded that he be refunded $750 in legal fees caused by a contempt of court citation issued in response to his misbehavior in the trial of his children's killers. Time noted: "He also wanted the recently released film Mohammad, Messenger of God, to be banned on the grounds that it is sacrilegious. Khaalis' concern over the film was thought to have triggered the attack."
...
A large part of the negotiations were conducted by the three Muslim ambassadors, who "read to the gunmen passages from the Quran that they said demonstrated Islam’s compassion and mercy. They urged the gunmen to surrender. These ambassadors relied on their religious faith for compassion and tolerance."
...
The rest of the list is after the Gulf War.
Yes, your words are conflicting, you can say you're not but right after (or before) you were doing just that, it's lunacy.
It is, and not to mention an inaccurate statement. 
Here's where you don't understand, I don't blame the religion for the entire thing, but it does hold some responsibility, and again the numbers are irrelevant when the doctrine itself supports it.
Any religion promoting the genocide of non-believers (not to mention a crap ton of other atrocities, is by default corrupt), that hasn't changed at all. You'll need to provide some supporting evidence that it promotes the genocide of non-believers (and a crap ton of other atrocities). As you have yet to show any factual evidence of any claims made. As counter-evidence to your claim, if you have 1.6 billion people which follow that, we would have a wee bit more bloodshed than exists today. 100k of 1.6 billion is about 0.00625%. If you assume a normalized distribution, you are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on the fringe.
You have a bunch of radicals who are brought in under the belief that America and it's freedoms are a slight against god and must be destroyed, along with twisting the counter assaults to the other radicals actions being used as excuses to recruit members, Who killed them isn't under question.
Let us look at some of the first couple of years listed here (fair warning, pretty depressing):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Wikipedia said:
18 June 2004: The first known US drone strike killed 5–8 people including Nek Muhammad Wazir and two children, in a strike near Wana, South Waziristan.
5 November 2005: a strike destroys the house of Abu Hamza Rabia killing his wife, three children and four others.
30 November 2005: Al-Qaeda's 3rd in command, Abu Hamza Rabia killed in an attack by CIA drones in Asoray, near Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan along with 4 other militants. Among the deaths are 8 year old Noor Aziz and 17-year old Abdul Wasit.
13 January 2006: Damadola airstrike kills 18 civilians, in Bajaur area but misses Ayman al-Zawahri, five women, eight men, and five children are among the dead.
30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.
26 April 2007: 4 people killed in the village of Saidgi in North Waziristan. Habib Ullah the owner of the destroyed house, said those killed were not terrorists
19 June 2007: 30 killed in the village of Mami Rogha in North Waziristan
2 November 2007: 5 killed in an attack on a madrasah in North Waziristan
29 January 2008: Al-Qaeda's Abu Laith al-Libi killed in a strike in North Waziristan along with 12–14 others, among the dead are two women and three children
The average household in Pakistan has about 6.5 members (http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/social_statistics/publications/hies07_08/table1.pdf).
Assuming that you radicalize all associated family members (let alone the entire community) with these attacks, you quickly enter significant numbers.
this is like the ***where people keep blaming Israel for the dead children in Gaza when the terrorists purposely line it up for them to die like that to use it as ammunition, and unlike you all I won't fall for it. Israel has other options which significantly reduce the possibility of civillian casualties, with the consequence of significantly increasing the risk to its own troops.
By doing that, they would have also removed the actual threat, and severely reduced the recruitment potential of those organizations.
It was (and still is) a poor strategic decision.
That doesn't absolve Hamas of responsibility for purposely placing children in harms way. But it also doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for harming them.
Just imagine how this would work if expanded to other criminal activities (for example, drugs). Drone strike a dealer in a car, take out everyone else in that car, plus other bystanders in the street/traffic accidents. Hey, it's just collateral damage, no worries, we got the bad guy. Try almost 2 decades earlier there guy. Provide the incident you describe.
You want me to provide you with documentation on one of the largest religions? Yeah, I'm way too lazy for that, open the damn book and read it for yourself.
Again: the #'s are irrelevant, the text speaks for itself. Ah, that logical, fact based approach again.
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what? Did you even read the list?
Israel also has the option, and as far as I'm concerned they'd be completely justified in doing so, to render the entire region to ash, yet they keep being overly diplomatic about the whole thing, when they don't need to be.
