INTENSITY²
Politics, Mature and taboo => Political Pundits => Topic started by: Teejay on August 16, 2006, 06:25:18 AM
-
This so called 'war on terror' is not a war on terrorism presay this is an ideological conflict between Liberal Democracy and Secularism against Islamism. The enemy wants to see the values we hold so dear, freedom of religion, human rights, democracy, secular law, women's rights and etc destroyed.
All replaced by a global caliphate, ruled by the Sharia, where women would be regarded as the property of their husbands and forced to wear the veil, where people who do not believe in the particular form of Islam, let alone other religions be forced to live second class citizens, if lucky. If they are not lucky they will have the choice of convert, die or be enslaved literally. Slavery would become a real part of life again (heck it is a part of life where the Islamists are ruling now in the Sudan and to a degree in Gulf Countries and Saudi Arabia). Not to mention we would be plunged into a new dark age.
This conflict which is now occurring is as serious as the Cold War and World War 2 were. I advocate to the extent we can preserve the values we are fighting for to use any methods necessary to totally destroy this muthafuckers and their movement off the face of the planet.
-
before you go any further, might i suggest you read "Unspeak" by Stephen Poole, which has quite a lot to say about the political agenda behind the phrase "war on terror".
-
before you go any further, might i suggest you read "Unspeak" by Stephen Poole, which has quite a lot to say about the political agenda behind the phrase "war on terror".
"Unspeak" by Stephen Poole? That's just cherry picking.
Might I suggest that, before you post in Intensity again, that you read the Encyclopedia Britannica.
LOL @ Myself! :D
-
erm... i have, actually. i also read dictionaries for a laugh.
yep, i am that much of an anorak.
-
erm... i have, actually.Â
The 32-volume version? Cover to cover.
Read it again then.
-
When you talk about the 'War on Terror' though, that's kind of everyone's concern. You don't even need to take it from GWB, Fox News, American News, they'll tell you themselves exactly what they're about and what they intend to do with the world. I think what people have is that inertia problem where they have their own cozy little lives, their sheltered little bubbles, and they don't want to fight for their rights unless its right at their doorstep - problem with that psychology is while you finally have like 95% support and almost all those dissenting have had a major change of heart (ie. the facts are indisputable) the bodies are piled way higher than if someone just does what they have to early and takes all the hatemail from all over the world and even their own country in some cases.
-
I suggest we set all their oil reserves on fire leaving them with no diplomatic power and therefore of no consequence to the modern world.
-
Yeah, we need out of there period I agree. The only issue though, no matter what happens now it's still going to self-escalate and if it's not Iran and their nuclear program there's so much stuff in Russia that was never accounted for. Like I said though, this is something the whole world needs to take responsibility on. We'd love to see 20 or 30 other countries put a real effort in - it would be taken care of much quicker, the intelligence would be a lot broader, and it would be a great opportunity for us to step it back a bit and let everyone else have as much control of the process.
-
The process how it is the problem but how to solve it is even harder in the end.
-
Seriously. Just get some American terrorists (or commandos) to go in there, get some napalm bombs, or some high exposives, and destory all of their oil reserves.
It will be hell on us as we get oil from other sources, and the price of gas will go up, but when it is clear to the gas companies that oil will be getting too expensive, they'll up investing in alternative energy sources.
-
great idea. all that CO2/particulate matter/hydrocarbon etc. released into the air at the same time. the whole of the region would be unable to produce any food, or even be habitable, for fucking ages; you'd have a crisis catastrophe situation instantly, cos the place wouldn't even be habitable, so instant diaspora/refugee to sort out; global warming out of all recognition, instantly...
need i continue?
-
I didnt call them terrorists for no reason. I don't really care how badly it would fuck up their environement. But they wouldnt be able to hit all of the sites(and i'm not entirely sure it is as simple as setting them on fire since there is little to no oxygen in the ground for the fire to feed on, so there would need to be another way of destroying it), because once they hit a couple, they'd up the security of the remaining ones. But it would still impede their ability to ship oil out and therefore reduce their bargaining power in foreign affairs.
-
OUR environment, you bloody twit, nomaken - GLOBAL warming not fucking well localised.
NIMBY is just exactly what i mean by irresponsbility.
-
Okay, lemme rephrase that. I don't really care about our environment. Anyway, if we firebombed the oil fields, it would only immediately create all the CO2 emissions that would later be created by our cars, and they'd be doing it over in their backwards country. (I want you to know that I know I dont know the extent to which it would damage our environment but im betting it would be serious, and it is more that I know this wont ever fucking happen than that i couldnt give a flying fuck.)
But you know we could just as well add impurities to the oil that make it unrefinable and ruin it.
-
But you know we could just as well add impurities to the oil that make it unrefinable and ruin it.
Yeah, we could add lead to it. Who in their right minds would use that in their cars? :P
-
lol !
-
I dont know what we'd add to it, but i bet there is a chemical we could add to it which would make it unrefinable.
-
Another thing to bring up - I was just over my parents place and we were listening to Dennis Pragher. He was talking about the whole thing with what the pope said about what a 15th century emporer of Byzantine said about Mohammed. Just mentioning that was enough to get 7 churches blown up and get a nun shot in the back 4 times in Israel. He talked about the differences in the precepts of the cultures values. Jews, catholics, westerners in general whether atheist or otherwise, do their best to put morality (or whatever their values are on how to treat things or people) above face and pride. The muslim world just works the opposit - it has morality and values but pride, face, and honor come first. Because of that difference you can't even criticize their way of doing something without getting something blown up. If you criticize them for being violent or blowing things up they blow things up in response. He also had a caller who talked about the whole summer camp program they have in Israel where they try to get Israeli and Palestinian kids to become friends. Supposedly someone talked to this kids who'd had many Israeli friends and asked him what it would take for him to change his ways and go right back to hating Israel and he said all it would take would be getting humiliated at a checkpoint.
Looking at it in that perspective, again, its one of those things where unless you lay down, ignore everything they do, and just let it slide they'll keep blowing things up. The main criticism that many conservatives have on liberals with this issue is that multiculturalism, while doing some good things like discouraging discrimination and trying to get people to see the person first and regard origin or religion as if it were hair color, condemns the idea that we really aren't all the same and condemns anyone as speaking heresy who would claim that we aren't all the same (my dad reminded me of the professor at Harvard who got sanctioned because he said that women and men weren't wired the same, someone stormed out of the room, and he was being considered as anti-femenist - he was speaking from science and not trying to put women down at all but again - political correctness above all else). When people can do this kind of thing and so many in our country want to look the other way on it and blame America, Israel, anyone they possibly can before examining radical Islam itself - its a major denial problem and its a very dangerous one because not only are people that steeped in denial a large enough part of the population but they're voting on who gets in, who the policy makers are, and I really sincerely hope that even people over here really can't stand Bush that at least the majority of those who don't like him can still see these things and still feel that the war on terror is paramount. In fact it really makes me wish the History Channel or TLC could come up with a good show on England in the 1930s, the politics that were happening then, see how many people just flat out hated Churchill and probably spoke the same exact rhettoric that's going on now about Bush. I know that when Reagan wanted to take on the Soviet Union people in our country were calling him a 'cold warrior', blasting him on just not letting them be, history just repeats itself on that level and I guarantee that in the UK and even America there were lots of people who condemned going to war against Germany as much as they're condemning the wars going on in Iraq and Afghanistan right now - it might almost be as bad when we far more than likely have to go into Iran next year some time, I just really hope that it's not an Iraq type situation and that many other countries who usually don't agree with us understand that the leader of Iran talks off the cuff about bringing in the 12th Imahm by hastening the apocalypse and has his heart set on doing so by nuclear war against the west (I have enough hope hearing that most of the people who blasted the Iraq war totally understand the need to go into Iran but as for the United Nations, I could still see them and Kofi Annin stalling us just as badly as they did with that situation).
-
yes, techstep is a confirmed ADHD.
-
yes, techstep is a confirmed ADHD.
Hehehehhe, yeah, almost a shame I mask it so well IRL. Just hope the points I dropped in that post are at least worth a few pennies :P
-
I think techstepgernr8tion makes some very good points in the end.
-
yes, techstep is a confirmed ADHD.
Hehehehhe, yeah, almost a shame I mask it so well IRL. Just hope the points I dropped in that post are at least worth a few pennies :P
they are.
if i saw otherwise i would have called you on them.
-
Hmmm . . . has anyone read "The Politically Incorrect Guide to Islam (and the Crusades)" by Robert Spencer? Pretty frightening stuff.
-
How do you define Islamism?
-
How do you define Islamism?
