Please attempt to distinguish between extremists and non extremists to avoid starting the inevitable waste of time that is "can Islam be judged by its believers?" - KwarK
that was some scary stuff, from the video i saw that one dude who even talked to people on the street with his weapon and bloody hands etc was calm as fuck and even apologizing for kids / women had to see that stuff... i just hope i ll never have to witness stuff like that but i doubt anything will ever change humans so this can happen anywhere anytime.
On May 24 2013 20:12 Ropid wrote: GaNgStaRR.ElV, go a bit back in time and look at all the things the West did. There was giving Zionists a part of Mandatory Palestine, installing the Shah in Iran, sabotaging the USSR in Afghanistan, enabling Iraq to go to war against Iran. The current involvement is probably only necessary because of being tied to that past. That idea of terrorist strikes on white people would probably never have been invented without the past pressure.
People advocating violence are what shaped the West's actions. The West always made decisions and had strong involvement just like you want it to, and it was a failure. In hindsight, there surely should have been a better way to navigate through the last 100 years. Something diplomatic resulting in a world with still just as good economic development in the West and without the headache of the current War On Terror. Business relationships make everyone involved very interested in not rocking the boat so that should be very good for peace.
I don't know how to get out of that mess, but that War On Terror could for example just be old fashioned police work instead of military involvement.
If you read my quote I mention the Palestine problem as one of the 2 major causes of us being involved in a global "war on terror", the other being the Saudi/Osama/US thing which had direct correlation to the US involvement with the mujaheddin in Afghanistan during the USSR's invasion.
I agree that the US has made significant mistakes in the past and I am certainly an advocate of "letting the people decide when THEY want to be free" not when we decide they should be freed(and it disgusts me that we call Al-Qaeda Terrorists in Iraq but support them as "freedom fighters" in Syria because we don't like Assad), but you can't undo history. The fact of the matter is that unless we eliminate the enemy, they will only get stronger(all that Arab money buying up London, driving the housing prices up, you think not a dime of their money has went towards extremist causes under the table). The time is come and gone and in this new reality, before there's any hope of what a violent parasitic race could call "peace", those who continuously wish us harm at the expense of their own lives must first be dealt with.
If we really wanted to cull blame, blame fucking Hitler man. He militarized the world, killed 100+ million people, basically made it so that we had to give the Jews something because they were so mis-trusting of their old neighbours who had snitched them out to the Gestapo that you could never fix that situation, and the whole Iran/Iraq and pretty much every government the US tried to overthrow in the 1950-2000 era was a direct influence of Cold War anti-Communist paranoia(yes the Shah being installed wasn't about him being communist that was about their fear of the supplies in the country, but most others were political-spectrum orientated "government adjustments".
On May 24 2013 11:22 Taguchi wrote: Well GaNgStaRR.ElV, from what you've posted I can definitely see how you came about those FB friends of yours you had to 'purge'. I mean, I had read most of your post happily nodding along and then suddenly bam!
On May 24 2013 10:21 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: The second shame is that because they didn't kill these guys on the spot, they are probably going to spend the rest of their lives locked up in Belmarsh prison on the British citizen's tax money with a bunch of other inmates who have also been arrested on their Jihad, or share these people's views. It's not exactly like they are going to pay for the rest of their life for this, sitting in prison reading the Qu-ran never having to worry about doing anything but passing time isn't exactly fair punishment.
I mean there's a reason the British Empire was strongest at a time when the punishment for treason was to be hung, drawn and quartered. I bet there would be little to no repeats of this attack if we hung the quarters of these guys off the barbs of the Tower of London like Henry the 8th is still kicking!
The rare breed of the thoughtful anti-nationalist who also thinks fondly of the time people were hung and quartered!
You definately missed the point of the HDQ reference buddy. I am merely inferring that we are too much of a pacifist society, denying our "fight or flight" animal instincts to the point that it bites us in the ass.
But it's ok a lot of people seem to have made the same mistake you did.
PS. Why the hell would I think kindly of that? I have Irish ancestors who suffered that fate at the hands of disgustingly autocratic kings. I just think sometimes people need to man up and realize we live in a VERY violent world, not the Disney channel.
So more violence will solve our problems?
Luckily violence has an upper limit! If there are 200 people on the left, and 200 people on the right, and they are having a disagreement (resulting in numerous scuffles and whatnot) there will be a base level of violence. However, when they begin to openly fight and attempt to kill one another, there will be a temporary spike in the quantifiable "violence" index preceding a precipitous (and prolonged) drop off as one side is victorious. Thus resulting in an extended temporal demarcation whereby violence will be used at a drastically decreased rate as the native population attempts to replace itself, this time in lieu of any enemies or other "tribes".
^_^
All joking aside, it truly is disheartening how fearful you've been made of violence. It is a tool. Like anything else it can be used properly or improperly. Violence is not inherently immoral. It is simply the final arbiter when all other matters of recourse have failed.
A fair summation:
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.....A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
Pacifists are the ultimate degenerates.
On May 24 2013 12:21 Saryph wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:12 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:04 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:53 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:52 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:48 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:45 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: [quote]
You definately missed the point of the HDQ reference buddy. I am merely inferring that we are too much of a pacifist society, denying our "fight or flight" animal instincts to the point that it bites us in the ass.
But it's ok a lot of people seem to have made the same mistake you did.
PS. Why the hell would I think kindly of that? I have Irish ancestors who suffered that fate at the hands of disgustingly autocratic kings. I just think sometimes people need to man up and realize we live in a VERY violent world, not the Disney channel.
So more violence will solve our problems?
When it can be jusitified(self-defence)? Yes.
Do I want us to drone-strike the hell out of Nigeria because these guys are of Nigerian heritage? No
Do I believe in the death penalty after a fair and reasonable trial? Yes
God bless the USA for not giving up on that last one.
But you was talking about torturing and killing them without a whimp.
You literally have no room for METAPHOR or the slightest splash of sensationalism.
I just said we should have a death penalty so we don't have to pay to keep them alive and to remind the world that when you mass-murder us, you won't be treated softly for it.
is the lethal injection that inhumane?
And "without a whimp"? No they get their day in court thanks to Mrs. RoboCop. But we all know they did it. Do you deny that? Therefore I can confidently say YES, I do think they deserve to die. Maybe not brutally, as again I don't think anyone wants the Middle Ages to return(when Christianity was on the level of barbarity that certain branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect are showing now) but certainly deserve to die a billion times more than that poor soldier did.
I have all room i want for metaphors because you´re mixing personal feelings with a objective ethical axiom about how our society should work.
And yes death penalty is barbaric and the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death. A paradox. Not even speaking about ethics then...
Our peacefull society has it´s price. Paying tax and the goverment investing this money for jails and food is one of them. A price i pay happily. If you´re so upset with this situation there are countrys that could be interesting for you.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter.
I think people like you who consider something like the death penalty "barbaric", are simply out of touch with the fact that beyond this "civilized" ethos we have built up in our minds, we are animals in a war of survival of the fittest, every day.
The difference is that for 1000s of years our only predators are ourselves, and in the last 200 this is slowly transforming so that the way we "prey" on each other, rather than a life-or-death fight, is a "let's see who can be more successful/make more money/be more famous", which leads people to forget that there are people in other parts of the world who think nothing of taking human life, and that there is no reasoning with someone like that, there is merely being the fittest in order to guarantee surivival.
Edit: didnt see your bit about "innocents". Don't see how that's relevant. Sure the USA has a history of F'ing that up royally and yeah I think they over-impose their corporal punishment. My own personal belief is that the only crimes that should be punishable by death are grand treason, and mass-murder for political/religious/personal reasons(again I would omit serial killers because it has been fairly well documented that guys like Dahmer, Bundy were victims of a disease in their mind, a compulsion to kill, that they struggled with from an early age).
If you guarantee that you have the kind of open-and-shut case that acts like yesterday provide(loads of eyewitnesses, videos, on site confessions before any possibility of duress), then yes it is a fitting punishment.
I'm not in any way suggesting that you should get the DP when you get the kind of circumstantial evidence that seems to stand up so well in American courts.
As long as we are theorycrafting legal systems we can avoid/remove the pitfalls of other similar systems while also improving our own ones.
