Israel At War
Posted by Lord of Spamhttp://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/meast/07/15/mideast/index.html
So basically what I know so far, Hezzbollah takes a few Israeli soldiers captive in hopes of a prisoner exchange, so Israel holds Lebanon's government responsible and starts bombing the ever loving **** out of Lebanon. If anyone can elaborate on this, feel free.
Is Israel going too far? Seems like it to me. I get that they are constantly under attack and all, but to attack an entire nation because of the actions of one organization seems a bit much.
Posted by poisonbloodI saw this Israeli thing on the news yesterday.
The thing about Israeli is that they will cause masive damage just to get even.
For example if a terrorist group goes and blow up a car in Israeli. Israeli will go and destroy an entire city block. This is the way that Israeli has always been.
And if you think about it what did the U.S do when we were bomb'd by Al-Queada. The United sstates attack Two countries. Iran and Iraq.
So I think that Israeli can do what ever they want, it is all a matter of who has the biggest guns.
Dont attack Israeli they will **** you in the butt.
Posted by Chinese people***** *** homo sig.
Posted by ArwonHezbollahis actually part of a wide-ranging and fractuous governing coalition in Lebanon right now. The "Party of G*d" built up a great deal of credibility as a successful guerilla resistance to the Israeli occupation, who forced them to withdraw (often called the first Arab force to successfully defeat Israel), and has since then it has built more domestic credibility through its charity works and schools and so forth. Hence its gaining a sizable chunk of the Shia vote.
Hezbollah, essentially, too powerful for the Lebanese government and army to tackle... a state within a state. Even the Maronite Christian parties, former allies of Israel, have endeavoured to draw Hezbollah into the Lebanese state with an aim of integrating it or something. Moving against Hezbollah in the manner the Israelis want would mean a new civil war, split along party and religious lines and there's every chance that Hezbollah and the Shia Muslims with their numerical advantage and material support from outside would prevail. Israel is making impossible demands of Lebanon's government here, one assumes they are aiming to shift Lebanese politics against Hezbollah, hoping that the rest of Lebanon blames Hezbollah for the war and forces Hezbollah to back down and disband itself or something... this isn't just about kidnappings.
I can't think what Israel is actually going to get out of this, this seems a staggeringly dumb move (morality of the whole attack nonwithstanding). I suspect that no-one's really thinking at all about this though... seems to just be pride and the same dumb conviction that force and violence can solve problems they've never solved before.
I can see what they want to do... but they can't break popular support for these organisations with f*cking bombs any more than these organisations (PLO, Hamas, Hezbollah) can break Israel just by hurling everything they can get their hands on (rocks, rockets, and mortars mostly) at it. The IDF spent years trying to break Hezbollah in the 80s and 90s during the occupation of Lebanon, and they failed. Why would it work now? Just because Israel, as an actual country has some sort of supposed "right" to start lobbing bombs and missiles around, doesn't mean it's a good f*cking idea to be baited by petulant morons like Hezbollah.
I mean, if they're TRYING to strengthen the hand of Hezbollah, restoring their credibility as resistance fighters by giving them something to fight, then this is a good move. If they're TRYING to destroy Lebanon's government and turn it back into a power vacuum that's just begging for Syria to march back in and Hezbollah to take over, then GREAT. If their goal is a new Lebanese civil war then this is perfect! If they WANT to turn Lebanon into an ungovernable haven for all sorts of terrorism and crime, then BRILLIANT! If they're trying to turn world public opinion against them (for example, news coverage here is focussing on the 30 000 or so Lebanese-Australians who're in danger right now) then wonderful!
"But he started it!" is not good foreign f*cking policy.
Posted by RandomAll I have to say it's about time Israel starts kicking ***. Listen they have to be the country thats gotten screwed over and over again. Lets put it this way. Everytime Middle Eastern Countries have attacked Israel, the UN never stepped in, however when Israel starts kicking *** and taking over territory in the Middle East, the UN goes and tells Israel to GTFO. How gay is that?
Not that I believe Lebanon flat out deserves what it's getting, Israel is just flat out sick of things happening like their soldiers being held captive.
Posted by Boner
Quoting Lord of Spam: Is Israel going too far? Seems like it to me. I get that they are constantly under attack and all, but to attack an entire nation because of the actions of one organization seems a bit much.
I see it as a country that loves their soldiers as much as their soldiers love it. I don't think we'd ever see the US be so bold. These days we see all of the 'bad guys' making the moves, while the 'good guys' only seem to want to talk things over. That's all fine and good, but you can only do so much talking. I say enough of that sh!t! This sets a prime example. Go Israel!
Posted by Random
Quoting Opeth: I see it as a country that loves their soldiers as much as their soldiers love it. I don't think we'd ever see the US be so bold. These days we see all of the 'bad guys' making the moves, while the 'good guys' only seem to want to talk things over. That's all fine and good, but you can only do so much talking. I say enough of that sh!t! This sets a prime example. Go Israel!
I couldn't have said it any better myself.
Diplomacy fails, and someone must set an example. We (The US and other Western Powers) must take the same step Israel has. I'm not saying go for global domination, but we can't just sit here and be all retarded when people are threatening us. We must strike fear into their hearts. Diplomacy fails over and over (Example WWII DUR DUR DUR).
Posted by Lord of SpamI like how random still felt the need to go WOOOOO KILL YEAH WAR **** YEAH right after someone took the time to post a rational argument as to why that not only wont work, but will actually make things worse.
I really think that Israel needs to back off. Hell, there are about 30k americans in lebanon right now, and now the us military is forced to try to go in and get them out in a nation that is full of guys who would love nothing more than to have a repeat of black hawk down.
This sort of juvenile, hit them cuz they hit me attitude is going to get us ALL killed, and yet nobody in power seems to see that.
Posted by Random**** Lebanon and **** anyone who keeps ****ing with Israel. Israel gets screwed over so much. I say they need to stop being little P*ssies and just F***ing take charge.
Lets see.. They can either take charge and get somewhere or sit and let diplomacy try to work when all those nations want them out of there and will keep killing Israeli's til they leave...
The Middle East isn't as friendly as you think Spam. They don't hold hands and frolick through the desert. Almost every non Jewish person in the middle east doesn't want to recognize Israel or even want the Jews there. They'll stop at nothing. This war in Iraq will fail not because Bush had the wrong idea, but because Democracy is years off from being spread evenly throughout the middle east.
We must accept the fact that Israel is pretty **** ****ed and will probably stop at nothing to get rid of the opposing forces.
Oh Spam read Opeths post again. He talks about how talking fails. Which I was agreeing with.
Posted by ZetaI heard Lebanon accidentally missile'd an Egyptian ship. How's Egypt reacting?
Posted by Lord of SpamOh, right, I forgot, diplomacy wasnt working. So, OBVIOUSLY the thing to do is to do the one thing that will asuredly strengthen the opposition.
Oh, no, wait, you're a moron. My mistake.
Posted by RandomYou speak as if by Israel doing it they'll have a larger fight? And your right chances are more people will be ****ed and attack Israel. But if Israel plays their cards right like they have been and just **** the opposition they won't have any problems. Last week when Israel was losing a few people here and there the problem was minor, now the problem is a little more serious, but with executing the opposition the problem will be near non existent.
Posted by Boner
Quoting Random: The Middle East isn't as friendly as you think Spam. They don't hold hands and frolick through the desert.
I got a good chuckle out of this. Thus, it has earned a spot in my sig for a while.
