Lonestar in Collegestation to March against Peaceniks

[Victor Galis]

"Victor, you did just prove my point. By kicking me painfully or breaking my arm you would indeed use force, retaliate etc., thus screwing the weak pacifist "logic" or the lack of ."

-Yes, but my opposition to the war is based on the mounds upon mounds of civilian casualties, not the actual use of force. (And notice there is a big difference between preparing to break an arm than actually succeeding. I know how to do it, I don't think I could actually do it in practice) If Bin Laden had a large obvious camp somewhere away from civilians and basically only with military targets, I would have been among the first to suggest dropping FAE on them.

"Notice that your level of violence would be similar to mine, like the use of force in Afgahnistan is similar to the one of the 9.11., except that we try to keep colat-dam as low as possible"

-Right, except I have a clear target standing in front of me, and the means to damage only you, so that colat-dam is neglible, unless I knock you into some property that gets damaged, and we all know I'm not that good

[Superpopanz]

Originally posted by C0ckney
lo super, whats up dude (it's Cockney from newsmax)

LOL, i always knew Gore cant spell. It should read vww (village wide web)!
Do you still post a Max? I sure do miss their freedom of dirty speech!

[Kropotkin]

They ONLY protest against their real enemy, and this is our democratic, capitalist system and the NATO.

Ehh what?

Where the hell do you get the idea for general statements like that?

[C0ckney]

Yeah still posting there, still **** stiring and occasionaly making a serious point

I must be the longest serving liberal there by now

[Superpopanz]

Originally posted by Victor Galis

-Yes, but ...

You are opposed to war because of civilian casualties? Äh, what galaxy did you say you come from?
(And notice there is a big difference between preparing to not to inflict civilian casualties than actually succeeding. They know how to do it, but i don't think it is always possible. Nevertheless, there are things to do wich have to be done!) If Bin Laden would pay his cell phone bill he would know we had a beef with him and take the next Air Taleeban Camel to Hague or ground zero, if i would be a millionaire i would buy Apolyton and ban all of you, if if if! So far no pacifist was ever able to stop the mad macho machine (mmm) of brutal, powerhungry dictators and cruel, fundamentalist regimes, but gun barrells and bombs were. Like it or not, but thats reality.

Right, except I have a clear target standing in front of me, and the means to damage only you, so that colat-dam is neglible, unless I knock you into some property that gets damaged, and we all know I'm not that good.

Wrong! If you try to punch me back, i will just duck and you will hit your fellow peacenik instead (actually the best colat-dam i can think of ).

Originally posted by Kropotkin
Ehh what? Where the hell do you get the idea for general statements like that?.

Internet, news and personal experiences. The far left, far right and (in the cases of Israel, Iraq and Afgahnistan) extreme islamists go hand in hand, are using the same hatred propaganda and do show openly what their real common enemy is: Capitalism, democracy, the jews and NATO. You can VERY easily find out on your own, the web is full of their sites. Btw, i did not claim all peaceniks belong to those radical groups and support their goals, but they still fight on their side.


LOL Cockney, you must be viewed as a conservative on his board, eh!?

[Victor Galis]

"You are opposed to war because of civilian casualties? Äh, what galaxy did you say you come from?"

-What's that supposed to mean? It's a perfectly good and practical reason to be opposed to war. It tends to mean you're opposed to all wars, but that's not unlike most of the peaceniks. The difference here, is that if two countries decided to fight over some frozen scrap of land that had oil under it but no people on top, I probably wouldn't be opposed on moral grounds.

"So far no pacifist was able to stop the mad macho machine (mmm) of brutal, powerhungry dictators and cruel, fundamentalist regimes, but gun barrells and bombs were."

-Yes, but at what price?

"Like it or not, but thats reality."

-What's that got to do with it?

"Wrong! If you try to punch me back, i will just duck and you will hit your fellow peacenik instead (actually the best colat-dam i can think of )."

-But I won't punch at you from close enough so that my fist will go over you. I wouldn't be able to kick you from that close in, and ideally I'd kick not punch, because I can't do jack **** with my fists.

[Superpopanz]

Common Victor, what kind of "****shat"-phrases are you throwing at me? "Perfectly good to be against war, frozen oil without people and at what price":, do you really think this is of any importance for your argument other than to prove the lack of? Your values dont hold off nobody! If you dont care to become a hostage or a slave of those who kill a few thousand or million, if you dont give a d*mn about the Hitler`s, Mao`s and Stalin´s, the Milosevic`s, Hussein`s and Bin Laden`s playing hockey with heads of their slaughtered, just because it is not nearby you, great! More power to your dreamworld! I do care, i`ve got friends who suffered from dictators and wars. While they were fighting for their very life, our diplomats were talking and talking and talking. F*ck the pacifists, they are as bad as the psychopaths whom they allow to kill and kill and kill while you can open your mouths in freedom and throw filth at those who suffer with your high moral good human blathering! This, is not funny!


Ps: Nothing personal.

[Kropotkin]

Superpopanz: i guess it was a missunderstanding from my side, I read your post as 'the people of [a number of countries] are f*cked up while it really was more like 'there's some f*ucked up people in...'...

[Superpopanz]

Re: Misunderstanding

Quite a lot, if you ask me, are FUBAR! Children who saw their parents getting slaughtered, women and girls who got raped and hundreds of thousands who lost their homes.

[Victor Galis]

"If you dont care to become a hostage or a slave of those who kill a few thousand or million, if you dont give a d*mn about the Hitler`s, Mao`s and Stalin´s, the Milosevic`s, Hussein`s and Bin Laden`s playing hockey with heads of their slaughtered, just because it is not nearby you, great!"

-To compare Bin Laden to the others is about as faulty an argument as any. I don't oppose defending oneself, but to fight destroy Afghanistan because Bin Laden is there... no. The German people became Hitler's accomplices by voting him in and continuing to support him. The Afghan people have no choice about Bin Laden, and probably very few of them even know where he is.

"I do care, i`ve got friends who suffered from dictators and wars.'

-Yeah, I spent part of my life under a communist dictator in his megalomaniacal phase. Doesn't make it right to kill people.

"Children who saw their parents getting slaughtered, women and girls who got raped and hundreds of thousands who lost their homes."

-Sounds just like the NA taking a big formerly Taliban-held town.

[Giancarlo]

Don't argue with victor, because everyone who argues against him is always wrong.

[Giancarlo]

Originally posted by Victor Galis
-Sounds just like the NA taking a big formerly Taliban-held town.

No that was under the Taliban. How come the NA allowed women to be in government?

Look at the facts fool, approximately 50% of school teachers in Afghanistan when the NA was ruling were women. That was on CNN.

[Q Classic]

we can bomb afghanistan back into the stone age, except that it's already there.

we can bomb it until every single building is levelled, we can bomb it until no taliban structure or camp remains.

we can invade it with our troops, wipe the country clean of the hated muslim extremists.

we'll lose people, sure, but it's for a worthy cause.

five years of peace, at most, against terorrism.

[DinoDoc]

Originally posted by Q Cubed
we can bomb afghanistan back into the stone age, except that it's already there.

Or we could just do what we're doing now and overthrow the government that attacked us. Of course we'd have to try to form a stable enough government to keep it from happening again but I'd prefer us not to allow our aims in Afghanistan to distract from our aims outside of Afghanistan.

No one particularly cares about the plight of the Afghan people anyway.

[Q Classic]

we could.

but it still won't stop the hatin' on the amis, you know.