Based on what I heard in the video, I bet the man who killed the soldier would argue he was taking "someone's life in the name of peace" as you put it. I haven't paid that much attention to this, but it seemed simple enough to gather that from his statements. Don't forget to look at things from other peoples' viewpoints, or at least attempt to do so.
And he probably did. But despite the ability to subject the event to a meta-analysis, we must never lose sight that we are not in fact an objective 3rd party, but as human beings we are involved/potentially involved. With that in mind, how could I not choose my version of "fighting in the name of peace" over his?
Then it just comes down to which side is better at it's bloody work. If I had to take bets? I'd say the West wins that one, and the rest of the world knows it.
This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled.
says a kid behind a keyboard, whose most dangerous accomplishment in weeks time is going to McDonalds... seriously dude, what the fuck. you speak about manning up and not living our lives like we're all on a Disney channel, because world got to a point where being pacifistic no longer benefits us, but rather it hurts us... from Canada.
i grew up in a country torn with war, and let me tell you, it's not pretty. you may glorify violence by approaching it logically, and all that is strictly speaking valid and fine, but what you leave out is the ugly that comes with it, like ethnic(/religious) cleansing, rape, pillaging, massacres. if you had any real life encounters with that shit, you'd happily take your inner animal to gym and take it out on a punching bag, instead of boasting on the internet about having no problem killing people in the name of peace, while calling out people who disagree with you as wimps, because it makes you feel like a tough guy. well, take it from someone with experience, you're not. there, consider yourself educated.
On May 24 2013 11:22 Taguchi wrote: Well GaNgStaRR.ElV, from what you've posted I can definitely see how you came about those FB friends of yours you had to 'purge'. I mean, I had read most of your post happily nodding along and then suddenly bam!
On May 24 2013 10:21 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: The second shame is that because they didn't kill these guys on the spot, they are probably going to spend the rest of their lives locked up in Belmarsh prison on the British citizen's tax money with a bunch of other inmates who have also been arrested on their Jihad, or share these people's views. It's not exactly like they are going to pay for the rest of their life for this, sitting in prison reading the Qu-ran never having to worry about doing anything but passing time isn't exactly fair punishment.
I mean there's a reason the British Empire was strongest at a time when the punishment for treason was to be hung, drawn and quartered. I bet there would be little to no repeats of this attack if we hung the quarters of these guys off the barbs of the Tower of London like Henry the 8th is still kicking!
The rare breed of the thoughtful anti-nationalist who also thinks fondly of the time people were hung and quartered!
You definately missed the point of the HDQ reference buddy. I am merely inferring that we are too much of a pacifist society, denying our "fight or flight" animal instincts to the point that it bites us in the ass.
But it's ok a lot of people seem to have made the same mistake you did.
PS. Why the hell would I think kindly of that? I have Irish ancestors who suffered that fate at the hands of disgustingly autocratic kings. I just think sometimes people need to man up and realize we live in a VERY violent world, not the Disney channel.
So more violence will solve our problems?
Luckily violence has an upper limit! If there are 200 people on the left, and 200 people on the right, and they are having a disagreement (resulting in numerous scuffles and whatnot) there will be a base level of violence. However, when they begin to openly fight and attempt to kill one another, there will be a temporary spike in the quantifiable "violence" index preceding a precipitous (and prolonged) drop off as one side is victorious. Thus resulting in an extended temporal demarcation whereby violence will be used at a drastically decreased rate as the native population attempts to replace itself, this time in lieu of any enemies or other "tribes".
^_^
All joking aside, it truly is disheartening how fearful you've been made of violence. It is a tool. Like anything else it can be used properly or improperly. Violence is not inherently immoral. It is simply the final arbiter when all other matters of recourse have failed.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.....A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
Pacifists are the ultimate degenerates.
On May 24 2013 12:21 Saryph wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:12 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:04 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:53 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:52 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:48 Nachtwind wrote: [quote]
So more violence will solve our problems?
When it can be jusitified(self-defence)? Yes.
Do I want us to drone-strike the hell out of Nigeria because these guys are of Nigerian heritage? No
Do I believe in the death penalty after a fair and reasonable trial? Yes
God bless the USA for not giving up on that last one.
But you was talking about torturing and killing them without a whimp.
You literally have no room for METAPHOR or the slightest splash of sensationalism.
I just said we should have a death penalty so we don't have to pay to keep them alive and to remind the world that when you mass-murder us, you won't be treated softly for it.
is the lethal injection that inhumane?
And "without a whimp"? No they get their day in court thanks to Mrs. RoboCop. But we all know they did it. Do you deny that? Therefore I can confidently say YES, I do think they deserve to die. Maybe not brutally, as again I don't think anyone wants the Middle Ages to return(when Christianity was on the level of barbarity that certain branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect are showing now) but certainly deserve to die a billion times more than that poor soldier did.
I have all room i want for metaphors because you´re mixing personal feelings with a objective ethical axiom about how our society should work.
And yes death penalty is barbaric and the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death. A paradox. Not even speaking about ethics then...
Our peacefull society has it´s price. Paying tax and the goverment investing this money for jails and food is one of them. A price i pay happily. If you´re so upset with this situation there are countrys that could be interesting for you.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter.
I think people like you who consider something like the death penalty "barbaric", are simply out of touch with the fact that beyond this "civilized" ethos we have built up in our minds, we are animals in a war of survival of the fittest, every day.
The difference is that for 1000s of years our only predators are ourselves, and in the last 200 this is slowly transforming so that the way we "prey" on each other, rather than a life-or-death fight, is a "let's see who can be more successful/make more money/be more famous", which leads people to forget that there are people in other parts of the world who think nothing of taking human life, and that there is no reasoning with someone like that, there is merely being the fittest in order to guarantee surivival.
Edit: didnt see your bit about "innocents". Don't see how that's relevant. Sure the USA has a history of F'ing that up royally and yeah I think they over-impose their corporal punishment. My own personal belief is that the only crimes that should be punishable by death are grand treason, and mass-murder for political/religious/personal reasons(again I would omit serial killers because it has been fairly well documented that guys like Dahmer, Bundy were victims of a disease in their mind, a compulsion to kill, that they struggled with from an early age).
If you guarantee that you have the kind of open-and-shut case that acts like yesterday provide(loads of eyewitnesses, videos, on site confessions before any possibility of duress), then yes it is a fitting punishment.
I'm not in any way suggesting that you should get the DP when you get the kind of circumstantial evidence that seems to stand up so well in American courts.
As long as we are theorycrafting legal systems we can avoid/remove the pitfalls of other similar systems while also improving our own ones.
Based on what I heard in the video, I bet the man who killed the soldier would argue he was taking "someone's life in the name of peace" as you put it. I haven't paid that much attention to this, but it seemed simple enough to gather that from his statements. Don't forget to look at things from other peoples' viewpoints, or at least attempt to do so.
And he probably did. But despite the ability to subject the event to a meta-analysis, we must never lose sight that we are not in fact an objective 3rd party, but as human beings we are involved/potentially involved. With that in mind, how could I not choose my version of "fighting in the name of peace" over his?
Then it just comes down to which side is better at it's bloody work. If I had to take bets? I'd say the West wins that one, and the rest of the world knows it.
This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled.
says a kid behind a keyboard, whose most dangerous accomplishment in weeks time is going to McDonalds... seriously dude, what the fuck. you speak about manning up and not living our lives like we're all on a Disney channel, because world got to a point where being pacifistic no longer benefits us, but rather it hurts us... from Canada.
i grew up in a country torn with war, and let me tell you, it's not pretty. you may glorify violence by approaching it logically, and all that is strictly speaking valid and fine, but what you leave out is the ugly that comes with it, like ethnic(/religious) cleansing, rape, pillaging, massacres. if you had any real life encounters with that shit, you'd happily take your inner animal to gym and take it out on a punching bag, instead of boasting on the internet about having no problem killing people in the name of peace, while calling out people who disagree with you as wimps, because it makes you feel like a tough guy. well, take it from someone with experience, you're not. there, consider yourself educated.
Sorry but I know from first-hand experience from the Croats, Serbs and Slovenians I am friends with exactly what happend in your "war", Milosevic was a fucking pig and frankly pretty much everyone involved in that war got their hands dirty in some way. You talk about not glorifying violence but hey, you let one of your biggest war criminals bully his football team's way to the Champions League with bribes, violence and intimidation tactics before fate caught up with him(name slips my mind).
