Ignorance & spam promoting idiocy (rant/long).

Started by TheYak, Sun 07/12/2003 03:32:42

Previous topic - Next topic

shbaz

QuoteNo, it has nothing to do with religion, it has to see with a culture, the muslim one, who was inmensely happy when two towers with 3,000 people inside collapsed.

Um.. that would be Afghanistan, not Iraq.  The reasons Bush listed for invading were almost entirely lies.  If we invaded every country that was happy for our loss, there wouldn't be such a thing as an Arab state in five years.
Once I killed a man. His name was Mario, I think. His brother Luigi was upset at first, but adamant to continue on the adventure that they started together.

Nacho

Quote from: shbazjinkens on Mon 08/12/2003 05:47:45
QuoteNo, it has nothing to do with religion, it has to see with a culture, the muslim one, who was inmensely happy when two towers with 3,000 people inside collapsed.

Um.. that would be Afghanistan, not Iraq.  The reasons Bush listed for invading were almost entirely lies.  If we invaded every country that was happy for our loss, there wouldn't be such a thing as an Arab state in five years.

The reason listed are a lie. The truth is that 11/9 showed a valuable lesson. If you forget the dictatorial states, something wrong can happen to you. That´s why Bush attacked Iraq, and he should go on with Iran, Sirya and North Corea.

You should read Ian Kershaw´s biography about Hitler. His first steps about an agressive foreign politic were very very small (like the militarization of the Ruhr), and the Nations league did nothing. A few years after he invaded Poland.

And that´s the problem... Whereas in democracies if a president becomes mad he´d probably won´t be re-elected, in dictatorial states you can´t messure the threat they represent in the 4-year standart time of a democracy, because dictators may rule a country 30-40 years, or pass the power to his sons, as Saddam expected (We could be talking of a dictadure of more than 60-70 years) In that time, if we let them be re-armed, the threath could be enormously dangerous.

There is a quote "The best that may happen to the evil is that the good men do nothing". Sometimes fighting is disgusting, and not easy to understand, but I do.
Are you guys ready? Let' s roll!

makri

#22
Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Mon 08/12/2003 08:51:29
The reason listed are a lie. The truth is that 11/9 showed a valuable lesson. If you forget the dictatorial states, something wrong can happen to you. That´s why Bush attacked Iraq, and he should go on with Iran, Sirya and North Corea.

As you pointed out here, the greatest risk for world's security is not Iran, Syria or North Korea, it's The United States. Someone should stop that country.
Thud. Thud. Thud. Splat.

shbaz

Huh? I'm not arguing against stopping dictorial states, I'm just saying that Iraq wasn't conquered because of 9/11.  That was just the excuse.  The Taliban were a regime, not a dictatorship.  That country was also in Civil War already anyways.

I believe that Iraq occupation is for the best and we should at least attempt to slow down Iran and Korea, but people get the reasons for doing so mixed up.  When you mix up the reasons you end up doing ignorant things like.. boycotting a stamp that doesn't benefit Muslims at all anyways.  Ignorance isn't bliss for me, and so I love talking about stuff like this because if I'm wrong on the internet, someone is damn sure going to point it out... but I don't think I'm wrong when I say Bush used the ignorance of the American public to wrongly justify what he did.  If he'd left out all of the nonsense and lies about nuclear testing and 9-11 connections the world public might not have been so pissed off about it either.
Once I killed a man. His name was Mario, I think. His brother Luigi was upset at first, but adamant to continue on the adventure that they started together.

Nacho

#24
Quote from: makri on Mon 08/12/2003 10:36:33
Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Mon 08/12/2003 08:51:29
The reason listed are a lie. The truth is that 11/9 showed a valuable lesson. If you forget the dictatorial states, something wrong can happen to you. That´s why Bush attacked Iraq, and he should go on with Iran, Sirya and North Corea.

As you pointed out here, the greatest risk for world's security is not Iran, Syria or North Korea, it's The United States. Someone should stop that country.

Yes, makri, the US citizens will probably stop him not re-electing Bush, while in Dictatorial muslims countries nobody would do.

And yes, Shbazjinkens, compare dictatorship countries with a stamp made by american muslims, most of them born in US, is a show of ignorancy, but since 5 or 6 years ago, the first 10-15 minutes of every tele-news are dedicated to show inslamist terrorist strikes, which makes many people look without confidence any show of muslim culture. I don´t share it (In fact, I go every month to eat with my girlfriend to my friend Abdul´s restaurant, specialized in Moroccoean food), but I understand it.
Are you guys ready? Let' s roll!