Posted by Arwon
Quoting Random: Everytime Middle Eastern Countries have attacked Israel, the UN never stepped in, however when Israel starts kicking *** and taking over territory in the Middle East, the UN goes and tells Israel to GTFO. How gay is that?
Are you kidding me? Let's run through this war by war, shall we?
1947 and the partition plan and subsequent war. Egypt, Jordan and Israel occupied and annexed territory they shouldn't have. UN condemns all of them, but also forms a commission to help implement the armistice agreement made. Condemns all of them for breaking it, too.
1956 Suez Crisis was a war Israel started at British and French behest and there wasn't much call for condemning Egypt or anything like that in this war. The ceasefire was forced on Britain, France and Israel by the USA and USSR. Israel had to withdraw from the Sinai and the UN established a border protection force which secured Israel's border and gave Egypt its land back... pretty much marked the invention of "peacekeeping" as a geopolitical concept.
The 1967 Six Day War was an Israeli pre-emptive attack on its seemingly aggressive neighbours. It happened very quickly and the UN could have ended up paralysed along Cold War lines, with the Soviets backing Nasser's Egypt and the US backing Israel. The resolution made regarding the conflict called for "land for peace" and condemned both the Israeli occupation of the Territories and the continued belligerency of Israel's enemies. What are they gonna do, cheer such an occupation or say Israel is allowed to take other countries' land?
1973 Yom Kippur War. Pre-emptive attack by Egypt and Syria on Israel. A resolution from the US and USSR is passed demanding a ceasefire. Again, this hardly sounds like a blank cheque to the Arab countries.
1982 Israeli invasion of civil war-ridden Lebanon in response to attacks from the PLO from there. Results in a largescale war and several years of occupation of southern Lebanon. The UN's initial reaction was to call for Israeli withdrawal and the creation of a UN peacekeeping force in the area, as had been done in the Sinai to keep Israel safe and stop it from attacking its neighbours. As the war progressed the UN kept passing resolutions demanding a ceasefire and Israeli withdrawal from Lebanon. Again, what else are they gonna do? That's what the UN does - supports territorial integrity and peace negotiations. Eventually the UN ended up functioning as a peacekeeping force overseeing the withdrawal of the PLO from Lebanon.
Then came the Intifadas, where the UN's role was pretty minimal since they were a non-state thing.
Oh and there was a UN resolution last year demanding Lebanon take proper control of its own borders.
Deride the UN for its ineffectiveness, yes, but it's retarded and petulant to claim Israel has been the victim of UN-inspired bullying or double standards or anything like that.
Posted by Arwon
Quoting Random: You speak as if by Israel doing it they'll have a larger fight? And your right chances are more people will be ****ed and attack Israel. But if Israel plays their cards right like they have been and just **** the opposition they won't have any problems. Last week when Israel was losing a few people here and there the problem was minor, now the problem is a little more serious, but with executing the opposition the problem will be near non existent.
Did you even read my post about why this is incredibly counterproductive?
The upshot is, Israel's going to achieve the exact opposite of their goals. They, as usual, are working on the assumption that "if you hit these groups hard enough you can break their popular support", which is lunacy, as it has been for decades. It's never worked. It didn't work during the PLO's years in the wilderness, it hasn't worked at any point in the 40-year occupation of the West Bank and Gaza, it didn't work against Hezbollah in the invasion of Lebanon despite several years of fullscale warfare, it never broke an intifada, and it won't work on Hezbollah now through airstrikes and blockade.
They're trying to break Hezbollah by forcing Lebanon to act against it. They've tried before to break Hezbollah and they didn't, despite several years of occupation and full-scale war, Hezbollah's guerilla tactics prevailed. What they're doing not doesn't have a hope in hell of breaking them, and will almost certainly tilt the delicate Lebanese political situation in ways that are bad for Israel. It will make Hezbollah more credible as the defenders of Lebanon, it will give Syria reason to march back in. It might even precipitate a new civil war with all the misery and insecurity that entails. Oh, and it's making everyone who normally has Israel's back mostly look the other way, isolating them more than ever.
For want of a better phrase they're pulling a George W Bush.
Posted by RandomHa I seriously hope Israel isn't going to just "Crush Hezbollah." They need a takeover. Because one can never tell who is your friend and who isn't. Therefore you can't trust anyone correct? The only problem to reassure that you and your men will sleep well at night is to destroy the opposition. I'm not saying go on a killing spree and kill everyone. But anyone who stands to fight. And yes I know of Guerilla warfare in which the people of Lebanon could hide and fight. Thus Israel must drive them away.
Perhaps my method is a bit harsh but it's the best option for Israel. Backing out now could still mean forces still attacking Israel. Even if they left and the attacks on both side stop, there will be skirmishes to come. So why not reassure a better future and get rid of them now?
Posted by ArwonDude, they tried that already. Direct occupation and full-on war. It went on for years. They tried with everything they had. It didn't work. They were defeated. It's almost impossible to conclusively defeat a popular homegrown guerilla movement on its home turf.
For all your ignorant bloodthirsty cheerleading you don't seem to understand the situation very well at all. Funny that.
Posted by RandomNo I don't think you get it. Israel at this point must keep going. They're fighting an open war. A war they CAN win. They faced 6 Nations in 1948. They were outmaned and didn't have anywhere near the technology the other 6 nations had. And Israel whipped their ***es.
If Israel stops now, there will be terrorists and other groups that will still try to attack Israel. So they could go hide and go into defensive mode, or they could keep a full out attack and decimate everything around assuring little or no attacks against them.
Will many die? Hell yea, thats war buddy. But if they don't then in the long run they may lose more.
President Bush realized we would lose a good amount of troops (of course nothing anywhere near compared to Vietnam). However he figured by losing a few thousand troops we may save millions. If we don't those millions could die by Saddams rule.
Israel wants to save lives in the long run. Not saying they want to lose troops now but it'll make a better day for Israel.
Posted by Arwon
Quoting Opeth: I see it as a country that loves their soldiers as much as their soldiers love it. I don't think we'd ever see the US be so bold. These days we see all of the 'bad guys' making the moves, while the 'good guys' only seem to want to talk things over. That's all fine and good, but you can only do so much talking. I say enough of that sh!t! This sets a prime example. Go Israel!
In a country with universal conscription, it seems that this is less of a factor than the terrifying idea that this could undermine popular support for compulsory military service. If Israel soldiers aren't safe from kidnapping and such, if it seems like Israel isn't doing enough to protect those it compels to serve, then Israeli mothers will be less keen for their sons and daughters to go serve their time. Bang, you get a higher degree of unrest and the whole basis of the Israeli military system looks a little less sure and stable.
This is one part of why they feel compelled to undertake such massively disproportionate responses, even to the detriment of their own geopolitical aims.
It's a clever tactic on the part of Hamas et al, I'm surprised no-one's tried it against Israel before.
Posted by Arwon
Quoting Random: No I don't think you get it. Israel at this point must keep going. They're fighting an open war. A war they CAN win. They faced 6 Nations in 1948. They were outmaned and didn't have anywhere near the technology the other 6 nations had. And Israel whipped their ***es.
If Israel stops now, there will be terrorists and other groups that will still try to attack Israel. So they could go hide and go into defensive mode, or they could keep a full out attack and decimate everything around assuring little or no attacks against them.
Will many die? Hell yea, thats war buddy. But if they don't then in the long run they may lose more.
President Bush realized we would lose a good amount of troops (of course nothing anywhere near compared to Vietnam). However he figured by losing a few thousand troops we may save millions. If we don't those millions could die by Saddams rule.
Israel wants to save lives in the long run. Not saying they want to lose troops now but it'll make a better day for Israel.
