A wicked mind is Weapon of Mass Destruction..!!

Originally posted by Koka
...or your greatest weapon could be your mind.

Diplomacy seems to be the last thing on the minds of those who post in this section.

The weapons discussed on these threads are produced as a deterent, or for defensive measures, by the governments which produce them.

Seldom are they used in this capacity.

Ignorance is far from denied in this section.

Wow... What a superficial and ingorant view.

It is because some people have chosen to discuss horrible weapons that those same people have never used them. It is becuase of those willing to do inconcievable violence on YOUR behalf that YOU can sleep without needing to worry about your security ....

As for your comment about diplomacy, as Von Clauswitz said "It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means" .. In my opinoin you cannot discuss diplomacy and politics without considering war. War is that last ditch attempt to protect one's interests that keeps other more pallatable efforts alive.

Perhaps you can sit in front of your keyboard comfortably detached from the weapons your tax dollars buy and the freedom they protect (no matter where you may reside) - but others cannot. They will discuss these things in this forum. If it disgusts you - I suggest you visit one of the following links, perhaps they will be more touched by your self-rightous comments..

www.antiwar.com... , www.anti-war.us... www.warresisters.org...

Have a beautiful day!

Nothingmakessesnse we don't need to leave the middle east we can o anywhere we want to and if they don't like oh well they call us infidel and want to kill all of us just because we have a superior society and government and we treat people fair and we follow the rules and have a democracy if they don't like that to bad they kill our people we should kill theirs an eye for an eye and if they wont allow Americans in the middle east we shouldn't allow Arabs in the US. its only fair.

Originally posted by Starwars50
It is because some people have chosen to discuss horrible weapons that those same people have never used them. It is becuase of those willing to do inconcievable violence on YOUR behalf that YOU can sleep without needing to worry about your security ....

Agreed.......However, I would prefer to sleep at night knowing we could sort out our differences without resorting to "inconcievable violence". I don't live in an insular society which has been brainwashed in to fearing anyone beyond our own shores, so find it difficult to empathise with the citizens of the US. However, I also know full well that a great many US citizens are ashamed of their governments approach to foreign policy and the hyocrisy resulting thereafter.

Originally posted by Starwars50
As for your comment about diplomacy, as Von Clauswitz said "It is clear that war is not a mere act of policy but a true political instrument, a continuation of political activity by other means" .. In my opinoin you cannot discuss diplomacy and politics without considering war. War is that last ditch attempt to protect one's interests that keeps other more pallatable efforts alive.

Advice commonly given when quoting "Clauswitz", is that no single statement or paragraph should be quoted without having read and understood "One War". A book created by unfinished drafts compiled by his wife after his death. Clauswitz was a German soldier with the mind of a military strategist, for him, war was his politics.

Originally posted by Starwars50
Perhaps you can sit in front of your keyboard comfortably detached from the weapons your tax dollars buy and the freedom they protect (no matter where you may reside) - but others cannot. They will discuss these things in this forum. If it disgusts you - I suggest you visit one of the following links, perhaps they will be more touched by your self-rightous comments......

Actually, it was, in part, American dollars that almost got me killed twice in London.
Where was the "War on Terrorism" when the Irish-Americans were funding the IRA's campaign aginst the British mainland. A cause that I actually agree with ironically.

There will come at time when the very weapons you admire so greatly, will be turned on yourselves, and no other country will be involved, the US is heading for self destruction, and amazingly enough, that actually saddens me, i'm probably best just detaching myself from it, as long as it doesn't effect me, why should I care....!!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
How do I know they are bent on destroying our way of life because they have said we must kill the infidels we must keep fighting till Allah is the only ruler or god left and a bunch of other crap and personally if I was in charge the middle east would be nuked already.

Why does that not surprise me?
Have you ever considered the reasoning behind being called "Infidels"?
Not that I necessarily agree with such statements, any fighting relating to a religious cause, has one advantage, the lose of fanatics from both sides.

Humankind is still in it's infancy stage, our comprehension of our existence defies us. We grasp at straws for reason but find solice in false idols.

Originally posted by cyberdude78
Not to sympathize with the Islamic extremeists but in there shoes it looks like were destroying there way of life. The idea is to them were not trustworthy and the goes back at them. But back on the topic I think that we like this sort because so many peoples lives are interested in this sort of thing. Look how many people are or were in the military. How many video games have been made about war. Were pretty much numb to this sort of thing because the US has never suffered a true defeat in war.