You don't really hear about rape's, pillages and massacres from US forces do you? Or are you the kind of guy who says these things happen regularly despite no concrete evidence. I'm not trying to be a "tough guy" or be perceived as such I'm stating my opinion; if it wasn't for my asthma and color-blindness I would have already probably been deployed to Afghanistan(tried to sign up and got rejected, that was a pretty shit feeling).
I call people wimps because again, resisting the urge to write in all caps, we are a violent race and have been for our entire history, nature is a violent entity, pretty much everything we know, have grown up in or love has been shaped by violence. There's really no place in the world for people who can't get angry about anything to the point that they would not harm another human being just because they deem it to be "wrong".
Also before you call me a "kid behind a keyboard", you should know that I have seen death multiple times, have been a victim of violent crimes, and have certainly had enough life experience to be able to reasonably justify my position. Don't act like just because the country you come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2 means you are above everybody else. I Didnt glorify it or say it was pretty, I said it was a necessary evil. Obviously it's not pretty when loads of servicement come home with PTSD after being trained to deal with the stresses. TL:DR Don't take 1 instance where a country that should never have been 1 unified country with about 10 different ethnic groups thanks to the soviets, then exploded upon itself, as an example of what every war is like.
On May 24 2013 11:22 Taguchi wrote: Well GaNgStaRR.ElV, from what you've posted I can definitely see how you came about those FB friends of yours you had to 'purge'. I mean, I had read most of your post happily nodding along and then suddenly bam!
On May 24 2013 10:21 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: The second shame is that because they didn't kill these guys on the spot, they are probably going to spend the rest of their lives locked up in Belmarsh prison on the British citizen's tax money with a bunch of other inmates who have also been arrested on their Jihad, or share these people's views. It's not exactly like they are going to pay for the rest of their life for this, sitting in prison reading the Qu-ran never having to worry about doing anything but passing time isn't exactly fair punishment.
I mean there's a reason the British Empire was strongest at a time when the punishment for treason was to be hung, drawn and quartered. I bet there would be little to no repeats of this attack if we hung the quarters of these guys off the barbs of the Tower of London like Henry the 8th is still kicking!
The rare breed of the thoughtful anti-nationalist who also thinks fondly of the time people were hung and quartered!
You definately missed the point of the HDQ reference buddy. I am merely inferring that we are too much of a pacifist society, denying our "fight or flight" animal instincts to the point that it bites us in the ass.
But it's ok a lot of people seem to have made the same mistake you did.
PS. Why the hell would I think kindly of that? I have Irish ancestors who suffered that fate at the hands of disgustingly autocratic kings. I just think sometimes people need to man up and realize we live in a VERY violent world, not the Disney channel.
So more violence will solve our problems?
Luckily violence has an upper limit! If there are 200 people on the left, and 200 people on the right, and they are having a disagreement (resulting in numerous scuffles and whatnot) there will be a base level of violence. However, when they begin to openly fight and attempt to kill one another, there will be a temporary spike in the quantifiable "violence" index preceding a precipitous (and prolonged) drop off as one side is victorious. Thus resulting in an extended temporal demarcation whereby violence will be used at a drastically decreased rate as the native population attempts to replace itself, this time in lieu of any enemies or other "tribes".
^_^
All joking aside, it truly is disheartening how fearful you've been made of violence. It is a tool. Like anything else it can be used properly or improperly. Violence is not inherently immoral. It is simply the final arbiter when all other matters of recourse have failed.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.....A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
Pacifists are the ultimate degenerates.
On May 24 2013 12:21 Saryph wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:12 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:04 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:53 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:52 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: [quote]
When it can be jusitified(self-defence)? Yes.
Do I want us to drone-strike the hell out of Nigeria because these guys are of Nigerian heritage? No
Do I believe in the death penalty after a fair and reasonable trial? Yes
God bless the USA for not giving up on that last one.
But you was talking about torturing and killing them without a whimp.
You literally have no room for METAPHOR or the slightest splash of sensationalism.
I just said we should have a death penalty so we don't have to pay to keep them alive and to remind the world that when you mass-murder us, you won't be treated softly for it.
is the lethal injection that inhumane?
And "without a whimp"? No they get their day in court thanks to Mrs. RoboCop. But we all know they did it. Do you deny that? Therefore I can confidently say YES, I do think they deserve to die. Maybe not brutally, as again I don't think anyone wants the Middle Ages to return(when Christianity was on the level of barbarity that certain branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect are showing now) but certainly deserve to die a billion times more than that poor soldier did.
I have all room i want for metaphors because you´re mixing personal feelings with a objective ethical axiom about how our society should work.
And yes death penalty is barbaric and the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death. A paradox. Not even speaking about ethics then...
Our peacefull society has it´s price. Paying tax and the goverment investing this money for jails and food is one of them. A price i pay happily. If you´re so upset with this situation there are countrys that could be interesting for you.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter.
I think people like you who consider something like the death penalty "barbaric", are simply out of touch with the fact that beyond this "civilized" ethos we have built up in our minds, we are animals in a war of survival of the fittest, every day.
The difference is that for 1000s of years our only predators are ourselves, and in the last 200 this is slowly transforming so that the way we "prey" on each other, rather than a life-or-death fight, is a "let's see who can be more successful/make more money/be more famous", which leads people to forget that there are people in other parts of the world who think nothing of taking human life, and that there is no reasoning with someone like that, there is merely being the fittest in order to guarantee surivival.
Edit: didnt see your bit about "innocents". Don't see how that's relevant. Sure the USA has a history of F'ing that up royally and yeah I think they over-impose their corporal punishment. My own personal belief is that the only crimes that should be punishable by death are grand treason, and mass-murder for political/religious/personal reasons(again I would omit serial killers because it has been fairly well documented that guys like Dahmer, Bundy were victims of a disease in their mind, a compulsion to kill, that they struggled with from an early age).
If you guarantee that you have the kind of open-and-shut case that acts like yesterday provide(loads of eyewitnesses, videos, on site confessions before any possibility of duress), then yes it is a fitting punishment.
I'm not in any way suggesting that you should get the DP when you get the kind of circumstantial evidence that seems to stand up so well in American courts.
As long as we are theorycrafting legal systems we can avoid/remove the pitfalls of other similar systems while also improving our own ones.
Based on what I heard in the video, I bet the man who killed the soldier would argue he was taking "someone's life in the name of peace" as you put it. I haven't paid that much attention to this, but it seemed simple enough to gather that from his statements. Don't forget to look at things from other peoples' viewpoints, or at least attempt to do so.
And he probably did. But despite the ability to subject the event to a meta-analysis, we must never lose sight that we are not in fact an objective 3rd party, but as human beings we are involved/potentially involved. With that in mind, how could I not choose my version of "fighting in the name of peace" over his?
Then it just comes down to which side is better at it's bloody work. If I had to take bets? I'd say the West wins that one, and the rest of the world knows it.
This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled.
says a kid behind a keyboard, whose most dangerous accomplishment in weeks time is going to McDonalds... seriously dude, what the fuck. you speak about manning up and not living our lives like we're all on a Disney channel, because world got to a point where being pacifistic no longer benefits us, but rather it hurts us... from Canada.
i grew up in a country torn with war, and let me tell you, it's not pretty. you may glorify violence by approaching it logically, and all that is strictly speaking valid and fine, but what you leave out is the ugly that comes with it, like ethnic(/religious) cleansing, rape, pillaging, massacres. if you had any real life encounters with that shit, you'd happily take your inner animal to gym and take it out on a punching bag, instead of boasting on the internet about having no problem killing people in the name of peace, while calling out people who disagree with you as wimps, because it makes you feel like a tough guy. well, take it from someone with experience, you're not. there, consider yourself educated.
Sorry but I know from first-hand experience from the Croats, Serbs and Slovenians I am friends with exactly what happend in your "war", Milosevic was a fucking pig and frankly pretty much everyone involved in that war got their hands dirty in some way. You talk about not glorifying violence but hey, you let one of your biggest war criminals bully his football team's way to the Champions League with bribes, violence and intimidation tactics before fate caught up with him(name slips my mind).
You don't really hear about rape's, pillages and massacres from US forces do you? Or are you the kind of guy who says these things happen regularly despite no concrete evidence. I'm not trying to be a "tough guy" or be perceived as such I'm stating my opinion; if it wasn't for my asthma and color-blindness I would have already probably been deployed to Afghanistan(tried to sign up and got rejected, that was a pretty shit feeling).
I call people wimps because again, resisting the urge to write in all caps, we are a violent race and have been for our entire history, nature is a violent entity, pretty much everything we know, have grown up in or love has been shaped by violence. There's really no place in the world for people who can't get angry about anything to the point that they would not harm another human being just because they deem it to be "wrong".
Also before you call me a "kid behind a keyboard", you should know that I have seen death multiple times, have been a victim of violent crimes, and have certainly had enough life experience to be able to reasonably justify my position. Don't act like just because the country you come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2 means you are above everybody else. TL:DR Don't take 1 instance where a country that should never have been 1 unified country with about 10 different ethnic groups thanks to the soviets, then exploded upon itself, as an example of what every war is like.
you're not educated enough for this to turn into a debate, i'm sorry...
On May 24 2013 11:22 Taguchi wrote: Well GaNgStaRR.ElV, from what you've posted I can definitely see how you came about those FB friends of yours you had to 'purge'. I mean, I had read most of your post happily nodding along and then suddenly bam!
On May 24 2013 10:21 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: The second shame is that because they didn't kill these guys on the spot, they are probably going to spend the rest of their lives locked up in Belmarsh prison on the British citizen's tax money with a bunch of other inmates who have also been arrested on their Jihad, or share these people's views. It's not exactly like they are going to pay for the rest of their life for this, sitting in prison reading the Qu-ran never having to worry about doing anything but passing time isn't exactly fair punishment.
I mean there's a reason the British Empire was strongest at a time when the punishment for treason was to be hung, drawn and quartered. I bet there would be little to no repeats of this attack if we hung the quarters of these guys off the barbs of the Tower of London like Henry the 8th is still kicking!
The rare breed of the thoughtful anti-nationalist who also thinks fondly of the time people were hung and quartered!
You definately missed the point of the HDQ reference buddy. I am merely inferring that we are too much of a pacifist society, denying our "fight or flight" animal instincts to the point that it bites us in the ass.
But it's ok a lot of people seem to have made the same mistake you did.
PS. Why the hell would I think kindly of that? I have Irish ancestors who suffered that fate at the hands of disgustingly autocratic kings. I just think sometimes people need to man up and realize we live in a VERY violent world, not the Disney channel.
So more violence will solve our problems?
Luckily violence has an upper limit! If there are 200 people on the left, and 200 people on the right, and they are having a disagreement (resulting in numerous scuffles and whatnot) there will be a base level of violence. However, when they begin to openly fight and attempt to kill one another, there will be a temporary spike in the quantifiable "violence" index preceding a precipitous (and prolonged) drop off as one side is victorious. Thus resulting in an extended temporal demarcation whereby violence will be used at a drastically decreased rate as the native population attempts to replace itself, this time in lieu of any enemies or other "tribes".
^_^
All joking aside, it truly is disheartening how fearful you've been made of violence. It is a tool. Like anything else it can be used properly or improperly. Violence is not inherently immoral. It is simply the final arbiter when all other matters of recourse have failed.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.....A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
Pacifists are the ultimate degenerates.
On May 24 2013 12:21 Saryph wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:12 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:04 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:53 Nachtwind wrote: [quote]
But you was talking about torturing and killing them without a whimp.
You literally have no room for METAPHOR or the slightest splash of sensationalism.
I just said we should have a death penalty so we don't have to pay to keep them alive and to remind the world that when you mass-murder us, you won't be treated softly for it.
is the lethal injection that inhumane?
And "without a whimp"? No they get their day in court thanks to Mrs. RoboCop. But we all know they did it. Do you deny that? Therefore I can confidently say YES, I do think they deserve to die. Maybe not brutally, as again I don't think anyone wants the Middle Ages to return(when Christianity was on the level of barbarity that certain branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect are showing now) but certainly deserve to die a billion times more than that poor soldier did.
I have all room i want for metaphors because you´re mixing personal feelings with a objective ethical axiom about how our society should work.
And yes death penalty is barbaric and the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death. A paradox. Not even speaking about ethics then...
Our peacefull society has it´s price. Paying tax and the goverment investing this money for jails and food is one of them. A price i pay happily. If you´re so upset with this situation there are countrys that could be interesting for you.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter.
I think people like you who consider something like the death penalty "barbaric", are simply out of touch with the fact that beyond this "civilized" ethos we have built up in our minds, we are animals in a war of survival of the fittest, every day.
The difference is that for 1000s of years our only predators are ourselves, and in the last 200 this is slowly transforming so that the way we "prey" on each other, rather than a life-or-death fight, is a "let's see who can be more successful/make more money/be more famous", which leads people to forget that there are people in other parts of the world who think nothing of taking human life, and that there is no reasoning with someone like that, there is merely being the fittest in order to guarantee surivival.
Edit: didnt see your bit about "innocents". Don't see how that's relevant. Sure the USA has a history of F'ing that up royally and yeah I think they over-impose their corporal punishment. My own personal belief is that the only crimes that should be punishable by death are grand treason, and mass-murder for political/religious/personal reasons(again I would omit serial killers because it has been fairly well documented that guys like Dahmer, Bundy were victims of a disease in their mind, a compulsion to kill, that they struggled with from an early age).
If you guarantee that you have the kind of open-and-shut case that acts like yesterday provide(loads of eyewitnesses, videos, on site confessions before any possibility of duress), then yes it is a fitting punishment.
I'm not in any way suggesting that you should get the DP when you get the kind of circumstantial evidence that seems to stand up so well in American courts.
As long as we are theorycrafting legal systems we can avoid/remove the pitfalls of other similar systems while also improving our own ones.
Based on what I heard in the video, I bet the man who killed the soldier would argue he was taking "someone's life in the name of peace" as you put it. I haven't paid that much attention to this, but it seemed simple enough to gather that from his statements. Don't forget to look at things from other peoples' viewpoints, or at least attempt to do so.
And he probably did. But despite the ability to subject the event to a meta-analysis, we must never lose sight that we are not in fact an objective 3rd party, but as human beings we are involved/potentially involved. With that in mind, how could I not choose my version of "fighting in the name of peace" over his?
Then it just comes down to which side is better at it's bloody work. If I had to take bets? I'd say the West wins that one, and the rest of the world knows it.
This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled.
says a kid behind a keyboard, whose most dangerous accomplishment in weeks time is going to McDonalds... seriously dude, what the fuck. you speak about manning up and not living our lives like we're all on a Disney channel, because world got to a point where being pacifistic no longer benefits us, but rather it hurts us... from Canada.
i grew up in a country torn with war, and let me tell you, it's not pretty. you may glorify violence by approaching it logically, and all that is strictly speaking valid and fine, but what you leave out is the ugly that comes with it, like ethnic(/religious) cleansing, rape, pillaging, massacres. if you had any real life encounters with that shit, you'd happily take your inner animal to gym and take it out on a punching bag, instead of boasting on the internet about having no problem killing people in the name of peace, while calling out people who disagree with you as wimps, because it makes you feel like a tough guy. well, take it from someone with experience, you're not. there, consider yourself educated.
Sorry but I know from first-hand experience from the Croats, Serbs and Slovenians I am friends with exactly what happend in your "war", Milosevic was a fucking pig and frankly pretty much everyone involved in that war got their hands dirty in some way.
You don't really hear about rape's, pillages and massacres from US forces do you? Or are you the kind of guy who says these things happen regularly despite no concrete evidence. I'm not trying to be a "tough guy" or be perceived as such I'm stating my opinion; if it wasn't for my asthma and color-blindness I would have already probably been deployed to Afghanistan(tried to sign up and got rejected, that was a pretty shit feeling).
I call people wimps because again, resisting the urge to write in all caps, we are a violent race and have been for our entire history, nature is a violent entity, pretty much everything we know, have grown up in or love has been shaped by violence. There's really no place in the world for people who can't get angry about anything to the point that they would not harm another human being just because they deem it to be "wrong".
Also before you call me a "kid behind a keyboard", you should know that I have seen death multiple times, have been a victim of violent crimes, and have certainly had enough life experience to be able to reasonably justify my position. Don't act like just because the country you come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2 means you are above everybody else. TL:DR Don't take 1 instance where a country that should never have been 1 unified country with about 10 different ethnic groups thanks to the soviets, then exploded upon itself, as an example of what every war is like.
you're not educated enough for this to turn into a debate, i'm sorry...
Really? thats funny because I studied military history for a year before switching to music, whats your education aside from witnessing it? How about stating why this wasn't one of the worst western genocides in recent times? I have a pretty good understanding of why and what, are you upset I'm calling it a genocide and not a war? I don't get your opposition and why you refuse to "debate" citing my apparent lack of intellectual skills.
On May 24 2013 11:22 Taguchi wrote: Well GaNgStaRR.ElV, from what you've posted I can definitely see how you came about those FB friends of yours you had to 'purge'. I mean, I had read most of your post happily nodding along and then suddenly bam!
On May 24 2013 10:21 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: The second shame is that because they didn't kill these guys on the spot, they are probably going to spend the rest of their lives locked up in Belmarsh prison on the British citizen's tax money with a bunch of other inmates who have also been arrested on their Jihad, or share these people's views. It's not exactly like they are going to pay for the rest of their life for this, sitting in prison reading the Qu-ran never having to worry about doing anything but passing time isn't exactly fair punishment.
I mean there's a reason the British Empire was strongest at a time when the punishment for treason was to be hung, drawn and quartered. I bet there would be little to no repeats of this attack if we hung the quarters of these guys off the barbs of the Tower of London like Henry the 8th is still kicking!
The rare breed of the thoughtful anti-nationalist who also thinks fondly of the time people were hung and quartered!
You definately missed the point of the HDQ reference buddy. I am merely inferring that we are too much of a pacifist society, denying our "fight or flight" animal instincts to the point that it bites us in the ass.
But it's ok a lot of people seem to have made the same mistake you did.
PS. Why the hell would I think kindly of that? I have Irish ancestors who suffered that fate at the hands of disgustingly autocratic kings. I just think sometimes people need to man up and realize we live in a VERY violent world, not the Disney channel.
So more violence will solve our problems?
Luckily violence has an upper limit! If there are 200 people on the left, and 200 people on the right, and they are having a disagreement (resulting in numerous scuffles and whatnot) there will be a base level of violence. However, when they begin to openly fight and attempt to kill one another, there will be a temporary spike in the quantifiable "violence" index preceding a precipitous (and prolonged) drop off as one side is victorious. Thus resulting in an extended temporal demarcation whereby violence will be used at a drastically decreased rate as the native population attempts to replace itself, this time in lieu of any enemies or other "tribes".
^_^
All joking aside, it truly is disheartening how fearful you've been made of violence. It is a tool. Like anything else it can be used properly or improperly. Violence is not inherently immoral. It is simply the final arbiter when all other matters of recourse have failed.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.....A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
Pacifists are the ultimate degenerates.
On May 24 2013 12:21 Saryph wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:12 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:04 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:53 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:52 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: [quote]
When it can be jusitified(self-defence)? Yes.
Do I want us to drone-strike the hell out of Nigeria because these guys are of Nigerian heritage? No
Do I believe in the death penalty after a fair and reasonable trial? Yes
God bless the USA for not giving up on that last one.
But you was talking about torturing and killing them without a whimp.
You literally have no room for METAPHOR or the slightest splash of sensationalism.
I just said we should have a death penalty so we don't have to pay to keep them alive and to remind the world that when you mass-murder us, you won't be treated softly for it.
is the lethal injection that inhumane?
And "without a whimp"? No they get their day in court thanks to Mrs. RoboCop. But we all know they did it. Do you deny that? Therefore I can confidently say YES, I do think they deserve to die. Maybe not brutally, as again I don't think anyone wants the Middle Ages to return(when Christianity was on the level of barbarity that certain branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect are showing now) but certainly deserve to die a billion times more than that poor soldier did.
I have all room i want for metaphors because you´re mixing personal feelings with a objective ethical axiom about how our society should work.
And yes death penalty is barbaric and the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death. A paradox. Not even speaking about ethics then...
Our peacefull society has it´s price. Paying tax and the goverment investing this money for jails and food is one of them. A price i pay happily. If you´re so upset with this situation there are countrys that could be interesting for you.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter.
I think people like you who consider something like the death penalty "barbaric", are simply out of touch with the fact that beyond this "civilized" ethos we have built up in our minds, we are animals in a war of survival of the fittest, every day.
The difference is that for 1000s of years our only predators are ourselves, and in the last 200 this is slowly transforming so that the way we "prey" on each other, rather than a life-or-death fight, is a "let's see who can be more successful/make more money/be more famous", which leads people to forget that there are people in other parts of the world who think nothing of taking human life, and that there is no reasoning with someone like that, there is merely being the fittest in order to guarantee surivival.
Edit: didnt see your bit about "innocents". Don't see how that's relevant. Sure the USA has a history of F'ing that up royally and yeah I think they over-impose their corporal punishment. My own personal belief is that the only crimes that should be punishable by death are grand treason, and mass-murder for political/religious/personal reasons(again I would omit serial killers because it has been fairly well documented that guys like Dahmer, Bundy were victims of a disease in their mind, a compulsion to kill, that they struggled with from an early age).
If you guarantee that you have the kind of open-and-shut case that acts like yesterday provide(loads of eyewitnesses, videos, on site confessions before any possibility of duress), then yes it is a fitting punishment.
I'm not in any way suggesting that you should get the DP when you get the kind of circumstantial evidence that seems to stand up so well in American courts.
As long as we are theorycrafting legal systems we can avoid/remove the pitfalls of other similar systems while also improving our own ones.
Based on what I heard in the video, I bet the man who killed the soldier would argue he was taking "someone's life in the name of peace" as you put it. I haven't paid that much attention to this, but it seemed simple enough to gather that from his statements. Don't forget to look at things from other peoples' viewpoints, or at least attempt to do so.
And he probably did. But despite the ability to subject the event to a meta-analysis, we must never lose sight that we are not in fact an objective 3rd party, but as human beings we are involved/potentially involved. With that in mind, how could I not choose my version of "fighting in the name of peace" over his?
Then it just comes down to which side is better at it's bloody work. If I had to take bets? I'd say the West wins that one, and the rest of the world knows it.
This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled.
says a kid behind a keyboard, whose most dangerous accomplishment in weeks time is going to McDonalds... seriously dude, what the fuck. you speak about manning up and not living our lives like we're all on a Disney channel, because world got to a point where being pacifistic no longer benefits us, but rather it hurts us... from Canada.
i grew up in a country torn with war, and let me tell you, it's not pretty. you may glorify violence by approaching it logically, and all that is strictly speaking valid and fine, but what you leave out is the ugly that comes with it, like ethnic(/religious) cleansing, rape, pillaging, massacres. if you had any real life encounters with that shit, you'd happily take your inner animal to gym and take it out on a punching bag, instead of boasting on the internet about having no problem killing people in the name of peace, while calling out people who disagree with you as wimps, because it makes you feel like a tough guy. well, take it from someone with experience, you're not. there, consider yourself educated.
Sorry but I know from first-hand experience from the Croats, Serbs and Slovenians I am friends with exactly what happend in your "war", Milosevic was a fucking pig and frankly pretty much everyone involved in that war got their hands dirty in some way. You talk about not glorifying violence but hey, you let one of your biggest war criminals bully his football team's way to the Champions League with bribes, violence and intimidation tactics before fate caught up with him(name slips my mind).
Your friends whatever nationality they may be don't even live in our country/s and know only what their diaspora media fed to them. Everyone is to blame for what happened in Yugoslavia and nobody is the good guy, I'm pretty sure my Croatian neighbor in the post above agrees with me. When Serbia protested to the international community about the ever larger involvement of al-Qaeda and the foreign mujahedin in BiH nobody listened, the early 90's media couldn't care less, but those same terrorist bases in Bosnia trained the 9/11 pilots.
Why are we talking about what a country did some 20+ years ago(yes i know iraq wars started 12 years ago and are still ongoing but this thread is hardly about the Iraq Wars.) Very few of the people who were in charge when those things occurred are still in charge. It is just the "white people used to own slaves therefor all white people are evil," talk. The subject is a british soldier was attacked and then beheaded by a couple of people, they weren't paid by a government agency nor a religious agency to go out and do this so bringing up the subject of religion as if it played a part doesn't make sense.
They obviously did this cause they wanted to, not because some religion told them to. They can say "<Insert Specific religion's God here> told me to kill everyone." but when it comes down to it they just did what they wanted and came up with an excuse to do it.
On May 24 2013 11:22 Taguchi wrote: Well GaNgStaRR.ElV, from what you've posted I can definitely see how you came about those FB friends of yours you had to 'purge'. I mean, I had read most of your post happily nodding along and then suddenly bam!
On May 24 2013 10:21 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: The second shame is that because they didn't kill these guys on the spot, they are probably going to spend the rest of their lives locked up in Belmarsh prison on the British citizen's tax money with a bunch of other inmates who have also been arrested on their Jihad, or share these people's views. It's not exactly like they are going to pay for the rest of their life for this, sitting in prison reading the Qu-ran never having to worry about doing anything but passing time isn't exactly fair punishment.
I mean there's a reason the British Empire was strongest at a time when the punishment for treason was to be hung, drawn and quartered. I bet there would be little to no repeats of this attack if we hung the quarters of these guys off the barbs of the Tower of London like Henry the 8th is still kicking!
The rare breed of the thoughtful anti-nationalist who also thinks fondly of the time people were hung and quartered!
You definately missed the point of the HDQ reference buddy. I am merely inferring that we are too much of a pacifist society, denying our "fight or flight" animal instincts to the point that it bites us in the ass.
But it's ok a lot of people seem to have made the same mistake you did.
PS. Why the hell would I think kindly of that? I have Irish ancestors who suffered that fate at the hands of disgustingly autocratic kings. I just think sometimes people need to man up and realize we live in a VERY violent world, not the Disney channel.
So more violence will solve our problems?
Luckily violence has an upper limit! If there are 200 people on the left, and 200 people on the right, and they are having a disagreement (resulting in numerous scuffles and whatnot) there will be a base level of violence. However, when they begin to openly fight and attempt to kill one another, there will be a temporary spike in the quantifiable "violence" index preceding a precipitous (and prolonged) drop off as one side is victorious. Thus resulting in an extended temporal demarcation whereby violence will be used at a drastically decreased rate as the native population attempts to replace itself, this time in lieu of any enemies or other "tribes".
^_^
All joking aside, it truly is disheartening how fearful you've been made of violence. It is a tool. Like anything else it can be used properly or improperly. Violence is not inherently immoral. It is simply the final arbiter when all other matters of recourse have failed.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.....A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
Pacifists are the ultimate degenerates.
On May 24 2013 12:21 Saryph wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:12 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:04 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:53 Nachtwind wrote: [quote]
But you was talking about torturing and killing them without a whimp.
You literally have no room for METAPHOR or the slightest splash of sensationalism.
I just said we should have a death penalty so we don't have to pay to keep them alive and to remind the world that when you mass-murder us, you won't be treated softly for it.
is the lethal injection that inhumane?
And "without a whimp"? No they get their day in court thanks to Mrs. RoboCop. But we all know they did it. Do you deny that? Therefore I can confidently say YES, I do think they deserve to die. Maybe not brutally, as again I don't think anyone wants the Middle Ages to return(when Christianity was on the level of barbarity that certain branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect are showing now) but certainly deserve to die a billion times more than that poor soldier did.
I have all room i want for metaphors because you´re mixing personal feelings with a objective ethical axiom about how our society should work.
And yes death penalty is barbaric and the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death. A paradox. Not even speaking about ethics then...
Our peacefull society has it´s price. Paying tax and the goverment investing this money for jails and food is one of them. A price i pay happily. If you´re so upset with this situation there are countrys that could be interesting for you.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter.
I think people like you who consider something like the death penalty "barbaric", are simply out of touch with the fact that beyond this "civilized" ethos we have built up in our minds, we are animals in a war of survival of the fittest, every day.
The difference is that for 1000s of years our only predators are ourselves, and in the last 200 this is slowly transforming so that the way we "prey" on each other, rather than a life-or-death fight, is a "let's see who can be more successful/make more money/be more famous", which leads people to forget that there are people in other parts of the world who think nothing of taking human life, and that there is no reasoning with someone like that, there is merely being the fittest in order to guarantee surivival.
Edit: didnt see your bit about "innocents". Don't see how that's relevant. Sure the USA has a history of F'ing that up royally and yeah I think they over-impose their corporal punishment. My own personal belief is that the only crimes that should be punishable by death are grand treason, and mass-murder for political/religious/personal reasons(again I would omit serial killers because it has been fairly well documented that guys like Dahmer, Bundy were victims of a disease in their mind, a compulsion to kill, that they struggled with from an early age).
If you guarantee that you have the kind of open-and-shut case that acts like yesterday provide(loads of eyewitnesses, videos, on site confessions before any possibility of duress), then yes it is a fitting punishment.
I'm not in any way suggesting that you should get the DP when you get the kind of circumstantial evidence that seems to stand up so well in American courts.
As long as we are theorycrafting legal systems we can avoid/remove the pitfalls of other similar systems while also improving our own ones.
Based on what I heard in the video, I bet the man who killed the soldier would argue he was taking "someone's life in the name of peace" as you put it. I haven't paid that much attention to this, but it seemed simple enough to gather that from his statements. Don't forget to look at things from other peoples' viewpoints, or at least attempt to do so.
And he probably did. But despite the ability to subject the event to a meta-analysis, we must never lose sight that we are not in fact an objective 3rd party, but as human beings we are involved/potentially involved. With that in mind, how could I not choose my version of "fighting in the name of peace" over his?
Then it just comes down to which side is better at it's bloody work. If I had to take bets? I'd say the West wins that one, and the rest of the world knows it.
This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled.
says a kid behind a keyboard, whose most dangerous accomplishment in weeks time is going to McDonalds... seriously dude, what the fuck. you speak about manning up and not living our lives like we're all on a Disney channel, because world got to a point where being pacifistic no longer benefits us, but rather it hurts us... from Canada.
i grew up in a country torn with war, and let me tell you, it's not pretty. you may glorify violence by approaching it logically, and all that is strictly speaking valid and fine, but what you leave out is the ugly that comes with it, like ethnic(/religious) cleansing, rape, pillaging, massacres. if you had any real life encounters with that shit, you'd happily take your inner animal to gym and take it out on a punching bag, instead of boasting on the internet about having no problem killing people in the name of peace, while calling out people who disagree with you as wimps, because it makes you feel like a tough guy. well, take it from someone with experience, you're not. there, consider yourself educated.
Sorry but I know from first-hand experience from the Croats, Serbs and Slovenians I am friends with exactly what happend in your "war", Milosevic was a fucking pig and frankly pretty much everyone involved in that war got their hands dirty in some way. You talk about not glorifying violence but hey, you let one of your biggest war criminals bully his football team's way to the Champions League with bribes, violence and intimidation tactics before fate caught up with him(name slips my mind).
Your friends whatever nationality they may be don't even live in our country/s and know only what their diaspora media fed to them. Everyone is to blame for what happened in Yugoslavia and nobody is the good guy, I'm pretty sure my Croatian neighbor in the post above agrees with me. When Serbia protested to the international community about the ever larger involvement of al-Qaeda and the foreign mujahedin in BiH nobody listened, the early 90's media couldn't care less, but those same terrorist bases in Bosnia trained the 9/11 pilots.
btw Zeljko Raznatovic - Arkan
I said Arkan aka Zeljko Raznatovic I know who he is. I read his bloody biography and I find his wife to be incredibly funny.
The "friends" you are referring to? Well the serbian one had her home bombed and her real father was killed; her mother then got the fuck out of there and moved to canada then remarried. Pretty firsthand. Slovenian guy, well he did indeed live in London but his mother is a high-profile diplomat and he was well-versed in politics, ended up being a International Relations Masters, pretty sure he didn't get his perspective from the Daily Mail.
I don't know why we are arguing about "good guy" in that genocide/war, there was no good side from my understanding. It was simply a case of people on pretty much every side acting in ways completely unfitting of humanity, I would never endorse the slaughter of innocent families(I know that may contradict my prior statement, but in those statement was the intent of US drone attacks to kill real threats, thats collateral damage not genocide). And the Yugoslav issues had the same type of barbarity that we see in the Khmer Rouge massacre or Sierra Leone, for example.
On May 24 2013 21:34 Nacl(Draq) wrote: Why are we talking about what a country did some 20+ years ago(yes i know iraq wars started 12 years ago and are still ongoing but this thread is hardly about the Iraq Wars.) Very few of the people who were in charge when those things occurred are still in charge. It is just the "white people used to own slaves therefor all white people are evil," talk. The subject is a british soldier was attacked and then beheaded by a couple of people, they weren't paid by a government agency nor a religious agency to go out and do this so bringing up the subject of religion as if it played a part doesn't make sense.
They obviously did this cause they wanted to, not because some religion told them to. They can say "<Insert Specific religion's God here> told me to kill everyone." but when it comes down to it they just did what they wanted and came up with an excuse to do it.
Well I would like to see what we can get out of them through an interrogation in regards to what their links were to organized terror groups, especially when they seem to be loosely tied to an "unknown jihad in africa".
Maybe they went home to Nigeria to help out M.E.N.D? Although I kind of agree with the principles of M.E.N.D although I don't like the way they do it(attacking oil workers is not the way to go, you turn the world against you).
On May 24 2013 21:37 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Finally we are going VERY off-topic discussing the Yogoslav conflict. Can we try to stick to why it's relevant to the London Beheading?
Meh, those discussions start to go around in circles very quickly. Anyway I'd like to know more about these right-wingers (English Defense League?) attacking mosques in London with Molotov cocktails/ attacking muslims ect. how widespread is that because the Serbian media seems to be focusing on that
On May 24 2013 21:23 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Really? thats funny because I studied military history for a year before switching to music, whats your education aside from witnessing it? How about stating why this wasn't one of the worst western genocides in recent times? I have a pretty good understanding of why and what, are you upset I'm calling it a genocide and not a war? I don't get your opposition and why you refuse to "debate" citing my apparent lack of intellectual skills.
Studied "military history" for a year, doesn't understand witnessing war itself is a primary source. Tough guy on internet, pretending, roleplaying, thinking that he is the man, by advocating killing and torture on the spot without due process, acting as though by lowering himself to the same standards to the perpetrators, he is above them.
On May 24 2013 21:37 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Finally we are going VERY off-topic discussing the Yogoslav conflict. Can we try to stick to why it's relevant to the London Beheading?
Meh, those discussions start to go around in circles very quickly. Anyway I'd like to know more about these right-wingers (English Defense League?) attacking mosques/muslims ect. how widespread is that because the Serbian media seems to be focusing on that
there were big protests on the night of the attack, police were deployed because there were around 150 EDL members gathering in Woolwich train station "singing nationalist songs" outside a pub. There were also a few arrests in other regions of isolated individuals attacking mosques but nothing huge.
Although like I said, the uproar among my FB group is huge. Due to my paintball affliations im in connection with a lot of White British that differentiates with my other international friends, and many people there are calling for disgusting things like kicking out all muslims, burning mosques etc. but so far no action thank god. The right action is to find out if anyone supported/helped these guys along the path to do what they did, and get rid of those people.
On May 24 2013 21:23 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Really? thats funny because I studied military history for a year before switching to music, whats your education aside from witnessing it? How about stating why this wasn't one of the worst western genocides in recent times? I have a pretty good understanding of why and what, are you upset I'm calling it a genocide and not a war? I don't get your opposition and why you refuse to "debate" citing my apparent lack of intellectual skills.
Studied "military history" for a year, doesn't understand witnessing war itself is a primary source. Tough guy on internet, pretending, roleplaying, thinking that he is the man, by advocating killing and torture on the spot without due process, acting as though by lowering himself to the same standards to the perpetrators, he is above them.
When did I advocate killing without due process. I advocated the death penalty for CONVICTED TERRORISTS. There is no doubt in the evidence/confessions these guys did it.
So of your reading comprehension REALLY needs to improve.
PS. Im not just trying to big-balls on the net, I couldn't give a shit what you think of me as a character, I know who I am and what I am capable of. Just here to have a discussion/debate, and clearly you lack the intelligence to do that so you have to resort on character picking/generalizations/insults to make your points rather than substantiated opinions of merit.
so let's get the facts straight first. no there is no reason for you to put apostrophes on the war part, and if you do, you need to explain why. to prove my point why it was a war that could relate to your posting from the last couple of pages, i provided a link. now that we have established that (go read the link), we clearly see that there was UN involvement.
so even if you would argue (as you have) that not every war is alike and that US/West is more civilized in their warfare, my example shows otherwise, and that with such conflict indeed comes the ugly part, meaning that even in "controlled" environments you don't control jack shit. needless to say, 99% of the conflicts in history and even TODAY are just the same or worse as the war referenced in my argument, and furthermore, one could argue that even in that 1% where drone strikes do the leg work (no pun intended) you still have large number of civilian casualties, which some would equate with massacres, which makes your argument about good old private Ryan void.
now on to history and what you said wrong. "country i come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2" is actually not my country, but whatever, potato-potahto, right? it also wasn't "like 10 ethnic groups in one country fighting", more like 3 and a half. finally, Soviets had absolutely nothing, literally nothing to do with Yugoslavia in this specific context, saying otherwise just proves that you don't know enough about political relations in Europe at that time, hence the link about non-aligned movement i provided. to conclude, the football club in the Champions League you talk about, again, is not from my country.
i mean no disrespect, but i hope you realize by now why i didn't want to enter this debate, mistake on my part was not making it clear you're not educated on this subject, not in general. but honestly, if i came in this thread and mistook Ireland with Scotland, you'd do the same.
and to stop derailing this subject further, my heart goes out to the grieving family.
On May 24 2013 11:22 Taguchi wrote: Well GaNgStaRR.ElV, from what you've posted I can definitely see how you came about those FB friends of yours you had to 'purge'. I mean, I had read most of your post happily nodding along and then suddenly bam!
On May 24 2013 10:21 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: The second shame is that because they didn't kill these guys on the spot, they are probably going to spend the rest of their lives locked up in Belmarsh prison on the British citizen's tax money with a bunch of other inmates who have also been arrested on their Jihad, or share these people's views. It's not exactly like they are going to pay for the rest of their life for this, sitting in prison reading the Qu-ran never having to worry about doing anything but passing time isn't exactly fair punishment.
I mean there's a reason the British Empire was strongest at a time when the punishment for treason was to be hung, drawn and quartered. I bet there would be little to no repeats of this attack if we hung the quarters of these guys off the barbs of the Tower of London like Henry the 8th is still kicking!
The rare breed of the thoughtful anti-nationalist who also thinks fondly of the time people were hung and quartered!
You definately missed the point of the HDQ reference buddy. I am merely inferring that we are too much of a pacifist society, denying our "fight or flight" animal instincts to the point that it bites us in the ass.
But it's ok a lot of people seem to have made the same mistake you did.
PS. Why the hell would I think kindly of that? I have Irish ancestors who suffered that fate at the hands of disgustingly autocratic kings. I just think sometimes people need to man up and realize we live in a VERY violent world, not the Disney channel.
So more violence will solve our problems?
Luckily violence has an upper limit! If there are 200 people on the left, and 200 people on the right, and they are having a disagreement (resulting in numerous scuffles and whatnot) there will be a base level of violence. However, when they begin to openly fight and attempt to kill one another, there will be a temporary spike in the quantifiable "violence" index preceding a precipitous (and prolonged) drop off as one side is victorious. Thus resulting in an extended temporal demarcation whereby violence will be used at a drastically decreased rate as the native population attempts to replace itself, this time in lieu of any enemies or other "tribes".
^_^
All joking aside, it truly is disheartening how fearful you've been made of violence. It is a tool. Like anything else it can be used properly or improperly. Violence is not inherently immoral. It is simply the final arbiter when all other matters of recourse have failed.
"War is an ugly thing, but not the ugliest of things: the decayed and degraded state of moral and patriotic feeling which thinks that nothing is worth a war, is much worse.....A man who has nothing which he is willing to fight for, nothing which he cares more about than he does about his personal safety, is a miserable creature who has no chance of being free, unless made and kept so by the exertions of better men than himself." -John Stuart Mill
Pacifists are the ultimate degenerates.
On May 24 2013 12:21 Saryph wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:12 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 12:04 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:57 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:53 Nachtwind wrote:
On May 24 2013 11:52 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: [quote]
When it can be jusitified(self-defence)? Yes.
Do I want us to drone-strike the hell out of Nigeria because these guys are of Nigerian heritage? No
Do I believe in the death penalty after a fair and reasonable trial? Yes
God bless the USA for not giving up on that last one.
But you was talking about torturing and killing them without a whimp.
You literally have no room for METAPHOR or the slightest splash of sensationalism.
I just said we should have a death penalty so we don't have to pay to keep them alive and to remind the world that when you mass-murder us, you won't be treated softly for it.
is the lethal injection that inhumane?
And "without a whimp"? No they get their day in court thanks to Mrs. RoboCop. But we all know they did it. Do you deny that? Therefore I can confidently say YES, I do think they deserve to die. Maybe not brutally, as again I don't think anyone wants the Middle Ages to return(when Christianity was on the level of barbarity that certain branches of Islam such as the Wahhabi sect are showing now) but certainly deserve to die a billion times more than that poor soldier did.
I have all room i want for metaphors because you´re mixing personal feelings with a objective ethical axiom about how our society should work.
And yes death penalty is barbaric and the moment the goverment kill just 1 innocent person the whole system is a big failor. The goverment murdered a innocent person, it´s a murder and by law you sentence murder to death. A paradox. Not even speaking about ethics then...
Our peacefull society has it´s price. Paying tax and the goverment investing this money for jails and food is one of them. A price i pay happily. If you´re so upset with this situation there are countrys that could be interesting for you.
I guess we will have to agree to disagree then.
I have no problem with death or with the idea of having to take someone's life in the name of peace, I don't see it as a paradox, but as nature's one basic necessity. Even though it's illegal in this country, if an intruder broke into my home tonight and threatened my family, I would happily bury the broken shaft of a hockey stick through their heart then stick around to figure out if they meant the threats they implied, even if it meant I had to do a bid for manslaughter.
I think people like you who consider something like the death penalty "barbaric", are simply out of touch with the fact that beyond this "civilized" ethos we have built up in our minds, we are animals in a war of survival of the fittest, every day.
The difference is that for 1000s of years our only predators are ourselves, and in the last 200 this is slowly transforming so that the way we "prey" on each other, rather than a life-or-death fight, is a "let's see who can be more successful/make more money/be more famous", which leads people to forget that there are people in other parts of the world who think nothing of taking human life, and that there is no reasoning with someone like that, there is merely being the fittest in order to guarantee surivival.
Edit: didnt see your bit about "innocents". Don't see how that's relevant. Sure the USA has a history of F'ing that up royally and yeah I think they over-impose their corporal punishment. My own personal belief is that the only crimes that should be punishable by death are grand treason, and mass-murder for political/religious/personal reasons(again I would omit serial killers because it has been fairly well documented that guys like Dahmer, Bundy were victims of a disease in their mind, a compulsion to kill, that they struggled with from an early age).
If you guarantee that you have the kind of open-and-shut case that acts like yesterday provide(loads of eyewitnesses, videos, on site confessions before any possibility of duress), then yes it is a fitting punishment.
I'm not in any way suggesting that you should get the DP when you get the kind of circumstantial evidence that seems to stand up so well in American courts.
As long as we are theorycrafting legal systems we can avoid/remove the pitfalls of other similar systems while also improving our own ones.
Based on what I heard in the video, I bet the man who killed the soldier would argue he was taking "someone's life in the name of peace" as you put it. I haven't paid that much attention to this, but it seemed simple enough to gather that from his statements. Don't forget to look at things from other peoples' viewpoints, or at least attempt to do so.
And he probably did. But despite the ability to subject the event to a meta-analysis, we must never lose sight that we are not in fact an objective 3rd party, but as human beings we are involved/potentially involved. With that in mind, how could I not choose my version of "fighting in the name of peace" over his?
Then it just comes down to which side is better at it's bloody work. If I had to take bets? I'd say the West wins that one, and the rest of the world knows it.
This is a man after my own heart who understands that violence and death are some of the core mechanics of life. People are scared of violence, calling war "barbaric". You don't call animals in nature barbaric, even the ones with gruesome and painful methods for killing their prey, and even the ones who kill to establish themselves as leader in a pack, or who hunt excessively more than they can eat. We should stop trying to label violence as things like "unneccesary, barbaric, inhumane", in fact I get the feeling a lot of the people who stand so strongly against violence of any kind are the kind of people who will back out of confrontation at any cost; I agree that usually in a democratic system standing up for your rights peacefully is the way to go, but sometimes blood must be spilled.
says a kid behind a keyboard, whose most dangerous accomplishment in weeks time is going to McDonalds... seriously dude, what the fuck. you speak about manning up and not living our lives like we're all on a Disney channel, because world got to a point where being pacifistic no longer benefits us, but rather it hurts us... from Canada.
i grew up in a country torn with war, and let me tell you, it's not pretty. you may glorify violence by approaching it logically, and all that is strictly speaking valid and fine, but what you leave out is the ugly that comes with it, like ethnic(/religious) cleansing, rape, pillaging, massacres. if you had any real life encounters with that shit, you'd happily take your inner animal to gym and take it out on a punching bag, instead of boasting on the internet about having no problem killing people in the name of peace, while calling out people who disagree with you as wimps, because it makes you feel like a tough guy. well, take it from someone with experience, you're not. there, consider yourself educated.
Sorry but I know from first-hand experience from the Croats, Serbs and Slovenians I am friends with exactly what happend in your "war", Milosevic was a fucking pig and frankly pretty much everyone involved in that war got their hands dirty in some way. You talk about not glorifying violence but hey, you let one of your biggest war criminals bully his football team's way to the Champions League with bribes, violence and intimidation tactics before fate caught up with him(name slips my mind).
You don't really hear about rape's, pillages and massacres from US forces do you? Or are you the kind of guy who says these things happen regularly despite no concrete evidence. I'm not trying to be a "tough guy" or be perceived as such I'm stating my opinion; if it wasn't for my asthma and color-blindness I would have already probably been deployed to Afghanistan(tried to sign up and got rejected, that was a pretty shit feeling).
I call people wimps because again, resisting the urge to write in all caps, we are a violent race and have been for our entire history, nature is a violent entity, pretty much everything we know, have grown up in or love has been shaped by violence. There's really no place in the world for people who can't get angry about anything to the point that they would not harm another human being just because they deem it to be "wrong".
Also before you call me a "kid behind a keyboard", you should know that I have seen death multiple times, have been a victim of violent crimes, and have certainly had enough life experience to be able to reasonably justify my position. Don't act like just because the country you come from commited one of the biggest genocides since WW2 means you are above everybody else. I Didnt glorify it or say it was pretty, I said it was a necessary evil. Obviously it's not pretty when loads of servicement come home with PTSD after being trained to deal with the stresses. TL:DR Don't take 1 instance where a country that should never have been 1 unified country with about 10 different ethnic groups thanks to the soviets, then exploded upon itself, as an example of what every war is like.
There is nothing necessary about evil. Warmongering is not only dangerous but it's also stupid, doesn't help anyone. Arrogant people who think that peace is naive are large reason we have war on this planet. It's no coincidence that the richest and most powerful countries today are the least violent ones. Its called being civilised.
You say we are violent by nature, we are a lot of things by nature, nature is horrible. We have evolved a brain that overcomes these barbaric notions and allows us to control and suppress them, because working together is better. This is shown by the fact that we certainly were not the most intelligent of the homo genus, you only have to look at the Neanderthals that were more intelligent but seeked war to see that it is not a positive route to travel down. Other than luck and environment, one of the reasons we are the only living member of the homo genus is because we are social species that work together towards goals, and are not as aggressive, coupled with our intelligence. We would do well to remember that.
On May 24 2013 21:37 GaNgStaRR.ElV wrote: Finally we are going VERY off-topic discussing the Yogoslav conflict. Can we try to stick to why it's relevant to the London Beheading?
Meh, those discussions start to go around in circles very quickly. Anyway I'd like to know more about these right-wingers (English Defense League?) attacking mosques in London with Molotov cocktails/ attacking muslims ect. how widespread is that because the Serbian media seems to be focusing on that
The EDL is one of the fascist groups in the UK. These groups are seldom seen or talked about. I have no idea how many fascists are in the UK, bit I suspect it is far less than 0.01% of the population (58 million people in the UK). There is not much about mosques being attacked on the UK news, all I have seen is police being dispatched to break up EDL protests.
EPT