Firstly, the myth of being massively outgunned in 1948 is just that--a myth. All nations have their founding myths. Haganah, Stern and the other Jewish militant groups were more organised, united and disciplined, and as the war dragged on the Jews could mobilise far more men. Meanwhile most of the Arab armies were a rabble, some of whom didn't even really want to be there.
And what does "winning" entail as far as war against Lebanon goes? Fullscale occupation can't happen--Israelis won't stand for that again. Too many bad memories of how costly and futile it was. Anything short of that just strengthens Hezbollah as a legitimate resistance group and undermines the rest of the Lebanese government (and fullscale occupation won't break them either). There's a large risk of starting a civil war, and a large risk of Syria reoccupying Lebanon. None of these are desirable outcomes. Please, enlighten me with your sophisticated grasp of the nuances of regional geopolitics, because so far it's been "Israel blowing **** up is awesome" and the assumption that Arabs are a united, amorphous, one-dimensional mass.
Do you seriously think that wreaking havoc on Lebanon is going to create peace and end terrorism? That's just mental. Israel has been responding with overwhelming force in an attempt to break popular support for PA/Hamas/Hezbollah/people who hate them, which is a lovely idea in theory, but has never f*cking worked.
The point here is that, even if you ignore the moral questions about collective punishment as practised by Israel, this whole adventure runs violently and stupidly against Israel's national interest.
And as for your take on the Iraq war, well it seems to be rooted in the same misguided belief that "with enough force we can make them stop hating us"... go start another thread if you wanna argue that it's been anything other than a colossal failure and massively counterproductive. It's too big a tangent to bring in here.
Posted by DreadnoughtAnybody else love it how nobody is calling it a War yet? At least, not on the news. They call it a Crisis, or Continuing Hostilities.
Any reason for the semantic dodging?
Posted by Lord of SpamNo official declaration of war. Pretty much nobody declares war anymore, since it brings about a whole ****storm of diplomatic bull****.
Posted by ArwonIt's a politicised term in this case. The idea of whether it's a war, and whether it's action against Lebanon or Hezbollah, is a matter of political contention. Calling it a "war" inherently implies one view, just as avoiding the term implies another.
Posted by Kaise SuratuThe negotiating isn't an option for Hezbollah. These guys will blow them selves up just to prove a point. This is an obvious point, but my friend's mom who's Musslim told me that "we hate the $1 bill" and would do anything just to kill it.
So, here's this logic that I have discovered:
Musslims, in the Middle East, will do ANYTHING to destroy Christianity. This is why there trying so hard to wipe out Israel. Once Israel is removed the Christian religion will be proved false.
(it is said in the bible Jesus would be back to protect Israel before it gets abolished again)
Basically, revelation, is considered by some as a roadmap to events now taking place.
:::::::::::::::
IS ISRAEL OVER-REACTING???
Israel is accused of over-reacting when it kidnaps political leaders, causes damage to infra-structures and kills civilians. Are Arabs who kidnap and kill political leaders, cause damage to infra-structures and deliberately kill civilians, over-reacting? Is it over-reacting to blow up commuters in India or school children in Beslan? Is it over-reacting to fly planes into high rise buildings full of innocent people? Is it over-reacting to saw the heads off of journalists and foreign workers who are actually attempting to rebuild infra-structures? Why is it only the Israelis that are expected to show superhuman restraint in the face of unending attacks? The Shiites of Iraq have finally caved in to the pressure of constant attacks and are fighting back against the Sunni and Bathist terrorists, in brutal and horrifc ways. The difference between the Arabs and the Jews of Israel, is that the Jews really do not want war, while the Arabs feel it is their religious destiny to start WWIII. Israel does not want to get stuck in Lebanon again. A moderate government in Israel is entirely dependent upon how safe the citizens of Israel feel. If the current government does not engage in a sufficient show of force against Hamas and Hizballah for their recent attacks against Israeli soldiers, the next government the Israelis elect will be far more right wing, hawkish and over-reactive.
::::::::::::::::::::
[URL="http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2570"]http://sundriesshack.com/?p=2570[/URL]
This is a blog entry that I read and really liked.
Posted by specopssv441)hezzbola is not "Just a few People"... They are a major political force in lebannon, and have been the number one reason for continued conflicts in that region.
2)hezzbola is a terrorist organization and they deserve some long over due culling... I wouldnt mind getting a piece of those bastards either
3)Israel has been at war with these people for decades! F UCKING DECADES of living in fear of terrorists attacks. For DECADES Isralies have had to live the sobering effects of suicide bombers and insurgent style warfare. The people of America have not had to live through this war except through what they see on the TV, because, frankly we took the fight to them because wed rather **** up their backyard than our own...
Israel has put up with these douchebags for waaayyy too long. I applaud their efforts and am glad to see them taking things into their own hands.
WTF is up with this "it doesnt make sense for Israel to start a war with a whole nation due to the actions of a few people" bull****? If the people of lebannon didnt approve of, or at least partially support hezzbolas violence then it would have never gotten to this point in the first place. You havent been to the middle east. You havent ever met any of these terrorist zealots, theyre ****ing sick in the head man. And the people that support their actions, or are too cowardly to stand up against them even if they disagree with them are a cancer in the already sickly middle east. Sorry, but no love for hezzbola, or lebannon for that matter here. But I guess that comes with having to deal with their bull**** at work all the time. Im sure most of you would agree with me if you got out into the world and saw things with your own eyes instead of through a CNN reporters...
.... OK [END RANT] haha
Posted by ArwonAyup, them muslims sure are teh evil.
Posted by Kaise SuratuWell Musslims hate the Jews and the Christians, right?
Posted by ArwonYou are, to use the technical term, a bit of an idiot.
Posted by Kaise SuratuI'm curious why you called me an idiot and then never explained why.
Listen - I love to debate, and I love to hear the opposing side, but the name-calling it isn't necessary.
Posted by ArwonYou did a pretty good yourself, without me needing to explain. You're spouting typical Clash-of-Civilisations horsesh*t and it is without merit.
[quote]Musslims, in the Middle East, will do ANYTHING to destroy Christianity. This is why there trying so hard to wipe out Israel. Once Israel is removed the Christian religion will be proved false.
And then you go and ignorantly roll about half a dozen quite diverse situations together into one big ball of misguided, basically racist, idiocy:
[quote]Is it over-reacting to blow up commuters in India or school children in Beslan? Is it over-reacting to fly planes into high rise buildings full of innocent people? Is it over-reacting to saw the heads off of journalists and foreign workers who are actually attempting to rebuild infra-structures?
There's not much in the way of rational debate you can say to people who mumble this garbage about racial conspiracy theories and evil ethnic groups and religions. The worldview is, basically, beyond any sort of rationality. It's spurious and it's totally wrong.
[quote]the Arabs feel it is their religious destiny to start WWIII
[quote]Well Musslims hate the Jews and the Christians, right?
Like I said. Do you really expect tht if you're going to spout things like this you're not going to be called an idiot? Name-calling may not be necessary but it's totally accurate and a f*cktonne quicker than writing a long treatise on why this clash-of-civilisations evil-muslims bollocks is totally stupid and wrong.
Posted by XenosKaise ... please change your font color and size to something more legible. [/offtopicmuch]
Posted by theblobishere92Well Al-Qaida, and Syria so far descided they would like to help out, fighting side with Hellzballa.... Soon America/Britian will be joing Isreal? Is the world comming to an end becuase of Religion? I think these are all extremly stupid "causes" but stealing oil isn't a great on either....