A few truths written here. It's probably best to say that you don't sympathise with the "Islamic extremeists" as this could be construed as being Anti-American, which is probably this biggest insult you could attain. Your perception is a good step towards the reality.

Originally posted by FredT
Maybe the French can help us out in that department

No, I think the US is as good a place as any, to look for military failings.
I assume Vietnam and Libya, were considered successful in your book then?

Originally posted by NothingMakesSense
We need to leave the Mideast now. What they do is none of our business.

No, you made the mess, now you clear it up...!!

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Nothingmakessesnse we don't need to leave the middle east we can o anywhere we want to and if they don't like oh well they call us infidel and want to kill all of us just because we have a superior society and government and we treat people fair and we follow the rules and have a democracy if they don't like that to bad they kill our people we should kill theirs an eye for an eye and if they wont allow Americans in the middle east we shouldn't allow Arabs in the US. its only fair.

Thank you Westpoint23, for providing a classic example of Ignorance, Arrogance and hypocrisy all in one statement. You even managed to generalise extremists as "Arabs". I couldn't have wished for a better example.
_____________________________________________________

It is very clear that this is not the place for a debate of this sort, and no matter what my arguments or crticisms are, they would not be taken constructively.

I am happy to see that not all those that post in this section are blinkered.

Care to tell me where I went wrong also the French have never won a military battle never that's right look it up also if I am harsh its cuz I wont let some idiot fool cutting peoples heads off for no reason at all I am do not feel sorry at all for the extremist.

Originally posted by Koka

Agreed.......However, I would prefer to sleep at night knowing we could sort out our differences without resorting to "inconcievable violence". I don't live in an insular society which has been brainwashed in to fearing anyone beyond our own shores, so find it difficult to empathise with the citizens of the US.

Here is the problem at the heart of liberalism (as if liberalism had a heart . . .). Persons like Koka a basically nice human beings, and have worked hard to convince themselves that every other human beiing is a nice person, too.

The fundamental problem of liberalism is its own inability to recognize evil, and to develop a meaningful response.

Liberalism cannot admit that evil actually exists in and of itself. When asked about the sources of evil, they will continually respond with

1. poverty
2. ignorance
3. disease.

So terrorists are not wicked, just misguided, or economically exploited, or mentally ill, or poorly educated.

Note the liberal catch-phrase in the above quote: "sort out our differences."
Terrorists have no desire to sort out differences. They plan to erase them by destroying all human culture that is at variance from their own. They view everyone, especially liberals, as subhuman puppets to be manipulated in their drive to power.

Gandhi is probably the liberal ideal, using non-violence to call the oppressor to see his own action in the light of other's pain. This works well against liberial oppressors, like the british empire. It is little known today that Gandhi advised German Jews to respond to the Nazis with non-violence.

We don't know if any of them tried that. They were all killed in concentration camps. Apparently, they couldn't get together with the Nazis and "sort out their diffferences."

And the inhuman core of liberalism is revealed, not by it's attitude toward moral monsters, but in its indifference toward the victims. Liberalism turns a blind eye to suffering. Whether it is gassed Kurds, or Dead New Yorkers, or Jewish children blown to bits as they emerged from day-care at their synagogue.

Liberalism lavishes remorse on the perpetrators of violence; for those who oppose violence, it has only contempt. For the police, for the courts, for the military.

For all of Koka's one-worldism, note the hope that America will eventually be crushed by its own weapons, and "I won't be affected." Who is being an isolationist now? Who has a pollyana style, unrealistic response to terrorism and evil now?

I don't necessarily believe YOU went wrong, it was probably to do with being dropped on your head as a child.....

In all seriousness, do you really believe that everything you are saying is relevant and factual, that what you propose would put an end to this sort of conflict. I get the feeling that war is pretty much the only thing that exists for you and without it, you would have nothing to focus your anger upon.

You seem very angry at the way America is being perceived by the rest of the world, and instead of trying rectifying that state, you'd prefer to just fight anyone that disagrees with your gungho policies.

What experience or contact have you had with the outside world?

More than you had I don't try and appease people by telling them what they want to hear I confront it and the rest of the world why do they hate the US cuz they are either jealous or just want to be as powerful as us and sometimes war is the only solution you need to get a real dosage of real world and the thing is extremist don't care how much you flatter them they will still kill you now isn't that something.


