"Lest we forget"

[bogan]

How are bank robbers not terrorists? They are using a principle tool of terror to achieve their goals. If anything they deserve less protection. They don't even have the nobility of righteousness to hide behind.

Hey, don't lump all bank robbers into the stick up artists category. Some of them are just very sneaky you know.

[bluninja]

Hey, don't lump all bank robbers into the stick up artists category. Some of them are just very sneaky you know.

Don't forget the sneaky bank terrorists..."Pay us loads of money and we'll show you how we hacked your systems: don't and we'll tell everyone we've hacked your systems"

[bogan]

Don't forget the sneaky bank terrorists..."Pay us loads of money and we'll show you how we hacked your systems: don't and we'll tell everyone we've hacked your systems"

That is sneaky.

Also in the interests of not forgetting, how about that robin hood bloke, terrorist or not?

[Akzle]

Why not refer to him as an armed protester? It ain't like Oz don't have no gun crime. Are they all fanatics too?
but, shirley since they made it basically illegal to have guns since the port arthur false flag attack thing that really happened, and since all they cops carry guns, they must be safe as!

How are bank robbers not terrorists? They are using a principle tool of terror to achieve their goals. If anything they deserve less protection. They don't even have the nobility of righteousness to hide behind.

If either of the two should be extended a courtesy it should be the terrorist because you could argue he is a representative of stateless nation in a war.


hinteresting.

terrorism: (n) Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

guantanamooooo anyone? how about some drone strikes? lets install a new saddam! err, leader, uhh, co-operative democratic system...


Isn't it what they're after that differentiates the two? I kind of agree with you in ways, and in that respect I wish everyone was chipped and their brain wired to an explosive... so the moment that a "perp" (coz the word is so cool) is identified with any form of "smart" radar lock, their brain would be instantly turned to mush.

you should read "halfheads" by stuart b mcbride (pronounced STYUUERT BAEEEE M'KBRAAEEED!!!, scottish like.)

anyway, while all you white folk are having a wank/cry about FIVE people who MOSTLY AREN'T DEAD,
this shit happens every week in syria, palestine, iraq the general-or-otherwise middle of the east (east of england, because the world revolves around england), and if you want to wank on about liberating people from terrorism (happening, since like 2001, eh?) you should take it to them, personal like.

[Katman]

terrorism: (n) Systematic use of violence to create a general climate of fear in a population and thereby to bring about a particular political objective.

guantanamooooo anyone? how about some drone strikes? lets install a new saddam! err, leader, uhh, co-operative democratic system...


This. ^

So very much this.

[Big Dog]

Isn't it what they're after that differentiates the two? I kind of agree with you in ways, and in that respect I wish everyone was chipped and their brain wired to an explosive... so the moment that a "perp" (coz the word is so cool) is identified with any form of "smart" radar lock, their brain would be instantly turned to mush. In light of that not being a current reality, there's the reason that the bank robber does his bad thing i.e. wanting to get away with the money, and there's the reason for terrorism i.e. freedom fighting, well, because freedom. Some western country is likely, and has likely, interfered in their country's affairs for way too long. I'd like to know before people get killed. Icky labels with many shades of white. I would say that the freedom fighter be shown "leniency" i.e. allowed to walk so that a WHY can be asked for publicly.

Now that'd be a TV show worth watching. An East v's West should the self-professed freedom fighter be allowed to wear that badge of honour? Interactive and without the need for brain explosives. Why would the East bother watching? Because you will behead the "perp" at the behest of the global public. I claim copyright n all that other shit that means it's my idea and that you have to pay me squillions if you wanna use it :wari:
How long before someone hacks the System?
Also given 10% failure rate seems to be considered acceptable, do you want to be one of the ten?

Even premium chips have a failure rate.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[FJRider]

Give me a hypothesis pse?

Easy as ... If you fuck with me ... my family ... my friends ... or my country.


I will find you.



Clear enough .. ??

[Katman]

Clear enough .. ??

Sounds more like a bad impersonation of Liam Neeson.

[mashman]

How long before someone hacks the System?
Also given 10% failure rate seems to be considered acceptable, do you want to be one of the ten?

Even premium chips have a failure rate.



Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

Omelet, eggs... not my problem :devil2:

[mashman]

Freedom fighting: Islamic State fighter laughs at Sydney siege (https://nz.news.yahoo.com/a/-/top-stories/25786775/islamic-state-fighter-laughs-at-sydney-siege/)

“Gaza is under siege, Homs and Damascus are under siege the CAFÉ in Sydney is Not. The Hash rage SydneySiege is a joke.”

