[Tiara]

Originally posted by Maeglamor
[color=66ff00]Tiara I would advise that you don't attempt to argue with CP, he has unique and extremist views on pretty much everything and just enjoys arguing for the hell of it.

I have to admit that at the current time I am anti US. Mostly because Bush and pals really don't care what the rest of 'the free world' think. They'll fabricate, lie and cheat their way into war if necessary.

What's worse a small terrorist organisation that brainwashes a few thousand people into doing violent, horrific acts or a corrupt government that attempts to force entire countries into war?
[/color]

I see, but still, I like to argue with ppl with a different conviction. It lets me see both sides. After that I can make a more fair judgement about the topic at hand.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by CP5670
And since the more capable the terrorist the higher its chances are of victory, that's a good thing.

Well, actually, the US is not the more capable terrorist state here. See, terrorism is not about killing, it's about instilling terror - and even though the US can, and have (or will, since it's not over yet) kill more people on their retaliation for the World Trade Center attacks, it won't come even close of instilling on their enemies the kind of terror that said enemies caused on the US population. They expected the retaliation, and were somewhat prepared for it, while the attacks against the US were a complete surprise.

[an0n]

Originally posted by Styxx
Well, actually, the US is not the more capable terrorist state here. See, terrorism is not about killing, it's about instilling terror - and even though the US can, and have (or will, since it's not over yet) kill more people on their retaliation for the World Trade Center attacks, it won't come even close of instilling on their enemies the kind of terror that said enemies caused on the US population.

....................No. Terrorism is about one country deciding that they want to torture prisoners of war, and to avoid declaring a state of war and thus subjecting themselves to the Geneva Convention, they declare the enemy to be terrorists.

Some would call them Guerilla fighters. Freedom fighters even.

They are being persecuted by America for following their religious beliefs. The Nazi's tried to do **** like that and ended up being portrayed as the biggest psychopaths of all time.

[Styxx]

Originally posted by an0n
....................No. Terrorism is about one country deciding that they want to torture prisoners of war, and to avoid declaring a state of war and thus subjecting themselves to the Geneva Convention, they declare the enemy to be terrorists.

Some would call them Guerilla fighters. Freedom fighters even.

They are being persecuted by America for following their religious beliefs. The Nazi's tried to do **** like that and ended up being portrayed as the biggest psychopaths of all time.

Now you're mixing two very different things. Terrorism has as main objective coercion through terror. War has as main objective the defeat or conquest of the opponent. Now we'll argue if the World Trade Center attacks were an undeclared act of war or a terrorist action.

[an0n]

See, this is why I make no distinction between terrorists and soldiers.

Simple fact is, people are fighting, people are dying and they don't need to be.

[CP5670]

Well, actually, the US is not the more capable terrorist state here. See, terrorism is not about killing, it's about instilling terror - and even though the US can, and have (or will, since it's not over yet) kill more people on their retaliation for the World Trade Center attacks, it won't come even close of instilling on their enemies the kind of terror that said enemies caused on the US population. They expected the retaliation, and were somewhat prepared for it, while the attacks against the US were a complete surprise.

Well, I did not say that they were more capable (which may or may not be true), but rather that having the capability to kill more guys is an asset. The thing is though, this terror is somewhat short-lived, and after a few years of repeated "terror incidents," people tend to get adjusted to it. Terror can be used effectively, but it has to be done sparingly or it does not work as well (don't hit them often, but when you do, hit them hard). Rather, the other important thing that counts is the skillful use of propaganda; whichever party can convert men more effectively to their ideology (and thus gain followers) will also have an advantage.

Simple fact is, people are fighting, people are dying and they don't need to be.

Right, but then again, people are sitting in chairs and they don't need to be, but it is neither practical nor desirable to make any attempts to prevent it just for its own sake.

[an0n]

True. But if you've got nothing better to do, you might as well be trying to stop a war.

[CP5670]

But all of us do have something better to do: math! forget about the world and join me in the search for multifactorial formulas!

