WEEKEND TICKETS GOING FAST!

PRICES GO UP AT THE GATE

PURCHASE TICKET
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
The April 5th Video
Scientist Moderator
digs 
52086 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
27 / M
Offline
Posted 4/9/10

DomFortress wrote:


digs wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


digs wrote:

This is incriminating, but justified. Here is an article about it http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/video-appears-forces-firing-unarmed-suspects-baghdad/.

The soldiers though, and very may have well been fighting terrorists. Civilian casualties will always happen, and if these men did wrong they will be tried with murder in a court marshal. The army has rules. Terrorists are criminals though, the should all be killed.


War is not justified in the bible in the first place.


Self defense is justified, murder is not justified, but war is.
It's all the same as killing off members of the same specie for political gain, you as a biologist of all people should know that for yourself better than anyone. Shame on you.


Justified wars are for defense and to eradicate evil. It's not the same as just killing, its defense and the eradication of wicked rulers. If you want to look at net deaths one could say killing off dictators who slay their millions should all be warred against because the net total deaths would be less. On the contrary, sometimes war is the only option. If you don't go to war you are conquered and destroyed by an enemy.
Posted 4/9/10

digs wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


digs wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


digs wrote:

This is incriminating, but justified. Here is an article about it http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/video-appears-forces-firing-unarmed-suspects-baghdad/.

The soldiers though, and very may have well been fighting terrorists. Civilian casualties will always happen, and if these men did wrong they will be tried with murder in a court marshal. The army has rules. Terrorists are criminals though, the should all be killed.


War is not justified in the bible in the first place.


Self defense is justified, murder is not justified, but war is.
It's all the same as killing off members of the same specie for political gain, you as a biologist of all people should know that for yourself better than anyone. Shame on you.


Justified wars are for defense and to eradicate evil. It's not the same as just killing, its defense and the eradication of wicked rulers. If you want to look at net deaths one could say killing off dictators who slay their millions should all be warred against because the net total deaths would be less. On the contrary, sometimes war is the only option. If you don't go to war you are conquered and destroyed by an enemy.
War was always profitable via exploitation of others -by me

And when the main exports of war are fear and panic due to senseless deaths and killings, the bible itself became the one and only scare tactics ever composed by God, IMO.

Which BTW you've yet to prove your claim of why the order of killing civilians can be justified.
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

amersfoort wrote:

What is the exact difference between war and murder?
If a soldier dies does his family not cry for him?
War involves murder and violence, wich should always be avoided and never be tolerated, even war out of self-defense is a ridiculous statement, are you not the attacker when you create a pre-emptive strike?
Exactly, otherwise the first lesson in self-defense 101 would've been "waste that mufu", instead of "run like you've never ran before".(citation)
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

digs wrote:

Justified wars are for defense and to eradicate evil. It's not the same as just killing, its defense and the eradication of wicked rulers. If you want to look at net deaths one could say killing off dictators who slay their millions should all be warred against because the net total deaths would be less. On the contrary, sometimes war is the only option. If you don't go to war you are conquered and destroyed by an enemy.


Well then this war isn't justified because it wasn't for defensive purposes, like every other one of the US's wars in the last couple of decades.

And speaking of evil dictators who kill millions, the US has been putting those into power and giving them all the money and military aid they want since WW2. Including Saddam Hussien. One f the worst was Suharto of Indonesia, who the US even supported throughout the East Timor genocide he was committing where the US provided 90% of the arms he used.

And not just dictators of course, many military and repressive regimes in general that commit horrifying human rights violations and don't allow their people to develop have all been put into power and fully supported by the US all over the world.
Posted 4/9/10

Yei wrote:


digs wrote:

Justified wars are for defense and to eradicate evil. It's not the same as just killing, its defense and the eradication of wicked rulers. If you want to look at net deaths one could say killing off dictators who slay their millions should all be warred against because the net total deaths would be less. On the contrary, sometimes war is the only option. If you don't go to war you are conquered and destroyed by an enemy.