Posted by Lord of Spamyou. have. GOT. to. be. kidding.
Posted by BebopHoly dog **** you serious? I demand to see a link to a reliable news source about Al-Quida and Syria being involved.
Posted by ArwonAl-Qaeda wouldn't want a bar of it and neither would any of the Muslim Brotherhood type groups. Most Sunni press about the Lebanon crisis has been at great pains to avoid praising the fervently Shia Hezbollah. As for Syria... last I heard they were threatening to get involved if Israel violated Syrian sovereignty or something. At the moment though, unless something has changed in the last few hours, their involvement is indirect as ever.
Posted by GameMiestroSo, Isreal is stupid for attacking Lebanon, Lebanon is stupid for getting attacked, the US is stupid for not taking real military action, and the UN is stupid for taking as long as they did? I guess one of us is as dumb as all of us.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Kaise Suratu: Well Musslims hate the Jews and the Christians, right?
First, it's 'Muslim'. Second, Muslims don't hate Jews and Christians. Only a very small proportion of Muslims (the extremists) hate Jews and Christians, jsut like a few radical Christians hate Jews and Muslims, and like a small amount of Jews hate Muslims and Christians.
But, no, generally, Muslims do not hate Christians and Jews.
Quoted post: The negotiating isn't an option for Hezbollah. These guys will blow them selves up just to prove a point. This is an obvious point, but my friend's mom who's Musslim told me that "we hate the $1 bill" and would do anything just to kill it.
So? The IDF will destroy a entire apartment block filled with women and children if there's just a small chance of a single Hezbollah fighter in them. And most suicide bombers are brainwashed and mislead from childhood into hating them, so you can't really blame them for such things. Especially if an Israeli missile happens to miss its target and blow up their entire family.
[QUOTE]So, here's this logic that I have discovered:
Musslims, in the Middle East, will do ANYTHING to destroy Christianity. This is why there trying so hard to wipe out Israel. Once Israel is removed the Christian religion will be proved false.
If Muslims in the Middle East would do anything to wipe out Israel, Every Muslim in the Middle East, women, children, and all, would pick up a weapon and attack in a gigantic mass of several hundred million people and completely wipe Israel off the map. If you have enough fanatics with AK-47's, you can defeat anyone.
However, I haven't heard of such a thing occuring yet. Maybe it's just because a very small amount of Muslims would like to do that,
but not all of them?
Quoted post: (it is said in the bible Jesus would be back to protect Israel before it gets abolished again)
Actually, Israel as a nation was only last 'created' after WWII.
Quoted post: Basically, revelation, is considered by some as a roadmap to events now taking place.
That's some, an extremist few.
:::::::::::::::
Quoted post: IS ISRAEL OVER-REACTING???
Israel is accused of over-reacting when it kidnaps political leaders, causes damage to infra-structures and kills civilians. Are Arabs who kidnap and kill political leaders, cause damage to infra-structures and deliberately kill civilians, over-reacting?
Yes.
[QUOTE] Is it over-reacting to blow up commuters in India or school children in Beslan?
Yes.
Quoted post: Is it over-reacting to fly planes into high rise buildings full of innocent people?
Yes.
Is it over-reacting to bomb a city block fileld with civilians because there may be a hezbollah fighter in it?
Yes.
Do you get it now? Just because one side over-reacts, it doesn't mean you should also. Falling to the level of your enemy makes you as bad.
Quoted post: The difference between the Arabs and the Jews of Israel, is that the Jews really do not want war, while the Arabs feel it is their religious destiny to start WWIII.
Wrong, according to most Muslims.
This is why you're called an idiot. You're rather ignorant. You don't have coherent arguments. Arwon, who is a much better debater than you, has already dismissed your 'arguments'.
Posted by ArwonInteresting developments... not just the rejection of the position but the strong language.
[url=http://www.juancole.com/2006/08/hizbullah-rejects-syrian-position.html][/url]
[quote]Hizbullah Rejects Syrian Position
Army Begins reaching South
DPA/ al-Zaman report that [Ar.] in Beirut, Hizbullah declined to adopt the position of Syrian President Bashar al-Asad in accusing the reformist politicians of standing against Hizbullah and the resistance in Lebanon. (Bashar has a feud with the 14 March group, but Hizbullah joined it in a national unity government.) Husayn al-Hajj Hasan, a Hizbullah member of parliament said, "we reject the idea of considering the 14 March group to be agents of Israel and America."
In an emotional speech in Beirut Thursday morning, shown on LBC, Saad Hariri said that the 33-day long Israeli campaign against Lebanon had inflicted profound damage on the country. He went on to say that it was painful to find a sibling Arab leader adding insult to injury by instigating division and infighting among Lebanese. Hariri was referring to Tuesday's speech by Bashar al-Asad of Syria in which he accused Hariri and other members of his coalition of being agents of foreign powers and urged Hizbullah to stand up to them. Hariri said that Lebanon had seen nothing from Syria but hatred, hypocrisy and lies. He accused Syria of trading for its own advantage on the blood of Arab children at Qana, in Gaza and in Baghdad. He said he sympathized with the suffering masses of Syria who labored under a tyrannical regime that denied them the possibility of free elections. He reminded Damascus that steadfastness in the face of Israeli attacks was a famed Lebanese product, stemming from Lebanese national unity. (Asad had said that the 14 March group was a product of Israel.)
Pretty much all the major Lebanese politicians of all sects and tendencies condemned Asad's remarks [Ar.], characterizing them as an attempt by an external power to take advantage of Lebanon's successful weathering of the Israeli attack to achieve Syrian goals in Lebanon.
[...]
The main Lebanese players, both the reform government and Hizbullah spokesmen, appear convinced that a conflict between the state and the party-militia in the south can be avoided. Lebanese suffered through civil war 1975-1989 (and beyond a bit) and are determined not to risk a return to that horrible era. The Daily Star suggests that this is because a compromise is in the works, whereby Hizbullah won't actually be disarmed, but will have to keep its arms out of sight south of the Litani River near Israel.
Hmmmm.
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: So? The IDF will destroy a entire apartment block filled with women and children if there's just a small chance of a single Hezbollah fighter in them. And most suicide bombers are brainwashed and mislead from childhood into hating them, so you can't really blame them for such things. Especially if an Israeli missile happens to miss its target and blow up their entire family.
The truly disturbing thing here is that hezbollah fighters are willing to use an entire apartment block full of civilians as a sheild.
...AND WTF IS THIS "Its not their fault theyre sucicide bombers, they were brainwashed into it" Bullshi t. Id like to see you be so understanding of sucicde bombers if they killed your familiy.
But then again HIG i guess its all irelevent to you. You dont have to concern yourself with it anymore than you wish to.
The bottom line is in war people die. wait... let me say that again... IN WAR... PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Thats what happens in wars dude. Hezbollah is at just as much fault if not more so than Israel. But you decide to take their side because of the sheer fact that some people think its cool to take sides with the bad guys.
Quoted post: If Muslims in the Middle East would do anything to wipe out Israel, Every Muslim in the Middle East, women, children, and all, would pick up a weapon and attack in a gigantic mass of several hundred million people and completely wipe Israel off the map. If you have enough fanatics with AK-47's, you can defeat anyone.
However, I haven't heard of such a thing occuring yet. Maybe it's just because a very small amount of Muslims would like to do that,
but not all of them
Not true. As with all cultures there is always something of a warrior class. America is fighting a war against insurgents in Iraq. But I dont see the whole country up in arms. The lebanese government and hezzbolla terrorists are f ucking the civilians by getting them involved.
