Browse Members |
New Members |
Spiral-Awake 20 year old female London (GB) xXx Pretty girl. Pretty boy. Pretty insane. Pretty fucked up. xXx Instant_Death 20 year old male Сталингра́ What was God doing before he made heaven? Making hell for people who ask stupid questions. Reicher_Massa... 20 year old male Al-revis (US) "Hmmm...I wonder if I can trust my heart to anyone, can I?" AlongCameAshlyn 15 year old female The 810, MI (US) No object is so beautiful that, under certain conditions, it will not look ugly. [more]
|
Author | Message | |||||
|
When did I say you have to murder half of the civilian population to win a war? All I've said was - do anything you can to win. If killing half the civilian population is going to get you a victory then do it. Haven't you played age of empires? -----  | |||||
|
On November 2, 2009, 9:39AM, ILLmortal said: All I've said was - do anything you can to win. If killing half the civilian population is going to get you a victory then do it. Haven't you played age of empires? bahahahahahaha ----- yes we could just be the dream of a gigantic robot doing the backstroke through primordial custard,but if we all lived like that the worlds supply of cannabis would dry up within weeks | |||||
|
On November 2, 2009, 10:38AM, xellence said: On October 31, 2009, 3:01PM, hezekiah said: So, what, you've met them? i grew up in the islamic republic of hammersmith and fulham mate,most of my mates in secondary school were from the swat valley which is southern afghanistan in everything but name Could you be any more full of shit? -----  click! | |||||
|
On November 1, 2009, 5:42PM, nodgene said: I believe the beauty of war is the culling of population. So you've changed the topic from it being "smart" to have to murder half of the civilian population of a nation to be able to win, as opposed to... you know, not needing to and being able to be a competent general... to apparently the civilian casualties being desirable to reduce the population due to overpopulation? What evidence do you have that the logistical concerns wouldn't be met given the need? The same smarts that require the destruction of a large swathe of civilian non-combatants to acquire a military victory? I think that's likely. While we're on the subject of afghans liking the boys. Read this, it is very interesting... and also funny in a very dark way. Article Wow. That article is fascinating lol. And also fits with my hypothesis about sexually oppressed societies exhibiting more extremes of human sexual behaviour, most notably sexual violence but other extremes certainly fit in as well. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Save the environment with frequent Andromeda™ purchases! | |||||
|
On November 2, 2009, 9:50AM, Sgath said: On November 1, 2009, 5:42PM, nodgene said: I believe the beauty of war is the culling of population. So you've changed the topic from it being "smart" to have to murder half of the civilian population of a nation to be able to win, as opposed to... you know, not needing to and being able to be a competent general... to apparently the civilian casualties being desirable to reduce the population due to overpopulation? What evidence do you have that the logistical concerns wouldn't be met given the need? The same smarts that require the destruction of a large swathe of civilian non-combatants to acquire a military victory? I think that's likely. While we're on the subject of afghans liking the boys. Read this, it is very interesting... and also funny in a very dark way. Article Wow. That article is fascinating lol. And also fits with my hypothesis about sexually oppressed societies exhibiting more extremes of human sexual behaviour, most notably sexual violence but other extremes certainly fit in as well. I believe that article actually accentuates the Western culture. Many Western men will have sex with a woman as long as she's not too fat. Facial looks aren't really put into consideration. I've met plenty of people in the Army who will have sex with women just because they have a vagina. Sad, really... We've also over-sexualized the female breast. I'm not sure if that's just a Western thing, though. It probably has more of a modern effect since, through technology, women don't really need to breast feed to keep their children alive anymore, even if breast feeding is the best option there is. ----- Life without knowledge is death in disguise. | |||||
|
How is that related to my post? For that matter, how is aversion to obesity a reflection of Western culture or in any way related to Afghans? I don't understand what you're getting at. ----- click! | |||||
|
Haven't you played age of empires? I have, often. But life isn't AoE. Do you have Aoe3 and the Asian Dynasties? If so... game!! I need fresh meat. We've also over-sexualized the female breast. I always find that idea rather funny, women like their boobs and nipples being fondled as much as men like fondling them. They are sensitive things, and thus have as much erotic potential as say, the lips. But we don't complain about over-sexualising them via things like kissing, which isn't a fundamentally natural thing, it's just a learned behaviour. How is that related to my post? For that matter, how is aversion to obesity a reflection of Western culture or in any way related to Afghans? I don't understand what you're getting at. Perhaps, that since boobies are hidden they are sexualised... which is a bit unrelated to the Afghan example. [This post was last updated on November 2, 2009, 4:46PM by nodgene.] | |||||
|
nipples are also erogenous zones and quite naturally become sexualised. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Love is a BIG RECYCLABLE BOX OF VEGANISM™ | |||||
|
Or in layman's terms, horny spots. | |||||
|
aoe3. Ugh, no thanks. It's just no fun without stone walls and the cavalry. ----- | |||||
|
On November 2, 2009, 10:39AM, Sgath said: How is that related to my post? For that matter, how is aversion to obesity a reflection of Western culture or in any way related to Afghans? I don't understand what you're getting at. Lol. Don't even know why I bother. ----- Your ignorance almost outshines your stupidity. That's rare. | |||||
|
Seriously, me either. If you don't make any sense I have no idea how you expect people to respond to you? ----- click! | |||||
|
aoe3. Ugh, no thanks. It's just no fun without stone walls and the cavalry. Lol, you know aoe3 has both those things, and is in shiney 3d with physics for cannons? No downside. | |||||
|
On October 24, 2009, 7:08PM, nodgene said: Terrorism is a criminal matter, not a military one. So no. well, no. terrorists are basically paramilitary. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
On November 2, 2009, 2:38PM, xellence said: On October 31, 2009, 3:01PM, hezekiah said: So, what, you've met them? i grew up in the islamic republic of hammersmith and fulham mate,most of my mates in secondary school were from the swat valley which is southern afghanistan in everything but name Which would mean they would probably not admit their peadophilic tendencies.... I worked in the Jungle, Calais, home of the single largest Afghan immigrant population in Europe, and met more Afghans than you've probably seen on TV. I've heard of the culture of "beautiful boys" but to call these guys crappy Muslims is absolute shit. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Sorry. The forums are under maintenance, please call one of our Phone Operator in Malaysia for more infomation. | |||||
|
On November 3, 2009, 6:06PM, rlc said: On October 24, 2009, 7:08PM, nodgene said: Terrorism is a criminal matter, not a military one. So no. well, no. terrorists are basically paramilitary. No. Paramilitaries are very different. Hezbollah, al Shabab, or Hamas soldiers use Paramilitary tactics, but Al-Queda cells working in US, or UK, or Al-Aqsa Martyrs in Israel, to bomb civilians are not. They are plotting mass homicide, a criminal problem. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: All our decisions are scrutinised for impartiallity by our very own DS Bureaucracy Probes™ who are proven in our conclusive studies to be 99.9% conclusive. | |||||
|
paramilitary doesn't depend on tactics, but maybe i should've clarified what i meant. if you're timothy mcveigh or that kid who shot up v-tech, you're not paramilitary, but you're definitely a terrorist. if you're attacking the enemy of your country or starting a revolution and use terrorism, you're paramilitary. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
paramilitary doesn't depend on tactics, but maybe i should've clarified what i meant. if you're timothy mcveigh or that kid who shot up v-tech, you're not paramilitary, but you're definitely a terrorist. if you're attacking the enemy of your country or starting a revolution and use terrorism, you're paramilitary. "Paramilitary" as a term denotes quasi-legality, as such often organisations such as coast guard or border guards are referred to officially as paramilitary. The same can be said for any secret police organisations or rebel groups. The Virginia Tech massacre wasn't terrorism, it was just mass-murder. Terrorism is defined by its inherently political intent. The man that did that wasn't doing it for a greater cause, he was just rebelling against society, that doesn't make it terrorism per say. McVeigh on the other hand was a terrorist, as he planned and justified his attacks primarily on the basis that he wanted to force political change against the US government. His exact wording was something similar to it being a "pearl harbour" as he liked to think. The problem as I see it, is that terrorists for the most part in the western sense where there are free and fair democratic processes to resolve disputes are probably mentally ill in some form. Their actions are based on anger problems or a disconnection from reality, which is why they act out as they do. Put those in a mix with the fuel of nationalism and belonging to a group which encourages and orders such acts... the justification for such psychosis becomes inevitable, and sadly reaches political levels of acceptance. By treating terrorists as soldiers, even if somewhat so, you are feeding their psychosis and false belief that they are in any way legal. By tackling them as they are, a mental issue and a civilian matter of criminals with a sexed-up amount of weapons, you are reducing their potential recruitment ability and support. If you justify their "war" as they see it, they will be able to use that against you. If "soldiers", are supposed to be para-military or proper military, then they should adhere to the rules of war and Geneva convention. If they do not they fall into two categories; war criminals or terrorists. War criminals tend to be ones who are under a legally accountable military-political body, and simply commit atrocities under orders, or do so and then the state ignores them for political reasons. Paramilitary in the sense would accurately be soldiers working for a quasi-legal authority who are still classifiable as soldiers... they are accountable to generals working under a civilian leadership that is related to a legal-executive authority, (and the military hierarchy is NOT a Junta of any sort) that means that their actions are accountable to a body that seeks legitimacy. And as a result, they are by nature limited in what they can do, and answerable if they do wrong. Terrorists however are not accountable to anyone, and simply glorified criminals with mental issues and a legitimacy complex. That's how I see it anyway. | |||||
|
Definitions of paramilitary on the Web: * of or relating to a group of civilians organized to function like or to assist a military unit wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn so basically, by definition, paramilitary are civilians. terrorists who belong to terrorist organizations are obviously organized to function like military units. that's not saying that they're anything like the coast guard, but that they can be classified as paramilitary. ----- insert nerdy signature here | |||||
|
Would you of counted Che Guevara and his Guerilla columns in Bolivia, Cuba, and the Congo paramilitaries, or terrorists? They definitely didn't attack civilians... I also think it's very hard to define terrorists within some conflicts. Some aspects of Hezbollah, Hamas, and Fatah are or were terrorist in nature, but similarly they also served predominantly paramilitary roles. Largely, Fatah and Hamas sought to destroy military/police targets, but groomed, and supported those "mentally ill" Palestinians who wanted to blow themselves up. (Most suicide bombers previously had no previous history of fighting/joining the Fighters). Some News agencies don't even refer to anyone, save groups who just plant themselves the middle of cities trying to bomb them/cause huge casualties, as terrorists. Al Jazeera for example calls Al-Queda, or the Pakistani men who attacked the Indian Taj Mahal Hotel, terrorists, but calls Hamas, Hezbollah, al-Shabab, FARC, or Al-Houthi, fighters. ----- DS Bureaucracy™: Locking this thread in about 4 minutes |
| Last 10 Members to View This Thread | |
| Name | Time |
| suckit | Nov 12, 2009, 5:43PM |
| rlc | Nov 12, 2009, 12:58PM |
| nodgene | Nov 11, 2009, 8:49PM |
| ImAWhat | Nov 10, 2009, 5:31PM |
| Sgath | Nov 10, 2009, 10:49AM |
| xellence | Nov 9, 2009, 1:47PM |
| Pine.Orange.Fruit.Drink | Nov 9, 2009, 5:14AM |
| Kashikoi | Nov 8, 2009, 12:12AM |
| i_dont_die | Nov 7, 2009, 11:05PM |
| Tapioca | Nov 7, 2009, 12:17PM |
DarkStarling Forums, v.0.8 (Virgo) © 2005 |