Well then this war isn't justified because it wasn't for defensive purposes, like every other one of the US's wars in the last couple of decades.

And speaking of evil dictators who kill millions, the US has been putting those into power and giving them all the money and military aid they want since WW2. Including Saddam Hussien. One f the worst was Suharto of Indonesia, who the US even supported throughout the East Timor genocide he was committing where the US provided 90% of the arms he used.

And not just dictators of course, many military and repressive regimes in general that commit horrifying human rights violations and don't allow their people to develop have all been put into power and fully supported by the US all over the world.
However, that's more or less the international diplomacy applied by both the US as well as the former USSR during the Cold War era.

Furthermore, since the developing countries back then didn't have universal public education -and many of them still don't even 'til this day forth- there isn't an unified understanding of civility and compassion as the social norms for a secular society, among the local residences of those said nations.

This leaves that aside from a total takeover of the local culture within those developing nations, an easier method of instilling order is through the use of brute force and display of military prowess became the natural alternative. Kinda like no true respect without understanding, while scaring the public into behaving certain ways with fear is still accepted by the local custom. And the proof lies in the fact that all those military dictators were originated from the locals, they weren't Americans nor Russians.

Keep in mind that I'm by no means disagreeing with you, but I just want you to see my perspective. That for better or worst, when the end didn't justify the means, it's still ultimately the thought that counts.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

DomFortress wrote:

However, that's more or less the international diplomacy applied by both the US as well as the former USSR during the Cold War era.


Yes obviously, but it goes way beyond the Cold War, the US has been spreading its empire intensively since the end of WW2 until now, and already had the same policies with South and Central America a century before.


Furthermore, since the developing countries back then didn't have universal public education -and many of them still don't even 'til this day forth- there isn't an unified understanding of civility and compassion as the social norms for a secular society, among the local residences of those said nations.

This leaves that aside from a total takeover of the local culture within those developing nations, an easier method of instilling order is through the use of brute force and display of military prowess became the natural alternative. Kinda like no true respect without understanding, while scaring the public into behaving certain ways with fear is still accepted by the local custom. And the proof lies in the fact that all those military dictators were originated from the locals, they weren't Americans nor Russians.


And why didn't they have universal public education? Why weren't they developed in general? Imperialism. So even worse imperialism isn't the solution. I don't understand your point here, are you trying to show some sort of justification for putting in dictators and military regimes that torture everyone in the country?

And actually many countries could have done very well independently after decolonization, but the US and other imperialist powers wouldn't allow it.Certain African countries are the only ones I can see as falling apart easily post-colonially, which was counted on by the leaving imperialist forces so they could continue imperialism even after they left. And the regimes installed and supported later on made sure things kept getting worse. But other countries all over the world have been desperately struggling for independence and could of developed very easily, but that can't be allowed by the US empire. Especially in Latin America.



Keep in mind that I'm by no means disagreeing with you, but I just want you to see my perspective. That for better or worst, when the end didn't justify the means, it's still ultimately the thought that counts.


Ok, the thought was imperialism and the US did it by any means necessary. Probably the most destructive means of building an empire of all time.
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:

However, that's more or less the international diplomacy applied by both the US as well as the former USSR during the Cold War era.


Yes obviously, but it goes way beyond the Cold War, the US has been spreading its empire intensively since the end of WW2 until now, and already had the same policies with South and Central America a century before.


Furthermore, since the developing countries back then didn't have universal public education -and many of them still don't even 'til this day forth- there isn't an unified understanding of civility and compassion as the social norms for a secular society, among the local residences of those said nations.

This leaves that aside from a total takeover of the local culture within those developing nations, an easier method of instilling order is through the use of brute force and display of military prowess became the natural alternative. Kinda like no true respect without understanding, while scaring the public into behaving certain ways with fear is still accepted by the local custom. And the proof lies in the fact that all those military dictators were originated from the locals, they weren't Americans nor Russians.