[edit on 8-7-2004 by WestPoint23]

Originally posted by Koka
I don't necessarily believe YOU went wrong, it was probably to do with being dropped on your head as a child.....

I get the feeling that war is pretty much the only thing that exists for you and without it, you would have nothing to focus your anger upon.

You seem very angry . . . What experience or contact have you had with the outside world?

I assume that you've lapsed into insults and personal attacks because you cannot find a COHERENT response.

I've lived and worked in a number of different countries in Dar-at-Salaam (the muslim world) as well as traveling in Latin America over the past 15 years . . .

I've never been in the military. I have worked in law-enforcement, and saw a lot of society that most people are only exposed to via TV.

Whatever stereotypes you have about me or my views seem to be the result of your own robust biases and prejudices.

And none of you last post was any sort of coherent response to my comments about the fallacies and shortcomings of your own worldview . . .

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
The fundamental problem of liberalism is its own inability to recognize evil, and to develop a meaningful response.

And the Conservative approach, is to TELL YOU what is good or evil instead of telling you the truth.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
So terrorists are not wicked, just misguided, or economically exploited, or mentally ill, or poorly educated.

Well, those are some of the reasons, but it mainly has to do with US foreign policy, I also have a funny feeling a touch of irony may have crept in there.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Note the liberal catch-phrase in the above quote: "sort out our differences."
Terrorists have no desire to sort out differences. They plan to erase them by destroying all human culture that is at variance from their own. They view everyone, especially liberals, as subhuman puppets to be manipulated in their drive to power.

True, there are people, on the opposing side to yourselves, who share your view point. In fact you probably have a lot in common, if only you could out aside YOUR DIFFERENCES.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Gandhi is probably the liberal ideal, using non-violence to call the oppressor to see his own action in the light of other's pain. This works well against liberial oppressors, like the british empire. It is little known today that Gandhi advised German Jews to respond to the Nazis with non-violence.

True.....

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
We don't know if any of them tried that. They were all killed in concentration camps. Apparently, they couldn't get together with the Nazis and "sort out their diffferences."

....but I don't believe thats what I'm actually asking people to do, but you paint it whatever colour most suits you.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
And the inhuman core of liberalism is revealed, not by it's attitude toward moral monsters, but in its indifference toward the victims. Liberalism turns a blind eye to suffering. Whether it is gassed Kurds, or Dead New Yorkers, or Jewish children blown to bits as they emerged from day-care at their synagogue.

or dead Londoners, or dead spainish or dead Australians, or dead Balinese, or dead..............shall I go on? Just like the reactive mind of an insect, the neo-con go on with their daily lives until something affects them directly.

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
Liberalism lavishes remorse on the perpetrators of violence; for those who oppose violence, it has only contempt. For the police, for the courts, for the military.

Still choosing to paint your ideals.....!!

Originally posted by dr_strangecraft
For all of Koka's one-worldism, note the hope that America will eventually be crushed by its own weapons, and "I won't be affected." Who is being an isolationist now? Who has a pollyana style, unrealistic response to terrorism and evil now?

And I thought irony had a home in the US.

Dr. Stangecraft, I see you pick and choose your quotes, even when they are not aimed at you.

A followed by the statement "In all seriousness" depicts humour, although you decided not to quote it in it's intirety, i'm sure you weren't trying to mislead anyone.

And so the questions were directed at Westpoint23 and are his to answer.

No insults or personal attacks have occurred, well certainly no more than I have received, and I tend to take them with a pinch of salt, as these types of debates can get a might heated, due to the antagonistic nature of some the responses, from both sides, might I add.

..and obviously due to the mix-up in what you thought was a response to your questions/statements, please read my previous response.

So calm down, I don't want you wandering off to a bell tower somewhere to pop off a few innocent students.....

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Koka]

Originally posted by Koka

A

followed by the statement "In all seriousness" depicts humour, although you decided not to quote it in it's intirety, i'm sure you weren't trying to mislead anyone.

So calm down, I don't want you wandering off to a bell tower somewhere to pop off a few innocent students.....

[edit on 8-7-2004 by Koka]

If a killing spree is you're idea of humor, you're a lot more messed up than the people you've been castigating for their hobbies and interests.

Do you think that you can be insulting or rude or dehumanizing and "it doesn't count" because you put a smiley face after it?

If so, then you'd be a hypocrite, as well as a fool.