It's not Israel's responsibility when Hamas puts them there, to assert as such is pure lunacy. You think terrorism is evil, but are happy with genocide? And yes, you are responsible for killing the people you have killed. Solely responsible? Not necessarily, but still responsible.
You're equating drug dealers to known terrorist combatants now? really Considering I am of the opinion the war on drugs is an entire sham (also Regan mind you), your assertion is laughable, not to mention that US soil isn't a warzone (well until they use the unconstitutional patriot act to somehow twist that (if they haven't already)). Yes Jetackuu, that is exactly what I did. I explicitly said drug dealers and terrorists are equivalent. In no way did I give an example where a particular type of target may be in a civilian population, with the intent of illustrating the equivalent effect and viewpoint. Because Pakistan is also a war-zone.
Well, at least we can update this statement more accurately:
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts.
It's documented in the links already in this thread, not going to bother.
Indeed.
I read the list, but you seem to not comprehend that they're collateral damage in a drone strike against known combatants, which is minimal casualties against enemies in a war zone, you're not going to win this with emotional ***. So no, you didn't read the list.
If you did, you would have seen that it varied from hitting known targets, to hitting suspected targets (and we won't even go into what the requirements are to be suspected, which is a completely different matter), to hitting neither known nor suspected targets (or plainly, pure civilian), with varying levels of collateral damage.
I never said I was happy with genocide. Israel also has the option, and as far as I'm concerned they'd be completely justified in doing so, to render the entire region to ash, yet they keep being overly diplomatic about the whole thing, when they don't need to be.
It's not Israel's responsibility when Hamas puts them there, to assert as such is pure lunacy. Correct, you didn't say you would be happy with it. You just think they are overly diplomatic about the situation, while where you are concerned they can just render the entire region to ash. My apologies, I got the wrong impression that you thought rendering the entire region to ash was a satisfactory conclusion, one you would be happy with. You know. Genocide.
No, the people responsible for the deaths of those children in Gaza are Hamas, if you load a building with children, shoot rockets at somebody with it and then they turn around and destroy that building for attacking them, then then you can't go around parading that Israel killed women and children, but that's what they're doing and you are falling for it hook line and sinker. Hamas is responsible for those deaths, they did it to rally support for their cause of wiping out Israel. It seems like you're the one here who supports people who want to commit genocide. That doesn't absolve Hamas of responsibility for purposely placing children in harms way. But it also doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for harming them. And yes, you are responsible for killing the people you have killed. Solely responsible? Not necessarily, but still responsible. You gave an incomparable example of two entirely different situations that are dealt with in two entirely different ways (well the one is being dealt with more and more that way all the time, but again: America isn't a warzone). tl;dr they're not equivalent at all. 
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. Has never been more true, but keep on twisting reality to fit your agenda. This is the one thing you have done an admirable job at refuting with ample evidence.
[+]
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 16:00:13
At least when Kara and her man post they're separated from it, but your bias is very strong, and it reeks.
I'm personally not a fan of sole US foreign policy but this goes way beyond just the US, and you keep ignoring that fact, or just don't comprehend it. Ah, of course I must be biased because I have Arabian blood flowing through my veins. We're all the same. Let me save you the trouble, Dirka Dirka lalalalalal.
Leviathan.Chaosx
Serveur: Leviathan
Game: FFXI
Posts: 20284
By Leviathan.Chaosx 2014-09-20 16:01:18
I'm not sure why you guys take anything Jet says seriously. He is just trolling as usual.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 16:05:05
Yet again (what, the 3rd time now?), no sourced information, no specific statements that can be verified. Just more hand waving.
I meant combat wise, and no we didn't cause conflict in the middle east until after we were assaulted (granted it's been decades, but still). ***.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Overseas_interventions_of_the_United_States
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_foreign_policy_in_the_Middle_East
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. No, you have not provided any yet facts, nor any particularly logical arguments grounded in a factual basis. Emotions, yes. Facts? Where?
The word is accurate and I know very well what it means. You both keep trying to excuse them and lay the blame elsewhere when they're terrorists, the blame lies with them>
But considering you're both terrorist apologists, I don't expect you ever to come to that understanding.
You're the one who doesn't understand the word then, they have no basis, as that would mean they have excuses and you're excusing them, point blank you're trying to blame somebody else for their actions, in saying they're somehow right for what they do. It's quite disgusting, and there's no basis for what they do, despite what you think. Then you need to read where people have explicitly stated that they are not excusing, condoning or otherwise defending ISIS in particular, or terrorism in general.
