Do you think Europe's problems with Muslims will be America's one day?

[SSSnail]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Use google to research the history of attacking civilian targets if that's too confusing.

So according to you, if this is a "war", then civilian casualties are acceptable? You wouldn't then mind if we turn the whole middle east into a parking lot?

/patently watches hypocrisy unfold

 

[agent00f]

So according to you, if this is a "war", then civilian casualties are acceptable? You wouldn't then mind if we turn the whole middle east into a parking lot?

/patently watches hypocrisy unfold

That's more or less what we already do to the extent that it's politically viable. For example, it used to be carpet bombing civilians was SOP but dastardly intl leftists made that out of bounds.

 

[Jaskalas]

That's more or less what we already do to the extent that it's politically viable. For example, it used to be carpet bombing civilians was SOP but dastardly intl leftists made that out of bounds.

Not sure Syria or Russia got that message. Only expensive wars are fought with smart bombs. Otherwise you still hollow out a city if you're not a rich empire.

 

[techne]

The two are not mutually exclusive. Use google to research the history of attacking civilian targets if that's too confusing.

Total nonsense. A geometrical figure may also be a triangle. Geometrical figures and triangles are not mutually exclusive. A plumber may also be married. Plumbers and married men are not mutually exclusive.

But it's impossible to be a civilian and also a military at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

I'm not surprised. People who support terrorism are obviously not very fond of logic.

 

[agent00f]

Total nonsense. A geometrical figure may also be a triangle. Geometrical figures and triangles are not mutually exclusive. A plumber may also be married. Plumbers and married men are not mutually exclusive.

But it's impossible to be a civilian and also a military at the same time. They are mutually exclusive.

I'm not surprised. People who support terrorism are obviously not very fond of logic.

You don't need to define what mutually exclusive means, you need to google the history of civilian targets in war as instructed.

Also, you're confusing logic here with rhetoric, an example of which is your wordplay in lieu of basic knowledge of the world.

 

[techne]

You don't need to define what mutually exclusive means, you need to google the history of civilian targets in war as instructed.
Also, you're confusing logic here with rhetoric, an example of which is your wordplay in lieu of basic knowledge of the world.

On the contrary, I need to define whatever is needed to show that you do not know what you're talking about.

I have found in Google lots of kids being sent as human bombs and being exploded by terrorists. In that case, they were not "civilian targets", only war instruments. Do I need to Google something more or that's enough?

 

[agent00f]

On the contrary, I need to define whatever is needed to show you do not know what you're talking about.

War and civilian targets aren't mutually exclusive. The problem is you're simply too stupid to figure out why, not that I don't know what exclusive means.

I have found in Google lots of kids being sent as human bombs and being exploded by terrorists. In that case, they were not "civilian targets", only war instruments. Do I need to Google something more or that's enough?

That's because you only read right wing news, which is not the same thing as google, a search engine. Since you evident can't use google, here are some brief instructions based on the words you quoted: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=history+of+civilian+targets+in+war

BTW, it would also be beneficial for you to know that I'm probably not the first reasonably intelligent you've run across; the others just weren't charitable enough to explain such simple things.

 

[techne]

War and civilian targets aren't mutually exclusive. The problem is you're simply too stupid to figure out why, not that I don't know what exclusive means.

That's because you only read right wing news, which is not the same thing as google, a search engine. Since you evident can't use google, here are some brief instructions based on the words you quoted: http://lmgtfy.com/?q=history+of+civilian+targets+in+war

BTW, it would also be beneficial for you to know that I'm probably not the first reasonably intelligent you've run across; the others just weren't charitable enough to explain such simple things.

Hey, why you're still talking about me? Let's talk about you. It's a much more interesting subject. You're so powerful and clever! Let's do the following: I will ask you a few questions in order to understand (at least a tiny bit) of the wonder you are. Deal?

 

[agent00f]

Hey, why you're still talking about me? Let's talk about you. It's a much more interesting subject. You're so powerful! Let's do the following: I will ask you a few questions in order to understand (at least a tiny bit) of the wonder you are. Deal?

Frankly figuring how how to use google isn't extraordinary, amazing as it might seem to some.

 

[techne]

Frankly figuring how how to use google isn't extraordinary, amazing as it might seem to some.

You're so great and generous! I have just a few questions. Here we go.

1) How much they pay to have someone hanging out in forums?
2) Do they have some sort of manual of any kind?
3) How do they call this kind of activity? It is called "disinformation war"? Or they really believe in whatever they say?
4) What they're supposed to do if a dog barks while they're typing?