As-salamu alaykum.

[Big Dog]

Omelet, eggs... not my problem :devil2:

Nope. Not your problem at all of your brain has turned to mash because you are the 10%.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

[mashman]

Nope. Not your problem at all of your brain has turned to mash because you are the 10%.


Stupid phone / Tapatalk, apologies in advance.

heh heh heh... I'd never get to be in that 10%, I don't have that kind of good luck. Nope, I'd have to stay and suffer my hell on earth.

[FJRider]

Sounds more like a bad impersonation of Liam Neeson.

Who the fuck is Liam Neeson .... ??? :scratch:

[oldrider]

Who the fuck is Liam Neeson .... ??? :scratch:

Hes a guy who doesn't even ask - who the fuck is FJRider? :rolleyes:

[FJRider]

Hes a guy who doesn't even ask - who the fuck is FJRider? :rolleyes:

.. never met the guy ... ;)

[mstriumph]

well thats more a matter of philosophy.
Even at that time, the standard indoctrination would have been judeo christian, meaning that while their incarnation on this earth was terminated, their spirit was ascended for judgement.
Human life is only a very small part of anything.

do you believe that?

[mstriumph]

Woah!

That is a massive goal post shift, suddenly you have changed from 'only self defence is acceptable' to 'self defence and anyone that is strategically important to me'

So now we have established that not only is war occasionally acceptable but also that fighting other than for self defense is also occasionally acceptable.

And the final question then is this: if there was a threat in Afghanistan that if left unchecked could grow to the point where it would be a matter of self defence and anyone that is strategically important to me - does your version of morality allow you to march in and invade?

especially since in the modern world, physical distance has little to no bearing on whether the threat is real or not.

no on all counts

[mstriumph]

I tend to ignore references to godly wisdom and instead focus on the poster's content.

Sounds about right. Invading someone else's country can also be liberation, to put an end to bullying of the populace by their govt and armed forces.

So you would give your life to preserve a morally bankrupt govt, even if the govt seeking to replace them was better in every way? Or does that not fall under defending me and mine? Seems the definitions of acceptable wars are getting a bit more cloudy, and a bit less naive :yes:

Firstly, it had the desired effect of you explaining your reasoning; secondly, it was used in the right context: "The quality of being open to more than one interpretation; inexactness:" of which emoticons certainly are.

as the lady said "no, no, a thousand times no" (or 'ho, ho, ho', it being about that time of year)

doesn't matter how many times i say 'horse chestnut' you persist in trying to make it mean 'chestnut horse' and it's a lose/lose

so, like trying to teach a dog to crochet, we've reconfirmed that persistence doesn't always result in understanding :no: shame really (the understanding bit, not the crochet bit :msn-wink:)

[mstriumph]

Who the fuck is Liam Neeson .... ??? :scratch:

:confused: hey! I was going to ask that...

[Akzle]

do you believe that?

not the jewdayo xtian bit...

But the humans being a small part of existing. Yuh.

[bogan]

so, like trying to teach a dog to crochet, we've reconfirmed that persistence doesn't always result in understanding :no:

Because you persist in avoiding to address any one of my points. Understanding cannot commence unless we talk about the same things; I mean none of that post even talked vaguely about war. The one before were not much better. A while back you started avoiding the questions I asked to gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. I would theorise the avoidance simply means that on some level you understand your viewpoint is too simplistic.

[mstriumph]

there's been a massive outpouring of emotion following the Martin Place siege/shooting (Martin Place, Martin Bryant ... whoah, coINcidence? I don't THINK so!!)...

The guy that died trying to tackle the do-badder seems to be being eulogised to 'hero' status...

He chose to do what he did (realistically most here would have chosen similarly - hopefully with more success) ... his choice wasn't tainted by government propaganda, smoke and mirrors (see rest of thread)... he was following his own agenda, no-one was pulling his strings. His choice was free, his action brought about the end of the siege (and possibly the saving of other lives), his death wasn't wasted.

[mstriumph]

not the jewdayo xtian bit...

But the humans being a small part of existing. Yuh.

knew if we kept at it long enough we'd find something to agree about :drinknsin... good chatting with you.

[mstriumph]

Because you persist in avoiding to address any one of my points. Understanding cannot commence unless we talk about the same things; I mean none of that post even talked vaguely about war. The one before were not much better. A while back you started avoiding the questions I asked to gain a better understanding of your viewpoint. I would theorise the avoidance simply means that on some level you understand your viewpoint is too simplistic.

there you go again, inferring something not implied from something I said (or didn't say) to build an unsubstantiated hypothesis from which to draw an erroneous conclusion... *sigh*

you aren't another lawyer are you?