Islamism
n 1: a fundamentalist Islamic revivalist movement generally
characterized by moral conservatism and the literal
interpretation of the Koran and the attempt to implement
Islamic values in all aspects of life
2: the religion of Muslims collectively which governs their
civilization and way of life; the predominant religion of
northern Africa, the Middle East, Pakistan and Indonesia
[syn: Islam, Muslimism, Muhammadanism, Mohammedanism,
Mohammadanism]
3: the monotheistic religion of Muslims founded in Arabia in
the 7th century and based on the teachings of Muhammad as
laid down in the Koran; "the term Muhammadanism is
offensive to Muslims who believe that Allah, not Muhammad,
founded their religion" [syn: Islam, Mohammedanism, Muhammadanism,
Muslimism]
-
I dont know what we'd add to it, but i bet there is a chemical we could add to it which would make it unrefinable.
I'd suggest adding radioisotopes with a half life of 10 years or so. That way, nobody's harmed as long as the oil stays in the ground, and the oil will eventually become usable again, after the shift to renewables, when it'll be used mainly for chemical feedstocks rather than as a source of energy.
-
As I recall, this fiasco began as "a war on terrorism", following the hijacking of four aircraft which culminated in the destruction of much of the World Trade Center and surrounding area in New York, and damage to one fifth of the Pentagon. The target was terrorists, whosoever they may be. One marketing-initiative later, the language used by (primarily conservative and emerging neo-conservative) press officers, ministers, and presidents became "the War on Terror". For some reason, most Western media had adopted it within three months. It was a subtle shift, but a skilful one. The message was this: We're no longer at war with a specific, but distributed, organised cabal of terrorists, we're at war with an ideology.
I pose this question: Was the world-wide terrorist threat posed at the start of September 2001 any more dangerous than it had been in September 1999? Or 1989? Or 1949? Since any sub-national group with guns and an agenda can apparently be accurately labelled a terrorist (eg, Hezbollah, IRA), and any national group that agrees with their politics is a "rogue state", it is easy to point out that there has been a high level of terrorist activity on most continents since the end of World War Two, or for that matter, since before the rise of the Roman Empire! There are many nations who have what would today be defined as terrorism to thank for a defining point in their history, if not their very independence or federation. (Eg, Israel, United States, France, Soviet Union, China, I could type my fingers off...) The point of this is that in posing the question "was terrorism in 09/2001 a greater threat than before then?", you are committing somehow tallying up all the terrorists, or rating the level of their threat based on entirely subjective and arbitrary criteria. It's an impossible and (more to the point) meaningless task.
At this point, it becomes a matter of perogatives: There are certainly terrorists out there (call them what you will), and indeed, many of them wish me harm. If I wanted to live in a repressed religious oligarchy, I'd renounce my evil ways and move to the Vatican. Thus, while terrorists will assert their perogative to kill and maim people in order to impose their ideals on me, the government of my country (for all its shortcomings) happens to be good at asserting the perogative of itself and its citizens in defending our perceived national interests. We probably won't be overwhelmed, because we have bigger guns.
But nor can we ever win.
In changing "the enemy" from an organised group of nutjobs with guns, an agenda, and a name ("Al Quaeda") to an ideology, participating nations guaranteed themselves a war that they could never win. Short of total media control (I'll leave that one for another day), there is no way to kill off a virulant idea or philosophy once the cat is out of the bag. For example, even with WW2 a sixty-plus-year old memory, no-one has even tried to exterminate the idea of Nazism. It's certainly been demonised and is not particularly popular these days, but the ideology exists all the same, and it's there for anyone who happens to like it to adopt.
This brings me back to my original question. Was the terrorist threat truly greater in September 2001 than ever before? My guess is not really. Previously, the policy of most governments had been to meet direct challenges directly and without remorse, which is a good way of asserting yourself as a nation and a power. We'd launch a few missiles, or a few hundred, cut off their supply lines, and then ignore them. Remember the face that launched a thousand missiles? No? *shrug* My point is this: In turning a war on terrorism to the War on Terror - an inherently and intentionally unwinnable conflict - the participating governments gave their (very real) enemies the biggest and best publicity job they ever could have. There have always been terrorists everywhere. There always will be. But after the United States' war on terrorism became the worldwide War on Terror, the various struggles of sub-national groups against nations the world over (for national independence, or by way of protest against neglect by ruling government) became polarised to ONE conflict. There was a very deliberate, and very successful recruitment effort by the Islamist factions who were the principle parties of just one fairly small civil war that was extended to all the others. Now in Aceh, Chechnya, and Darfur there are strong rebel movements with Islamist goals, who have coherent links of weapons, funding, and soldiers to each of the others.
This hasn't always been the case though. Aceh was about independence from the oppressive facist policies of the Surkano and Suhato regimes (which were, interestingly enough, backed by the US government to prevent the previous "evil" ideology from spreading South through Asia.) Darfur has been problematic since famine in the 1970s, and the economic neglect of the region by the Sudanese central government was the cause. The Chechen dispute cropped up at the same time as the former Soviet satelites were declaring independence during the breakup of the Soviet Union. Chechnya's problem? They were too small to stand as a nation, either as Moscow's friend, or as an enemy, and their independence would be both a security threat to Russia from without, and from within, should any other the other hundreds of little client-nations that Russia is made from want to follow their example and secede. The thing these three conflicts do have in common is Islam: There are significant Muslim populations in all three areas, and has been since well before their respective conflicts started.
The nature of rebellion is that you don't have a lot of friends. By becoming a rebel, you're declaring your opposition to the people in charge. All your admirers abroad (if you have any) have to go through the guy you're fighting if they want to do business at all. For this reason, most rebel movements are lucky to get any meaninful support from a well established nation: It's just not politically or financially expedient to be seen to be trying to dethrone the guy you're selling your merchandise to. You could risk a direct, covert approach (Eg, the fun excursions taken c/- the CIA chequebook), or more likely, wait to see if the rebels win, and if they do, recognise and start doing business with them. They call this "diplomacy". While the rebels in Chechnya and Aceh certainly had the "moral support" of some Western governments in the past, it couldn't translate into any meaningful backup for reasons just outlined.
...And then some fellow from Afghanistan showed up with $100,000 worth of diamonds in his suitcase, some literature, and a sales-pitch that was too good to refuse: "Would you like to join our club? We have funding, weapons, and we're the same religion as you. You already know who we are and what we can achieve: We blew up Americans in the towers. When was the last time the Americans helped you, I wonder?" They already had all the good press they needed, and with so much attention turned their way, they went from being obscure rebels fighting some hopeless never-ending civil-war in a frozen, mountainous desert to being the core of an ever more popular conflict of downtrodden Muslims everywhere against an arrogant aggressor.
The War on Terror is conflict of ideologies manufactured to be unwinnable. Born from the fires of the last such war (Communism vs. Demo... okay, Communism vs. Not Communism) it is a very real and very dangerous war. On one side are a group of disturbed individuals who intend to exercise their perogative of a holy war to convert or destroy all who refuse their dominion. On the other are the governments of the West, some elected fraudulently, others genuinely, others not at all. They intend to fight a war forever, but never win, as it serves as an ideal justification for imposing their will on the people they lead, with the declared aim of protecting them, and acting for their safety. The threat and war are both real, there's no conspiracy there. But it's only the war it is because people were so eager to be shocked into paying so much attention to begin with. Chances are, the less attention it's paid, the less important it will become.
Now I pose this question: Is terrorism a greater threat now than it was on September 12, 2001?
-
i don't think so.
but if you are an extreme (rebel) thinker, then you are more at danger now than you were prior to 911.
-
Agreed. The danger's not the terrorism itself, which isn't exactly new. It's everybody's paranoia.
-
Jill: How many "terrorists" have you met Sam? Actual terrorists?
--Terry Gilliam, "Brazil" (1985)
-
Jill: How many "terrorists" have you met Sam? Actual terrorists?
--Terry Gilliam, "Brazil" (1985)
I have never met a politician either, but they're out there.
As regards to the question "Is terrorism a greater threat now, than it was before Sep 11?" The answer is yes. Before Sep. 11 everyone assumed that the US was safe from attack on its soil. Yes, the threat remains much the same for our affiliates overseas, but the idea that terrorists would spend years assimilating into our country in order to give their lives to kill people was not exactly an accepted part of reality. The threat of terrorism before 9/11 did not carry the threat of total dedication on the terrorists part in order to sacrifice years of the life, in order to sacrifice their life itself in the end. This is much different than someone overseas who is part of an army, then goes on a suicide bombing mission one day.
The greater threat of terrorism is not so much a growing of idealogy. But, their ability to acquire new technology which was impossible to acquire before (have you seen the new jumbo jet? I can just picture the watering mouths of the next generation of hijackers), with the ever-increasing ability of countries to go nuclear, and the advances of science and biological warfare in government programs. This is what we must stop. This is also something that will take years to accomplish, as in order to stop this threat we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships in order to acheive democratic stability throughout the world.
As technology improves at an exponential rate, so will our time to stop such threats decrease exponentially. The damage that one man can do will increase with the increases in technology.
-
Try to get stability in the ones you HAVE invaded, first. ::)
Did you actually have a point, or did you just watch Fox News?