I would like to ask you a lot of more things, but I want to be sure to ask something you will be able to answer. Thanks again!

 

[techne]

You're so great and generous! I have just a few questions. Here we go.

1) How much they pay to have someone hanging out in forums?
2) Do they have some sort of manual of any kind?
3) How do they call this kind of activity? It is called "disinformation war"? Or they really believe in whatever they say?
4) What they're supposed to do if a dog barks while they're typing?

I would like to ask you a lot of more things, but I want to be sure to ask something you will be able to answer. Thanks again!

Hey, you may want to skip the question number three. I don't mind, it is a bit complicated indeed. Thanks for your cooperation!

 

[agent00f]

This is a new & politics forum, where people with those interests congregate to discuss/debate said topics. The reality is some of them are going to be shitty at it, as to be expected of anything where skill rests on a curve. One of those them is you, whose only remaining purpose here is a sideshow who won't leave because it's angry about its lack of relevant competence.

This needs to be clarified since you seem genuinely confused as to what's going on here.

 

[techne]

This is a new & politics forum, where people with those interests congregate to discuss/debate said topics. The reality is some of them are going to be shitty at it, as to be expected of anything where skill rests on a curve. One of those them is you, whose only remaining purpose here is a sideshow who won't leave because it's angry about its lack of relevant competence.

This needs to be clarified since you seem genuinely confused as to what's going on here.

I'm just trying to understand the mind of a terrorist who is solely capable to do personal attacks - and nothing else.

And of course I'm laughing at you. You're just a clueless barbarian that will impress only twelve years old kids. I'm just trying to save their lives.

 

[agent00f]

I'm just trying to understand the mind of a terrorist who is solely capable to do personal attacks - and nothing else.

And of course I'm laughing at you. You're just a clueless barbarian that will impress only twelve years old kids. I'm just trying to save their lives.

No, you simply suck at constructing arguments and at this point you're just mouthing off. While that might've proved fruitful at the trailer park it just makes you look even more stupid amidst better people.

 

[techne]

No, you simply suck at constructing arguments and at this point you're just mouthing off. While that might've proved fruitful at the trailer park it just makes you look even more stupid amidst better people.

I know you'd like to produce a reality according to your dreams, but you just can't. You're a fake and I know that. Guess what? They know too.

You want to upset me, but you just can't. I won't even bother to tell you why... Now take your Prozac and try to conceal your huge resentment from yourself.

 

[agent00f]

I know you'd like to produce a reality according to your dreams, but you just can't. You're a fake and I know that. Guess what? They know too.

You want to upset me, but you just can't. I won't even bother to tell you why... Now take your Prozac and try to conceal your huge resentment from yourself.

I'm literally describing what you're doing, ie spewing filth in a rather pathetic attempt to get back at me for doing a lot better with the rational arguments.

I supposed someone with any sense of shame would be upset at such an expose of their behavior, but no such luck here.

 

[techne]

I'm literally describing what you're doing, ie spewing filth in a rather pathetic attempt to get back at me for doing a lot better with the rational arguments.

I supposed someone with any sense of shame would be upset at such an expose of their behavior, but no such luck here.

"Rational arguments"? LOL! That's the beauty of discussing in a public forum: the whole discussion is registered. It starts here - only one page ago...

Only someone utterly stupid would try to decide a debate about the meaning of two words invoking historical facts.

You talk about shame? No one with any sense of shame would say that set theory is "rhetoric".

Of course, you're not only utterly stupid: you have the worst hidden agenda ever.

No one with any sense of shame would try to purposely confound the meaning of the words "war" and "terrorism".

No one with any sense of shame would support terrorism and radical islam.

You're an intellectual fraud, but above all, you're a moral abomination.

 

[agent00f]

"Rational arguments"? LOL! That's the beauty of discussing in a public forum: the whole discussion is registered. It starts here - only one page ago...

Only someone utterly stupid would try to decide a debate about the meaning of two words invoking historical facts.

You talk about shame? No one with any sense of shame would say that set theory is "rhetoric".

Of course, you're not only utterly stupid: you have the worst hidden agenda ever.

No one with any sense of shame would try to purposely confound the meaning of the words "war" and "terrorism".

No one with any sense of shame would support terrorism and radical islam.

You're an intellectual fraud, but above all, you're a moral abomination.

I provided you a link with instructions how to use google to find out about the history of civilian targets in war. The relevant hits are literally the first, or second, or third, etc.

At this point it's unclear if you still can't manage that process, or can't read well enough, or can't understand how things that make sense in your head might not work in the real world, or what. Maybe you can help solve that mystery.