[Akzle]

knew if we kept at it long enough we'd find something to agree about :drinknsin... good chatting with you.

darling, we agree on a lot. Lets get together, i'll give you some penis.

[bogan]

there you go again, inferring something not implied from something I said (or didn't say) to build an unsubstantiated hypothesis from which to draw an erroneous conclusion... *sigh*

you aren't another lawyer are you?

Well you seem to be trying to have a discussion without saying anything about the subject matter; so what can I do but make inferences about that which you have previously said?

Here's some excerpts of from around when you stopped discussion the subject. Please discuss these if you want to come to an understanding.

"The point I'm making, is that if you keep touting false justifications as reason to never go to war; displays a logical inconsistency. That is, that if the reasons were true, it would have been justified, so going to war is sometimes acceptable.

My other point is that defending your home soil and by extension the current govt is not always morally right either."

You seem to get the second bit, and haven't brought up false justifications again; but rather than me inferring from those things, perhaps you would do a proper answer to them; just for understandings sake.

[mashman]

there you go again, inferring something not implied from something I said (or didn't say) to build an unsubstantiated hypothesis from which to draw an erroneous conclusion... *sigh*

you aren't another lawyer are you?

I've tasted his words in my mouth before. Psychic Brain Surgeon.

[TheDemonLord]

no on all counts

You say that, yet you clearly contradicted yourself.

For reference you said:


as a basic principal I'll defend wherever I am if attacked ... that's self-defence

BUT IF I (or any of my kin) go to somewhere, we are NOT living at the time, weapons in hand and mayhem in mind, that's warmongering, invasion and definitely out of line.

............ which is *sigh* exactly the essence of what I've been saying since post one.

But then you said:


Sensible question. In all honesty, that close to home, it would probably fall within the definition of the attack being on 'me and mine' ...

These two view points are mutually exclusive.

So which is it - Is it:

A: Only acceptable to fight when it is self-Defence
or
B: Is there a time when it is acceptable to Fight that is not for Self-Defence of you and your country directly (as in defending Australia)

If the option is A - then why would you fight to defend Australia (as you claimed) as that is clearly a violation of:


go to somewhere, we are NOT living at the time, weapons in hand and mayhem in mind, that's warmongering, invasion and definitely out of line.

If the option is B - Then my original point is validated - that occasionally, with a specific set of circumstances, when all diplomatic and peaceful means have been exhausted, that Force (and that may include war and invasion or assisting an ally) is necessary

[mstriumph]

darling, we agree on a lot. Lets get together, i'll give you some penis.

Let's not, I am not a good role model for your children ;)

[mstriumph]

Well you seem to be trying to have a discussion without saying anything about the subject matter..............

Laughable in view of the fact that I started the thread ...

[mstriumph]

You say that, yet you clearly contradicted yourself.

For reference you said:



But then you said:



These two view points are mutually exclusive.

So which is it - Is it:

A: Only acceptable to fight when it is self-Defence
or
B: Is there a time when it is acceptable to Fight that is not for Self-Defence of you and your country directly (as in defending Australia)

.....................................

No contradiction. Depends on how you define 'self' ... you were talking about NZ being attacked, a place were I have family ... as I have family in Australia. To me, me and mine constitute 'self' (I think I said that elsewhere) 'country' is a whole other issue subordinate to 'self' as I view it. I can't honestly see myself fighting for any particular government - as I've already said, for me it's personal.

[TheDemonLord]

No contradiction. Depends on how you define 'self' ... you were talking about NZ being attacked, a place were I have family ... as I have family in Australia. To me, me and mine constitute 'self' (I think I said that elsewhere) 'country' is a whole other issue subordinate to 'self' as I view it. I can't honestly see myself fighting for any particular government - as I've already said, for me it's personal.

So, your definition of self is:

'Whatever I want it to be, to retain my faux moral high ground that separates me from those evil war mongers!'

By your same logic displayed in the above - your definition could easily be stretched and warped into any justification: fighting for Britain, due to large number of Expats. Fighting for SA for the same, etc. What if 2 pacific Island nations went to war? Which side would NZ back? Whichever side had the higher ex-pat population in NZ?

Both would claim self defense against aggression (as is the case with all wars throughout history), how then would your definition of when it is right to fight be put into play?