And in order to short circuit this entire damn discussion:
Oxford said: Apologist
A person who offers an argument in defence of something controversial:
an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s Saying simply that western society plays a non-insignificant role in the fact that they exist and have power isn't excusing, condoning or otherwise defending them.
I don't disagree with saying the leaders wouldn't use something else, but that doesn't change the point. It's irrelevant as to the number or %. Which point would that be? And percentage of the total number of followers is absolutely relevant when you use a religion as a basis for blame.
They didn't corrupt it, it was already corrupt, and I'm not blaming a religion. How was it already corrupt? How has it changed in the past century, 50 years, 10 years? And not blaming a religion? I don't want to just blame it on islam, I blame it on radicals and those that support and excuse them, yet Islam is partially to blame as it's a tool in what they do, and it's a tool because of what it is What you believe the cause of the problem is and what the cause of the problem is are two very different things, especially if you keep thinking the US attacked them first. I'll perfectly admit what I believe is the cause of the problem, and what the actual cause of the problem may very well be different.
What would you say the is cause of the problem? Because "they are terrorists because they are terrorists" isn't a cause. Neither is "they are breeding terrorists". They people who have been radicalized, and extremized. Well yes, pretty much by definition. So how has it been possible for so many to be radicalized?
Why would they be radicalized? Because doing so gave someone more power. Why were they able to gain such a significant power base in such a limited time? When existing power structures are toppled, you don't necessarily get to choose how the new ones get built up.
Thank you for proving my point and yourself wrong at the same time, until Reagan we didn't involve in combat, and we were attacked several times before then.
I state in known facts, I can't help it if you and the other terrorists apologists don't understand history or current events properly, no emotion, but that's apparently what you guys work with. Since you once again don't actually provide any information.
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Islamic_extremism_in_the_United_States#Attacks_or_failed_attacks_by_date
The first entry is in 1977, for the Hanafi Siege.
By the way? Not even in the same vicinity as the remainder. Wikipedia said:
On March 9–11, 1977, three buildings in Washington, D.C. were seized by 12 African American gunmen, led by Hamaas Abdul Khaalis, who had broken from the Nation of Islam but blamed it for murder. They took 149 hostages and killed a radio journalist.
...
The leader of the attack was former national secretary of the Nation of Islam Hamaas Abdul Khaalis. Khaalis was born in Indiana in 1921 and named Ernest McGhee. Discharged from the U.S. Army on grounds of mental instability, he worked as a jazz drummer in New York City before converting to Islam and changing his name to Hamaas Khaalis. He became prominent in the ministries and school of the Nation of Islam and was appointed its national secretary in the early 1950s.
Khaalis split with the Nation of Islam in 1958 to found a rival Islamic organisation, the "Hanafi Movement".[3] In 1968, he was arrested for attempted extortion but released on grounds of mental illness.
In 1972, he published an open letter attacking the leadership and beliefs of the Nation of Islam. A year later five men broke into Khaalis' Washington home and murdered five of his children, his nine-day-old grandson and another man.[4] The murderers were arrested and sentenced to life imprisonment. A grief-stricken Khaalis claimed the men were associated with the Nation of Islam, and that the judge in the cases had not pursued this link.
...
Khaalis and his followers wanted those convicted for the 1973 murders handed over to them, presumably for execution. They also wanted to receive visits from Warith Deen Mohammed and champion boxer Muhammad Ali, long an active Black Muslim supporter. Khaalis also demanded that he be refunded $750 in legal fees caused by a contempt of court citation issued in response to his misbehavior in the trial of his children's killers. Time noted: "He also wanted the recently released film Mohammad, Messenger of God, to be banned on the grounds that it is sacrilegious. Khaalis' concern over the film was thought to have triggered the attack."
...
A large part of the negotiations were conducted by the three Muslim ambassadors, who "read to the gunmen passages from the Quran that they said demonstrated Islam’s compassion and mercy. They urged the gunmen to surrender. These ambassadors relied on their religious faith for compassion and tolerance."
...
The rest of the list is after the Gulf War.
Yes, your words are conflicting, you can say you're not but right after (or before) you were doing just that, it's lunacy.
