Sometimes the simpliest trolling is the most effective

[Archibald Nixon]

I may give this place a shot this weekend.

I'll have to dig up something appropriately incendiary.

 

[Weevil]

I think this issue would disappear overnight if children were given the freedom to decide if they want to have a sexual relationship with an adult. It's something that should at least be looked into. The legal age of consent varies from country to country so the idea that such a relationship is inherently immoral is a social construct at best. It might even have its benefits, say by helping kids mature faster. They might grow up with a better understanding of such relationships and the divorce rate could go down.

Thanks for reading, excuse me but I don't have time to read all the posts and arguments presented.

Posted, post 232 (for record-keeping).

 

[Weevil]

Their posts:

I can't decide if this is off topic or not, so I'll post it, and ignore me if it's too far away for you guys.

Anyway, I struggled for a long time with rape fantasies. Never about anyone in particular, you understand. I don't walk down streets looking at chicks and thinking 'I'd love to rape her.' I just dabbled in the fantasy side. Bit of badly acted porn here and there, (I wonder how many of you have done the same?) Anyway. It used to freak me out.

"OMG. AM I AN EVIL RAPIST?" (Except a serious moral dillemma, not a silly catchphrase.)

Then I met this girl, lets call her... Cindrella. Anyway, Cindrella confessed to me that she fantasied about being raped a lot. So we met up, and sufficed to say, we got to expriment with a lot of things.
I am since 100% certain that I am not remotely interested in raping "real" people.
Fantasy Rape = Kick Ass.
Real Rape = Nightmare. (Not speaking from experience ya understand, but I don't think any victims will disagree here.)

My point being *ties it back into the topic*

I had rape fantasies. I watched rape porn. I'm a real person, and I could, if I'd wanted to, have attempted to rape any number of women over the years. I didn't, and eventually found a harmless medium to explore my fantasies through.

I fail to see why Pedophiles must be so incredibly different? Have you people not heard of ageplay before? Yes, some pedophiles will rape young children. Some rapests will rape people. That doesn't mean you should lump us all in the same catagory.

-EVERYONE- -COULD- be a criminal. You could be a murderer, a thief, a child molester, or a Presidental Assassin. But last I checked, we live in the world of 'Innocent Till proven guilty' and that thoughts, for the moment, are not crimes, and that we are both responcible, -and- capable, of controlling our own actions.

So...you're supporting child porn.

Sounds like someone is a believer in the Rind Study

I'm sorry that was mean of me, its just I'm a father and I'm very passionate about this subject

No, I am not. And flamebaiting a Mod like that is usually not a bright idea.

Leaving alone the whole who molests children bit (Actually, in most cases it's a close family member), but your "evidence" doesn't show that these molesters had any sort of fantacy beforehand where they worked themselves up to it. Nor does it show why having such thoughts is any different from those who engage in any OTHER kind of fantacy.

Sounds like someone is a believer in the Rind Study

NERVUN can't, on account of being active in the thread, but I can: warned for flamebaiting.

A response to my OP:

I think it's wrong this minority of people is punished simply because some of them can't control their urges and resort to crime to fulfill them. People always talk about the danger to society their criminal members pose but seem uncomfortable with the idea that there are pedos out there who don't molest kids, who try to be good people and who wish they were born different.

I think many of the calls for understanding when it comes to say, homosexuality, would be ignored when it comes to this touchy subject. It seems arbitrary that homosexuality is acceptable but pedophilia is immoral.

I'm not saying it should be acceptable to have your way with kids. Maybe in the future the Japanese will build robots for those people stricken with taboo urges. Then more of them will come out of the little kids closet and we can be more understanding of one another. As it stands, pedophiles are reviled, even when they haven't done anything. Why should they continue to silently suffer?

Thank you for reading.

I love it when advocates for pedos compare their plight to homosexual's plights. It'd work, except there's one huge difference, homosexuals do not advocate having sex with a minor. They tend to advocate having relations, or relationship with a consenting (that's the key word here) adult. Pedophiles are advocating for them to have relations, or relationship with a minor, a person that cannot consent. See it's all about consent, and the law says that children cannot consent to such actions, and to be honest they are right.

Also, you really should check the DSM-IV. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, and these people need help more than anything.