You keep saying that I'm angry. I'm not, but either way my mood is irrelevant to the fact that you cannot come up with a coherent response to my critique of your solipsistic world-view



[edit on 8-7-2004 by dr_strangecraft]

I was merely playing up to the stereotypical prejudices I have been accused of, clearly lost on you.

This debate is turning sour and I no longer wish to play.

I appreciate your assistance in proving my point, regarding the mentality of those who post in the Weapons threads.

Ta Ta for Now...!!

Originally posted by Koka

Agreed.......However, I would prefer to sleep at night knowing we could sort out our differences without resorting to "inconcievable violence". I don't live in an insular society which has been brainwashed in to fearing anyone beyond our own shores, so find it difficult to empathise with the citizens of the US. However, I also know full well that a great many US citizens are ashamed of their governments approach to foreign policy and the hyocrisy resulting thereafter.

So your problem is with this current war? Of course that becomes obvious when revieiwing some of your recent posts to other forums. One must be very careful to seperate the discussion of weapons and means of waging war and the politics surrounding whatever conflicts are currently facing the world. If your problem is indeed with those - I would suggest you return your posts to other more appropriate forums...

Originally posted by Koka

Advice commonly given when quoting "Clauswitz", is that no single statement or paragraph should be quoted without having read and understood "One War". A book created by unfinished drafts compiled by his wife after his death. Clauswitz was a German soldier with the mind of a military strategist, for him, war was his politics.

I have read his work and would suggest you do the same as well. Perhaps then you could at least correctly identify the name of the book.

If you opinoin is that Clausewitz lacks credibility because he was a german soldier and did not compile the book "On War" himself - you are in disagreement with virtually every scholarly (including those who despise war) review of his work.

Originally posted by Koka

Actually, it was, in part, American dollars that almost got me killed twice in London.
Where was the "War on Terrorism" when the Irish-Americans were funding the IRA's campaign aginst the British mainland. A cause that I actually agree with ironically.

There will come at time when the very weapons you admire so greatly, will be turned on yourselves, and no other country will be involved, the US is heading for self destruction, and amazingly enough, that actually saddens me, i'm probably best just detaching myself from it, as long as it doesn't effect me, why should I care....!!

Ahh, I now can see the motives behind your post. You can continue to blame American dollars for whatever may trouble your life. Given the size of the American economy one can trace it's effects to any event anywhere in the world if one tries hard enough.

America could always revert to an isolationist political policy and let the rest of the world fare for itself ... However we learned from our mistakes in 1915 and 1939. Like it or not, the American military (with great help from the British I might add...) and it's plethora of weapons have made large scale conflict simply unacceptable for the vast majority of the world - why do you think there was never a WWIII, or why the cold war never turned hot? It may have been becuase of the skill and compassion of the diplomats of the last 60 years - but I hold a slightly more realistic view than that.

Some times its only possible to
fight fire with fire, violence with greater violence
For example if a country attack another if country
1 doesnt fight back country 2 would consider this weak
as well as every1 else and every1 else goes hey! lets attack
the weak peace ful country!

Starwars50: Correct on almost all accounts.

To all who have read the thread:
Last night I was talking with a very good friend of mine about this thread, I explained to him that the initial thread was written with regard to the mentality of those people who enjoy discussing weaponry, but that the discussion had turned to War, America and Terrorism.

His response, "I enjoy looking at that stuff too", now, this didn't come as much of a surprise as he is a man of many devices, the belt he wears around his waist is 2nd only to Batman's.

I've known this friend for 28 years, and, except when we were kids, we have never had a bad word to say about each other. That�s not to say we agree with each other on everything, but we do have incredibly high respect for each other.

The point he made to me, was, my approach to the initial discussion, which was loaded with insults, and that I had in fact encroached on your territory and made remarks of a derogatory nature, on a forum which I hold little regard for.

I conceded to his remarks, and told him I would be "man enough" to express this point on the thread.

We agreed that until the Utopia that most of us yearn for, comes into existence, the military is a necessity, but that it was a catch 22 situation as to how the world would ever reach a satisfactory Utopia without the removal of the military.

I admit that my view on American society is, at present, tainted, but when discussing the matter, try to reiterate the difference between American people and the US Government.

I actually work for a very successful US company, which I recently found, receive 60% of there work from the US government, designing and building underground complexes, I won't say which company, but you probably have an idea if you follow some of the other conspiracy threads.

