-
We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.
Human Shredder?
Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.
Simply because you make a statement w/out indicating it is satire, commentary regarding a humorous aspect or otherwise not directly intended to divert the focus from what the article expresses. You seem intelligent enough (I'll give you a benefit of doubt) to know that your statement w/out explaination is in itself inflammatory.
And you now state it is a humorous song and imply that I took the wrong meaning. Further, you wonder why I believe what you printed w/out actually considering it... hmmmm, what else was there to consider. Original post - simplistic barbed response - not much else to go on there.
Alright, irresponsible - but let's play that game. Why don't you take what I've written in response to your *cough* "humor" about an incredibly sick individual and actually consider why I might have taken the stance I have?
Wear the same jacket you seek to put on me.
Schadenfreude
Lifer
:Q:disgust:
1. There's a difference between torture and murder.
2. There's a difference in what Saddam is doing and Capitol punishment.
3. You're willing to assert that the US employs torture tactics of its' own (even though you don't hear about it on the news...)
4. I don't doubt the U.S. employs or in the least allows countries that do employ torture tactics to obtain information. The expectation of that torture however is not intended to result in death or permanent disability. What Saddam is doing, is quite certainly nothing other than murder. Shredding living human beings, sometimes head first - sometimes feet first...
Why does it take a graphic picture for it to be real for you? You seem quite comfortable in accusing the U.S. of the same w/out so much as an article to quote. (no need to go in search of articles to quote - that's not the point).
Skyclad1uhm1
Lifer
Say 'concentration camp' out loud without laughing at how ridiculous it is. Or 'planes flying into the WTC'.
Guess attrocities cannot happen, sadism does not exist, and the human race is logical and friendly.
Yes, it may be simply propaganda, but I'd not dismiss it so fast considering what we know from Iraqi refugees. Would you put this kind of stuff above a government where rapist is an official job?
iwearnosox
Lifer
Is this where tacos come from?
My view is this: it is pointless to argue with someone who has no trust in the state. Anything you can find and use as evidence, they will say is manipulated. Anything there is no evidence of, they will say is being hidden.
CorporateRecreation seems to be implying that these are tactics being used by the US in its campaign against Iraq. However, I think there is a problem with saying that these 10 steps are "tactics as a weapon against humanity and not truth". Mostly, I think so because these 10 steps are so broad and sweeping.
step 1: this is so broad. What is the point of saying this one? If country A is invaded by country B, then someone has created an enemy for you. In this case, that person is country B, which is country A's enemy. That goes without saying. How is this a tactic against humanity, and/or a lie?
step 2: obviously, your enemy is your enemy precising because you two have a major disagreement. In the specific example of this current war, I have not seen Iraqi soldiers being portrayed as heartless killers. And when I see that these Iraqi soldiers surrendering on the news, I see that they are human beings who want to preserve their own lives, same as you and me.
step 3: once again, this is too broad. To me, step 3 merely says "Telling others the source of conflict." When there is an enemy of your state, you have to disseminated information to the general public, to let them know the cause of the conflict. Usually the cause is a difference of opinion. So once again, how is this a tactic against humanity, and/or a lie?
step 4: yes, I can see that this would be a good way to convince the public of the ruling party's view. However, I do not think it is being used by the US in this case. Look at how many reports of protesters there are in the news daily. From the massive number of reports of protesters, one might think that the majority of Americans are against war. Survey has showed that this is not so. If the US gvt is manipulating the media to convince the public to support the war, then the US gvt isn't doing a very good job.
step 5: well, you basically have to do this as proof. If you are country A, and you want to convince your countrymen that country B is attacking your borders, then you must show your countrymen either video or photos of this happening. If you are trying to stop a murderer, you have to provide evidence that he is a murderer. I can see that this is indeed a good tactic since it boosts morale; but the way it is stated is still a bit too generalized.
step 6: this is a nice one to use to get rid of opposition. In the case of the US I don't see this being done, going back once again to the numerous reports of protesters we see daily.
step 7: well this one is just dumb. Every country is accused of this because every country has a flag. The flag is a symbol of pride for every country. This rules seems to state that there is something wrong with saluting a flag (being proud of your country), either in a war or at a sporting event.
step 8: ok, if a leader says that their action is "god's will", then they are obviously full of crap and trying to portray themselves as the hand of god. But if someone believes in god, and wants god to bless their country, then what is wrong with saying "god bless country blah"? When someone says "god bless you" after a sneeze, are they trying to align themselves with the dominant deity as well?
step 9: this one is also very broad. After all, all soldiers have family and loved ones. And most soldiers probably don't like killing. So in essence, this step states that any story/documentary on a soldier is propaganda. That is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
step 10: I think this would be a good way to get public support of a war. I also don't think it is being done by the US right now. I think that sept 11, 2001 did that to America. I'm of the opinion that a pre- 9/11 US would be much more against the war. And while the US does state that Iraq can be a threat to US security, I think that the feeling of vulnerability is more of a result of a post-terrorist attack US. Unless, of course, you think that the US gvt had somehow secretly planned 9/11 to rile up the people.
Anyways, I can only guess as to the intentions of CorporateRecreation, but these are my reaction to this 10 step program. If you read all this, then you have quite a bit of patience. And as I always say, "a jedi must have patience."
dfi
CorporateRecreation seems to be implying that these are tactics being used by the US in its campaign against Iraq. However, I think there is a problem with saying that these 10 steps are "tactics as a weapon against humanity and not truth". Mostly, I think so because these 10 steps are so broad and sweeping.
step 1: this is so broad. What is the point of saying this one? If country A is invaded by country B, then someone has created an enemy for you. In this case, that person is country B, which is country A's enemy. That goes without saying. How is this a tactic against humanity, and/or a lie?
step 2: obviously, your enemy is your enemy precising because you two have a major disagreement. In the specific example of this current war, I have not seen Iraqi soldiers being portrayed as heartless killers. And when I see that these Iraqi soldiers surrendering on the news, I see that they are human beings who want to preserve their own lives, same as you and me.
step 3: once again, this is too broad. To me, step 3 merely says "Telling others the source of conflict." When there is an enemy of your state, you have to disseminated information to the general public, to let them know the cause of the conflict. Usually the cause is a difference of opinion. So once again, how is this a tactic against humanity, and/or a lie?
step 4: yes, I can see that this would be a good way to convince the public of the ruling party's view. However, I do not think it is being used by the US in this case. Look at how many reports of protesters there are in the news daily. From the massive number of reports of protesters, one might think that the majority of Americans are against war. Survey has showed that this is not so. If the US gvt is manipulating the media to convince the public to support the war, then the US gvt isn't doing a very good job.
step 5: well, you basically have to do this as proof. If you are country A, and you want to convince your countrymen that country B is attacking your borders, then you must show your countrymen either video or photos of this happening. If you are trying to stop a murderer, you have to provide evidence that he is a murderer. I can see that this is indeed a good tactic since it boosts morale; but the way it is stated is still a bit too generalized.
step 6: this is a nice one to use to get rid of opposition. In the case of the US I don't see this being done, going back once again to the numerous reports of protesters we see daily.
step 7: well this one is just dumb. Every country is accused of this because every country has a flag. The flag is a symbol of pride for every country. This rules seems to state that there is something wrong with saluting a flag (being proud of your country), either in a war or at a sporting event.
step 8: ok, if a leader says that their action is "god's will", then they are obviously full of crap and trying to portray themselves as the hand of god. But if someone believes in god, and wants god to bless their country, then what is wrong with saying "god bless country blah"? When someone says "god bless you" after a sneeze, are they trying to align themselves with the dominant deity as well?
step 9: this one is also very broad. After all, all soldiers have family and loved ones. And most soldiers probably don't like killing. So in essence, this step states that any story/documentary on a soldier is propaganda. That is pretty ridiculous if you ask me.
step 10: I think this would be a good way to get public support of a war. I also don't think it is being done by the US right now. I think that sept 11, 2001 did that to America. I'm of the opinion that a pre- 9/11 US would be much more against the war. And while the US does state that Iraq can be a threat to US security, I think that the feeling of vulnerability is more of a result of a post-terrorist attack US. Unless, of course, you think that the US gvt had somehow secretly planned 9/11 to rile up the people.
Anyways, I can only guess as to the intentions of CorporateRecreation, but these are my reaction to this 10 step program. If you read all this, then you have quite a bit of patience. And as I always say, "a jedi must have patience."
dfi
There's no doubt Saddam is a murdering son of a b*tch - but if this is being used as a justification for war - its higly debateable.
Remember - this is about disarmament, regime change is just the nice side effect now that a war has started. He's going down because he's a threat to the world, not because he oppresses his people.
Andy
Remember - this is about disarmament, regime change is just the nice side effect now that a war has started. He's going down because he's a threat to the world, not because he oppresses his people.
Andy
Skyclad1uhm1
Lifer
Seeing the strike power shown by Iraqi side so far that's a pretty lame reason then. I support rocking his world because he oppresses his people, but he is hardly a threat to anyone else.
I think once you start waging aggressive (ie pre-emptive) wars on the basis that you are acting morally - the question becomes who judges the morals?
The only way IMHO that could happen is with broad international agreement - which you won't get because everyones morals vary.
I'm glad he's going, its the best part apart this "disarmament" - but I would strongly oppose any furute military action that was a moral crusade.
Andy
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 24K
-
-