-
Try to get stability in the ones you HAVE invaded, first. ::)
Did you actually have a point, or did you just watch Fox News?
Did I say anywhere the plan was working? Just because you have the right course of action, doesn't mean our leaders will carry it out correctly.
Edit: I do not have a t.v. btw.
-
So, allow me to repeat my question: did you actually have a point? And if you did, what's your plan?
BTW, it's your leaders, not mine, although I fully support the rights of the world to vote in the next presidential election of the US, since what happens over there has an absurdly large impact on the rest of the world.
-
So, allow me to repeat my question: did you actually have a point? And if you did, what's your plan?
BTW, it's your leaders, not mine, although I fully support the rights of the world to vote in the next presidential election of the US, since what happens over there has an absurdly large impact on the rest of the world.
Read my post. I said that we need to replace the dictatorships with democracies before technological advances make it too easy to produce WMD.
Did YOU have a point? Or did you just need to bump in with the tired cliche' of "The Iraq war is a mess" when it has nothing to do with the point of my post?
BTW, I did not use "our leaders" in the context of the world, but in the context of the US, which I would assume was quite obvious, as no one uses "our leaders" in the context you are suggesting.
-
:popcorn:
-
Read my post. I said that we need to replace the dictatorships with democracies before technological advances make it too easy to produce WMD.
Did YOU have a point? Or did you just need to bump in with the tired cliche' of "The Iraq war is a mess" when it has nothing to do with the point of my post?
BTW, I did not use "our leaders" in the context of the world, but in the context of the US, which I would assume was quite obvious, as no one uses "our leaders" in the context you are suggesting.
In the same vein, I'd like to propose the following solution to today's problems:
Everybody should stop fighting since it's counter-productive. The easiest way to make them all realize that this is the case is, of course, by telling them. We must do this before it all goes too far. Now, therefore, is a good time.
My method kills fewer people than yours.
-
It has a problem, though. Governments and criminal gangs won't abide your method.
-
Read my post. I said that we need to replace the dictatorships with democracies before technological advances make it too easy to produce WMD.
Did YOU have a point? Or did you just need to bump in with the tired cliche' of "The Iraq war is a mess" when it has nothing to do with the point of my post?
BTW, I did not use "our leaders" in the context of the world, but in the context of the US, which I would assume was quite obvious, as no one uses "our leaders" in the context you are suggesting.
In the same vein, I'd like to propose the following solution to today's problems:
Everybody should stop fighting since it's counter-productive. The easiest way to make them all realize that this is the case is, of course, by telling them. We must do this before it all goes too far. Now, therefore, is a good time.
My method kills fewer people than yours.
survival of the fittest.
i believe that a person dies when they are supposed to.
it just so happens that it has been a few bad years for the iraqi's.
who knows, maybe the next few years might no be a good time to be an american.
but death happens by design.
-
Read my post. I said that we need to replace the dictatorships with democracies before technological advances make it too easy to produce WMD.
Did YOU have a point? Or did you just need to bump in with the tired cliche' of "The Iraq war is a mess" when it has nothing to do with the point of my post?
BTW, I did not use "our leaders" in the context of the world, but in the context of the US, which I would assume was quite obvious, as no one uses "our leaders" in the context you are suggesting.
In the same vein, I'd like to propose the following solution to today's problems:
Everybody should stop fighting since it's counter-productive. The easiest way to make them all realize that this is the case is, of course, by telling them. We must do this before it all goes too far. Now, therefore, is a good time.
My method kills fewer people than yours.
Telling them?!?!? This is the most ridiculous solution that I have ever heard.
Bush: Bin Laden, please stop, your war against the west as it is only causing death and destruction. This is counter-productive to attaining peace between the west and middle east.
Bin Laden: That's the whole point.
Bush: President Ahmadinejad, please stop your pursuit of nuclear power, this will only lead to your acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad: That's the whole point.
Your method only works in your imagination. Sure, we must begin a dialogue, but only after those who will never listen are out of the way.
-
You see why I want to leave Sweden? Many people here actually think that terrorists are "talkable" and reasonable.
-
who knows, maybe the next few years might no be a good time to be an american.
I'm pretty sure it will be the next few decades at the least.
-
You see why I want to leave Sweden? Many people here actually think that terrorists are "talkable" and reasonable.
Something I cannot understand either. It's like trying to talk a Christian out of Christianity.
-
Yep. By the way, it won't be good decades for Europeans either. The islamic extremists hate us too and many of them live in European countries.
-
You see why I want to leave Sweden? Many people here actually think that terrorists are "talkable" and reasonable.
Something I cannot understand either. It's like trying to talk a Christian out of Christianity.
i tried that a coupla times with mormons when they made the mistake of knocking on my door.
-
I don't suppose you got kicked in the balls? :P
-
You see why I want to leave Sweden? Many people here actually think that terrorists are "talkable" and reasonable.
:asthing:
-
Read my post. I said that we need to replace the dictatorships with democracies before technological advances make it too easy to produce WMD.
Did YOU have a point? Or did you just need to bump in with the tired cliche' of "The Iraq war is a mess" when it has nothing to do with the point of my post?
BTW, I did not use "our leaders" in the context of the world, but in the context of the US, which I would assume was quite obvious, as no one uses "our leaders" in the context you are suggesting.
In the same vein, I'd like to propose the following solution to today's problems:
Everybody should stop fighting since it's counter-productive. The easiest way to make them all realize that this is the case is, of course, by telling them. We must do this before it all goes too far. Now, therefore, is a good time.
My method kills fewer people than yours.
Telling them?!?!? This is the most ridiculous solution that I have ever heard.
Bush: Bin Laden, please stop, your war against the west as it is only causing death and destruction. This is counter-productive to attaining peace between the west and middle east.
Bin Laden: That's the whole point.
Bush: President Ahmadinejad, please stop your pursuit of nuclear power, this will only lead to your acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad: That's the whole point.
Your method only works in your imagination. Sure, we must begin a dialogue, but only after those who will never listen are out of the way.
Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions. ::)
In the meanwhile, this will do for you:
:asthing:
-
war is in our nature.
in times of peace, we should make ready that what we need for war.-some roman general BC.
-
war is in our nature.
in times of peace, we should make ready that what we need for war.-some roman general BC.
It's a shame that Europeans usually don't understand this anymore. They fear war so much that they're helpless when it comes.
-
Read my post. I said that we need to replace the dictatorships with democracies before technological advances make it too easy to produce WMD.
Did YOU have a point? Or did you just need to bump in with the tired cliche' of "The Iraq war is a mess" when it has nothing to do with the point of my post?
BTW, I did not use "our leaders" in the context of the world, but in the context of the US, which I would assume was quite obvious, as no one uses "our leaders" in the context you are suggesting.
In the same vein, I'd like to propose the following solution to today's problems:
Everybody should stop fighting since it's counter-productive. The easiest way to make them all realize that this is the case is, of course, by telling them. We must do this before it all goes too far. Now, therefore, is a good time.
My method kills fewer people than yours.
Telling them?!?!? This is the most ridiculous solution that I have ever heard.
Bush: Bin Laden, please stop, your war against the west as it is only causing death and destruction. This is counter-productive to attaining peace between the west and middle east.
Bin Laden: That's the whole point.
Bush: President Ahmadinejad, please stop your pursuit of nuclear power, this will only lead to your acquisition of nuclear weapons.
Ahmadinejad: That's the whole point.
Your method only works in your imagination. Sure, we must begin a dialogue, but only after those who will never listen are out of the way.
Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions. ::)
In the meanwhile, this will do for you:
:asthing:
Yes, it will take a long long time, and it will be very messy, but at least it is a possibility. To ask the question, "How's that more manageable?", is to compare reality with illusion. My method is possible, while your method is not. Me method is comparable with NASA planning to build a ship to that can take us to Saturn, while you suggest we fly through space with wings that we grow in laboratories and attach them to our backs.
There should be reality tags in here...
-
Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions. ::)
In the meanwhile, this will do for you:
:asthing:
Yes, it will take a long long time, and it will be very messy, but at least it is a possibility. To ask the question, "How's that more manageable?", is to compare reality with illusion. My method is possible, while your method is not. Me method is comparable with NASA planning to build a ship to that can take us to Saturn, while you suggest we fly through space with wings that we grow in laboratories and attach them to our backs.
There should be reality tags in here...
Your method is just as impossible as mine in real life. What kind of resources do you think your country has? It's not a question of taking a very long time or being very messy, even though any attempt will certainly be very messy. What makes you think you can handle several dozens of dictatorships when you can't even end the war in one? What makes you think you can win? Or do you plan on nuking the ones you can't break? I'm pretty sure the guy in North Korea would nuke you right back.
That's not reality, it's la la land.