And why didn't they have universal public education? Why weren't they developed in general? Imperialism. So even worse imperialism isn't the solution. I don't understand your point here, are you trying to show some sort of justification for putting in dictators and military regimes that torture everyone in the country?

And actually many countries could have done very well independently after decolonization, but the US and other imperialist powers wouldn't allow it.Certain African countries are the only ones I can see as falling apart easily post-colonially, which was counted on by the leaving imperialist forces so they could continue imperialism even after they left. And the regimes installed and supported later on made sure things kept getting worse. But other countries all over the world have been desperately struggling for independence and could of developed very easily, but that can't be allowed by the US empire. Especially in Latin America.



Keep in mind that I'm by no means disagreeing with you, but I just want you to see my perspective. That for better or worst, when the end didn't justify the means, it's still ultimately the thought that counts.


Ok, the thought was imperialism and the US did it by any means necessary. Probably the most destructive means of building an empire of all time.
Insofar, I've counted at least 7 words directly relating to the methodology of "imperialism" from your reply. If I didn't know any better I would've assume you're in love with it.

Therefore would you at least consider the fact that if those dictators didn't adapted the imperialist methodology, they wouldn't had been there in the first place because it's all they know. due to their own custom and cultural influences. While at the same time both the US and the USSR were waging a cultural war of capitalism vs communism, with the Cold War era itself as the background. In other words, both superpowers were not at peace with one another, even without a direct invasion on their respective home-front.

So ultimately the rationale isn't imperialism, but the simplest fact that there are those who think and behave like they're at war. If not on a cultural level than at least on an economical or philosophical level, whatever that floats your boat. And in time of war, progress is measured via profit gain through exploitation of others; the total opposite of peace.
6717 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
M / Earth
Offline
Posted 4/9/10 , edited 4/9/10

DomFortress wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


digs wrote:

This is incriminating, but justified. Here is an article about it http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/video-appears-forces-firing-unarmed-suspects-baghdad/.

The soldiers though, and very may have well been fighting terrorists. Civilian casualties will always happen, and if these men did wrong they will be tried with murder in a court marshal. The army has rules. Terrorists are criminals though, the should all be killed.


War is not justified in the bible in the first place.
Actually, there were several biblical references in the Old Testament of how kings and lords conducted "holy wars" and even ethnic genocides, all in the name of God; a supernatural being of no real natural relevancy.


There were. Joshua did that and he massacred everyone living (even plants and animals) inside Jericho. But Christians focus now more on the New Testament which is more peaceful than the old.
52 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
29 / M
Offline
Posted 4/9/10

digs wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


digs wrote:


BrylleNoGotoku wrote:


digs wrote:

This is incriminating, but justified. Here is an article about it http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2010/04/05/video-appears-forces-firing-unarmed-suspects-baghdad/.

The soldiers though, and very may have well been fighting terrorists. Civilian casualties will always happen, and if these men did wrong they will be tried with murder in a court marshal. The army has rules. Terrorists are criminals though, the should all be killed.


War is not justified in the bible in the first place.


Self defense is justified, murder is not justified, but war is.
It's all the same as killing off members of the same specie for political gain, you as a biologist of all people should know that for yourself better than anyone. Shame on you.


Justified wars are for defense and to eradicate evil. It's not the same as just killing, its defense and the eradication of wicked rulers. If you want to look at net deaths one could say killing off dictators who slay their millions should all be warred against because the net total deaths would be less. On the contrary, sometimes war is the only option. If you don't go to war you are conquered and destroyed by an enemy.


This is why I think some Christians are funny they want to shoot first and ask questions later. They don't give a damn about the bible they are to stuck on what their extremists masters at their churches preach to them. Christians would want to nuke a country and don't give a damn about how many civilians they kill because to them civilians always die and this is a normal thing. This is why I dislike fake religious people. They are not peaceful. When you so called Christians take the peace aspects of your religion seriously then maybe I will start liking religious groups again.
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 4/9/10

DomFortress wrote:


Insofar, I've counted at least 7 words directly relating to the methodology of "imperialism" from your reply. If I didn't know any better I would've assume you're in love with it.