[an0n]

I would, but I've gotta go kill some Iraqi's.

*grabs a semi and walks off into the desert*


*likes irony*

[Rictor]

CP you do too much math, you're mind is too rational

according to you, killing 1000 people is the same as sitting on a chair..its not..you are assuming that no morality exists to tell us: killing is wrong..

I have to assume that killing, pillaging etc  (all the things normally associated with evil) are bad. If you say that whoever is the most capable wins, you reject all the principles of fairness, honour, morality, justice etc

You have to have some sort of good/bad scale, to be able to gauge the actions of yourlself and those around you. You cant just say: killing is not good or bad, it just is

btw I was not saying anyone is absoulutly good or bad, I was saying that the 2 sides must be accepted to exist

The US is (for now) the most capable to impose themselves on the world. Does that mean they are the best? no. Again, those who kill ( and then present it as heroism) are not good. I understand that the world is not fair, but it should strive to be.

oh and BTW, the thing about dictators (whoever brought up the point about the Iraqis electing Saddam etc) is that they  dont step down because you ask them to. you think bush would not do the same if he thought it would benefit him? The reason he doesnt to it is becuase he can gain more through the lies and illusions he sells the US public then through force. I cannot blame the Iraqi people for Saddam, or his actions. And they cant very well just go againts thousands to armed soldiers..

What you dont understand is that attacking a nation only strenghtens the people's love of the leader. I remeber in Yugoslavia (where I'm from, though I live in Canada) when NATO started bombing us, we didnt care about Milosevic's past transgretions (yugoslas hate him btw, he messed us up royally), we were united as a nation and that included the  prez. If you want the change the current ruler,  it has to come from within.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Tiara


Then go watch the 9/11 attacks and tell me you found it funny.

But you know what? I had to watch that, over....and over...and over, for a very long time. Didn't you? I mean even though you aren't from the US I'm sure you watched thousands of Americans die. You didn't sit back and go "Weeeee, look at the little Yanks get blown to bits" But you watched it. But you'll decry this video, is it because they're snickering on camera?

People getting killed IS NOT funny. I don't care if you say everyone has its own likes and dislikes. Taking peoples lives and making fun of it is just wrong.

Now I don't recall anyone here thinking it's funny, least not in their posts. Now if you mean the servicemen in the video, um, they are at war remember? They didn't just decide to blow these people up.

 "Hey Bob, what are you doing Friday?" "Nothing, why?" "Well I got an idea..."

These people are at war.... lemme say that again, a war. Those people are going to die whether they are giggling or crying their eyes (would you rather they be crying?) The fact that they enjoy it is up to them.

Also remember who these people are, these aren't Tom, Dick, and Harry (or their Arab equivilant) out for a bite to eat.

So yes I do take a little morbid chuckle at guys in pickup trucks getting blown away by a plane god knows how high up. They lost any sympathy they had from me a long time ago, these are not innocent guys off the streets. If you wanna go to their funeral, knock yourself out, but I won't lose any sleep.

[Warlock]

Originally posted by Rictor


What you dont understand is that attacking a nation only strenghtens the people's love of the leader. I remeber in Yugoslavia (where I'm from, though I live in Canada) when NATO started bombing us, we didnt care about Milosevic's past transgretions (yugoslas hate him btw, he messed us up royally), we were united as a nation and that included the  prez. If you want the change the current ruler,  it has to come from within.

Hmmm Desert Storm......hmmmm countless Iraqi soldiers surrendering in order to get food....hmmmm nope doesn't fit a single bit of what you just said bout them loving Sadam more because of war.

I mind honestly ... does the average person think "Ya know ... if we just ignore those guys a liiiiiiiiiiittle bit longer ,... maybe they'll be nice. "

*shrug*

Then again everyone's entitled to their own opinion......... even the guys in the video giggling while dumping ammo.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Rictor
CP you do too much math, you're mind is too rational

according to you, killing 1000 people is the same as sitting on a chair..its not..you are assuming that no morality exists to tell us: killing is wrong..