I plan to leave this company within the next few months to pursue a more satisfying career and to relieve the hypocrisy of my situation.

My idealistic view on the world is something I hope will never diminish, although it would be true to say cynicism becomes harder to avoid the older I become.

I maintain my views, with a little less vigor, regarding the original and subsequent debates, but, in future will not go looking for an argument on a subject that is not my forte in a forum which holds little interest to me.

I do have personal reasons for removing myself from this debate which I cannot discuss, but believed it bad manners to just not reply.

I'll see you in the other forums.

[edit on 9-7-2004 by Koka (Spelling)]

[edit on 9-7-2004 by Koka]

Originally posted by WestPoint23
Care to tell me where I went wrong also the French have never won a military battle never that's right look it up also if I am harsh its cuz I wont let some idiot fool cutting peoples heads off for no reason at all I am do not feel sorry at all for the extremist.

Ehhh ever hear of the Napoleonic wars? I gather the french won many of those. ALso unless I'm mistaken the French shouldered the bulk of the fighting on the western front in WW-I ...which we /they won as I recall

AS to the discussion at large ,there are deep routed memories that plague people and mold and influence who they become. My father was in Poland during the war and spent the war years in the resistance. The poles didn't choose to be invaded by either the germans or sovs, 20 years earlier they had defeated a soviet invasion with a strong military. In 1939 the germans were stronger. The first lesson was that an ounce of prevention is worth a pound of cure. When we were raised in britain the cold war was still booming and the diet of BBC productions was alot of post war analysis.

If you want to avoid occupation you have to be ready to defend your self.Although it takes two to fight , it only takes one to aggress, the poles/Fench didn't choose to be attacked...maybe had there been a NATO inplace in the 1930s ,war might have been avoided? Maybe if Hitler had died in one of the pusches in the 1930s, there would have been no war.....but I doubt it.

If you never have been physically invaded by a neighbour , you have no idea of the scare that it leaves! My dad to this day is thankful that the AMercians are in germany and never new who to fear more during the cold war, the Germans or the RUssians.So most people saw the parallel between the soviet threat and the Nazie threat and supported or tolerated NATO etc. No doubt that was deliberate government policy, but can any one say for sure the threat was not real?

From this I learned several things . The germans were far better equipped and trained at fighting than we were and sometimes the difference was in Generals or training but also in plane designs and ship designs or tank designs... IE Weapons.

It was obvious to me as youth that part of 'security' is determined by how many , what types of weapons and what kind of training you have.
TOday I'm more fearful of the Americans than I am of OBL cause I see some of the same things happening to AMerica that happened to germany ...and yes I worry.


BTW heres an example of the scar that occupation leaves on a society decades later. In the 1990s when the Berlin wall came down, the WARPAC plans for war with NATO were partly revealed. It seems the soviets believed that one of the main war scenarios in Europe would start with a german lead invasion of EGermany to liberate Berlin...followed by an invasion of Poland to liberate Warsaw and then an invasion of BElerus to liberate Minsk etc.....see the historical parrallels

I gather that during the cold war the entire soviet divisonal deployment in eastern Europe was designed around the percieved threat that Germany still posed to them.

Koka, weapons are very interesting and NECESSARY. Some people may discuss cars or computers etc. We choose to discuss weapons. Cars can be harmful as are computers so they can be considered weapons too. Weapons are necessary for offensive and defensive purposes for a nation to maintain its security and leadership amongst other hostile nations.

...and pray tell, the reason for other nations being hostile?

I know, the "US"=Good, and "those that disagree with the US"=Bad, ergo, hostile nations.

Do you guys believe that the Islamic fundamentalists who have been brainwashed into committing suicide for their cause have any idea they have actually been brainwashed?

Do you also deny being brainwashed in anyway yourselves?

The UK has been a target for terrorism for over 40 years, and it's all to do with what we have done in the past and great deal of what we're doing right now.

Weapons are only necessary when GREED comes into the equation.

A nation that is subject to another nations greed, require weapons for defence. The greed of that nation requires weapons to get what it wants and to protect itself from the repercussions of their own actions.

Once humans become truly civilized, weapons will become unnecessary.

Originally posted by Koka



Weapons are only necessary when GREED comes into the equation.

So, the Allies only needed weapons against Hitler because we were greedy?

You are simply amazing.


Troll.