Quoted post: Yes.
Is it over-reacting to bomb a city block fileld with civilians because there may be a hezbollah fighter in it?
Yes.
Do you get it now? Just because one side over-reacts, it doesn't mean you should also. Falling to the level of your enemy makes you as bad
ONE HEZZBOLAH FIGHTER...ok... yeah... Cause thats how terrorists operate right? One guy per city block? Do you, hig, have any idea how much money a guided missie costs? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. Thats right, a couple hundred grand per shot. DO you really think any government is gonna waste that much money on one target? Or are you simply asserting that the Isralies just wanted to kill a bunch of civilians?
Quoted post: Ayup, them muslims sure are teh evil.
when did i ever say or even imply that f uck face?
... Ive said it before and ill say it agian. YOU FCUKING CIVILIANS HAVE NO CONCEPT OF MILITARY TACT, PROCEDURE OR OPERATIONS. I am continually amazed at your ability to judge military actions when you are completly ignorant on the subject matter.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting specopssv44: The truly disturbing thing here is that hezbollah fighters are willing to use an entire apartment block full of civilians as a sheild.
Both sides have don't 'bad' things.
Quoted post: ...AND WTF IS THIS "Its not their fault theyre sucicide bombers, they were brainwashed into it" Bullshi t. Id like to see you be so understanding of sucicde bombers if they killed your familiy.
But then again HIG i guess its all irelevent to you. You dont have to concern yourself with it anymore than you wish to.
Emotional involvment in a situation results in the inablity to make unbiased, rational decisions.
[QUOTE]The bottom line is in war people die. wait... let me say that again... IN WAR... PEOPLE ARE GOING TO DIE. Thats what happens in wars dude. Hezbollah is at just as much fault if not more so than Israel.
Which is why you don't fight wars.
Quoted post: But you decide to take their side because of the sheer fact that some people think its cool to take sides with the bad guys.
Not really. i'm not taking the side of either. Hezbollah is bad because they try to kill innocent civilans, etc.
Israel is bad because they don't bother minimising civilian casualties.
Quoted post: Not true. As with all cultures there is always something of a warrior class. America is fighting a war against insurgents in Iraq. But I dont see the whole country up in arms. The lebanese government and hezzbolla terrorists are f ucking the civilians by getting them involved.
Not true. A 'warrior' mindset is only created by that culture's position on 'violence' and 'honour' (AKA getting revenge on peopel because they hurt your ego)
Quoted post: ONE HEZZBOLAH FIGHTER...ok... yeah... Cause thats how terrorists operate right? One guy per city block? Do you, hig, have any idea how much money a guided missie costs? HUNDREDS OF THOUSANDS OF DOLLARS. Thats right, a couple hundred grand per shot. DO you really think any government is gonna waste that much money on one target? Or are you simply asserting that the Isralies just wanted to kill a bunch of civilians?
THey don't need to use a guided missile. They just need to drop what's simply a metal casing filled with explosives and a detonator on the general area of the target.
Quoted post: when did i ever say or even imply that f uck face?
You didn't, someone else did.
[quote]... Ive said it before and ill say it agian. YOU FCUKING CIVILIANS HAVE NO CONCEPT OF MILITARY TACT, PROCEDURE OR OPERATIONS. I am continually amazed at your ability to judge military actions when you are completly ignorant on the subject matter.
I've said it before and I'll say it again, you single-minded, brainwashed (to an extent), jingoistic, violence-starved, military types have insufficient frontal lobe-brain matter to fully consider the ethics of wars and their impact on people. Have you ever felt your arms being blown off by a bomb and being crippled for life, unable to do many activities most people can enjoy? Probably not. Have you felt what it's like having your family raped and shot to death by rogue US soldiers? No.
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: I've said it before and I'll say it again, you single-minded, brainwashed (to an extent), jingoistic, violence-starved, military types have insufficient frontal lobe-brain matter to fully consider the ethics of wars and their impact on people. .
I am a person. You think its f ucking easy to say goodbye to friends, familiy, homland, and everything you have and not know if youre ever coming back? Have you ever had to give your mother a hug knowing it would be the last one for 8 months at least and maybe the last one of your life? Have you ever had to stand by while a friend dies a violent death? Have you ever been to a closed coffin funeral? A guy I grew up with named Pete died in OIF one. They put what was left of his body in a f ucking garbage bag. There wasnt even enough of him to fill out his uniform in his coffin. I doubt any of these things will ever be a reality for you as they are for me. And its because of people like me it never will
How dare you imply that I am not a person. Please oh please *** walk up to a grunt and talk to him like you post here.
Quoted post: Have you ever felt your arms being blown off by a bomb and being crippled for life, unable to do many activities most people can enjoy? Probably not. Have you felt what it's like having your family raped and shot to death by rogue US soldiers? No.
Have you ever had to live with the fact that at any moment death or a serious maiming may come your way? My family will not be raped and shot by soldiers of any nation because of the heros in the military. If that day ever does come then I will be long gone off in valhalla.
HIG, you really, really are retarded. Your sheltered. You dont know what pain is, or sacrafice, or honor or loyalty. Your still just a kid. Im only 19 and Ive traveled further, done more, seen more, learned more, and experienced more of the world than you ever will, AND IVE DONE IT WITH MY OWN EYES, not an investigative reporters.
Posted by Lord of SpamIf the risks of being in the military are going to turn you into a giant *******, maybe you shouldnt have enlisted:cookie:
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting specopssv44: I am a person. You think its f ucking easy to say goodbye to friends, familiy, homland, and everything you have and not know if youre ever coming back? Have you ever had to give your mother a hug knowing it would be the last one for 8 months at least and maybe the last one of your life? Have you ever had to stand by while a friend dies a violent death? Have you ever been to a closed coffin funeral? A guy I grew up with named Pete died in OIF one. They put what was left of his body in a f ucking garbage bag. There wasnt even enough of him to fill out his uniform in his coffin. I doubt any of these things will ever be a reality for you as they are for me. And its because of people like me it never will
Well, one, you chose that life. Innocent people are having worse thigns forced upon them by unjust wars. Like the Iraq war, where the US simultaneously condemned Iraq for not allowing inspectors in, while undermining UNSCOM.
[quote]How dare you imply that I am not a person. Please oh please *** walk up to a grunt and talk to him like you post here.
See below.
Quoted post: Have you ever had to live with the fact that at any moment death or a serious maiming may come your way? My family will not be raped and shot by soldiers of any nation because of the heros in the military. If that day ever does come then I will be long gone off in valhalla.
Well, ask an Iraqi. Quite a few would truthfully say, "Yes".
[quote=specopssv44]HIG, you really, really are retarded. Your sheltered. You dont know what pain is, or sacrafice, or honor or loyalty. Your still just a kid. Im only 19 and Ive traveled further, done more, seen more, learned more, and experienced more of the world than you ever will, AND IVE DONE IT WITH MY OWN EYES, not an investigative reporters.
You know, you wouldn't have said all that if I'd explained beforehand that I only typed that paragraph because I wanted to imitate what you said, so you can look at it and say, 'hey, that doesn't completely make sense, its a terrible generalisation'. It's obvious that it contained a significant amount of parody of your post, hyperbole, and generalisation.
And I know fully well what 'honour' is. It's basically some overmasculine man trying to rationalise protecting their ego in any way possible.
And you've forgotten that someone emotionally involved in somethign cannot make rational, unemotional decisions about it.
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: Well, one, you chose that life. Innocent people are having worse thigns forced upon them by unjust wars. Like the Iraq war, where the US simultaneously condemned Iraq for not allowing inspectors in, while undermining UNSCOM.