Well then, where outside our own beliefs tell us that killing is wrong. Cause as far as I know it's our own value on human life that tells us that.

I have to assume that killing, pillaging etc  (all the things normally associated with evil) are bad. If you say that whoever is the most capable wins, you reject all the principles of fairness, honour, morality, justice etc

"All's fair in love and war" And it's true, there is no 3rd party morality that everyone agrees on. Might is right. People don't to war for causes they think are morally wrong. Your morals are no better or worse than anyone else.

You have to have some sort of good/bad scale, to be able to gauge the actions of yourlself and those around you. You cant just say: killing is not good or bad, it just is

No, but he can say "Killing my mom is bad, killing Osama Bin Laden is pretty good" And somewhere out there ol' Bin Laden is saying "Killing me is bad, killing his mom is good" Both are right, it's all relative.

btw I was not saying anyone is absoulutly good or bad, I was saying that the 2 sides must be accepted to exist

Well if they must be accepted, what are you arguing about? You accept that killing them is viewed as good by certain people.

The US is (for now) the most capable to impose themselves on the world. Does that mean they are the best? no.

Best at what? Imposing themselves? You just said they are. Treating everyone equally? I don't remember the US being required to babysit the world fairly. Whether they want to babysit or not is up to them.

Again, those who kill ( and then present it as heroism) are not good. I understand that the world is not fair, but it should strive to be.

I'm gonna go tell my grandfather that when he fought Nazis, he wasn't a hero, he was a bad bad man (because of course the opposite of good is bad, it can't be neutral)

oh and BTW, the thing about dictators (whoever brought up the point about the Iraqis electing Saddam etc) is that they  dont step down because you ask them to. you think bush would not do the same if he thought it would benefit him? The reason he doesnt to it is becuase he can gain more through the lies and illusions he sells the US public then through force. I cannot blame the Iraqi people for Saddam, or his actions. And they cant very well just go againts thousands to armed soldiers..

Lemme ask you, what will Bush have in 10 years that Carter didn't get? Or Reagen, or Clinton?

 To say "you think bush would not do the same if he thought it would benefit him? " is silly and pointless. I would do it if it benefited me, so would you, so would anyone. If being a dictator helped foward your own goals, whatever they may be, world peace, stable economy, army of the undead, whatever, you'd do it. So telling us Bush would is stupidly obvious.

And to restate, they are not trying to kill or otherwise hurt Iraqi citizens. Even in Bush's own little world, he is not behind his desk thinking of ways to kill them. He's not not after the people, he's after Saddam. If Saddam wants to use his own people as a shield, blame Saddam.

What you dont understand is that attacking a nation only strenghtens the people's love of the leader. I remeber in Yugoslavia (where I'm from, though I live in Canada) when NATO started bombing us, we didnt care about Milosevic's past transgretions (yugoslas hate him btw, he messed us up royally), we were united as a nation and that included the  prez. If you want the change the current ruler,  it has to come from within.

Ok? So they'll love him....until the US kills him. I think they can live with that, if the Iraqi people will miss Saddam's loving tender care, something is wrong somewhere.


Whew! I type a lot

[an0n]

I gots no problems with people bombing the **** out of each other, as long as they're doing it for absolutely no reason and just testing their bombs.

Hiding behind morales and the defence of freedom is what pisses me off.

[Stryke 9]

This is bull****.

Death happens. It'll happen to all of us, it'll happen to everyone we know. Sometimes it happens in nasty ways. So?

I, for one, wouldn't be entirely surprised if I found myself on the wrong end of one of these guns one day- in fact, my surprise would largely be that I'd gotten to such heights. That doesn't mean I'm gonna get all weepy for every war casualty that ever happened, American, Taliban, Communist, or anything else- sometimes a valuable life is lost, and sometimes it's inconvenient, but I'm not gonna get morbid and shy away from death every time it happen. It's simply what happens when people get together. Treating it in some excessively formal way or hiding from the fact of death and screeching like a little old lady in tennis shoes whenever a hint of it is not treated like the most horrible event on the face of the ****ing Earth is just plain stupid. It's being intellectually and emotionally lazy, adopting morbid social conventions for the mere sake of being one of the crowd, and comes as a corollary to inability to accept one's own mortality.