-
Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions. ::)
In the meanwhile, this will do for you:
:asthing:
Yes, it will take a long long time, and it will be very messy, but at least it is a possibility. To ask the question, "How's that more manageable?", is to compare reality with illusion. My method is possible, while your method is not. Me method is comparable with NASA planning to build a ship to that can take us to Saturn, while you suggest we fly through space with wings that we grow in laboratories and attach them to our backs.
There should be reality tags in here...
Your method is just as impossible as mine in real life. What kind of resources do you think your country has? It's not a question of taking a very long time or being very messy, even though any attempt will certainly be very messy. What makes you think you can handle several dozens of dictatorships when you can't even end the war in one? What makes you think you can win? Or do you plan on nuking the ones you can't break? I'm pretty sure the guy in North Korea would nuke you right back.
That's not reality, it's la la land.
Bush certainly screwed up making Iraq into a democracy by failing to send over an adequate number of troops. Now, whether this was his idea or Rummy's, it certainly doesn't matter. What he should do is send over an extra 50 - 100,000 troops and quash the infighting. We already see shades of this working with the "surge" as they call it, and it hasn't even really begun yet.
Notice how no one is crying out "civil war", "civil war" at the top of their lungs anymore? Send in an overwhelming amount of troops and we can get out of there faster. Now, for what ever reason (pride, stubborness, etc.) he thinks the war will be won on the same path we are now.
Should he do this and things get under control in Iraq, Iran will be bordered by Afghanistan and Iraq, which will be two stable semi-democracies with pro-US relations. In ten years, Iran will be ripe for the pickings, just as they prepare to go nuclear on a full-scale level.
Also, I said replace dictatorships BEFORE they are able to produce WMD, not after, by then it's too late. North Korea's nukes are no more powerful than a non-nuke right now. Are you even reading my posts??????!?!?!!?
That is the THIRD TIME you have posted a response that was based on a purposeful misread/misinterpretation of what I have said.
I will now keep count of your replies based on purposeful misreadings/misinterpretations:
Odeon's counter: 3
-
Bush certainly screwed up making Iraq into a democracy by failing to send over an adequate number of troops. Now, whether this was his idea or Rummy's, it certainly doesn't matter. What he should do is send over an extra 50 - 100,000 troops and quash the infighting. We already see shades of this working with the "surge" as they call it, and it hasn't even really begun yet.
Notice how no one is crying out "civil war", "civil war" at the top of their lungs anymore? Send in an overwhelming amount of troops and we can get out of there faster. Now, for what ever reason (pride, stubborness, etc.) he thinks the war will be won on the same path we are now.
Should he do this and things get under control in Iraq, Iran will be bordered by Afghanistan and Iraq, which will be two stable semi-democracies with pro-US relations. In ten years, Iran will be ripe for the pickings, just as they prepare to go nuclear on a full-scale level.
Also, I said replace dictatorships BEFORE they are able to produce WMD, not after, by then it's too late. North Korea's nukes are no more powerful than a non-nuke right now. Are you even reading my posts??????!?!?!!?
That is the THIRD TIME you have posted a response that was based on a purposeful misread/misinterpretation of what I have said.
I will now keep count of your replies based on purposeful misreadings/misinterpretations:
Odeon's counter: 3
They had plans to use the Iraqi regular forces as part of the post Saddam occupation force, but they abandoned it for some reason. The insurgency has gotten it's strength through basically paying a lot of armed soldiers who did not have a job after Saddam was overthrown.
An article by Daniel Pipes, who is in my opinion the best informed commentators on middle eastern affairs, proposed a good ideas on how to go ahead in Iraq. It sounds sensible and realistic. http://www.danielpipes.org/article/4066
The Arab world is not ready yet for true liberal democracy, somewhere like Egypt and Tunisa is the best we can achieve in Iraq. There is something about Arab culture (unrelated to Islam) with it's edemnic tribalism and clannish nature which is a barrier to functioning democracy. This level of tribalism does not exist in Turkish or Iranian (including Kurdish) societies. Arabs do not have a lot of social trust outside their family in general.
-
Your method was to replace every dictatorship on the planet with democracies. How's that more manageable? I'll be sure to add irony tags to my next post ridiculing your so-called solutions. ::)
In the meanwhile, this will do for you:
:asthing:
Yes, it will take a long long time, and it will be very messy, but at least it is a possibility. To ask the question, "How's that more manageable?", is to compare reality with illusion. My method is possible, while your method is not. Me method is comparable with NASA planning to build a ship to that can take us to Saturn, while you suggest we fly through space with wings that we grow in laboratories and attach them to our backs.
There should be reality tags in here...
Your method is just as impossible as mine in real life. What kind of resources do you think your country has? It's not a question of taking a very long time or being very messy, even though any attempt will certainly be very messy. What makes you think you can handle several dozens of dictatorships when you can't even end the war in one? What makes you think you can win? Or do you plan on nuking the ones you can't break? I'm pretty sure the guy in North Korea would nuke you right back.
That's not reality, it's la la land.
Bush certainly screwed up making Iraq into a democracy by failing to send over an adequate number of troops. Now, whether this was his idea or Rummy's, it certainly doesn't matter. What he should do is send over an extra 50 - 100,000 troops and quash the infighting. We already see shades of this working with the "surge" as they call it, and it hasn't even really begun yet.
Notice how no one is crying out "civil war", "civil war" at the top of their lungs anymore? Send in an overwhelming amount of troops and we can get out of there faster. Now, for what ever reason (pride, stubborness, etc.) he thinks the war will be won on the same path we are now.
Should he do this and things get under control in Iraq, Iran will be bordered by Afghanistan and Iraq, which will be two stable semi-democracies with pro-US relations. In ten years, Iran will be ripe for the pickings, just as they prepare to go nuclear on a full-scale level.
Also, I said replace dictatorships BEFORE they are able to produce WMD, not after, by then it's too late. North Korea's nukes are no more powerful than a non-nuke right now. Are you even reading my posts??????!?!?!!?
That is the THIRD TIME you have posted a response that was based on a purposeful misread/misinterpretation of what I have said.
I will now keep count of your replies based on purposeful misreadings/misinterpretations:
Odeon's counter: 3
How am I misreading this:
The greater threat of terrorism is not so much a growing of idealogy. But, their ability to acquire new technology which was impossible to acquire before (have you seen the new jumbo jet? I can just picture the watering mouths of the next generation of hijackers), with the ever-increasing ability of countries to go nuclear, and the advances of science and biological warfare in government programs. This is what we must stop. This is also something that will take years to accomplish, as in order to stop this threat we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships in order to acheive democratic stability throughout the world.
I'd say that it's pretty hard to misinterpret "we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships", wouldn't you? That's the real la la part. You're dreaming. You can't even take care of one country (one that didn't have WMD's, I should point out), so overthrowing a "large amount of dictatorships" is as realistic as me saying "let's just all get along".
What part of this don't you get?
BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.
It's quite easy to make a dirty a-bomb, and North Korea's done that.
Let me know if I need to clarify things again.
-
BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.
as a longshoreman, this is my greatest concern.
-
BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.
as a longshoreman, this is my greatest concern.
Isn't your greatest concern that your girls will date guys who're just like you were when you were younger?
-
BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.
as a longshoreman, this is my greatest concern.
Isn't your greatest concern that your girls will date guys who're just like you were when you were younger?
no, its black guys, remember?
-
I'm glad I don't have children, especially not daughters. Either they'd date a black, an Arab, Yugoslav or Albanian or someone like -- me! :o
-
....or, someone like me.
-
:o
-
BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.
as a longshoreman, this is my greatest concern.
Isn't your greatest concern that your girls will date guys who're just like you were when you were younger?
no, its black guys, remember?
Black guys who're just like you and who're smuggling a nuke into the country to blow it up?
-
BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.
as a longshoreman, this is my greatest concern.
Isn't your greatest concern that your girls will date guys who're just like you were when you were younger?
no, its black guys, remember?
Black guys who're just like you and who're smuggling a nuke into the country to blow it up?
exactly!
-
I think it's more likely that Arabs would do that than black guys.
I wouldn't like my 15 year old daughter to date a 36 year old guy, who made her lick his arsehole and drink his piss...
-
I think it's more likely that Arabs would do that than black guys.
I wouldn't like my 15 year old daughter to date a 36 year old guy, who made her lick his arsehole and drink his piss...
i am all for free will. but if you made her do it then i must strongly object.
how did you make her do it?
-
I think it's more likely that Arabs would do that than black guys.
I wouldn't like my 15 year old daughter to date a 36 year old guy, who made her lick his arsehole and drink his piss...
Not even if you knew it really turned her on and gave her lots of pleasure?
-
I think it's more likely that Arabs would do that than black guys.
I wouldn't like my 15 year old daughter to date a 36 year old guy, who made her lick his arsehole and drink his piss...
i am all for free will. but if you made her do it then i must strongly object.
how did you make her do it?