Hig having any debate about any kind of war is pointless with you because you apparently think war is completely unnessary. Its like trying to talk to a wall.
Heres my argument: HIG you are an idiot when it comes to forien policy and war.
Hers my support for that argument: No matter what anyone or anything says or does your never going to accept the fact that war is neccesary.
You are right about one thing hig. I did choose my life. I did it so people like you dont have to. So be thankfull for that.
And yes, the military tends to make *******s out of people when it comes to certain issues. Thats just another part of the sacrafice we make.... Believe it or not I am a somewhat normal human being when Im not at work
Posted by Fei-on CastorYou guys, I don't know if we should be criticizing Aaron as a person for his choices. I don't agree with this bullsh*t war at all, but Aaron has chosen to accept a life as a warrior, which is fine by me. It's his choice. As to whether or not war is necessary, that is neither here nor there. You see, whether or not it's necessary may have been a question to address before we got into a war. But now that we're in one, we need to figure out how to end it and fix the problems we face. If you, the reader, think you have the solution to such problems, you are free to enlist and employ your solutions first hand, rather than b*tching about them at VGC.
The issues we face are very real. There is a place for all of us to fill and do our part. I'm in college to be a teacher, which I consider to be a very important position. While I may never be a political leader or a man of any actual significance, I'll bet that as a good teacher, I'll impact students to grow up and become important people. Aaron has chosen his place on the battlefield. I personally think he's crazy. He could die any day, and that's why I think he's crazy. But it's a choice that, at least for now, some people have to make. He keeps saying that he does it so that guys like me don't have to. And I appreciate that. Because a guy like me doesn't want to, nor would a guy like me make that choice voluntarily.
I think Aaron is crazy, but I respect him tremendously.
Throughout human history, there are wars, conflicts, and struggles. That is fact. You can't deny that. There are only a small handful of names that you can drop of groups who have achieved what they wanted without violent struggle. India, and a few others, but that's it. Most groups, including America, had to fight and lose a lot of warriors like Aaron to gain their freedom. I wish that weren't true, I really do. I wish that we could all just get along. I'm a huge believer in not fighting, ever. I hate fighting. I hate violence. I hate the ugly face of war. But in our actual real world, not the ideal one that we dream of, in our world that we live in, violence is real. Fighting is real. War is real. It's something we will HAVE to deal with. I'm just glad that there are people who will do it for me, while I do my part in the classroom.
Maybe someday, we will live in a world where war isn't necessary. But that won't be for a while because only a few of us share that dream. You can try to blame people like Aaron for furthering the idea that war is necessary, but it's not his fault. He didn't start this war; he's just doing his part now that it has begun. And I'm sure that any major conflict that he fights in will not be directly out of his decisions. It will be the war that someone else thought was needed.
So what's the solution? Boycott the military? Try to convince people to stop enlisting so we can't fight wars? Then what? The draft? And what if we all refuse to go when our numbers are pulled? Do you think our "opponents" will do the same? Or will they just take advantage of the fact that we aren't willing to "stoop to unnecessary violence" and beat the sh*t out of us while we have no functioning military? Do you think they'll see our gestures toward peace and follow suit?
Of course not!
You guys all need to see the episode of South Park where the pro-war and anti-war activists have it out trying to figure out what the proper course of action is regarding the war in Iraq. It's great. Cartman even goes back in time to 1776 to see what the founding fathers would say about the war.
Posted by higbvuyb[QUOTE=specopssv44]Hig having any debate about any kind of war is pointless with you because you apparently think war is completely unnessary. Its like trying to talk to a wall.
Specopss, having any debate about any kind of war is pointless with you because you apparently think all wars are necessary.
There, I said, it, another generalisation. It's basically what you said, with the words turned around.
You haven't proven or given any evidence that war is necessary. Perhaps it is necessary for increasing US oil access and implementing US foreign policy, but it's not truly necessary.
You also haven't proven that I think that no wars are necessary. Yes, I opposed the war on Iraq. So?
War is only acceptable when the benefit to the world outweighs the cost. Not the benefit to the US. The benefit to the world. The Iraq war and the war on Afghanistan were not acceptable.
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: Specopss, having any debate about any kind of war is pointless with you because you apparently think all wars are necessary.
There, I said, it, another generalisation. It's basically what you said, with the words turned around.
You haven't proven or given any evidence that war is necessary. Perhaps it is necessary for increasing US oil access and implementing US foreign policy, but it's not truly necessary.
I can imagine a world without war, and without warriors. I can imagine that world being peacefull and happy and great.... And at the same time I can imagine myself attacking that world, because quite frankly they would never see it coming.... That is my proof that war shall never end. As long as there is ambition, as long as there is a demand to improve ones quality of life, there will be war. It is only human nature.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting specopssv44: I can imagine a world without war, and without warriors. I can imagine that world being peacefull and happy and great.... And at the same time I can imagine myself attacking that world, because quite frankly they would never see it coming.... That is my proof that war shall never end. As long as there is ambition, as long as there is a demand to improve ones quality of life, there will be war. It is only human nature.
You'd have to be pretty **** crazy to feel some irrational need to attack people living in a happy and peaceful world, just because they're vulnerable. That's the sort of thinking you find in the average, stupid bully. That's usually only what terrorists think. How long untill you fly a passenger jet into a major Muslim building?
I find it ironic that someone like you who dislikes the idea of peace and would instinctively lash out at it violently would claim that they fight so that ordinary civilians could live peacefully. A society which you would like, for example, the one in Warhammer 40K ('IN THE GRIM DARKNESS OF THE FAR FUTURE THERE IS ONLY WAR.') is a dystopia, something you seem to like.
As long as there are people like you in the world who are prepared to cause havoc and destruction around innocent people, there will be no peace. As long as people listen to their ambition more than they listen to morality, there will be no peace. Unless people eradicate the irrational way of thinking commonly called 'human nature', which is actually primitive, animalistic behaviour, there will be no peace.
Posted by Arwon[quote]an imagine a world without war, and without warriors. I can imagine that world being peacefull and happy and great.... And at the same time I can imagine myself attacking that world, because quite frankly they would never see it coming
Hey, Specops made a humour-joke! I approve.
I dunno, I think there's potential for war to more-or-less end in the very long term. The prerequisites include:
-Some form of other political structure, a global government or some global analogue to the EU, superceding the nationstate and thus drastically reducing or eliminating the potential for state-on-state warfare on a wider scale. Subsuming entities within larger entities has been proven an effective way to stop them fighting each other--look at Germany and France now, or even England and Scotland. Feudal fiefdoms once combined into nations tended not to fight each other, European nations combined into the European community, same deal. Sure, there's civil wars but they're not that common once you get methods of government right.
-Decent quality of life everywhere, up to a minimum standard of affluence of the sort we expect in the west. Poverty, deprivation and competition for very scarce resources causes lots of conflict, particularly of the internal non-state variety.
So yeah. It's probably possible to largely overcome conflict eventually. State vs state warfare has largely vanished, now it's just a matter of addressing the "new wars" innit?
Hey, maybe alien invasion will make us unite and stuff.
Posted by Bj BlaskowitzI want Arwon to knock up my sister
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: You'd have to be pretty **** crazy to feel some irrational need to attack people living in a happy and peaceful world, just because they're vulnerable.
No not really. Its called survival of the fittest. Its called human nature. IT is impossible for the balace of power to ever become perfectly equil.