Weapons are tools used primarily to kill people. If you can't get used to it, you need to grow up- you don't have to like weapons, but don't run around crying because they fulfill their ****ing purpose. Hell, you're in a forum for a game that, among other things, envisions weapons far deadlier than anything that exists now, and portrays death on a grand scale- maybe you should boycott the game.

Or do you only care for IMAGINARY weapons? Are you just into them as play-pretend? Well, I got news for you. This is what weapons are like, and this is a slightly padded sample of what war is like. It's nasty, it involves death, it's been the primary occupation of humans ever since we took up making tools. If you can't abide the reality, have the common sense to avoid the fiction as well, and go take up Tetris.

[CP5670]

[e]CP you do too much math, you're mind is too rational[/size]

why don't you do that too; then you will be able to think like me...

according to you, killing 1000 people is the same as sitting on a chair..its not..you are assuming that no morality exists to tell us: killing is wrong..

Well, suppose that my morality dictates that we not sit on chairs because it is evil to do so. How is it any more correct than your morality which says that killing people is bad? As Blue Lion said, there is no way to single out any set of ethics as better than any other, so none are absolutely true.

Now let us look at this from a more practical viewpoint. It really depends on who those 1000 are, but I think the 1000 we are talking about here are much the average people, which are in fairly great abundance. 1000 out of 6 billion (or even in the US alone, 270 million) is quite a small number, especially considering how fast they reproduce. If they are 1000 people that are harder to replace and/or more vital to the operation of the society, then it would be a bigger deal.

I have to assume that killing, pillaging etc (all the things normally associated with evil) are bad. If you say that whoever is the most capable wins, you reject all the principles of fairness, honour, morality, justice etc

Exactly, and this is my whole point. Those nations who do reject these things and free themselves of unnecessary constraints have a better chance at winning; you can have all these principles for yourself, but you will be overrun by those who do not but are equal to you in other respects. In the real world, given a choice between being an good and honorable loser or an unfair and evil winner, I would take the latter any day.

You have to have some sort of good/bad scale, to be able to gauge the actions of yourlself and those around you. You cant just say: killing is not good or bad, it just is

But that is the truth. Just trying to avoid it is not changing it, and you are not going to do as well in the practical world if you go by such things as absolute truths.

btw I was not saying anyone is absoulutly good or bad, I was saying that the 2 sides must be accepted to exist

eh, that means the same thing...

The US is (for now) the most capable to impose themselves on the world. Does that mean they are the best? no. Again, those who kill ( and then present it as heroism) are not good. I understand that the world is not fair, but it should strive to be.

Well, the harsh reality is that it is not, regardless of what it "should" do, and the unfair guys tend to be the ones coming out on top as evidenced by history (although they are good at making people think that they are actually fair ).

Then again, there is the question about what exactly "fairness" is. One could say that sitting on chairs is unfair too, both to the chair and to the people who don't have chairs.

What you dont understand is that attacking a nation only strenghtens the people's love of the leader. I remeber in Yugoslavia (where I'm from, though I live in Canada) when NATO started bombing us, we didnt care about Milosevic's past transgretions (yugoslas hate him btw, he messed us up royally), we were united as a nation and that included the prez. If you want the change the current ruler, it has to come from within.

But that is perfectly fine, because the main objective is not to make people dislike him, but rather to just get him out of power there. It would be necessary to do that if Iraq was too powerful to attack but must be still eliminated, but that is not the case here.

[Tiara]

Originally posted by Blue Lion


But you know what? I had to watch that, over....and over...and over, for a very long time. Didn't you? I mean even though you aren't from the US I'm sure you watched thousands of Americans die. You didn't sit back and go "Weeeee, look at the little Yanks get blown to bits" But you watched it. But you'll decry this video, is it because they're snickering on camera?