It is, and not to mention an inaccurate statement. Here's where you don't understand, I don't blame the religion for the entire thing, but it does hold some responsibility, and again the numbers are irrelevant when the doctrine itself supports it.
Any religion promoting the genocide of non-believers (not to mention a crap ton of other atrocities, is by default corrupt), that hasn't changed at all. You'll need to provide some supporting evidence that it promotes the genocide of non-believers (and a crap ton of other atrocities). As you have yet to show any factual evidence of any claims made. As counter-evidence to your claim, if you have 1.6 billion people which follow that, we would have a wee bit more bloodshed than exists today. 100k of 1.6 billion is about 0.00625%. If you assume a normalized distribution, you are still waaaaaaaaaaaaaaay out on the fringe.
You have a bunch of radicals who are brought in under the belief that America and it's freedoms are a slight against god and must be destroyed, along with twisting the counter assaults to the other radicals actions being used as excuses to recruit members, Who killed them isn't under question.
Let us look at some of the first couple of years listed here (fair warning, pretty depressing):
http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_drone_attacks_in_Pakistan
Wikipedia said:
18 June 2004: The first known US drone strike killed 5–8 people including Nek Muhammad Wazir and two children, in a strike near Wana, South Waziristan.
5 November 2005: a strike destroys the house of Abu Hamza Rabia killing his wife, three children and four others.
30 November 2005: Al-Qaeda's 3rd in command, Abu Hamza Rabia killed in an attack by CIA drones in Asoray, near Miranshah, the capital of North Waziristan along with 4 other militants. Among the deaths are 8 year old Noor Aziz and 17-year old Abdul Wasit.
13 January 2006: Damadola airstrike kills 18 civilians, in Bajaur area but misses Ayman al-Zawahri, five women, eight men, and five children are among the dead.
30 October 2006 Chenagai airstrike allegedly aimed at Ayman al-Zawahri destroys a madrassa in Bajaur area and kills 70–80 people. Pakistani military officials claim there were militants while provincial minister Siraj ul-Haq and a local eyewitness said they were innocent pupils resuming studies after the Muslim Eid holidays.
26 April 2007: 4 people killed in the village of Saidgi in North Waziristan. Habib Ullah the owner of the destroyed house, said those killed were not terrorists
19 June 2007: 30 killed in the village of Mami Rogha in North Waziristan
2 November 2007: 5 killed in an attack on a madrasah in North Waziristan
29 January 2008: Al-Qaeda's Abu Laith al-Libi killed in a strike in North Waziristan along with 12–14 others, among the dead are two women and three children
The average household in Pakistan has about 6.5 members (http://www.pbs.gov.pk/sites/default/files/social_statistics/publications/hies07_08/table1.pdf).
Assuming that you radicalize all associated family members (let alone the entire community) with these attacks, you quickly enter significant numbers.
this is like the ***where people keep blaming Israel for the dead children in Gaza when the terrorists purposely line it up for them to die like that to use it as ammunition, and unlike you all I won't fall for it. Israel has other options which significantly reduce the possibility of civillian casualties, with the consequence of significantly increasing the risk to its own troops.
By doing that, they would have also removed the actual threat, and severely reduced the recruitment potential of those organizations.
It was (and still is) a poor strategic decision.
That doesn't absolve Hamas of responsibility for purposely placing children in harms way. But it also doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for harming them.
Just imagine how this would work if expanded to other criminal activities (for example, drugs). Drone strike a dealer in a car, take out everyone else in that car, plus other bystanders in the street/traffic accidents. Hey, it's just collateral damage, no worries, we got the bad guy. Try almost 2 decades earlier there guy. Provide the incident you describe.
You want me to provide you with documentation on one of the largest religions? Yeah, I'm way too lazy for that, open the damn book and read it for yourself.
Again: the #'s are irrelevant, the text speaks for itself. Ah, that logical, fact based approach again.
So we killed a bunch of terrorists and people they were around? so what? Did you even read the list?
Israel also has the option, and as far as I'm concerned they'd be completely justified in doing so, to render the entire region to ash, yet they keep being overly diplomatic about the whole thing, when they don't need to be.
It's not Israel's responsibility when Hamas puts them there, to assert as such is pure lunacy. You think terrorism is evil, but are happy with genocide? And yes, you are responsible for killing the people you have killed. Solely responsible? Not necessarily, but still responsible.