 

[techne]

I provided you a link with instructions how to use google to find out about the history of civilian targets in war. The relevant hits are literally the first, or second, or third, etc.

At this point it's unclear if you still can't manage that process, or can't read well enough, or can't understand how things that make sense in your head might not work in the real world, or what. Maybe you can help solve that mystery.

There's no mystery at all. You, the soi-disant "provider", simply don't know the difference between concepts and experience.

The experience is the realm of devenir. If I forget a beef outside the refrigerator, it becomes rotten. The very same beef was healthy yesterday, but today it is rotten. This is experience. Experience, however, does not alter the meaning of "rotten" and "healthy". If you want to change the meaning of these words, you must propose new definitions and, of course, give good reasons for your proposals.

Terrorism is a form of war, and it's simple reality of the matter that the west labels poor people who fight that way as terrorists.

The ocurrence of civil casualties in war cannot be used to justify your attempt to erase the radical difference between the concepts of "war" and "terrorism". This is rhetoric (and terrorist propaganda). By the way, in terrorism there's no "fight", only coward agressions against unarmed people.

War is meant to be done between armies. Terrorism is genocide in drops.

You may scream "the beef has become rotten" for the rest of your resentful life, but a rotten beef will never erase the difference between "rotten" and "healthy". The same way, civil casualties, as regretful as they can be, will never erase the difference between "war" and "terrorism".

This post was written to be read by twelve years old kids. This is not rocket science and I'm sure they will understand.

 

[agent00f]

There's no mystery at all. You, the soi-disant "provider", simply don't know the difference between concepts and experience.

The experience is the realm of devenir. If I forget a beef outside the refrigerator, it becomes rotten. The very same beef was healthy yesterday, but today it is rotten. This is experience. Experience, however, does not alter the meaning of "rotten" and "healthy". If you want to change the meaning of these words, you must propose new definitions and, of course, give good reasons for your proposals.

A terrorist is someone who commits acts of terrorism. An act of terrorism involves killing civilians. The west pretty much invented large scale attacks on civilians.

Your definition, terrorist as someone who exclusively attacks civilians, is like a pedophile who has sex with many children trying to claim he's not pedo because he also has sex with non-kids.

Even worse, that definition doesn't even work to your benefit since even ISIS mostly attacks other muslims in conventional warfare, which is how they took over parts of the ME. Googling will verify this but since you can't figure that out you'll have to take my word for it.

The ocurrence of civil casualties in war cannot be used to justify your attempt to erase the radical difference between the concepts of "war" and "terrorism". This is rhetoric (and terrorist propaganda). By the way, in terrorism there's no "fight", only coward agressions against unarmed people.

War is meant to be done between armies. Terrorism is genocide in drops.

You may scream "the beef has become rotten" for the rest of your resentful life, but a rotten beef will never erase the difference between "rotten" and "healthy". The same way, civil casualties, as regretful as they can be, will never erase the difference between "war" and "terrorism".

This post was written to be read by twelve years old kids. This is not rocket science and I'm sure they will understand.

I agree attacking hapless targets is pretty cowardly, which is why the west are undefeated greatest cowards of all time by those standards. Though in the scheme of things, dropping laser/satellite-guided from jets on dirt people is quite a bit more cowardly than strapping on a suicide vest.

Let's also touch on the quantitative scale of cowardliness. Victims of cluster bombing/napalming/and other completely cowardly attacks probably number in the millions. Your definition of terrorist likely only includes brown people attacking white people, but to be charitable let's include all the podunk orgs like the irish and so on; I can't imagine this tops more than order of thousands.

The next step is contrasting those figures. Unfortunately this requires comparing sizes of numbers which is frankly harder to learn than google.

 

[FelixDeCat]

agent00f your impersonation of Hanoi Jane is uncanny. Islamic jihadis and terrorism came before action by the west to quell it.

Furthermore, Islamic suicide bombers seek death by killing innocent civilians of all kinds anywhere in the world. The Isrealis have the perfect solution similar to Donald Trumps - THEY BUILT A WALL.

Granted, Mexico is not full of Muslim extremists (thank God), however they know that certain Muslims cannot be reasoned with or desire peaceful coexistence. They desire to jihad for Islam - to kill and terrorize all who are not willing to submit to "Allah".

Keep up the good work Hanoi agent00f Jane of trying to justify Islamic terrorism. :|

 

[bshole]

I agree attacking hapless targets is pretty cowardly, which is why the west are undefeated greatest cowards of all time by those standards. Though in the scheme of things, dropping laser/satellite-guided from jets on dirt people is quite a bit more cowardly than strapping on a suicide vest.