I put it wrongly. I didn't force her. She was eager to lick me and taste my fluids anyway.
-
I think it's more likely that Arabs would do that than black guys.
I wouldn't like my 15 year old daughter to date a 36 year old guy, who made her lick his arsehole and drink his piss...
Not even if you knew it really turned her on and gave her lots of pleasure?
Hard to tell. I've never had a daughter.
-
I think it's more likely that Arabs would do that than black guys.
I wouldn't like my 15 year old daughter to date a 36 year old guy, who made her lick his arsehole and drink his piss...
i am all for free will. but if you made her do it then i must strongly object.
how did you make her do it?
I put it wrongly. I didn't force her. She was eager to lick me and taste my fluids anyway.
then i balme her parents, and her peers.
where do you suppose she learned this....eagerness to please at such a young age?
-
I think it's more likely that Arabs would do that than black guys.
I wouldn't like my 15 year old daughter to date a 36 year old guy, who made her lick his arsehole and drink his piss...
i am all for free will. but if you made her do it then i must strongly object.
how did you make her do it?
I put it wrongly. I didn't force her. She was eager to lick me and taste my fluids anyway.
then i balme her parents, and her peers.
where do you suppose she learned this....eagerness to please at such a young age?
She told me that she has dated elder guys since she was 13. She told me that she had only fucked three guys but sucked off 46, me included! She once was in a bukkake party with 8 guys. Six of them came in her mouth and she swallowed, two of them came on her face. But that's one of the things that made me love her, her incredible sluttiness.
-
i wonder if some girls are just born curious about the experimentation.
-
i wonder if some girls are just born curious about the experimentation.
I guess they are. She was one my home page on the community where we met this morning, but didn't write anything. But I don't want to beg her to come back.
-
i wonder if some girls are just born curious about the experimentation.
I guess they are. She was one my home page on the community where we met this morning, but didn't write anything. But I don't want to beg her to come back.
You could offer to do her the favour of letting her lick your anus if she promised to be less annoying?
-
i wonder if some girls are just born curious about the experimentation.
I guess they are. She was one my home page on the community where we met this morning, but didn't write anything. But I don't want to beg her to come back.
You could offer to do her the favour of letting her lick your anus if she promised to be less annoying?
It's tempting, but I'd feel like a loser if she turned that offer down.
-
i wonder if some girls are just born curious about the experimentation.
I guess they are. She was one my home page on the community where we met this morning, but didn't write anything. But I don't want to beg her to come back.
You could offer to do her the favour of letting her lick your anus if she promised to be less annoying?
It's tempting, but I'd feel like a loser if she turned that offer down.
who cares. think of the alternative if she accepts.
-
I'd say that it's pretty hard to misinterpret "we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships", wouldn't you? That's the real la la part. You're dreaming. You can't even take care of one country (one that didn't have WMD's, I should point out), so overthrowing a "large amount of dictatorships" is as realistic as me saying "let's just all get along".
What part of this don't you get?
BTW, North Korea's nukes are in no way less dangerous than any others. They lack the missiles to efficiently send back Washington to stone age, but all you'd have to do is to place one on board a ship and New York, if not Washington, is history.
It's quite easy to make a dirty a-bomb, and North Korea's done that.
Let me know if I need to clarify things again.
*Yawn* *stretch* *yawn*
All your replies boid down to this: "But the Iraq war is going badly!!!!"
And? I have already conceded the point.
"YEah, but, its like, going badly!!!"
And?? We need to change plans, not abandon the game.
"Yeah, but , don't you realize the Iraq war is going BADLY!!!!"""
*yawn* *stretch*
Your equation for world politics is this: If p > q If (war is going badly) > (The WAR was wrong) therefore no other action will ever ever work.
It never occurs to you that: If (war is going badly) > (The PLAN was wrong) therefore change the plan, perhaps it is not: If p > q, but If p > r.
I don't see what's so hard to understand. We need to change the plan, not throw our hands in the air and run, and take on a defeatest attitude that their is nothing that we can do about islamist facism, which is what you advise. We may have lost a battle, but that doesn't mean you stop fighting everything (just ask Russia about not giving up).
BTW, North Korea's nuke was only about 550 tons of TNT, while the bomb that destroyed Hiroshima was around 13,000, while hydrogen bombs are around 500,000 tons of TNT. So, it is a fact that they are not as dangerous as other nukes.
Unfortunately, your point about placing them on a ship is correct. Which is why we need to fight, and keep fighting. As you yourself pointed out, we need to stop whole countries, while they need to simply place a single bomb on a single ship. And, should they have the chance to do so, no amount of talking would change their minds. The only way to stop them is to kill them.
We have already replaced the Taliban in Afghanistan, and should Bush decide to wake up to the reality of Iraq, we'll have installed two democracies in a little less than 5 years. Also, Libya has decided to come clean, which is just as good as installing a democracy.n Bush also managed to sideline Arafat before he died, which everyone said was impossible. I don't see this impossibility you're talking about.
Also, the point we were arguing about (in case you forgot, you can go back and read the posts) was that you said we could not replace dictatorships because they would nuke us, to which I replied, which is why we have to replace them BEFORE they acquire WMD.
Hmmm...I guess that was a little easier to misinterpret/misrepresent than you thought...
That should be #4, but I'll let that one slide ;)
-
Jonathan,
The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that. There are lots of reasons to why it won't, among them that your country has limited resources and patience, yet another that American troops are dying every day (never mind the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians), there are still enough folks who remember Vietnam, and so on, etc, and more, ad nauseam.
That wasn't my point, however. The current Iraq situation was merely an example of a war that is going very badly for the US, yet you propose starting a few dozen others (I boldly assumed that you were in fact talking about more than a few select, specially chosen dictators that your current administration a) has defined as dictators, and b) hates).
That's naive in the extreme. I can only assume that your grasp of reality is as weak as your reading comprehension.
A further case in point is your unwillingness to concede a point wihtout feeling the need to somehow attempt to diminish that point: a small, dirty a-bomb, no matter if it's several times smaller than the Hiroshima bomb, is capable of so much damage that yes; it, in itself, is a reasonable guarantee against an untimely replacement of a dictatorship with a democracy. There are so many options with even one bomb, and they are so easy to make. What do you suppose the cold war was about, and why do you think countries like Israel and Pakistan got them as soon as they could?
The fact is that the US cannot do what you propose; they can't afford it. They'd be caught in extinguishing fires all around the globe while bigger ones started closer to home.
-
(http://www.intensitysquared.com/Smileys/default/popcorn.gif)
-
Can I have some of that popcorn? This thread is boring me to tears.
-
if it remains circular...on bith sides, i may well move along.
but for now it has piqued my interest somewhat.
-
Jonathan,
The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that. There are lots of reasons to why it won't, among them that your country has limited resources and patience, yet another that American troops are dying every day (never mind the hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians), there are still enough folks who remember Vietnam, and so on, etc, and more, ad nauseam.
That wasn't my point, however. The current Iraq situation was merely an example of a war that is going very badly for the US, yet you propose starting a few dozen others (I boldly assumed that you were in fact talking about more than a few select, specially chosen dictators that your current administration a) has defined as dictators, and b) hates).
That's naive in the extreme. I can only assume that your grasp of reality is as weak as your reading comprehension.
A further case in point is your unwillingness to concede a point wihtout feeling the need to somehow attempt to diminish that point: a small, dirty a-bomb, no matter if it's several times smaller than the Hiroshima bomb, is capable of so much damage that yes; it, in itself, is a reasonable guarantee against an untimely replacement of a dictatorship with a democracy. There are so many options with even one bomb, and they are so easy to make. What do you suppose the cold war was about, and why do you think countries like Israel and Pakistan got them as soon as they could?
The fact is that the US cannot do what you propose; they can't afford it. They'd be caught in extinguishing fires all around the globe while bigger ones started closer to home.
Perhaps this thread is boring you because you aren't paying any attention to my posts, or exagerating/manipulating my position.
To clarify, what exactly is your definition of America "winning" the war? All we need to do is stabalize it enough so that a government is able to function (as they are somewhat functioning), and is only threatened by a minority of the population. I am curious to know where your benchmark is, that you not would declare that America lost the war.
Also, where did I say I wanted to start a "few dozen others", and also, we obviously don't need to replace those dictators who are not pursuing nuclear or biological weapons program. You "boldly assume", but you boldy assume wrongly. I seem to spend a lot of time correcting your assumptions.
I have said that we need to replace them BEFORE they get the bomb. North Korea is more complicated than simply invade > they nuke us. Notice that Israel and Pakistan have not used them yet, yet are engaged in constant battles? Israel being in several wars? Hasn't stopped anyone from attacking Israel, which makes it much more plausible that other factors are at work. I'm sure invading NK is still an option, but in 5-6 years, when they perfect the bomb, it certainly won't.
The fact is, is that the US can very well do what I propose. But, they still can't talk a Christian out of being Christian.