You're equating drug dealers to known terrorist combatants now? really Considering I am of the opinion the war on drugs is an entire sham (also Regan mind you), your assertion is laughable, not to mention that US soil isn't a warzone (well until they use the unconstitutional patriot act to somehow twist that (if they haven't already)). Yes Jetackuu, that is exactly what I did. I explicitly said drug dealers and terrorists are equivalent. In no way did I give an example where a particular type of target may be in a civilian population, with the intent of illustrating the equivalent effect and viewpoint. Because Pakistan is also a war-zone.
Well, at least we can update this statement more accurately:
I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts.
It's documented in the links already in this thread, not going to bother.
Indeed.
I read the list, but you seem to not comprehend that they're collateral damage in a drone strike against known combatants, which is minimal casualties against enemies in a war zone, you're not going to win this with emotional ***. So no, you didn't read the list.
If you did, you would have seen that it varied from hitting known targets, to hitting suspected targets (and we won't even go into what the requirements are to be suspected, which is a completely different matter), to hitting neither known nor suspected targets (or plainly, pure civilian), with varying levels of collateral damage.
I never said I was happy with genocide. Israel also has the option, and as far as I'm concerned they'd be completely justified in doing so, to render the entire region to ash, yet they keep being overly diplomatic about the whole thing, when they don't need to be.
It's not Israel's responsibility when Hamas puts them there, to assert as such is pure lunacy. Correct, you didn't say you would be happy with it. You just think they are overly diplomatic about the situation, while where you are concerned they can just render the entire region to ash. My apologies, I got the wrong impression that you thought rendering the entire region to ash was a satisfactory conclusion, one you would be happy with. You know. Genocide.
No, the people responsible for the deaths of those children in Gaza are Hamas, if you load a building with children, shoot rockets at somebody with it and then they turn around and destroy that building for attacking them, then then you can't go around parading that Israel killed women and children, but that's what they're doing and you are falling for it hook line and sinker. Hamas is responsible for those deaths, they did it to rally support for their cause of wiping out Israel. It seems like you're the one here who supports people who want to commit genocide. That doesn't absolve Hamas of responsibility for purposely placing children in harms way. But it also doesn't absolve Israel of responsibility for harming them. And yes, you are responsible for killing the people you have killed. Solely responsible? Not necessarily, but still responsible. You gave an incomparable example of two entirely different situations that are dealt with in two entirely different ways (well the one is being dealt with more and more that way all the time, but again: America isn't a warzone). tl;dr they're not equivalent at all. I'll say it again: There's logic and sense in everything I say, and I'm 100% stable unless I change my mind (which doesn't usually happen). Everything I stated here was perfectly backed by logic, and backed by facts. Has never been more true, but keep on twisting reality to fit your agenda. This is the one thing you have done an admirable job at refuting with ample evidence.
Money shot
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 16:06:28
So no, you didn't read the list.
If you did, you would have seen that it varied from hitting known targets, to hitting suspected targets (and we won't even go into what the requirements are to be suspected, which is a completely different matter), to hitting neither known nor suspected targets (or plainly, pure civilian), with varying levels of collateral damage. I did read the list, and they were still aiming at targets, misses happen), as for the only "pure civilian" on that list, is hearsay by the owner of the house, not very credible.)
Rendering Gaza to ash wouldn't be genocide, and no I wouldn't be happy with that outcome, but Israel would be justified in doing so, after the relentless attacks, and unending *** from Gaza. It's no different than counterattacking in full force any other area that decides to wage war on you.
We're just going to have to disagree with the responsibility bit, as we obviously won't see eye to eye on it, as well as the logic bit, as we're not going to agree.
I haven't refuted logic at all, just because you don't comprehend it, doesn't mean it's illogical, I don't mean personal logic either.
By Blazed1979 2014-09-20 16:14:33
Quote: Jetackuu said:»
I haven't refuted logic at all, just because you don't comprehend it, doesn't mean it's illogical, I don't mean personal logic either. 
 Bismarck.Bloodrose
Serveur: Bismarck
Game: FFXI
Posts: 4322
By Bismarck.Bloodrose 2014-09-20 16:16:32
I'm starting to like Blazed more than I used to.
He used a Star Trek meme of Spock holding a kitty!
By Jetackuu 2014-09-20 16:19:56
Quote: Jetackuu said:»
I haven't refuted logic at all, just because you don't comprehend it, doesn't mean it's illogical, I don't mean personal logic either. very, but not a fan of cats, you can have it.