DGMacphee

QuoteNo, we´re 3,000 milions and no one of us uses the name of God for killing.

What about the Crusades?

Quotethe muslims are happy of the wars and they applause the terrorists and the fighters.

I recently spoke to someone who trained CNN journalists to adapt with hostile environments -- He had recently returned from 2 weeks in Baghdad.

The reaction he got from a lot of Muslims in Iraq was one of anti-war -- He told me the majority of Muslims just want to continue living out their lives instead of seeing war breaking out.

QuoteUm.. that would be Afghanistan, not Iraq. The reasons Bush listed for invading were almost entirely lies. If we invaded every country that was happy for our loss, there wouldn't be such a thing as an Arab state in five years.

And even then, it wasn't really Afghanistan as the cause of 9/11.

Bush sent forces to overthrow the Taliban due to the belief they were habouring terrorist groups such as Al-Qaeda (supposedly the cause of 9/11).

However, the move generated a lot of general anti-Afghanistan sentiment in the US at the time, which is sad because the citizens of Afghanistan had nothing to do with 9/11.

And the US government still hasn't found Osama.

QuoteIf you forget the dictatorial states, something wrong can happen to you. That´s why Bush attacked Iraq, and he should go on with Iran, Sirya and North Corea.

No, Bush did not attack Iraq because it was a dictatorship and was mass-murdering people -- Iraq has been a dictatorship for over two decades and slaughtered many citizens in that time, so I doubt the US government suddenly woke up and said 'Let's liberate these people'.

The US government's publicly-stated reasons for invading Iraq were due to the belief that they were a) developing weapons of mass destruction to sell to terrorists, and b) harbouring terrorists.

(There's also c) the oil reason too, but that's a debate that's been had many times before in this forum, so I won't press on with it)

Anyway, to address these two points: a) the weapons of mass destruction still haven't been found yet and b) only a few minor terrorists were found (the most major player was one that hi-jacked an ocean liner -- none were members of Al-Qaeda or had any relation to 9/11, and the White House has admitted this)

QuoteYou should read Ian Kershaw´s biography about Hitler. His first steps about an agressive foreign politic were very very small (like the militarization of the Ruhr), and the Nations league did nothing. A few years after he invaded Poland.

You can't compare the Nazi dictatorship to the Iraqi dictatorship if you're trying to argue that Muslim dictactorships enact bloodshed based upon their culture (which you previously said).

Hitler wasn't a Muslim nor (to my knowledge) was any other member of the Nazi party.

So, how can you first say that Muslim dictatorships enact violence based on their culture and then make a comparison to a non-Muslim dictatorship?
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

SSH

#26
Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 08/12/2003 12:43:12
QuoteNo, we´re 3,000 milions and no one of us uses the name of God for killing.

What about the Crusades?

I'm not sure that any current living Christians were around then... but feel free to produce a really old guy and prove me wrong. Anyway... if it weren't for the crusades, Indy wouldn't have found the holy grail! If you want to find people advocating killing in God's name then Northern Ireland has quite a few using that excuse.

Quote
QuoteYou should read Ian Kershaw´s biography about Hitler. His first steps about an agressive foreign politic were very very small (like the militarization of the Ruhr), and the Nations league did nothing. A few years after he invaded Poland.

You can't compare the Nazi dictatorship to the Iraqi dictatorship if you're trying to argue that Muslim dictactorships enact bloodshed based upon their culture (which you previously said).

Hitler wasn't a Muslim nor (to my knowledge) was any other member of the Nazi party.

So, how can you first say that Muslim dictatorships enact violence based on their culture and then make a comparison to a non-Muslim dictatorship?

I thought that he was commenting on Hitler's  miitary tactics more than his motivation. To say that someone has drawn a  parallel in motivation therefore they can't compare tactics with someone of a different motivation is just bad logic.

I'm not saying he's right, just that your arguments are logically flawed.
12

DGMacphee

#27
Quote from: SSH on Mon 08/12/2003 12:57:26
I'm not sure that any current living Christians were around then... but feel free to produce a really old guy and prove me wrong. Anyway... if it weren't for the crusades, Indy wouldn't have found the holy grail! If you want to find people advocating killing in God's name then Northern Ireland has quite a few using that excuse.

I was merely pointing out the hypocrasy in trying to portray Christians as innocents.

Besides, you've only just added weight to my initial question with your second point.

Quote
QuoteYou can't compare the Nazi dictatorship to the Iraqi dictatorship if you're trying to argue that Muslim dictactorships enact bloodshed based upon their culture (which you previously said).

Hitler wasn't a Muslim nor (to my knowledge) was any other member of the Nazi party.

So, how can you first say that Muslim dictatorships enact violence based on their culture and then make a comparison to a non-Muslim dictatorship?

I thought that he was commenting on Hitler's  miitary tactics more than his motivation. To say that someone has drawn a  parallel in motivation therefore they can't compare tactics with someone of a different motivation is just bad logic.

No, bad logic is trying to say Bush invaded Iraq because of 9/11.

Besides, he wasn't comparing military tactics -- He was comparing dictatorships, if you'll read his next few lines.

I don't see how it's bad logic to ask for clarification on bringing up the relevance of a non-muslim dictatorship comparison when a) this entire thread is about Muslims and Muslim dictatorships b) he previously stated that attacks by Muslim dictatorships were based upon their culture.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

Nacho

#28
Yes, Crusades were 1,000 years ago. Mentioning the cruzades for telling that we did religious wars make me think:

"Are the muslims so mad/crazy as we were in the Middle age?"

If the answer is "yes" the conclussion is: We have advanced, they haven´t.

Ergo, the lack of confidence by many people in his culture is logical.

And I haven´t said that the 9/11 provocated the war on Iraq. I told that the the strike awakened a feeling: Dictatorial countries are impredictible and they may attack in any moment, that feeling provocated the war (that´s why I deffend a bombing to the Iranian and S. Korean nuclear facilities, and Korea is not Muslim, I think)
Are you guys ready? Let' s roll!

Las Naranjas

ETA
UDA
IRA
Pro Life
Phalange

To rattle off the first few Christian terrorist organistations I can think of.

There are more, in Indonesia and India, but they only kill brown people, so we don't hear about it.
"I'm a moron" - LGM
http://sylpher.com/novomestro
Your resident Novocastrian.

Nacho

#30
First of all:

Falange never was a terrorist group, it was like a armed arm of the Fascist army. It is like saying that The SS were a terrorist cristian group.

ETA: They demand the independence, they are cristians killing cristians.

Tha main motivation of many of others you mentioned was the independence... Which was the motivation of killing 300 people in a disco in Bali? Which one killing 3,000 in Manhattan? Which one 50 in Istambul? I see that my argument shakes when I talk in the "resistence" in Iraq, because we could see some parallelism in the Euskadi situation (occupation--->resistence)

But what Malaysia, Turkey, Argelia... Are they occupated? By who? O_O???
Are you guys ready? Let' s roll!

Pau

#31
I've seen 'Bowling for Columbine' and there is a list of criminal actuations of the USA goverment like giving suppot for dictators against democratic goverments (like in Chile), giving money to the taliban...
You won't see that on the newspaper.
So this is like a crusade, but the motivation isn't religion, but money.

This kind of actuation, make grow the hate against USA in other countries.

The worst of all is that the guilties (governors) get no problems, but the innocent (people) get killed, and the revenge of them (with terrorist attacks or hollywood-like wars) affects people again.

I think it's not a problem of religion, it's money. That's only an easy (and fake)explanation to say muslims are mad and want to explode themselves just for fun and the USA (as a universal judge) must fix it.
paused -- get the startup menu creator (version 1.1) for AGS games. (Use save target as..)

DGMacphee

#32
QuoteFalange never was a terrorist group, it was like a armed arm of the Fascist army. It is like saying that The SS were a terrorist cristian group.

ETA: They demand the independence, they are cristians killing cristians.

Tha main motivation of many of others you mentioned was the independence...

I don't think Pro-Life had anything to do with gaining independence.

You also justify a lot of the actions of Christian groups (i.e. they weren't an actual terrorist group, they were gaining independence, they are only fighting other christians, etc)

Does that mean that a Christian extremist's right to kill outweighs a Muslim extremist's right to kill?

QuoteAnd I haven´t said that the 9/11 provocated the war on Iraq. I told that the the strike awakened a feeling: Dictatorial countries are impredictible and they may attack in any moment, that feeling provocated the war (that´s why I deffend a bombing to the Iranian and S. Korean nuclear facilities, and Korea is not Muslim, I think)

I think this had more to do with the spin-doctoring of the US, and not an 'awakening' of a feeling.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

Nacho

#33
Quote from: DGMacphee on Mon 08/12/2003 14:30:01
QuoteFalange never was a terrorist group, it was like a armed arm of the Fascist army. It is like saying that The SS were a terrorist cristian group.

ETA: They demand the independence, they are cristians killing cristians.

Tha main motivation of many of others you mentioned was the independence...

I don't think Pro-Life had anything to do with gaining independence.

You also justify a lot of the actions of Christian groups (i.e. they weren't an actual terrorist group, they were gaining independence, they are only fighting other christians, etc)

Does that mean that a Christian extremist's right to kill outweighs a Muslim extremist's right to kill?

WHERE ON MY LINES CAN YOU SEE A JUSTIFICATION FOR ANY KIND OF TERRORISM??? MY POINT ABOUT ETA IS A GROUP OF CRISTIANS KILLING CRISTIANS HAS TO BE TAKEN AS "They´re not fighting for religion, their stupid leit-motive is another"

ALL THE TERRORIST ARE A BUNCH OF STUPID SONS OF A BITCH!!!1!! Do you know any terrorist DGMacPhee? I don´t, but  in some Muslims countries the breakdown of people who want to became terrorist is 25% (I.E. Palestinian) That means that there must be one or 2 guys in each family who want to become a terrorist.

I say that there are less Cristian terrorist groups than Islamic... ergo, there are more stupid Muslims than cristians.

That must be caused IMHO for their education, because I don´t think that any race is worst than other by DNA matters.

Now you´ll say that "There is a lot of US schools who have religion as a subject, and they´re so radical as the Islamic terrorists and bla bla bla bla...

So, if you have any doubt I´ll write to you in big capital letters "I DON´T LIKE CRISTIANS RADICAL GROUPS EITHER"

They´re also fool... and if you want me to explain you how ridiculous is for me the existance of God, PM me and I´ll pass you some docs I´ve written about that.
Are you guys ready? Let' s roll!

DGMacphee

#34
Settle down, boy-o!

I was just asking such questions to make sure I understand your point of view.

Don't go all caps-crazy on my ass, man!
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

Nacho

Let me explain myself, point by pint, and say " true" or false"  ;):

I told: 1) Muslims have been educationed in a way that I undestand that can´t be easily undersood by the Occidental culture, The high number of religious terrorist groups they have is an evidence of that.

Las Naranjas replied: There are also a lot of Cristian terrorist groups!

I replied: Many of that you mentioned are not Religious-motived groups.

You said: Are you justifying the terrorist cristians gropus?

I reply: No! I hate all the terrorists, fuck them all! But there are less cristian motived terrorists than muslims.

My question is: Do you agree? Are there more muslim terrorist than cristians?

If you say "yes", we can discuss of how guilty "the occiedental" culture is for that. We could advancein our discussion and even reach to an underastanding.

If you say "No". We´ve reached to an alley and the discussion will end, because for me, there is a FACT that there are more muslims terrorism than the occidentals.
Are you guys ready? Let' s roll!

SSH

Farlancer: It depends on whether you count the US Army as terrorists or not...
12

DGMacphee

#37
What if I say "What difference does it make whether there are or are not more muslim terrorist groups than christian terrorist groups?"

Either way, people are going to get killed.
ABRACADABRA YOUR SPELLS ARE OKAY

DGMacphee Designs - http://www.sylpher.com/DGMacphee/
AGS Awards - http://www.sylpher.com/AGSAwards/

Instagame - http://www.sylpher.com/ig/
"Ah, look! I've just shat a rainbow." - Yakspit

Igor

>>ergo, there are more stupid Muslims than cristians<<
There, there... ::) you see, that's the reason why i don't like religion groups

makri

Quote from: Lance Farlandstrong on Mon 08/12/2003 11:06:09
Yes, makri, the US citizens will probably stop him not re-electing Bush, while in Dictatorial muslims countries nobody would do.

Democracy isn't always the best option. In an ideal world, people should have no saying in who rules and how, as majority of any given nation is without exeption too dumb to know what's good for them. Democracy should never be implemented in Iraq.

As for the U.S., as we can see, one term is plenty enough time for a president to terrorize the rest of the world.
Thud. Thud. Thud. Splat.

SMF spam blocked by CleanTalk