[QUOTEThat's the sort of thinking you find in the average, stupid bully. That's usually only what terrorists think. How long untill you fly a passenger jet into a major Muslim building]
Negative. I am amused by your lack of knowledge of our enemies. Terrorists attempt to achieve political goals by making its target nation feel vulnerable to random and devastating attacks against soft (civilian) targets.
...so in other words, I have no interest in destroying a mosque, nor am I allowed to, unless hostile targets have engaged friendly troops from within and are attempting to use the building for cover. In which case I probably wouldnt fly a plane into the building. I probably riddle it to swiss cheese with a MA DUECE, and maybe a well placed NE round from a SMAW... but all thats... just a little bit above your pathetic civilian mind.
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting specopssv44: No not really. Its called survival of the fittest. Its called human nature. IT is impossible for the balace of power to ever become perfectly equil.
When the world is populated by sane and rational people, this so called 'human nature' (better called 'animalistic instinct') will be eradicated, and eb replaced by morally correct, rational, unselfish decisions.
Quoted post: Negative. I am amused by your lack of knowledge of our enemies. Terrorists attempt to achieve political goals by making its target nation feel vulnerable to random and devastating attacks against soft (civilian) targets.
Happy and peaceful people in the World Trade Center. Persons who irrationally hate America fly aeroplanes into them. The head terrorists do the politics, the actual bombers jsut want to blow Americans up.
[quote] ...so in other words, I have no interest in destroying a mosque, nor am I allowed to, unless hostile targets have engaged friendly troops from within and are attempting to use the building for cover.
If you feel the need to attack a peaceful society just because it can't defend itself, what you just said basically contradicts your original words.
[quote]In which case I probably wouldnt fly a plane into the building. I probably riddle it to swiss cheese with a MA DUECE, and maybe a well placed NE round from a SMAW...
And would you machinegun that building or hit it with a rocket if there were innocent civilians inside?
Quoted post: but all thats... just a little bit above your pathetic civilian mind.
I'd rather not want to continually think about causing harm to and shooting other people.
Quoted post: MA DUECE
It's spelt 'Deuce', learn your own language.
Posted by Bj BlaskowitzWhat's funny is that I've met marines more bloodthirsty, ignorant, and downright stubborn, than Spec here. At least he has somewhat of a line he can draw. These men are or are about to be officers and are all for massacrin some Ay-rabs. It's weird, that mob mentality of ignorance that can consume people.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: When the world is populated by sane and rational people, this so called 'human nature' (better called 'animalistic instinct') will be eradicated, and eb replaced by morally correct, rational, unselfish decisions.
... Who will show their superiority by being the most morally correct, rational and unselfish, condemning those who do not meet their standard. No matter what, it will always be survival of the fittest, in one way or another. Whether physical, verbal, metal, whatever, one human will always want to be domineering over a less being. It's out nature, always will be.
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: When the world is populated by sane and rational people, this so called 'human nature' (better called 'animalistic instinct') will be eradicated, and eb replaced by morally correct, rational, unselfish decisions.
Its all in the eye of the beholder. I think the 9/11 attacks were immoral. I dont think alqueda or saddam hussien were "morally correct". I consider it perfectly rational to attack an enemy after he has attacked your country and killed thousands. And I consider my choice to enlist in the USMC most selfless thing I have ever done. If being weak and not protecting yourself is what you want, youll never get it. If you dont protect yourself you will perish.... Unless made and kept free by the exertions of better men than yourself.
Quoted post: Happy and peaceful people in the World Trade Center. Persons who irrationally hate America fly aeroplanes into them. The head terrorists do the politics, the actual bombers jsut want to blow Americans up.
I still fail to see any valid points here.... not surprising i guess.
Quoted post: If you feel the need to attack a peaceful society just because it can't defend itself, what you just said basically contradicts your original words.
someone will attack it. Its envitable.
Quoted post: And would you machinegun that building or hit it with a rocket if there were innocent civilians inside
No *******. What did I just say? Are you retarded?
Quoted post: I'd rather not want to continually think about causing harm to and shooting other people.
of course not. And you dont have too. Just keep paying your taxes and paying for my ammo and Ill do all the battlefield thinking haha
Quoted post: It's spelt 'Deuce', learn your own language.
Oh no... here comes the grammar fascists again...
Posted by Bj Blaskowitzthis is the complete cadence a marine officer I play pool with told me about:
Grab your bombs and kill some people
Throw some napalm on the square
Do it on a Sunday morning
Kill them on their way to prayer
*CHORUS*
'Cause napalm, it sticks to kids
Crispy on the outside, gooey on the inside
Aim some missiles at the schoolyard
As the teacher rings the bell
Look at all those kiddies cryin'
As the schoolhouse burns to hell
*CHORUS*
Throw some candy in the schoolyard
Watch those kiddies gather 'round
Lock and load with my 2401
Mow those little ****ers down
*CHORUS*
Rape their horses, kill their women
Eat their little babies, too
We're Marines with M-16s
So tell me who the **** are you?
*CHORUS*
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting specopssv44:
Its all in the eye of the beholder. I think the 9/11 attacks were immoral. I dont think alqueda or saddam hussien were "morally correct". I consider it perfectly rational to attack an enemy after he has attacked your country and killed thousands. And I consider my choice to enlist in the USMC most selfless thing I have ever done. If being weak and not protecting yourself is what you want, youll never get it. If you dont protect yourself you will perish.... Unless made and kept free by the exertions of better men than yourself.
Quoting Vampiro: ... Who will show their superiority by being the most morally correct, rational and unselfish, condemning those who do not meet their standard. No matter what, it will always be survival of the fittest, in one way or another. Whether physical, verbal, metal, whatever, one human will always want to be domineering over a less being. It's out nature, always will be.
Neither of these would be correct in a world filled with only sane, rational, moral peopel, because none of those people would value their ambition more than morals in the first place. There would be no specopsses or errorists to fly planes into buildings in the first place. For the human population, such unfavourable traits should eventually be bred out. It's also helped by the fact that those epople join the army and die before they can reproduce and spread their traits to their offsrping.
Quoted post: I still fail to see any valid points here.... not surprising i guess.
Would you like me to get you some glasses?
Quoted post: someone will attack it. Its envitable.
Not if everyone is too rational, sane, and morally correct to attack in teh first place.
Quoted post: No *******. What did I just say? Are you retarded?
No. That contradicts what you said before.
Quoted post: of course not. And you dont have too. Just keep paying your taxes and paying for my ammo and Ill do all the battlefield thinking haha
Yeah, because you enjoy it and others don't. I bet you're like those people who shoot off someone's head, and yell 'Boom, headshot" as a joke.
[quote]Oh no... here comes the grammar fascists again...
Spelling and grammar are different, by the way. THough Raptor is usually the definition nazi.
Anyway, you're only being a ___ nazi if you nitpick single mistakes in the text of someone who usually has good typing grammar and spelling. People with gramar and spelling like yours is okay to criticise.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: Neither of these would be correct in a world filled with only sane, rational, moral peopel, because none of those people would value their ambition more than morals in the first place. There would be no specopsses or errorists to fly planes into buildings in the first place. For the human population, such unfavourable traits should eventually be bred out. It's also helped by the fact that those epople join the army and die before they can reproduce and spread their traits to their offsrping.
You can still be moral, rational, and unselfish while showing your dominance over a lesser being. Some of the most religious and moral people in the world are also some of the worst. Superiority and survival of the fittest will never be bred out, they're traits that will always be with use, no matter how rational we are. It usually works on a subconscious level, so I don't see something like that eventually worked out of our system through breeding. I mean, if you really think "survival of the fittest" will one day disappear, I think you might have too much faith in mankind.
Posted by specopssv44hey hig would candy rain down from the sky too in this supposedly perfect world of yours too?
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Vampiro: You can still be moral, rational, and unselfish while showing your dominance over a lesser being. Some of the most religious and moral people in the world are also some of the worst. Superiority and survival of the fittest will never be bred out, they're traits that will always be with use, no matter how rational we are. It usually works on a subconscious level, so I don't see something like that eventually worked out of our system through breeding. I mean, if you really think "survival of the fittest" will one day disappear, I think you might have too much faith in mankind.
No, those sorts of traits are no longer useful to mankind, because we're so far ahead of animals that we have no competitors to worry about, so 'survival of the fittest' is no longer so necessary. And anting to dominate over someone and then doing so for the purpose of dominating is not morally right, or is it rational.
Quoting Specopssv44: hey hig would candy rain down from the sky too in this supposedly perfect world of yours too?
No, troll, because candy rots your teeth. Instead, high-nutrition food with all necessary minerals which also tastes great will fall from the sky.
Do you have anything useful to say?
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: No, those sorts of traits are no longer useful to mankind, because we're so far ahead of animals that we have no competitors to worry about, so 'survival of the fittest' is no longer so necessary
Because humans don't compete against themselves, right? Surivial of the fittest will always be useful to humans, it's what drives many people to succeed. Hell, without it we probably wouldn't be where we are today. In a hundred years time, it'll be no different. We'll still use it as motivation and it'll be for the best.
Quoted post: And anting to dominate over someone and then doing so for the purpose of dominating is not morally right, or is it rational.
It's completely rational. Maybe not for the sole purpose of dominating, but for success. Then again, those things usually go hand-in-hand. A company will always try to be the dominate force in hopes of gaining market share and in hopes of one day being successful. How isn't that rational?
This isn't a perfect world, it never will be.
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: No, troll, because candy rots your teeth. Instead, high-nutrition food with all necessary minerals which also tastes great will fall from the sky.
Do you have anything useful to say?
Yes. Ill give you five dollars if you kill yourself.
Posted by Bj Blaskowitzso spec, do you get to sing that cadence?
Posted by higbvuyb
Quoting Vampiro: Because humans don't compete against themselves, right? Surivial of the fittest will always be useful to humans, it's what drives many people to succeed. Hell, without it we probably wouldn't be where we are today. In a hundred years time, it'll be no different. We'll still use it as motivation and it'll be for the best.
No, it will be the bets for individual humans, but evolution finds traits which are the best for the entire race. It is no longer necessary for humans to compete with each other as much anymore, and it will become less so every year.
Quoted post: It's completely rational. Maybe not for the sole purpose of dominating, but for success. Then again, those things usually go hand-in-hand. A company will always try to be the dominate force in hopes of gaining market share and in hopes of one day being successful. How isn't that rational?
But is that success rational? Rational, as in it logically aids the entire human race, ratehr than just one person.
[quote]This isn't a perfect world, it never will be.
But it can get closer.
Quoted post: Yes. Ill give you five dollars if you kill yourself.
And I'll give you a candy if you admit that marines are just gung-ho fools from the navy who are as gay as navy sailors are.
Posted by Vampiro V. Empire
Quoted post: No, it will be the bets for individual humans, but evolution finds traits which are the best for the entire race. It is no longer necessary for humans to compete with each other as much anymore, and it will become less so every year.
Oh please, it will always be essential and it will always be apparent.
Quoted post:
But is that success rational? Rational, as in it logically aids the entire human race, ratehr than just one person.
Very a few people give a **** about the entirety of our race. Those that do are able to do so without much hindrance, and as we live on, we'll be more accepting. It's not impossible to think of yourself while aiding the success and well-being of others. There will always be those crushed beneath you though. That's something that cannot be helped.
Quoted post: But it can get closer.
Yes, and it will still be light-years from perfect.
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: so spec, do you get to sing that cadence?
Yes. Pretty much anyone who wants to will eventually get their chance... But if you suck someone will make you get back in the formation. If you dont suck, once ther person calling cadences decides its time for someone else to call cadence for awhile, he is likely to call you out to call cadences.... I have a couple of badass songs I turned into cadences (Like "let the bodies hit the floor") and yes I have more than my fare share of derogitory, racist, violent, patriotic prejudiced cadences (which we occasionally get in trouble for haha). The infantry is far from politically correct, i mean honestly, our MOS exists to kill people haha.
Quoted post: And I'll give you a candy if you admit that marines are just gung-ho fools from the navy who are as gay as navy sailors are
no, we are a department of the navy (The mens department).
Also, I would like to threaten you by promising my intent to shove that cady bar up your f aggot as s, but will refrain from doing so at the risk of arousing you.
Posted by Bj Blaskowitzholy crap, a zing from Spec
Posted by ArwonDoes threatening people on the other side of the world over the intarwebs really count though?
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: Does threatening people on the other side of the world over the intarwebs really count though?
No not really... Unfortunatly the internet takes all the real fun out of confrontation. Its fun to see how peoples body language telegraphs what theyre thinking. I also, have found, that people in general are far more likely to call me an ignorant ******* pussy faggot etc etc over the internet (VIA AIM etc etc), than they are in real life. Strange huh.
Posted by ArwonDepends if they're afraid of being punched in the face and whatnot. Honestly man, the fact that you can beat people up doesn't mean you're any less of a f*cking c*nt.
That, and of course the fact that you resort to violence first proves you're wrong. The bartender and a bunch of drunks saw it. I won even if you punched me. Hah!
Posted by specopssv44
Quoted post: Depends if they're afraid of being punched in the face and whatnot. Honestly man, the fact that you can beat people up doesn't mean you're any less of a f*cking c*nt.
That, and of course the fact that you resort to violence first proves you're wrong. The bartender and a bunch of drunks saw it. I won even if you punched me. Hah!
You underestimate me. Who said I resort to violence first... Youd be surprised how much you can effect what someone does or says simply by maintaing control over your own body language... Also, in any real discussion tone and volume are important.
Personally, I dont like to throw the first punch, in fact I can probably count on one hand the number of times I did that. And Usually it was the result of an ongoing confrontation/ i decided to call their bully act. Its much more satisfying to egg some arrogant ******* on until he acts first, then neatly drop his ***, hopefully in front of a crowd of his friends and beautiful women haha...
But seriously I think most VGCers would be surprised if they actually met me. I dont walk around shouting out threats (well most of the time anyway). And I dont really look like the "give me your effing lunch money *****!" dude that im sure everyone dealt with at one point or another. As Roosevelt said "walk softly, But carry a big stick". Just because I may feel confident that I can ruin someones face doesnt mean I really want to, or that I wont try and reason with them first.... But then again at the same time it can be benificial to let people think you are some sort of crazed maniac (ask my ex GFs boyfriend) He messed with me for about a day, I went beserk, and bam, no more problems.
Posted by Bj BlaskowitzI want to challenge specops, simply because i'm big, strong, and have a superman complex. . . but i cannot hit a man who made that ninja video. that thing was the most unpunchable thing ever
Posted by specopssv44Let me know if youre ever in Cali buddy, well throw it down Fight Club style, no money, or bad feelings involved, just gettin down for the cause. then well celebrate after words by consuming as much hard liquer as humanly possible.... well now you all know what happens when I get bored on the weekends.... Im still trying to convice the judge to have a friendly match with me haha (nah, i dont think I could hit derick, unless he like had a knife and was trying to stab me or something.)