*yawn*
-
This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.
I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.
-
The boring thing is that guys like Jonathan, Zer0 and I don't rule the world. Imagine all the fun there'd be. :angel:
-
Imagine how dead we would be. ::)
-
The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that.
I think this is proof that you're seeing the whole situation through rose colored glasses.
-
The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that.
I think this is proof that you're seeing the whole situation through rose colored glasses.
How's facing the reality of 60,000+ civilians dead since the war began seeing the situation through rose-coloured glasses? ???
I didn't say anyone was winning the war.
-
The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that.
I think this is proof that you're seeing the whole situation through rose colored glasses.
How's facing the reality of 60,000+ civilians dead since the war began seeing the situation through rose-coloured glasses? ???
I didn't say anyone was winning the war.
War is destructive and even the "winners" incur heavy losses. Sometimes having one less dead guy than your enemy constitutes victory.
All the dead since the war began still don't equal the number Sadam killed.
-
This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.
I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.
Was there a logical argument in there somewhere?
I seem to understand very well what you (and I) are saying as you never refute my observations of how you misread my posts.
When you can paste the exact post as a response to the person who's saying it without changing a word, it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the poster. I now say to you:
This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.
I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.
;D ;D ;D ;D
/Brings back the feeling of saying: I know you are, but what am I?
//ah, thirdgrade debates; how I've missed you...
///BTW, I know you are, but what am I? :wanker:
-
after 911 i was talking to my mom at my daughters birthday party.
my mom says that she thought we should drop a bomb on the middle east and wipe them off the face of the earth.
a jewish lady who happened to be sitting nearby said, "but i am partial to israel!"
my mom, always putting her foot in her mouth.
-
after 911 i was talking to my mom at my daughters birthday party.
my mom says that she thought we should drop a bomb on the middle east and wipe them off the face of the earth.
a jewish lady who happened to be sitting nearby said, "but i am partial to israel!"
Eh. Don't move into a bad neighborhood if you don't expect a little trouble.
-
This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.
I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.
Was there a logical argument in there somewhere?
I seem to understand very well what you (and I) are saying as you never refute my observations of how you misread my posts.
When you can paste the exact post as a response to the person who's saying it without changing a word, it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the poster. I now say to you:
This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.
I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.
;D ;D ;D ;D
/Brings back the feeling of saying: I know you are, but what am I?
//ah, thirdgrade debates; how I've missed you...
///BTW, I know you are, but what am I? :wanker:
Ah, but when you use my argumentation, you also adopt my views. I'm glad we both agree that you're a moron. I didn't know you're a third-grader but it sort of makes sense.
If you're a third-grader, though, then you're too young for Intensity.
-
This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.
I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.
Was there a logical argument in there somewhere?
I seem to understand very well what you (and I) are saying as you never refute my observations of how you misread my posts.
When you can paste the exact post as a response to the person who's saying it without changing a word, it doesn't bode well for the intelligence of the poster. I now say to you:
This thread is boring because your arguments are hollow and without merit. You'd better read up on the subject because you really are naive, and not only do you not understand what I'm saying, you also do not have a clue about what you are saying.
I think we should all consider ourselves lucky because you're not in any position of power and cannot possible make any of your moronic views happen.
;D ;D ;D ;D
/Brings back the feeling of saying: I know you are, but what am I?
//ah, thirdgrade debates; how I've missed you...
///BTW, I know you are, but what am I? :wanker:
Ah, but when you use my argumentation, you also adopt my views. I'm glad we both agree that you're a moron. I didn't know you're a third-grader but it sort of makes sense.
If you're a third-grader, though, then you're too young for Intensity.
You must have missed the part where I said, "I now say to you". I believe thats number 4.
I now say to you:
Ah, but when you use my argumentation, you also adopt my views. I'm glad we both agree that you're a moron. I didn't know you're a third-grader but it sort of makes sense.
If you're a third-grader, though, then you're too young for Intensity.
/Odeon's counter: 4
//I know you are, but what am I?
///Over this debate(?).....
-
Your originality is startling.
-
If you're a third-grader, though, then you're too young for Intensity.
Maybe he was held back a couple of times?
-
That would account for the cluelessness some, yes.
-
Your originality is startling.
*sigh*
You just don't get it, like always. My infantile responses were purposely formed in order to mock your recent post which contained no logical responses, but merely consisted of the genius response of "you are a moron", which any third grader could have produced.
Should you need further clarification, just ask.
-
I'd rather see you explaining how the US could afford attacking a couple of dozen dictatorships. You haven't, and it seems that in your world, it's not a problem. That is naive in the extreme, and since you've resorted to the third-grader-style responses, the only possible conclusions are that you a) don't see the problem, or b) are cornered and don't know of any possible response. So rather than admitting that you were wrong or oversimplified a bit, you switched to... this.
In any case, you were pwned.
But please, try again. One of Intensity's original concepts was for it to be a training ground for Aspies that had problems getting their point across in the big, bad world, and you fit the criteria. I doubt I'll care enough to try to educate you again, but there are others, and if you pick a simple enough subject, you, too, can succeed. Good luck.
-
I'd rather see you explaining how the US could afford attacking a couple of dozen dictatorships. You haven't, and it seems that in your world, it's not a problem. That is naive in the extreme, and since you've resorted to the third-grader-style responses, the only possible conclusions are that you a) don't see the problem, or b) are cornered and don't know of any possible response. So rather than admitting that you were wrong or oversimplified a bit, you switched to... this.
In any case, you were pwned.
But please, try again. One of Intensity's original concepts was for it to be a training ground for Aspies that had problems getting their point across in the big, bad world, and you fit the criteria. I doubt I'll care enough to try to educate you again, but there are others, and if you pick a simple enough subject, you, too, can succeed. Good luck.
I already pointed out your exagerated claim of attacking "a couple dozen dictatorships", and how we only really need to replace two more, and also how it would be possible. If you want to push the issue, I will put up the quotes to prove you are lying and deliberately ignoring my responses in order to have an avenue of attack.
As stated above, my resort to third grade responses was only after you yourself initiated such a response, in which I copied to mock you.
So, it is in fact you who are guilty of: "So rather than admitting that you were wrong or oversimplified a bit, you switched to... this."
If you want to argue that you did not do it first, I will put up the quotes and prove you are lying.
You have owned nothing, but in fact showed your pitiful debating style which relies on exagerating the other person's claims, ignoring their responses, and resorting to insults when you can no longer logically justify your answers.
-
don't worry jonathon. theory of mind is a bitch. and odeon is ripe with it.
-
don't worry jonathon. theory of mind is a bitch. and odeon is ripe with it.
I've noticed as well. :clap:
-
is it rife, or ripe?
anyways, i have it also. just not as much.
-
It's interesting how you've gone from "a large amount of dictatorships" to "two more", Jonathan. I haven't ignored your responses; you have.
I'll quote your post from a few days back. Your original trip to la la land is highlighted:
The greater threat of terrorism is not so much a growing of idealogy. But, their ability to acquire new technology which was impossible to acquire before (have you seen the new jumbo jet? I can just picture the watering mouths of the next generation of hijackers), with the ever-increasing ability of countries to go nuclear, and the advances of science and biological warfare in government programs. This is what we must stop. This is also something that will take years to accomplish, as in order to stop this threat we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships in order to acheive democratic stability throughout the world.
It was only after your failure to try to prove, or even acknowledge, the above, that I started hinting that you, in fact, are a moron.
As an interesting aside, Henry Kissinger seems to agree with me on how the US cannot win the war in Iraq. Apparently, he's in Japan, accepting some kind of honorary title, and reiterated his views on the Iraq war for the gathered journalists.
-
Henry Kissinger isn't infallible last time I checked.
-
He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.
Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.
-
He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.
Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.
Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??
-
He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.
Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.
Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??
??? Nope. Care to enlighten me?
-
He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.
Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.
Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??
??? Nope. Care to enlighten me?
It's the notion that the person who's saying something causes the statement to be true ot false. In courtrooms, it's called "credibility". In reality, it's a bad reasoning technique. Courts allow it in the name of expediency.
Either Jonathan79's statements are true or false based on thier own merits. Not because he's the one saying them.
-
dammit, all out of popcorn.
this thing may have just gotten interesting.
-
He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.
Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.
Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??
??? Nope. Care to enlighten me?
It's the notion that the person who's saying something causes the statement to be true ot false. In courtrooms, it's called "credibility". In reality, it's a bad reasoning technique. Courts allow it in the name of expediency.
Either Jonathan79's statements are true or false based on thier own merits. Not because he's the one saying them.
Sure. But someone like Kissinger has more information available (presumably). Some of which may not be shared. 'Course, may have more reason to distort that information too, but credibility is an important judgement factor. Without it, one would have to be an absolute expert in all fields to make any decisions. Persuasive arguments can usually be made for anything, especially if one is willing to lie.
-
He certainly isn't. I simply happened to read that little tidbit earlier today.