Cowardly is not a moral question. Do you really give fuck how "brave" the killers are? Does bravery equate to morality in your world?

INTENTIONALLY targeting innocent people just trying to live their lives is UNEQUESTIONABLY EVIL. UNINTENTIONALLY killing innocent people as collateral damage while targeting TERRORISTS is also an evil but is a far smaller evil. You are equating the two as equally evil. This suggests your moral code is tuned far differently than mine. The day is coming I suppose that the drones will be equipped with guns that can take out a target without any collateral damage at all.

I agree that the bombing in the Middle East is an evil, no doubt about it. It is the main reason I loathe Hillary Clinton. She is going to ramp it up.

 

[agent00f]

agent00f your impersonation of Hanoi Jane is uncanny. Islamic jihadis and terrorism came before action by the west to quell it.

This is simply factually wrong, though I suppose this isn't really a discussion where facts matter. More of a simpleton gut hatred type of deal. For example, let's take the terror attacks in france which are supposedly a big deal. France started fighting ISIS around the 2013/2014 timeframe, and IS attacks started escalating there around 2015; must be a coincidence.

Speaking of which, the US basically created ISIS through the power vacuum left in the destruction of iraq, and provided a rather futile recruiting ground for your muslim counterparts. I recall the war was supposedly motivated by saddam's WMDs, not jihadis attacking merica.

Furthermore, Islamic suicide bombers seek death by killing innocent civilians of all kinds anywhere in the world. The Isrealis have the perfect solution similar to Donald Trumps - THEY BUILT A WALL.

Granted, Mexico is not full of Muslim extremists (thank God), however they know that certain Muslims cannot be reasoned with or desire peaceful coexistence. They desire to jihad for Islam - to kill and terrorize all who are not willing to submit to "Allah".

Keep up the good work Hanoi agent00f Jane of trying to justify Islamic terrorism. :|

Speaking of your counterparts, switch muslims with infidels in this rant and you pretty much get ISIS propaganda. That's not a coincidence.

 

[agent00f]

Cowardly is not a moral question. Do you really give fuck how "brave" the killers are? Does bravery equate to morality in your world?

INTENTIONALLY targeting innocent people just trying to live their lives is UNEQUESTIONABLY EVIL. UNINTENTIONALLY killing innocent people as collateral damage while targeting TERRORISTS is also an evil but is a far smaller evil. You are equating the two as equally evil. This suggests your moral code is tuned far differently than mine. The day is coming I suppose that the drones will be equipped with guns that can take out a target without any collateral damage at all.

I agree that the bombing in the Middle East is an evil, no doubt about it. It is the main reason I loathe Hillary Clinton. She is going to ramp it up.

I mostly replied to the cowardliness brought up by the dummy. But to answer that question, having some skin the game does tend to affect human judgement. For example, shanking someone to death in a knife fight is a different experience to shooting them from a distance, to bombing the lot of them from the air with possibly an automated drone. Obviously the nature of that experience affects the decision whether to commit said action.

It's worth pointing out the asymmetric reality of these kind of wars. Here we are in the first world discussing from rather comfortable chairs the life & death of some dirt farmer in war zone who has to pick up a gun to get fed, who's about to be on the wrong end of a laser guided bomb. Notice most of use clearly didn't get to our position instead of his due to some personal merit or intellect, so claiming any sort of moral superiority while making these decisions is rather specious.

 

[bshole]

I mostly replied to the cowardliness brought up by the dummy. But to answer that question, having some skin the game does tend to affect human judgement. For example, shanking someone to death in a knife fight is a different experience to shooting them from a distance, to bombing the lot of them from the air with possibly an automated drone. Obviously the nature of that experience affects the decision whether to commit said action.

It's worth pointing out the asymmetric reality of these kind of wars. Here we are in the first world discussing from rather comfortable chairs the life & death of some dirt farmer in war zone who has to pick up a gun to get fed, who's about to be on the wrong end of a laser guided bomb. Notice most of use clearly didn't get to our position instead of his due to some personal merit or intellect, so claiming any sort of moral superiority while making these decisions is rather specious.

This has nothing to do with my point which is that specifically targeting innocent people to murder is a great evil, PERHAPS the greatest evil that man can involve himself in. It turns my stomach to see any type of apologies for it. If you are going to defend terrorism, you might as well defend intentional genocide. It seems that your values are completely in line with those of Old Testament Christianity and Fundamentalist Islam. They are completely and utterly opposed to secular humanist values.