The New Zealand Herald said: Gruesome execution plot at the heart of terror raids
A plot to behead a random member of the public in Sydney has been thwarted by the biggest anti-terror police raids Australia has seen, with one man charged over the plan to "horrify" the community.
Omarjan Azari, 22, who was remanded in custody at Central Local Court, allegedly conspired with Mohammad Baryalei, the most senior Australian member of Isis (Islamic State) to commit the terror act.
Prosecutor Michael Allnutt told the court that Azari was accused of plans designed to "shock" and "horrify" the community.
The plan involved the "random selection of persons to rather gruesomely execute", he said.
Last night a heavy police presence was expected at a snap protest in Sydney's west against the raids. The protest, promoted under a banner featuring the hardline organisation Hizb Ut-Tahrir, called on the Muslim community to "stand as one" against "government aggression" at Lakemba.
Australian Prime Minister Tony Abbott, who was briefed before raids on Wednesday night, indicated intelligence showed public beheadings were urged by leaders of Syria-based Isis.
"The exhortations, quite direct exhortations, were coming from an Australian who is apparently quite senior in [Isis] to networks of support back in Australia to conduct demonstration killings here in this country," Abbott said. "This is not just suspicion, this is intent."
Azari, from Guildford in Sydney's west, will face court again on November 13. He was one of 15 people detained during the raids which included 25 search warrants on homes and vehicles.
More than 800 New South Wales and Australian Federal Police raided properties across the suburbs of Beecroft, Bella Vista, Guildford, Merrylands, Northmead, Wentworthville, Marsfield, Westmead, Castle Hill, Revesby, Bass Hill and Regents Park.
Three more raids occurred in Queensland yesterday morning.
Australian Federal Police acting commissioner Andrew Colvin said the raids in Underwood, Logan and Mount Gravatt East southeast of Brisbane were linked to raids in the area last week in which two men were arrested and charged with terrorism-related offences.
One of the Queensland suspects, Omar Succarieh, was seeking bail.
The Sydney plot has raised comparisons with the attack on British soldier Lee Rigby, who was hacked to death on a London street by Muslim extremists last year.
It emerged yesterday that death threats against Christians outside a school and church in Sydney's west have struck fear into parents and churchgoers. Police say two men in a red hatchback hurled abuse as they drove by Maronite College of the Holy Family in Harris Park and Our Lady of Lebanon church on Wednesday. They threatened to "kill the Christians" and slaughter their children while brandishing an Isis flag, a priest said.
NSW Police Commissioner Andrew Scipione warned against any public backlash in the wake of the dawn raids. He said more than 220 police would participate in high-profile Operation Hammerhead, covering transport hubs and important and iconic sites.
The operation followed Australia's outgoing spy chief, ASIO director David Irvine, raising the terror alert level to "high" amid fears of an attack on home soil last Friday.
Chief of Defence Mark Binskin said the defence force was constantly reviewing security at its bases and may adjust the level of security over coming days.
Australia has estimated about 60 of its citizens are fighting for the Islamic State group and Jabhat al-Nusra in Iraq and Syria. Another 15 Australian fighters had been killed, including two young suicide bombers. The Government has said it believes about 100 Australians are actively supporting extremist groups from within Australia, recruiting fighters and grooming suicide bomber candidates as well as providing funds and equipment.
Western governments are facing an uphill battle trying to squeeze the finances of Islamic State jihadists, as the extremists operate like a "mafia" in territory under their control in Syria and Iraq, experts say.
Unlike the al-Qaeda network, which has relied almost exclusively on private donations, Isis holds a large area in Syria and Iraq that allows it to generate cash from extortion, kidnapping and smuggling of both oil and antiquities, analysts say. As a result, the group's funding presents a much more difficult target for Western sanctions compared to al-Qaeda's finances, said Evan Jendruck, an analyst at IHS Jane's consultancy.
Even conservative estimates portray Isis as the world's richest extremist organisation, raking in at least a million dollars a day.
The group is "merciless in shaking down local businesses for cash and routinely forces drivers on roads under its control to pay a tax", a US intelligence official said. "Its cash-raising activities resemble those of a mafia-like organisation."
- AAP, AP, AFP
So now the ISIS is using its international volunteers to extend its reach into western nations. Awesome.
|
|