Still, I'd rather trust Henry Kissinger than Jonathan.
Great !!! so you know what an "Origin fallicy"" is then right ??
??? Nope. Care to enlighten me?
It's the notion that the person who's saying something causes the statement to be true ot false. In courtrooms, it's called "credibility". In reality, it's a bad reasoning technique. Courts allow it in the name of expediency.
Either Jonathan79's statements are true or false based on thier own merits. Not because he's the one saying them.
You're right, of course. I didn't mean to imply otherwise. Ole Henry K just happened to comment at an (in-)appropriate moment. :laugh:
-
It's interesting how you've gone from "a large amount of dictatorships" to "two more", Jonathan. I haven't ignored your responses; you have.
I'll quote your post from a few days back. Your original trip to la la land is highlighted:
The greater threat of terrorism is not so much a growing of idealogy. But, their ability to acquire new technology which was impossible to acquire before (have you seen the new jumbo jet? I can just picture the watering mouths of the next generation of hijackers), with the ever-increasing ability of countries to go nuclear, and the advances of science and biological warfare in government programs. This is what we must stop. This is also something that will take years to accomplish, as in order to stop this threat we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships in order to acheive democratic stability throughout the world.
It was only after your failure to try to prove, or even acknowledge, the above, that I started hinting that you, in fact, are a moron.
As an interesting aside, Henry Kissinger seems to agree with me on how the US cannot win the war in Iraq. Apparently, he's in Japan, accepting some kind of honorary title, and reiterated his views on the Iraq war for the gathered journalists.
Okay, I posted that, I don't know what I was thinking. I was probably trying to hype up the danger that we face, as replacing only dicatatorships with the ability to produce WMD is the only type of actions that would help the war on terror.
Also, there's no way that this mis-statement was the reason for calling me a moron. You would have hit me with this long ago was that the case.
That's one screw up for me, care to explain all of yours that I have pointed out? You are like the team who is losing 42-0 then celebrates a touchdown like they won the superbowl.
-
That post alone doesn't make you a moron, no. It merely makes you clueless. Your inability to remember or stand for what you've posted made you one. Pwned, again. You like the pain, don't you?
-
word of advice:
never give odeon a false sense of security.
when wrong, never admit it.
-
concede nothing.
-
deny til you die.
-
It's not a false sense. Kid's target practice, that's all.
-
you get the picture.
-
That post alone doesn't make you a moron, no. It merely makes you clueless. Your inability to remember or stand for what you've posted made you one. Pwned, again. You like the pain, don't you?
You are like the team who is losing 42-0 then celebrates a touchdown like they won the superbowl.
-
word of advice:
never give odeon a false sense of security.
when wrong, never admit it.
Perhaps. But, I will not blatantly lie about a post that I have produced.
"false sense of security"
A perfect explanation.
-
That post alone doesn't make you a moron, no. It merely makes you clueless. Your inability to remember or stand for what you've posted made you one. Pwned, again. You like the pain, don't you?
You are like the team who is losing 42-0 then celebrates a touchdown like they won the superbowl.
And you really like to repeat yourself. Good for you. Eventually, you'll be able to remember most of what you post. Not that it's necessarily a good thing, considering the contents. I bet you meet a lot of new people every day.
-
That post alone doesn't make you a moron, no. It merely makes you clueless. Your inability to remember or stand for what you've posted made you one. Pwned, again. You like the pain, don't you?
You are like the team who is losing 42-0 then celebrates a touchdown like they won the superbowl.
And you really like to repeat yourself. Good for you. Eventually, you'll be able to remember most of what you post. Not that it's necessarily a good thing, considering the contents. I bet you meet a lot of new people every day.
According to McJ´s warning, you have a reputation on these boards of claiming victory with anything but a good argument, so, when one strikes gold one stops digging. It´s obvious that you only hit rocks.
Here´s a shirt for you and your amazing mental abilities:
(http://i172.photobucket.com/albums/w28/jnomi/PP-ShortBus.jpg)
\wear it proudly
\\never be ashamed of who you are
\\\good luck with the rock mine...
-
to clarify:
odeon is good, he is very good.
you just can't make concessions with him if you are in a debate. because then you will be the only person giving....usually.
TOM is a bitch. especially the older you get.
-
Judging from the fact that he was gone a week, licking his wounds no doubt, only to return with an image of a T-shirt... One can safely say that his argumentation technique is relaxed. :P
-
Judging from the fact that he was gone a week, licking his wounds no doubt, only to return with an image of a T-shirt... One can safely say that his argumentation technique is relaxed. :P
I was travelling for the past week. The t-shirt was something I picked up for you. Thanks for proving my point, you´ll claim victory with anything but a good argument.
-
to clarify:
odeon is good, he is very good.
Meh, from what I´ve seen so far in this topic, he´s got the same ole routine as others who don´t have an original thought.
1) throw out general cliches which are unrelated to the topic at hand
2) refuse to outline their own position in order to be able to criticize without being open to the same
3) when all arguments fail, result to simple insults which can neither be attacked nor defended
4) claim victory at the slightest concession because that´s all they got
/not impressed
//perhaps he shines elsewhere
///definitely not this thread
-
Jonathan,
You were the one to suggest converting the world's dictatorships to democracies. When I questioned the practicality of your suggestion, you repeatedly denied having suggested the conversion of more than one or two. After me quoting your original post, more than once, I might add, you had to acknowledge the naivety of the idea.
I offered my opinion that the Iraq war cannot be won, that it was in fact being lost even as we argued, and later pointed out that people with more experience in foreign policy than me seemed to agree with my modest notion. Yet you want to start at least one or two more (an improvement from your original grand plan, but still...), but never told us how.
I explained that even a very small, dirty a-bomb--such as the one the North Koreans possess--can do enough damage, and you had to agree, although you continued muttering that the war against North Koreans can still be won. How that would happen you didn't say.
So far, your argument seems to consist of denial, slight concessions, some vague opinions backed by no-one--and a t-shirt. Did I miss something?
I'd say you lost. Go hide another week or so. Who knows, maybe you'll find another t-shirt? *yawn*
P.S. This morning, Iran proudly announced their capability to produce industrial quantities of the Uranium isotope required to produce nuclear energy. I'm sure you'll want to wage war against them, too.
-
Jonathan,
You were the one to suggest converting the world's dictatorships to democracies. When I questioned the practicality of your suggestion, you repeatedly denied having suggested the conversion of more than one or two. After me quoting your original post, more than once, I might add, you had to acknowledge the naivety of the idea.
I offered my opinion that the Iraq war cannot be won, that it was in fact being lost even as we argued, and later pointed out that people with more experience in foreign policy than me seemed to agree with my modest notion. Yet you want to start at least one or two more (an improvement from your original grand plan, but still...), but never told us how.
I explained that even a very small, dirty a-bomb--such as the one the North Koreans possess--can do enough damage, and you had to agree, although you continued muttering that the war against North Koreans can still be won. How that would happen you didn't say.
So far, your argument seems to consist of denial, slight concessions, some vague opinions backed by no-one--and a t-shirt. Did I miss something?
I'd say you lost. Go hide another week or so. Who knows, maybe you'll find another t-shirt? *yawn*
P.S. This morning, Iran proudly announced their capability to produce industrial quantities of the Uranium isotope required to produce nuclear energy. I'm sure you'll want to wage war against them, too.
*yawn
-
here guys, have some of this: :coffee:
-
Too late. Jonathan just lost it. :)
-
Your ass was red enough, so I though that I´d give you a little break. Whatever, who am I to argue if someone loves fisting and wearing diapers.
Jonathan,
You were the one to suggest converting the world's dictatorships to democracies. When I questioned the practicality of your suggestion, you repeatedly denied having suggested the conversion of more than one or two. After me quoting your original post, more than once, I might add, you had to acknowledge the naivety of the idea.
Still holding on to them glory days at Polk High eh Bundy? Although you outdo Al by exagerating something pretty lame. In no way did I admit anything about the "naivety" of anything. Post the quote and prove your assertion, or take your free t-shirt and head home son.
I offered my opinion that the Iraq war cannot be won, that it was in fact being lost even as we argued, and later pointed out that people with more experience in foreign policy than me seemed to agree with my modest notion. Yet you want to start at least one or two more (an improvement from your original grand plan, but still...), but never told us how.
Your opinion? Hah. "The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that." Seems more like a grand assertion to me.
Also, the smartest man in the world used to believe that the world was flat. I also seem to remember someone mentioning the origin fallacy somewhere back there. Do a little reading, it might help.
I explained that even a very small, dirty a-bomb--such as the one the North Koreans possess--can do enough damage, and you had to agree, although you continued muttering that the war against North Koreans can still be won. How that would happen you didn't say.