Imperialism is the whole point of neocolonialism, which is the subject we're discussing. I don't see your point here.


Therefore would you at least consider the fact that if those dictators didn't adapted the imperialist methodology, they wouldn't had been there in the first place because it's all they know. due to their own custom and cultural influences.


Yes... to be part of the imperialism they would have to adapt it, good point. It's not "all they know," that doesn't mean anything. It has nothing to do with customs or cultural influence, it's just the nature of human civilizations and of power in the world.



While at the same time both the US and the USSR were waging a cultural war of capitalism vs communism, with the Cold War era itself as the background. In other words, both superpowers were not at peace with one another, even without a direct invasion on their respective home-front.


It was an imperialist war, that was the whole purpose of the Cold War; the US can't pursue imperialist interests with independent communist or socialist states, so they can't be allowed.

And yes... I'm aware of what happened during the Cold War. It seems like you're just reciting what you know on the issue from a high school history class.



So ultimately the rationale isn't imperialism, but the simplest fact that there are those who think and behave like they're at war.


What? The reason for the Cold War, and all the neocolonialist activities of both super powers was imperialist control of the world. This statement makes no sense, the neocolonialist policies are simply because they "think and behave like they're at war"? What?


If not on a cultural level than at least on an economical or philosophical level, whatever that floats your boat. And in time of war, progress is measured via profit gain through exploitation of others; the total opposite of peace.


Imperialism is oppressive cultural, economic and social control of another country. It seems like you just described that. And then it seems like you're stating random, obvious facts.
Posted 4/9/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:


Insofar, I've counted at least 7 words directly relating to the methodology of "imperialism" from your reply. If I didn't know any better I would've assume you're in love with it.


Imperialism is the whole point of neocolonialism, which is the subject we're discussing. I don't see your point here.


Therefore would you at least consider the fact that if those dictators didn't adapted the imperialist methodology, they wouldn't had been there in the first place because it's all they know. due to their own custom and cultural influences.


Yes... to be part of the imperialism they would have to adapt it, good point. It's not "all they know," that doesn't mean anything. It has nothing to do with customs or cultural influence, it's just the nature of human civilizations and of power in the world.



While at the same time both the US and the USSR were waging a cultural war of capitalism vs communism, with the Cold War era itself as the background. In other words, both superpowers were not at peace with one another, even without a direct invasion on their respective home-front.


It was an imperialist war, that was the whole purpose of the Cold War; the US can't pursue imperialist interests with independent communist or socialist states, so they can't be allowed.

And yes... I'm aware of what happened during the Cold War. It seems like you're just reciting what you know on the issue from a high school history class.



So ultimately the rationale isn't imperialism, but the simplest fact that there are those who think and behave like they're at war.


What? The reason for the Cold War, and all the neocolonialist activities of both super powers was imperialist control of the world. This statement makes no sense, the neocolonialist policies are simply because they "think and behave like they're at war"? What?


If not on a cultural level than at least on an economical or philosophical level, whatever that floats your boat. And in time of war, progress is measured via profit gain through exploitation of others; the total opposite of peace.


Imperialism is oppressive cultural, economic and social control of another country. It seems like you just described that. And then it seems like you're stating random, obvious facts.
War is war and it's still just war, no matter how you wanted to call it otherwise. Therefore it was you who didn't get the point, when the topic of this thread is about war, not your unrealistic ideology. While all I did was framing an outlook for a culture of war.

Or do you honestly think that people who want peace for humanity would still adapt imperialism? Just what exactly do you think the nature of humanity truly is?
Yei
9137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
117
Offline
Posted 4/10/10 , edited 4/10/10

DomFortress wrote:
War is war and it's still just war, no matter how you wanted to call it otherwise. Therefore it was you who didn't get the point, when the topic of this thread is about war, not your unrealistic ideology. While all I did was framing an outlook for a culture of war.

Or do you honestly think that people who want peace for humanity would still adapt imperialism? Just what exactly do you think the nature of humanity truly is?


You're not making any sense at all (big surprise), and it seems like you don' t know what you're talking about (bigger surprise). But I could be wrong, and you could just be a little ignorant on these issues, so I'll still try to respond seriously.


War is war and it's still just war, no matter how you wanted to call it otherwise.


I'm not sure what you're referring to here, the Cold War, the Iraq War? And I don't know what your point is either, no one's trying to call anything otherwise. Wars have reasons behind them, believe it or not.


Therefore it was you who didn't get the point, when the topic of this thread is about war, not your unrealistic ideology. While all I did was framing an outlook for a culture of war.


You had no point. My unrealistic ideology? I didn't even say anything about my ideology, I was just stating the facts about history. You didn't frame an outlook for anything.


Or do you honestly think that people who want peace for humanity would still adapt imperialism?


I don't know why you always put "or" at the beginning of these random, strange statements. Obviously no.



Just what exactly do you think the nature of humanity truly is?


What does this have to do with anything? The nature of humanity is different the nature of human civilization.


Dom, if you are not familiar with these issues and their history, which seems to be the case, don't keep pretending that you are. I don't want to waste my time having to respond to a ton of bull like always.
Posted 4/11/10 , edited 4/11/10

Yei wrote:


DomFortress wrote:
War is war and it's still just war, no matter how you wanted to call it otherwise. Therefore it was you who didn't get the point, when the topic of this thread is about war, not your unrealistic ideology. While all I did was framing an outlook for a culture of war.

Or do you honestly think that people who want peace for humanity would still adapt imperialism? Just what exactly do you think the nature of humanity truly is?


You're not making any sense at all (big surprise), and it seems like you don' t know what you're talking about (bigger surprise). But I could be wrong, and you could just be a little ignorant on these issues, so I'll still try to respond seriously.


War is war and it's still just war, no matter how you wanted to call it otherwise.


I'm not sure what you're referring to here, the Cold War, the Iraq War? And I don't know what your point is either, no one's trying to call anything otherwise. Wars have reasons behind them, believe it or not.


Therefore it was you who didn't get the point, when the topic of this thread is about war, not your unrealistic ideology. While all I did was framing an outlook for a culture of war.


You had no point. My unrealistic ideology? I didn't even say anything about my ideology, I was just stating the facts about history. You didn't frame an outlook for anything.


Or do you honestly think that people who want peace for humanity would still adapt imperialism?


I don't know why you always put "or" at the beginning of these random, strange statements. Obviously no.



Just what exactly do you think the nature of humanity truly is?


What does this have to do with anything? The nature of humanity is different the nature of human civilization.


Dom, if you are not familiar with these issues and their history, which seems to be the case, don't keep pretending that you are. I don't want to waste my time having to respond to a ton of bull like always.
Keep your condescending rhetoric to yourself, when I don't think you would like someone else to speak to you in that mannerism either. So why even bother? Unless you're here to argue with a negative and therefore bias mentality.

And when war and imperialism both have the same reason; for profit gain via exploitation of others. You're the one who couldn't see that the cause of war as well as imperialism is therefore one and the same; there are those who think and behave like they're at war.

Furthermore, when all you did was repeating the same hate speech of yours on imperialism without you offering any realistic solution, your own rhetoric became the unrealistic ideology because of your own obsession on imperialism with your own hatred. And the proof is you didn't even know how education is the key to understanding, when all you wanted to talk about was your own personal war and hatred against imperialism(citation).

So keep your own feelings in check, otherwise your own hatred will be the only humanity that's left within you. When you think the nature of human civilization is a history of war, while reality shows otherwise.

"Hatred leads to bias opinions, or do you think that compassion and understanding can result from hate?" -by me.
770 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
26 / F / In your closet
Offline
Posted 4/11/10
i cant watch it D= forgot my youtube account XD
Posted 4/11/10

yuna_265 wrote:

i cant watch it D= forgot my youtube account XD
Here's the website that host all the research documents about the incident.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  5  6  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.