Also, you really should check the DSM-IV. Pedophilia is a mental disorder, and these people need help more than anything.

Paedophiles are not advocating anything. Indeed, homosexuals are not advocating sex with consenting adults of the same sex. Homosexuals are trying to get recognition as equal human beings and appropriate treatment. And why shouldn't we treat paedophiles in the same way? Yes, there is basically no way they can fulfil their sexual desires without harming a child, but why should that matter? We should treat them decently, help them live normal, law abiding lives and if they do give in and hurt a child, we should try them like any other criminal.

Lots of repressed kiddie fiddlers on this site. They can't stop talking about it!

 

[Classic_Forever]

Don't tell me it was Lunatic Goofballs you warned you wasn't he?

 

[Weevil]

If anything, this conversation has made me even more sympathetic towards them.

Pedo!


Cool board. It's like Wordforge but without the jaded bumpkins who spend all day agreeing with one another and scanning for flaws in arguments, and who don't resort to the "U R Troll" salting of the Earth out of fear.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=28963
16 pages, 388 posts. Next thread needs to be inflammatory from the start.

 

[Weevil]

Should races be done away with?

I think that eventually, a species grows intelligent enough to be able to guide its own destiny for the better. That being said I think government encouragement of mixing races should be explored. Every immigrant group arriving in a western country should be assimilated fully and their biological and cultural distinctiveness could be added to a stronger, more unified country, free of racial strife. I think nations which adopt this approach will be more successful in the long run, having a more harmonious society with a better economy and that when nations are done away with entirely people will be more accepting of the idea of having a single human race.

It's my understanding that many nations are now just lines on a map anyway - race, religion, language don't matter when you move to a new country. This would remove one of the last vestiges of antiquated notions of 'us' and 'them' and I think we'd enter a new age of peace and prosperity.

Thanks for reading,
O

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29188

 

[Aquehonga]

hpup:Something tells me nationstates will be TK's numugensarty::hat:

M.U.G.E.N. 2.0:techman:

 

[Classic_Forever]

Cool board. It's like Wordforge but without the jaded bumpkins who spend all day agreeing with one another and scanning for flaws in arguments, and who don't resort to the "U R Troll" salting of the Earth out of fear.

Really? When I and my 6 other accounts were there everyone was lining up to suck on the mods' dicks.

Really. Every time one of my alts got banned there were a million posts praising he who is great because they probably fear the banhammer more than I did (well, clearly).

 

[Marquis De Sade]

I will be infiltrating that board soon.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

I just got the wankers there to start arguing about the validity of WTC's bombing, from Bin Laden's point of view. :bigass:

Some people saw through the obvious troll, but luckily, they were too idiotic and could not conduct a successful anti-troll.

First of all, Salam

I would like to address a major flaw in the rationale of the majority of western people in regards of Arabs and Muslims.

In this thread (http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=28867&start=275), 63% of you people thought it was okay to commit a morally ambiguous act for the sake of the greater good.

By the same token, can we consider "terrorism" really as such ? Most freedom fighters in the Arab and Islamic world (known in the west as "terrorists") are, in fact, committing morally ambiguous acts (like the one 63% approved of, which consisted of torturing a little girl for the sake of saving lives) for the greater good : freeing our lands from Western occupation.

We are not terrorists. But those who invade our lands, belittle our faith, rape our women, and pillage our villages will not be unanswered. The troops occupying Iraq, Afghanistan, who are in cahoot with most Arabic corrupt monarchs, are the real terrorists. Besides, it's your very governments that supported these "terrorists" when they were fighting the Soviet occupation of their lands.

I invite you to suspend your certainties, doubt what is being fed to you, and pressure your governments to fix their errors and change their ways.

I would hardly consider the destruction of the World Trade Center a "morally ambiguous" act.

Beyond that, most Western governments punish members of their own military who commit rape or plunder in time of war. If you know of a case of someone who has committed such acts and not been punished, feel free to communicate that information to the relevant government and - if the evidence supports the accusation - I can guarantee you the individuals responsible will be charged.

That leaves the issue of collateral damage. I would argue that collateral damage done to a legitimate military target in time of war, while undesirable, should not be considered terror if the purpose of the attack was to neutralize the target. Thus, if an insurgent group is operating of a house and the house is attacked, injuries and fatalities suffered by persons not a member of said group, even though regrettable, cannot rightly be considered acts of terror.

That said, those being pursued in Afghanistan are individuals with a military affiliation with groups that have struck at targets that are illegitimate: The American embassies in East Africa, the World Trade Center, the Madrid light rail system, a nightclub in Bali, and so forth. These targets were all attacked with an eye towards producing psychological and morale effects consistent with those spoken of by Leon Trotsky in his seminal book of the subject of terrorism. No amount of semantic manipulation can label them as anything but acts of terrorism, meaning that those who engage in them and their allies are by definition terrorists, and are thus a proper target for military action.

There can be no discussion of giving up efforts to neutralize such groups under the present circumstances: Nothing these groups have done suggests that a cessation of hostilities will lead to an end to such attacks. Indeed, every reasonable expectation speaks to the contrary notion: If we give up and go home, such attacks will both continue and intensify; that is what the leaders of these groups say, and there is no reason for us not to take them at their word.

You don't get to kill us and then blame us for your crimes, while insisting that we simply have to sit there and wait for your next attack, like cattle awaiting slaughter. Life doesn't work that way.

NO, since I think you're cool, I want to play devil's advocate to you here, especially since the OP unsettles me to some extent.

I would hardly consider the destruction of the World Trade Center a "morally ambiguous" act.

Consider it from al-Qaeda's point of view. They may have found it morally good - Afghanistan has been a battleground for third parties since the beginning of modern history, and surely wouldn't it be good, even in compromising one's own morals by committing mass murders, to drive the interlopers from your ancestral lands and put an end to the greater slaughter?

Beyond that, most Western governments punish members of their own military who commit rape or plunder in time of war. If you know of a case of someone who has committed such acts and not been punished, fell free to communicate that information to the relevant government and - if the evidence supports the accusation - I can guarantee you the individuals responsible will be charged.

Hell frickin' yeah. I'm not going to disagree with you on this one: a bunch of Coalitionists raping and pillaging would be pretty hard to miss and I'm confident that most cases of such would have been dealt with by the appropriate authority. Personally, I think this is because we have an inborn moral objection to such, as a whole, but the cynical view is that such stuff is way too big to miss.

That leaves the issue of collateral damage. I would argue that collateral damage done to a legitimate military target in time of war, while undesirable, should not be considered terror if the purpose of the attack was to neutralize the target. Thus, if an insurgent group is operating of a house and the house is attacked, injuries and fatalities suffered by persons not a member of said group, even though regrettable, cannot rightly be considered acts of terror.

Can't this be used against you? al-Qaeda considers itself at war with the United States, even if the Western world recognises al-Qaeda as a terror group rather than a legitimate political entity capable of conducting conventional warfare. As such, their bombing of the World Trade Centre could plausibly be written off as the equivalent of the Allied bombings of German industry in World War II - the World Trade Centre was a trade centre, surprisingly enough, and hitting trade (which they did, but not enough) would slow production, making it easier for al-Qaeda to retaliate against what they see as an equal party in a war situation. The fact that they had to kill three thousand people to neutralise the target would be 'regrettable but unavoidable'.

That said, those being pursued in Afghanistan are individuals with a military affiliation with groups that have struck at targets that are illegitimate: The American embassies in East Africa, the World Trade Center, the Madrid light rail system, a nightclub in Bali, and so forth. These targets were all attacked with an eye towards producing psychological and morale effects consistent with those spoken of by Leon Trotsky in his seminal book of the subject of terrorism. No amount of semantic manipulation can label them as anything but acts of terrorism, meaning that those who engage in them and their allies are by definition terrorists, and are thus a proper target for military action.

I disagree. If we did any of this, even overtly, it would be psychological warfare, not terrorism. I think we're too regimented and too morally certain of ourselves to do it, but I think if we were to do it, we would consider it psychological warfare and write it off as a legitimate operation.

There can be no discussion of giving up efforts to neutralize such groups under the present circumstances: Nothing these groups have done suggests that a cessation of hostilities will lead to an end to such attacks. Indeed, every reasonable expectation speaks to the contrary notion: If we give up and go home, such attacks will both continue and intensify; that is what the leaders of these groups say, and there is no reason for us not to take them at their word.

As with the part on Coalition military courts, I'm not going to nitpick this.

You don't get to kill us and then blame us for your crimes, while insisting that we simply have to sit there and wait for your next attack, like cattle awaiting slaughter. Life doesn't work that way.

Nor this.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29378

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Consider it from al-Qaeda's point of view. They may have found it morally good - Afghanistan has been a battleground for third parties since the beginning of modern history, and surely wouldn't it be good, even in compromising one's own morals by committing mass murders, to drive the interlopers from your ancestral lands and put an end to the greater slaughter?

Afghanistan was under Taliban control at the time of the first Al-Qaeda attacks on the West; if Al-Qaeda had a goal, winning Afghan independence clearly wasn't it.

I could argue - and many others have - that the idea behind the series of attacks that culminated in 9/11 was to draw the United States into open war with Islam so as to destabilize pro-Western Muslim regimes by forcing them to choose between support for the West and support for Al-Qaeda (which had already taken up the absurd position that it was the only legitimate defender of Islam, a joke when you consider how narrow and doctrinally incorrect Al-Qaeda's Wahhabist philosophy is).

Again, this is straight out of Trotsky's book: A revolutionary movement attempts to provoke the authorities, directly or indirectly, into acts when it then labels as "morally ambiguous" so that its own excesses can be whitewashed as "equivalent". The purpose is to legitimize the revolutionary group and delegitimize authority. It focusses, not on military targets or targets that directly support authority (like police stations), but on symbolic targets and high-population or high-use targets where it can achieve a high degree of fear, outrage, and intimidation.

Through these attacks, it seeks to destabilize authority by inculcation psychological isolation and withdrawal in the target populace as well as a sense of the impotence of authority. The idea is to goad authority into questionable action so as to impel it to effectively undermine itself.

If that doesn't perfectly describe what Al-Qaeda did in the run-up to 9/11 and afterwards, I don't know what does.

Can't (the issue of collateral damage) be used against you? al-Qaeda considers itself at war with the United States, even if the Western world recognises al-Qaeda as a terror group rather than a legitimate political entity capable of conducting conventional warfare. As such, their bombing of the World Trade Centre could plausibly be written off as the equivalent of the Allied bombings of German industry in World War II - the World Trade Centre was a trade centre, surprisingly enough, and hitting trade (which they did, but not enough) would slow production, making it easier for al-Qaeda to retaliate against what they see as an equal party in a war situation. The fact that they had to kill three thousand people to neutralise the target would be 'regrettable but unavoidable'.

You'll notice that I did not include the bombing of the Khobar Towers, the Pentagon, or the USS Cole in my list. It could be argued that these were "legitimate" military targets, as military personnel were present at each of them.

Leaving aside the issue of whether the World Trade Center was, in fact, actually a trade center as opposed to simply a large office building, I think we can distinguish between its destruction and that wrought on German cities in World War II (aside from Dresden, which has since come to be widely viewed as an illegitimate military action) on the basis of intent. The WTC was chosen because it offered the high probably of a large body count - period. It was chosen simply because it offered a way to kill as many people as possible as economically as possible. In contrast, modern strategic bombing theory has evolved towards selecting targets and methods based on their actual military and or economic value and the idea that collateral damage should be reduced as much as is feasible given the circumstances.

Had the WTC been destroyed at night or on a weekend, one might have been able to make the case that the attack was essentially an economic one; then too, there were many other targets that could have been hit with the same allocation of resources whose effect on the U.S. economy would have been as severe or even more severe and yet would have produced fewer casualties. No, it's clear that the intention was to terrorize, nothing more and nothing less. Any economic damage done by the attack was largely incidental - indeed, this is a case where it was the economic impact and not the human cost that was "collateral".

I disagree. If we did any of (these sorts of things), even overtly, it would be psychological warfare, not terrorism. I think we're too regimented and too morally certain of ourselves to do it, but I think if we were to do it, we would consider it psychological warfare and write it off as a legitimate operation.

I rather doubt it, both because we define psychological warfare differently (ours tends more towards propaganda), and because we had real problems with the Soviets doing some of the things they did with mines and booby traps in Afghanistan, which would be terrorist actions.

I do not get why the World Trade Center incident is so fetishized in the West. May Allah Bless and Forgive all those who perished in the incident, however, it's kind of disgusting to see people's deaths being used to score political points.

When I hear this, I imagine a 21st Century version of Tokyo Rose pontificating on about how America was "using" Pearl Harbor to score political points.

One's casus belli is not irrelevant in war.

I do not see the the supposed "humanists" who are insistent on condemning WTC incident adamant on condemning the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine by the hands of American and Israeli soldiers. On the contrary, most who condemn "terrorism" approve of the ethnic cleansing Americans and Israelis are committing in the Middle East.

We're committing ethnic cleansing in Iraq and Afghanistan? How? By establishing new governments there to replace the ones we overthrew?

Don't abuse the term; abusing words is the game of cynical people who seek to try and use semantics to win arguments when they have no factual basis for their position. You can't call ethnic cleansing when the United States isn't bringing in people from other countries to replace the lost Iraqis and Afghans; such an accusation is simply nonsensical.

That leaves you with Palestine, where the best you can do is to try and draw a conscious connection between American intentions and Israeli actions, a position that shows both utter naivete and a complete lack of understanding of American politics. If you're trying to claim that America's policy of providing aid for Israel while trying as hard as possible (pre-9/11 - for in discussing one's casus belli, one must focus on the state of affairs at the time of the outbreak of the conflict) to impel the Israeli government towards and negotiated settlement with the Palestinians represents grounds for what was done by Al-Qaeda against the West, you're pursuing a losing argument. If it weren't for American pressure on Israel, most of the progress made towards a resolution of the Palestinian issue between 1975 and 2000 would never have happened.

The real bone of contention between the United States and Al-Qaeda on the Israeli-Palestinian issue is that we always wanted a negotiated settlement as opposed to a second Holocaust against the Jews, which was always Al-Qaeda's position.

But this is all so irrelevant; Al-Qaeda didn't attack the United States on 9/11 because of our policies towards Israel; it attacked because it wanted to trigger a global Islamicist revolution against pro-Western Muslim regimes by provoking the United States into direct military involvement in the Middle East in hopes that this would fuel such an outcome. Israel's treatment of the Palestinians was - and still is - just an Al-Qaeda talking point; those who fight against the United States in Afghanistan don't give a d-mn about the Palestinians; they are simply using them for propaganda purposes.

Hardly. They only "punish" when a scandal gets exposed by the media, for the sake of saving face. Ironic, isn't it, that these "punishments" only reach the low ranking epsilons, and never quite seem to find their way big players. The only people who are truly punishing the occupiers are the freedom fighters, sacrificing their lives for their countries.

First you said we don't punish our people for violating the Uniform Code of Military Conduct; now, realizing that you can't sustain that claim in the face of the fact that a great many soldiers have, in fact, been charged and punished, you are forced to resort to the canard that - because we're not obliging our enemies by gutting our own chain of command with a witch hunt - we're conducting a whitewash.

What this tells me is that you can neither prove your claims that misbehavior is largely going unpunished. nor prove your insinuations that it is part of a systematic strategy of terror initiated higher up in the chain of command. In my book, that constitutes failure.

As for our enemies, how many of their people have been punished for improper behavior in this war?

"collateral damage ?" Is that what they call murdering thousands of innocent citizens nowadays ? If so, do you consider the people who perished in the WTC incident as "collateral damage"?

No to both, for reasons already mentioned.

Your remaining points have already been rebutted and are effectively worthless.

Narodna Odbrana, by unanimous jury decision, has won the thread's "So you think you can Dance ?" competition.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

I would hardly consider the destruction of the World Trade Center a "morally ambiguous" act.

I do not get why the World Trade Center incident is so fetishized in the West.

Then let me explain. The WTC was very symbolic for the West. As well as one of our largest constructions, it was also one dedicated to something many of us feel strongly about: Trade, and it's concomitant enhancement of wealth and quality of life, worldwide. It is my understanding that Islam finds good the concepts of peace and justice. Well, for many of us, the WTC WAS an attempt at just that - peace and justice for everyone, through the medium of trade.

So the WTC attack is seen as an assault on the values the West finds valuable, as well as a direct attack on US citizens on US soil - something no enemy has managed since World War II

May Allah Bless and Forgive all those who perished in the incident, however, it's kind of disgusting to see people's deaths being used to score political points. I do not see the the supposed "humanists" who are insistent on condemning WTC incident adamant on condemning the hundreds of thousands of lives lost in Iraq, Afghanistan and Palestine by the hands of American and Israeli soldiers. On the contrary, most who condemn "terrorism" approve of the ethnic cleansing Americans and Israelis are committing in the Middle East.

Well first, you can cut the outright lies. Israel/Palestine is one thing, but there is no ethnic cleansing going on in Iraq or Afghanistan. There IS an ethnic reorientation going on in Iraq - the Sunni minority aren't being allowed to lord it over everyone else anymore - but that's primarily an issue between Iraqis. If you want to be taken seriously, stop throwing around generalisms that are false and check your facts.

Hardly. They only "punish" when a scandal gets exposed by the media, for the sake of saving face. Ironic, isn't it, that these "punishments" only reach the low ranking epsilons, and never quite seem to find their way big players. The only people who are truly punishing the occupiers are the freedom fighters, sacrificing their lives for their countries.

I think you're meaning "echelons" there. Yes, it IS hard to get at the people at the top who know about things like the Abu Ghraib incident, and that is unfortunate. But it is also true that those members - and they are few - who commit acts against military law ARE punished when their crimes come to light. Western militaries cannot tolerate such things - they are a cancer to good order and discipline.

As to your "freedom fighters" - they are WHY so many people are getting killed, and most of them Iraqis or Afghans. If a US unit comes under fire, they WILL respond - and it is right that they should. Unfortunately, your "freedom fighters" - heck, let's call them what they are, terrorists - don't seem to care about the people they're "defending", since they seem to like attacking from occupied buildings. Not to mention setting off bombs in crowded marketplaces.

There are laws of war. They're set out in the Hague and Geneva Conventions. Now, no military I know of follows them 100% - combat shotguns, use of .50 MGs, Incendiaries, veryone doe s a little bending of the rules. This is generally acceptable. But your terrorists aren't following ANY of them, even the Prisoner of War rules - which is why they, in turn, are not treated as soldiers when caught. Soldiers are held to a standard these butchers haven't even tried to meet.

That leaves the issue of collateral damage. I would argue that collateral damage done to a legitimate military target in time of war, while undesirable, should not be considered terror if the purpose of the attack was to neutralize the target. Thus, if an insurgent group is operating of a house and the house is attacked, injuries and fatalities suffered by persons not a member of said group, even though regrettable, cannot rightly be considered acts of terror.

"collateral damage ?" Is that what they call murdering thousands of innocent citizens nowadays ? If so, do you consider the people who perished in the WTC incident as "collateral damage" ?

No, because there was no possible military reason to attack it. The WTC had no military significance at all. So, the only reason to attack it was to produce thousands of civilian casualties. It cannot be claimed to be a military act at all - instead, like the Bali Bombings and Madrid rail atttacks, it can only be considered premeditated, deliberate mass murder.

That said, those being pursued in Afghanistan are individuals with a military affiliation with groups that have struck at targets that are illegitimate: The American embassies in East Africa, the World Trade Center, the Madrid light rail system, a nightclub in Bali, and so forth. These targets were all attacked with an eye towards producing psychological and morale effects consistent with those spoken of by Leon Trotsky in his seminal book of the subject of terrorism. No amount of semantic manipulation can label them as anything but acts of terrorism, meaning that those who engage in them and their allies are a proper target for military action.

What you are talking about are extreme extreme examples. What I am talking about is a daily, systematic, continuous ethnic cleansing mainly committed by the US and Israeli armies. The latter breeds the former, especially in absence of conventional armies able to retaliate against western aggression.

"Western Aggression". Hm, yeah, right. So, who blew up WHO'S twin towers BEFORE the Afghan War started? Or perhaps you're saying we shouldn't have gotten involved in that little fracas where one Arab state was invading and occupying another one - despite that fact that all the OTHER Arab states were more or less asking us to?

Aggressive is as aggressive does. If you want to be silly, you can go back to the crusades and say we were the aggressor there. But this round is all on you, pal.

There can be no discussion of giving up efforts to neutralize such groups under the present circumstances: Nothing these groups have done suggests that a cessation of hostilities will lead to an end to such attacks. Indeed, every reasonable expectation speaks to the contrary notion: If we give up and go home, such attacks will both continue and intensify; that is what the leaders of these groups say, and there is no reason for us not to take them at their word.

You don't get to invade our lands, desecrate our places of worship, undermine our culture, kill our citizens, rape our women, pillage our national wealth, and steal our oil, while insisting that pulling out may increase hostilities so we'll just have to sit there and wait for your next attack, like cattle awaiting slaughter.

Our next attack?

Or our next retaliation?

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Finally, the views of someone from the Middle East.

Ya, but he's brainwashed.

Ya, but you're brainwashed.

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Salaam,too (seems like almost nobody else here noticed terms of politeness - they´re simply not common in discussion boards)

I´ve got to state, that, as an Atheist, I don´t give a damn about faith, and all those religious "warriors" could go to their believed hells, but I can see and understand your former point - you like to free your homecountry from western (mostly US) influence and occupation, or from some dictatory rulers supported by said western (or, in better words, somehow economical or military interested) nations. You find yourself (or your comrades, or nation, or else) in a state of war against the so-called western culture and civilisations and see you (and your comrades) as a liberation force. This can be accepted somehow, but you must understand, that, while given this state of war, most inhabitants of the nations you´re at war with would (and do) call you the enemy. I, for myself, wouldn´t any of you call more terrorists (well, some exceptions have to be made) than marauding soldiers of the involved nations. War is hell, and war is cruel, as stated by some American civil-war general, and that´s true said. All over history some "terroristic" acts have been performed, and not always by the guerrilla or partisans.

The reason, why western civilisations have (and some still are) been so upset about the WTC-case is, that it clearly showed, how vulnerable our beloved systems actually are, besides the fact, that it shocked a lot of people sitting in their thought well-protected, safe and "far away from every conflict" homes, making them somehow part of an far away supposed war suddenly.

Btw, Americans (as well as Europeans, including myself) should be happy and grateful, that the attack was designed to the destruction of a symbol, and hasn´t been followed by the logical sequel of an biochemical attack or else. To counter any hasty comments on this, does anyone really believe, any security measure taken could stop some suicide terrorists (or freedom fighters, if prefered) from infecting themselves with some nice little infective agents and coming to (ifn´t still living there) a country, thus starting some nice little epidemic diseases ? Just look at the worldwide hystery about swine-flue or bird-flue, you don´t really believe, your government could mela ss up with, lets say, the spreading of the plaque, the cholera, typhus and eboat the same time...

As for the punishment of war criminals I only point a few years back, when Belgium (a sovereign European nation, founding member of the EU, not some third-world banana republic) was forced by the US government to change it´s laws, ´cause it should have had obliged to put George Bush and Dick Cheney under arrest on their visit for heavily violating the law against war-criminals otherwise. Or how about all the Nazis GeStaPo and SS war-criminals having been gone free `cause of being for good use for US secret services in the occuring cold war ?

Sympathizing with terrorists.

Have these liberals/leftists/Obamaniacs no shame ?

 

[Donovan]

I'm formulating an appropriate 'bump' for my... 216 post and rising thread.

Maybe orphans could volunteer their butts to satiate pedophiles? Hmm.

put forth the notion that for an impoverished third-world child, being adopted by a perv would be preferable to starving in the street, and since life isn't as important to them it'd be okay. That'd do it...

 

[Marquis De Sade]

200 replies and counting.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=29378

He is referring to this guy Abu, he is a terrorist sympathizer, and is defending the terrorist, and is most likely involved with them himself.

Which makes me wonder why someone who argues so intelligently would favor such idiotic tactics.

Why do I get this idea that this guy might be an Ebil Mozlem Troll?

My money leans toward authenticity. There are too few grammar mistakes for some kid out for a laugh, but there are enough that it may not be the poster's first language. Odds are the "Salam" at the beginning is worth points for authenticity, but not knowing what it means I can't gauge by how much.

Have you guys been getting hate-PM's, btw ?

 

[Marquis De Sade]

Abu Nizar is at it again.

http://forum.nationstates.net/viewtopic.php?f=20&t=33010&start=0#p1320237

 

[jack]

this whole thread is tl:dr...who gives a fuck?

 

[Loktar]

this whole thread is tl:dr...who gives a fuck?

Marqueer De Sad.