This is a rather simplistic view of what was said. Thats okay my cycloptic colleague, I understand why you would have no depth perception considering your mental abilities. Where did I say that the war against the North Koreans "can still be won"? I seem to remember saying invasion was possible, but thats about it. You donßt need to outright win a war to achieve something. Now, post the quote or STFU.
So far, your argument seems to consist of denial, slight concessions, some vague opinions backed by no-one--and a t-shirt. Did I miss something?
You missed a lot. I know its hard to pay attention when you ride the short bus, but really, try harder.
I'd say you lost. Go hide another week or so. Who knows, maybe you'll find another t-shirt? *yawn*
*Checks on-line dictionaries.........Yep, apparently I´m not the only one who still uses the word "travelling" to mean travelling after the period that lapsed last week while I was travelling. No, no more t-shirts for you. I have sympathy, but no pity. I´ve reached my charity limit for this year.
P.S. This morning, Iran proudly announced their capability to produce industrial quantities of the Uranium isotope required to produce nuclear energy. I'm sure you'll want to wage war against them, too.
Yes, in a few years... ;)
I seem to remember responding to all these accusations. Go back and read the posts. Nice strategy though, simply re-phrasing already answered attacks, I believe your bus is waiting for you.
Meh, I´m over this. You can claim victory all you want if it helps you sleep at night (I´m sure it does).
The monkey can do one last dance if he wants too. I´ll watch, but I won´t be putting anymore dimes in the music box.
-
Your ass was red enough, so I though that I´d give you a little break. Whatever, who am I to argue if someone loves fisting and wearing diapers.
Whatever. The only thing you got right above is that you're certainly not the one to argue--your cause is lost, your arguments non-existent, and your excuses more pathetic by the minute.
But let's examine your latest work:
Jonathan,
You were the one to suggest converting the world's dictatorships to democracies. When I questioned the practicality of your suggestion, you repeatedly denied having suggested the conversion of more than one or two. After me quoting your original post, more than once, I might add, you had to acknowledge the naivety of the idea.
Still holding on to them glory days at Polk High eh Bundy? Although you outdo Al by exagerating something pretty lame. In no way did I admit anything about the "naivety" of anything. Post the quote and prove your assertion, or take your free t-shirt and head home son.
I quoted your foolishness here (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=1149.msg134280#msg134280). You replied with this (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=1149.msg134663#msg134663):
Okay, I posted that, I don't know what I was thinking.
In this, we agree. I don't know what you were thinking either. I was trying to be polite with writing off this one as "naive" but OK; let's hear it. What would YOU call it?
I offered my opinion that the Iraq war cannot be won, that it was in fact being lost even as we argued, and later pointed out that people with more experience in foreign policy than me seemed to agree with my modest notion. Yet you want to start at least one or two more (an improvement from your original grand plan, but still...), but never told us how.
Your opinion? Hah. "The Iraq war is being lost, even as I write this. No "change of plans" will change that." Seems more like a grand assertion to me.
Also, the smartest man in the world used to believe that the world was flat. I also seem to remember someone mentioning the origin fallacy somewhere back there. Do a little reading, it might help.
I've done some reading. Turns out that this guy Kissinger was a member of a US government that dealt with another disaster in foreign policy, the Vietnam war. It's really not that strange that he can see the similarities, don't you think? I don't know about his opinion of the shape of our world but his experience in this kind of thing is undeniable and his opinion probably weighs a bit more than yours in matters of foreign policy, eh?
I explained that even a very small, dirty a-bomb--such as the one the North Koreans possess--can do enough damage, and you had to agree, although you continued muttering that the war against North Koreans can still be won. How that would happen you didn't say.
This is a rather simplistic view of what was said. Thats okay my cycloptic colleague, I understand why you would have no depth perception considering your mental abilities. Where did I say that the war against the North Koreans "can still be won"? I seem to remember saying invasion was possible, but thats about it. You donßt need to outright win a war to achieve something. Now, post the quote or STFU.
Certainly (http://www.intensitysquared.com/index.php?topic=1149.msg131740#msg131740):
Also, I said replace dictatorships BEFORE they are able to produce WMD, not after, by then it's too late. North Korea's nukes are no more powerful than a non-nuke right now.
I'd say that this is more than enough. You really don't know a thing about what makes nukes so different from the non-nukes, do you?
Remember your original grand idea?
This is also something that will take years to accomplish, as in order to stop this threat we must overthrow a large amount of dictatorships in order to acheive democratic stability throughout the world.
And, of course, the one you actually seem to remember:
I'm sure invading NK is still an option, but in 5-6 years, when they perfect the bomb, it certainly won't.
"Invading", I take it, for you implies the same kind of chaos they have in Iraq right now. The body count is going up again, you know.
So far, your argument seems to consist of denial, slight concessions, some vague opinions backed by no-one--and a t-shirt. Did I miss something?
You missed a lot. I know its hard to pay attention when you ride the short bus, but really, try harder.
You keep saying that but where are your arguments? Where's your grand plan?
I'd say you lost. Go hide another week or so. Who knows, maybe you'll find another t-shirt? *yawn*
*Checks on-line dictionaries.........Yep, apparently I´m not the only one who still uses the word "travelling" to mean travelling after the period that lapsed last week while I was travelling. No, no more t-shirts for you. I have sympathy, but no pity. I´ve reached my charity limit for this year.
P.S. This morning, Iran proudly announced their capability to produce industrial quantities of the Uranium isotope required to produce nuclear energy. I'm sure you'll want to wage war against them, too.
Yes, in a few years... ;)
I seem to remember responding to all these accusations. Go back and read the posts. Nice strategy though, simply re-phrasing already answered attacks, I believe your bus is waiting for you.
Meh, I´m over this. You can claim victory all you want if it helps you sleep at night (I´m sure it does).
The monkey can do one last dance if he wants too. I´ll watch, but I won´t be putting anymore dimes in the music box.
:chicken:
Pwned. Hurts bad, doesn't it?
-
Good job on taking statements out of context and twisting them. Nice dance monkey, although not as enjoyble as the last few.
/no dime for you
-
Oh yeah, I forgot... PWNED!!!!.
Have I won now?
Thats the most stupid claim of victory that I have ever seen. As if victory comes by simply typing in the word "Pwned". Perhaps you should try and use this word to stop terrorism. :wanker:
-
And Bush's true strategy is revealed.
-
And Bush's true strategy is revealed.
Unfortunately...yes.
-
saddam was pwned!
(http://www.taweb.com/content/FR_Picts/SaddamPWN3D.jpg)
-
And he certainly met the hangman rope guy.
-
But not the computer god. Or did he?
Jonathan, aren't you busy planning invasions?
-
But not the computer god. Or did he?
I don't know. :o
-
But not the computer god. Or did he?
Jonathan, aren't you busy planning invasions?
Not till next week. For this week, I´m trying to see if the monkey can earn his dimes. It´s been dissapointing so far.
/your lamest comeback yet
//I think you might actually owe me a dime for that one
-
I lowered myself to your level. Successfully, it seems. Next, I'll google for a suitable t-shirt to you. :-*
-
I lowered myself to your level. Successfully, it seems. Next, I'll google for a suitable t-shirt to you. :-*
I told you that I lowered myself to your level quite a while ago, and now you copy me.
Then, I find you a t-shirt,and you want to copy that too. Any original thoughts at all??
zzzzzzz......
-
And the obvious reply is:
-
I lowered myself to your level. Successfully, it seems. Next, I'll google for a suitable t-shirt to you. :-*
I told you that I lowered myself to your level quite a while ago, and now you copy me.
Then, I find you a t-shirt,and you want to copy that too. Any original thoughts at all??
zzzzzzz......
This is getting more meaningful by the minute. Didn't you say you'd quit the thread?
-
:book:
nope, that wasn't it.
-
:book:
nope, that wasn't it.
Enlighten me. :D
-
But now it's stupid (well maybe it always was). I would have just asked if he had any original ideas.
-
But now it's stupid (well maybe it always was). I would have just asked if he had any original ideas.
Yes, that was stupid.
I did not say that I was quitting the thread, only that I would stop giving dimes to the monkey. Insults are free.
-
Yes, that was stupid.
It's my forte.
-
Yes, that was stupid.
It's my forte.
I wouldn´t say so. Our little discussion on WP showed me that you have more critical thinking skills than most.
-
Yes, that was stupid.
It's my forte.
I wouldn´t say so. Our little discussion on WP showed me that you have more critical thinking skills than most.
i wonder what makes this so....
is it a new thought on something that you already believe?
because i am usually impressed with a new thought on something that i don't believe....food for thought.
-
worth watching this fantastic doc -
The Power of Nightmares (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_of_nightmares)
Part 1 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=881321004838285177)
Part 2 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=4602171665328041876)
Part 3 (http://video.google.co.uk/videoplay?docid=2081592330319789254)
-
Ah, he wanted me to insult him...
Moron. ;D
-
War on stupidity :thumbup:
-
So you're saying you're suicidal??
:party::party::party::party::party::party: