Spite
-
Posts
949 -
Joined
-
Last visited
-
Days Won
5
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Blogs
Posts posted by Spite
-
-
Establish a Dioist theocracy
-
1
-
-
Secrete underground bunkers are still a good place to...
1) Conduct command and control.
2) Hide high value targets.
3) Store weapons/supplies/money.
And, secrete tunnels are still good...
1) Escape routes.
2) Backup supply lines (in case of siege).
3) For concealing troop movement (I'm talking infantry not tanks).
Even if the country is not yet occupied.
The first two yes. The third one, not really. You don't need to store weapons or supplies in a big hole in the ground, if you lose air control and your military bases get bombed, you've already lost.
Escape routes or just routes to a C&C fair enough, though it's worth noting that most C&C or whatever aren't in bunkers deep underground but are just in ordinary buildings.
Backup supply lines? For what? What do you mean by a siege? We're past the age where you have a siege really. Tunnels aka the ones hamas builds are built because they have zero ground control, in other words they're for people who have lost air control already and are already beaten conventionally.
How many infantry do you think you can fit in a tunnel? I mean the only times that sort of thing would be useful would be to pass a super fortified point - like the Korean DMZ. Most countries don't have such a point so it's overkill. With air support you just move infantry overland in APCs.
-
Not practical, first of all if your tunnel has entrances straight enough for a missile to fly out, they're straight enough for bombs to go down. Secondly it's one thing having a few mud tunnels a few metres underground. It's another constructing whole road networks underground. For reference, the crossrail tunnel currently being built in the UK to house a new underground line is just 13 miles long and cost £15 billion and took 7/8 years to build
-
You don't win a war hiding in tunnels, they're only any use when the country has already been occupied, in which case your only hope is to force a stalemate by making the war to expensive to be worth continuing. I love it when people say that vietnam won the war. Normally when you win a war, your enemy doesn't emerge with zero infrastructure damage whilst your country is reduces to ashes and you have to live in a tiny mud tunnel to survive.
-
1
-
-
Dioist star and crescent is an essential addition. In green.
-
1
-
-
There are people I can't trade with because we "share a network" but unless someone is living in my cupboard that I don't know about we must have crossed networks in a cafe, restaurant or airport. This worries me.
-
1
-
-
The bolded & underlined section was probably due to the fact that most people thought you were all "Douche-Nuggets" and nothing more.......most people probably still do.
That's fighting talk
-
Err, close
Bayt Al-Maqdis means The Holy City
It doesn't mean that, but that is how it is used.
-
Jerusalem is Al-Quds, Al-Maqdis refers to the second temple in Jerusalem (holy house). Just as a point of fact.
-
I was going to say the same thing, but I realized that was exactly his (poorly conveyed) point. If murder, a type of killing "is" moral then all types of killing "is" moral, or not immoral.
I don't know what you mean, that isn't a logical following. If A does not equal B, and A is always C, it does not follow that B is always C. If murder is always immoral, and murder does not equal killing, then killing is not necessarily always immoral.
If the debate is whether killing is always immoral, that is a different question, and has an equally obvious answer - killing is not objectively moral or immoral, it depends on context.
-
Is it non-existent?
It has happened. It has happened close to me. Granted it was not a trans-gender who committed the act but opening up any excuse for a predator to strike and have the law behind them does create a cause for concern.
Well there is a 99.8% chance it won't be someone transgender. If you were to punch a little old lady using the bathroom she's equally likely to be a pedophile than a random transgender person.
I find it strange people are happy to share a bathroom with a gay person but not a transgender person.
Also not all transgender people are obviously transgender. I think that people imagine a drag queen, when in reality I think a fair few trans people you'd never know they were trans unless they told you. For example, if this guy walked into the bathroom and used a cubicle, I seriously doubt anyone would bat an eyelid:
Yet he was born as a woman.
-
Kill does not equal murder.
Murder is a word which implies a moral judgement has already taken place.
Ergo murder is wrong by definition. If it was not wrong, it would not be murder.
-
3
-
-
I don't think people who talk about bathroom stalls think very clearly:
1. There is no evidence to suggest trans people are more likely to be pedophiles than anyone else.
2. Around 0.2% list their gender as trans.
3. 99.8% of pedophiles therefore still presumably urinate and use bathrooms which children use.
4. Not all pedophiles are heterosexual.
5. Around 3.5% of people identity as lesbian, gay or bisexual
6. Rates of convinced pedophiles heterosexual: homosexual is 11:1, or around 9%
7. Therefore statistically your child is 30 times more likely to be abused by a homosexual in the correct bathroom than by a transgendered person in the "wrong" bathroom for their biological sex.
In addition most predators are known to their victims. The chances of a random molestation in a bathroom is pretty low. If the trans people are pedophiles then what's to stop them molesting someone in the "correct" bathroom? It's such a weak argument.
-
2
-
-
Why pre-emptively blame me of being prone to dismiss your potential metrics when you have made the funny claim that "it is indisputable that Iraq is more democratic now?" You can bring any statistics you would like; I am sure there will be ones we can agree on. I don't see how the example of Germany helps your case given that the Weimar Republic gave way to Hitler (whoops, Godwin's law invoked for a second time). We can discuss how democracy can endogenously develop in a country in another debate, since it is not really related to the current discussion. I think we both agree that imposing democracy top-down in states like Iraq simply do not work, let alone the fact that it is a resource rich country, which inevitably suffers from the Dutch disease.
The fact that Iraq is ruled by the Shia cannot be explained by demographics. According to this survey the Shia-Sunni numbers are 55% to 45%. Do we observe a roughly 55%-45% distribution of power? No. So we debunked that. As for whether it is a dictatorship or not, please tell me what has actually changed. Things might have changed on the paper, but what has actually changed? If you see elections as a source of justification, even Saddam had them. They were sham elections, just like the current ones are. The Shia are showing favoritism for their own just as much as Saddam did for Sunnis back in the day. Actually, it has been mentioned by experts many times that ISIS was fueled by disillusioned Sunnis who felt that they were no longer represented in the new government, and joined ISIS to restore Iraq even though they weren't religious fundamentalists. Hell, even the architect of the ISIS's organizational patterns and strategies was a former Baathist who was an atheist (I think there was an article about this in a German magazine/newspaper; I forgot the name).
Even if we used Freedom House's metrics, the democracy score has improved from 7/7 to 6/7. Even Rumsfeld thinks it didn't work. Give me a break.
Disproportionate control of legislature is also a matter of the electoral system. In the UK, the conservatives polled 36% of the vote but gained over 50% of the seats.
In most cases the ruling party in Iraq has needed to form coalitions to establish a government. There have been periods where both sunni and Shia parties have not participated in legislature by boycotting it. Obviously a significant chunk of Iraq is currently not under the control of Baghdad, that makes democracy a difficult process.
As I said the country is a very young democracy and has faced a lot of challenges. With the right support, it has the potential to grow stronger. A legitimate opposition doesn't exist because a significant proportion of the opposition is in the field shooting at the government.
However the government is by no means a monopoly. It relies on kurdish votes for its majority (KDP) and PUK/Gorran are in opposition. Quite a lot of power is devolved regionally.
The framework is there for it to improve, when before that was an impossibility. Whether it will or not will probably be something determined over decades of peace.
-
Mensa was considered established within a month or two of arriving, enough that people in the established alliances started to plot against us anyway. It's not about score, it's about community and staying power. That can be something obvious from the start, like NPO, or something that grows over time.
-
1
-
-
One of my fave swedes had an Algerian dad and was technically muslim, though she was white as a sheet. Definitely not practicing though. Let's not generalise.
The counterargument to OP is simple.
1. We do not have a population problem, so enforcing restrictions on people having children past one is unnecessary. If anything the birth rate is low.
2. Applying this to one race is racist. China might be comfortable with widespread racism but we're not.
3. I don't see how an increase in mixed race children will resolve the current issues with racism, it never has in the past.
4. You're assuming black and Asian people would respond to such a law by increasing their current rate of marriage or sex with white people. I don't see what incentive there is for them to do that.
This is a stupid argument.
-
4
-
-
Restoring the liberty of a previously existing nation from foreign invasion is one thing (your WW2 examples), invading and enforcing "regime change" (which reads replacing the guy in power with your own puppet) is something completely different. You see many people with my thoughts criticizing the US for Iraq and Afghanistan, yet you don't see them criticizing the first Gulf War. These are completely different beasts.
No, it is quite disputable that they are more democratic and more liberal. How are we going to measure democracy and freedom? By using the metrics Freedom House provides? The more pro-US you are, the more points you score even if you are led by a repressive dictator. If you are not thinking of Freedom House and making your own statements, please explain how Iraq is more democratic now? In the past it was Sunnis oppressing the rest. Now it is the Shia oppressing the Sunnis, and Kurds being semi-independent in the north. Is this the democracy you are talking about?
Any metric I use will obviously be dismissed by you as being corrupted by western influences or whatever, so I'm not sure how I can argue with you further about this. Democracy in Germany was barely fifteen years old when it began to be eroded in '33. I'd hardly say that it was an established doctrine waiting to resurge. Most people alive in 45 in Germany would have been born in either a kingdom or a fascist government. Similarly most of Western Europe was under various quasi-democratic systems and gradually evolved into full democracies post-WW2.
Vis-a-vis Iraq, the demographic fact that there are more Shia than Sunni, combined with tribalist politics, leads to a Shia dominated parliament. However it is unequivocally NOT a dictatorship. There are elected parties which are in competition. It is somewhat divided by religious lines, but arguably that is situational due to the deep sectarian violence in the country at present. It doesn't mean that this will *always* be the case. And what is the alternative? Dictatorship? Division? Iraq is a democracy with deep issues facing it, but it's no longer a dictatorship. Therefore it is unarguably more democratic than it was before. Despite deep corruption issues, which plague all countries in the middle east, it has a legal system which on paper is fair and just, and a constitution which enshrines basic rights and duties. In other words, it has a framework to build on. It's not fair to judge the success of Iraqi democracy in the long term when it is a mere 12 years old and has been faced with a civil war for most of that period.
Let's get back on track of the OP.
To add to the debate: IF it were the other way around, OP, would you have the same feeling/opinion on the matter? Remove the fact that USA is a world power. US citizens are what we call "terrorists" bombing/shooting/killing Iraqi people in their places of businesses and Iraqi Military Forces are now invading USA/France/England...etc to route out terrorism.
What would your feelings/opinions on that be?
Another thing that I'd like to bring up is that most wars are media driven. We see, sitting at home eating dinner, people getting shot and murdered all the time - even in our own neighborhoods. Death is obviously very hard to deal with - but we are very desensitized to the act of war - some of us were born in the era of war (2001) and only know war. It might not be at our door, but it has been taught, televised, and presented to us.
Carry on.
You sure it's appropriate to use your mod account for this kind of post?
-
Those arguments, while good on paper, would hold more water if (1) bombing the country and replacing a government actually extended human rights to people who don't currently have them (they didn't in Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya, etc. and I know of no example where you could claim otherwise), and (2) if extending the human rights was not achieved by violating the human rights, especially the right to live, of millions of people (non-whites, so pseudo-people.)
No one is claiming terrorism is OK. The question is how the people who bear the culpability for causing the deaths of millions are not punished or even condemned in any meaningful way. I don't see the perpetrators of the invasion of Iraq being punished for violating the human rights of millions. Do you?
Invoking Godwins so early is probably a bad idea, but the original example of a liberal democratic intervention to liberate the population and reinstate democracy and freedom and so on was WW2. I understand that few people would argue that Iraq or Afghanistan were ideal democracies, or particularly great on the human rights front. However it is indisputable that both are more democratic and more liberal with more enforcement of human rights than was true under previous governments. These things take time. I'm playing devil's advocate here, I personally don't believe that anything positive comes from forcing views onto others that way.
-
My post is a slight alteration of this one. I thought of white and brown, and first-worlder and third-worlder, but this one seemed more to the point.
It isn't supposed to be a real comprehensive post. The purpose is just to highlight that "Universal Human Rights" is nothing but a hoax. Rights and democracy are only possible between equals. Among the citizens of first world countries, those rights might be protected. If you are a third-worlder vs a first-worlder, you have no rights, because you are not equal. The same with animals. They might be living creatures that feel pain, but they are not equal. The only rights they will ever get is charity rights bestowed on them by compassionate first-worlders.
I see, I didn't really read that post originally. I would agree that rights are bestowed not inherited, and that what provides those rights is something man made (a legal framework). One of the many arguments for a just war is to extend human rights to people who don't currently have them, by for example bombing their country and replacing their government.
Humans are emotional creatures. If you are constantly bombing people and they see no way out of the death & murder all around them.... they will do anything to put a stop to it.
It's more or less the same reason why America nuked Japan twice (aiming for population centres to kill the maximum amount of people).
Once the US VS THEM mentality set's in: People don't distinguish civilian from military. They just want the shit to stop.
The bombings in Japan weren't terrorism because they were done by a state- another criteria for terrorism is that it's done by a non-state actor. Terrorism by states is a war crime and a whole different barrel of cats. Also I refuse to believe that ISIS terrorists believe that "they want the shit to stop" or that they're the victims of imperialism. A fairly big chunk of them aren't even from the war zones they're fighting in. Some of them lived in the West.
Although I do agree that personal terrorism is a pointless activity and doesn't accomplish anything, the idea that the citizens of an imperialist state are innocent when their governments use military force to bomb foreign countries, is at best naive. In post-WWII Germany for example the government embraced the concept of national responsibility, and that the people themselves were partially responsible for WWII and the Holocaust because they either supported the Nazi's or they were apathetic and didn't do anything when people in their own villages were arrested by the SS. Putting the entire blame on "the politicians" is ridiculous.
People don't vote for a war, at least they don't in the UK. They vote for representatives who make that decision.
In addition, targeting civilians is recognised as a war crime both inside and outside of conventional warfare. Plenty of insurgents target military facilities (the IRA for example did for the most part target british police/military).
In a situation of total war it is common to target civilians to hurt the enemy war effort, it doesn't stop it being absolutely immoral- something recognised by almost all countries.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/6/60/ICC_member_states.svg
-
If you bomb their people, kill their families, their pets, everyone they ever knew, and then they come for you with a bomb-laden truck.... don't you dare call them a terrorist.
Except that's a ridiculous argument, since the victims of terrorism didn't kill anyone (for the most part), and terrorism is a description of methodology and is non-negotiable in definition, whatever the stupid adage says. A terrorist is someone who deliberately targets a civilian population or target with the goal of creating political and social instability through terror, for political goals.
-
2
-
-
I don't think all the victims of 9/11, the London bombings and the Paris shootings were white, so I don't think skin colour has as much to do with it as a feeling of territorial clannishness, where people feel a closer empathetic connection to those most like them in their lifestyle and surroundings, and by extension are made most afraid when those people like them are subject to sudden and inexplicable bouts of violence.
I also think that considering the amount of anti-war protesters around the Iraq war, it's not fair to say that people "don't care".
-
1
-
-
-
>talks shit
>gets hit
>talks more shit
I wonder what will happen?
-
1
-
-
If mensa didn't have at least some allies it could rely on we would be screwed.
Muhammad Sex Simulator 2015
in General Debate
Posted
1. They do exist
2. A bunch of retards with machine guns aren't divine
I'm bored of all the troll accounts on this shit forum