Now I don't recall anyone here thinking it's funny, least not in their posts. Now if you mean the servicemen in the video, um, they are at war remember? They didn't just decide to blow these people up.

 "Hey Bob, what are you doing Friday?" "Nothing, why?" "Well I got an idea..."

These people are at war.... lemme say that again, a war. Those people are going to die whether they are giggling or crying their eyes (would you rather they be crying?) The fact that they enjoy it is up to them.

Also remember who these people are, these aren't Tom, Dick, and Harry (or their Arab equivilant) out for a bite to eat.

So yes I do take a little morbid chuckle at guys in pickup trucks getting blown away by a plane god knows how high up. They lost any sympathy they had from me a long time ago, these are not innocent guys off the streets. If you wanna go to their funeral, knock yourself out, but I won't lose any sleep.

Meh, watched that video once or twice, the rest was either outside or behind my comp. It was nasty but nothing compared to the thousands that starve to death because of the western greed. I was sorry it had to happen, but at times they were just begging for an attack.

Ever been to Africa? No? Well then don't say that 9/11 was worse. It WASN'T. I've been there, I've seen people starve with my very own eyes. They fight for survival EVERY day. I tried to help them, but alone I couldn't. In my opinion (NOTE: opinion here not fact) no life, especially those of the ignorant western ppl, are worth more then their lives.

And WTF? Have you ever read what I wrote? Ok, the funny was probably a bad word, but what I meant (and wrote several times) is that it shouldn't be used to be proud of or just show off.

Do that and you'll eventually have more terrorist attacks as they will hink you guys "enjoy" watching them die.

[CP5670]

Ever been to Africa? No? Well then don't say that 9/11 was worse. It WASN'T. I've been there, I've seen people starve with my very own eyes. They fight for survival EVERY day. I tried to help them, but alone I couldn't. In my opinion (NOTE: opinion here not fact) no life, especially those of the ignorant western ppl, are worth more then their lives.

Nobody is saying that it is worse; I cannot recall seeing that anywhere in the thread. It was just another event like any other. And who exactly are these people and why are they so important? Are they top-level scientific researchers or something that are in short supply?

Also, enough of this opinion bull; we want hard facts here. I might as well say that "it is my opinion that 2+2=5."

And WTF? Have you ever read what I wrote? Ok, the funny was probably a bad word, but what I meant (and wrote several times) is that it shouldn't be used to be proud of or just show off.

I already told you why that claim is pretty hypocritical. Why not? It is no better or worse than being proud of anything else.

Do that and you'll eventually have more terrorist attacks as they will hink you guys "enjoy" watching them die.

We do, just as they enjoy watching us die; simple as that. But the terrorist attacks will of course continue in the coming years regardless of what the US does; 9/11 was just an insignificant beginning.

[Blue Lion]

Originally posted by Tiara


Meh, watched that video once or twice, the rest was either outside or behind my comp. It was nasty but nothing compared to the thousands that starve to death because of the western greed. I was sorry it had to happen, but at times they were just begging for an attack.

So their lives are worth less? Because they're better off, it's not as bad if they die?

Ever been to Africa? No? Well then don't say that 9/11 was worse. It WASN'T. I've been there, I've seen people starve with my very own eyes. They fight for survival EVERY day. I tried to help them, but alone I couldn't. In my opinion (NOTE: opinion here not fact) no life, especially those of the ignorant western ppl, are worth more then their lives.

And I ask again, the lives of poor Africans are worth more because they're poor? This makes no sense

And WTF? Have you ever read what I wrote? Ok, the funny was probably a bad word, but what I meant (and wrote several times) is that it shouldn't be used to be proud of or just show off.

Why should they not be proud? It's what they do right? It's their job, I expect them to be proud of their work.

Do that and you'll eventually have more terrorist attacks as they will hink you guys "enjoy" watching them die.

Hey, if they wanna try again, I'd have no problem with the government doing what they do.

[Kamikaze]

Oh yum, another debate on morality

I'll join in once I finish this stupid poetry work...