As others have stated, the view you put forward is both naive and simplistic, the definitions used in your views have changed throughout the course of the debate to suit the needs of the argument you are putting forward. This IMO is the most dangerous of moral arguements. I grant you that when someone of sound mind and rational thought is at the centre, then a loose definition can be advantageous, but put a tyrant in the same place - and the loose definition becomes a curse.

On the flip side, however - my position has not changed: Sometimes it is right to kick down the door and shoot the bad guys. When it is right, depends on a myriad of factors - sometimes we get it right, sometimes we get it wrong, sometimes we get it right for the wrong reasons, sometimes we get it wrong for the right reasons (ad infinatum, ad nauseum) and as always, force should be the last resort when all other options have failed.

[Akzle]

Let's not, I am not a good role model for your children ;)

that's all right, i'm so fucking exemplary it'll balance out. ;)

[bogan]

Laughable in view of the fact that I started the thread ...

But not in view of you current replies to me, why so reluctant to continue the discussion?

[mstriumph]

But not in view of you current replies to me, why so reluctant to continue the discussion?

same reason i've given up trying to teach our dog to crochet .....

hope you had a good and safe festive thingy :)

[mstriumph]

.........................
As others have stated, the view you put forward is both naive and simplistic, .............

I have deliberately refrained from dragging anyone else's views into this on the basis of, if they are critical of your posts they don't modify my own views of you one way or the other and, if critical of mine, I'm not bothered...

suggest you do the same :msn-wink:

ponder the possibility that your 'naive and simplistic' may actually be subtle beyond your understanding ...

i've looked at your posts from that viewpoint ... and dismissed the idea
abandon your arrogance and allow the possibility that it's possible that you don't know it all

In any event, I found it's pointless trying to teach my dog to crochet, he has no aptitude for the practice or understanding of the concept. That seems more universally applicable than I thought.

[bogan]

same reason i've given up trying to teach our dog to crochet .....

hope you had a good and safe festive thingy :)

Backing down from a flawed premise then?

[TheDemonLord]

I have deliberately refrained from dragging anyone else's views into this on the basis of, if they are critical of your posts they don't modify my own views of you one way or the other and, if critical of mine, I'm not bothered...

suggest you do the same :msn-wink:

ponder the possibility that your 'naive and simplistic' may actually be subtle beyond your understanding ...

i've looked at your posts from that viewpoint ... and dismissed the idea
abandon your arrogance and allow the possibility that it's possible that you don't know it all

In any event, I found it's pointless trying to teach my dog to crochet, he has no aptitude for the practice or understanding of the concept. That seems more universally applicable than I thought.

My views on your ideas have no bearing my views of you as a person (you are not your opinions, though your opinions are part of you) - however pointing out that others have found the same flaws in your arguments is a perfectly acceptable debating tactic (an extension of Peer Review)

Suppose, I agree, it is subtle beyond my understanding - what then when subtle doesn't work? Subtle works on those perceptive enough to pick up on it and those weak enough to bow to it - it doesn't work on those who miss it and those who ignore it.

Those that ignore it also incidentally tend to be the reason that intervention is needed.

You have dismissed my ideas - I'm fine with that, but what have you put forward in its place? A viewpoint that requires you to change your definitions between subsequent posts in order to maintain your narrative. You will forgive me if I seem wary of accepting a viewpoint that requires such definition changes to remain internally consistent - compare this to my position that has not changed from the first post - if we take all morality out of it - an idea that remains consistent is more fully formed than an idea that requires changing definitions.

If you truly wish to dismiss my ideas and sway me with yours, I suggest you think harder about the consequences of inaction and how you define Self Defence in a way that can be applied at a national level (and not the subjective level, as that leads to chaos)

As for Arrogance and knowing it all - could the same accusation be leveled at yourself? Afterall, we are arguing over the internet and that in of itself requires a certain level of Arrogance.

Maybe you should try teaching your Dog to drive - he may have more luck....

[mstriumph]

Backing down from a flawed premise then?

nah - given up on trying to teach dogs to crochet :)

(it's fun whilst it lasts but it's futile, confuses the dog and frustrates the onlookers :msn-wink:)

[mstriumph]

.......... (an extension of Peer Review)..
Peers? lol


.........
If you truly wish to dismiss my ideas and sway me with yours, . Wasn't my intention ... I may not agree with everything said here but I'm interested in what you and others have to say ... and gratified that, this long after 2014's po faces and poppies we are still exploring the nature and causes of war and thinking seriously about how we ourselves might react in those circumstances.


.........As for Arrogance and knowing it all - could the same accusation be leveled at yourself? yes, of course.... no argument


.........Maybe you should try teaching your Dog to drive - he may have more luck.... i'm afraid he'd have no more talent for that than i would in savouring roadkill; horses for courses, no? :cool:

[bogan]

nah - given up on trying to teach dogs to crochet :)

(it's fun whilst it lasts but it's futile, confuses the dog and frustrates the onlookers :msn-wink:)

Exactly, the premise that you are a teacher and others are students is flawed; try thinking through the discussion as equals, and you might learn something. :yes:

[mstriumph]

Exactly, the premise that you are a teacher and others are students is flawed; try thinking through the discussion as equals, and you might learn something. :yes:

don't you HAVE a sense of humour?

[Akzle]

bog has found god

[bogan]

don't you HAVE a sense of humour?

Of course, you're just not very funny; and humour, or attempts thereof, can be reflective of ones thoughts on a subject, as I took yours to be. I mean look through the thread, its always been about you pushing a naive anti war agenda, rather than having a serious discussion about it.

[mashman]

bog has found god

More likely LSD given some of his hallucinations.

[mstriumph]

Of course, you're just not very funny; and humour, or attempts thereof, can be reflective of ones thoughts on a subject, as I took yours to be. I mean look through the thread, its always been about you pushing a naive anti war agenda, rather than having a serious discussion about it.

your call ... try this one :), he says it better than I can... he's talking about america but the morality (or lack of it) is universally applicable as, I suspect, is the motivation ...

back on topic
it's difficult to forget that it's been america and britain that have been instrumental in getting us into places we should avoid and getting our young hoodwinked into 'believing' it's necessary and robbing them of their futures.

You question why I'm here? To question why WE were THERE in a (probably futile) attempt to make us think before we get into it next time

... if you think that's naive, so be it

... if you think that questioning the reasons so many of our young have been killed and maimed and broken in questionable conflicts is some sort of heresy then I'd suggest that you've been as gullible and easily suckered by smoke and mirrors as they may have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91892EuhyU

[bogan]

your call ... try this one :), he says it better than I can... he's talking about america but the morality (or lack of it) is universally applicable as, I suspect, is the motivation ...

back on topic
it's difficult to forget that it's been america and britain that have been instrumental in getting us into places we should avoid and getting our young hoodwinked into 'believing' it's necessary and robbing them of their futures.

You question why I'm here? To question why WE were THERE in a (probably futile) attempt to make us think before we get into it next time

... if you think that's naive, so be it

... if you think that questioning the reasons so many of our young have been killed and maimed and broken in questionable conflicts is some sort of heresy then I'd suggest that you've been as gullible and easily suckered by smoke and mirrors as they may have been.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G91892EuhyU

Nah, not hear to discuss things with a dead guy (no matter how funny he may have been).

Sure, some causes have been unworthy of going to war, but it is naive to think that means they all are.

And therein lies the problem, we must think before we get into it; it may be unjustified in hindsight, but that is not information we have at the time the call must be made.

What heresy? you can promote whatever ideals you want, all I want is you to defend the logic behind them; this is what makes for good discussion.

[mstriumph]

look - if you REALLY want to risk your life slaughtering a REALLY grotesquely unprincipled, evil, self-interested, psychopathic power-base ... if your REALLY want a morally-righteous fracas, go after this lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwFSLiaF9yk

I'll be right with you - even if the vatican IS 'foreign soil' per se ...............

or do you think it's inappropriate to go after blokes in frocks armed only with secrecy and darkness?

(and, before you pounce on it, personally I'm equally as happy to remove any 'holy' women involved, too)

[bogan]

look - if you REALLY want to risk your life slaughtering a REALLY grotesquely unprincipled, evil, self-interested, psychopathic power-base ... if your REALLY want a morally-righteous fracas, go after this lot

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hwFSLiaF9yk

I'll be right with you - even if the vatican IS 'foreign soil' per se ...............

or do you think it's inappropriate to go after blokes in frocks armed only with secrecy and darkness?

(and, before you pounce on it, personally I'm equally as happy to remove any 'holy' women involved, too)

Yeh cos religious wars are always just :facepalm:

[FJRider]

Yeh cos religious wars are always just :facepalm:

Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications ...

[bogan]

Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications ...

Yup, fairly fucking brutal atrocities tend to occur too, especially when one (or both) side is dehumanised by religious indoctrination.

[mstriumph]

Yeh cos religious wars are always just :facepalm:

not a religious war in the subject case ... pest eradication

[FJRider]

not a religious war in the subject case ... pest eradication

Now you advocate killing ... if you find an appropriate excuse ... <_<

[Swoop]

................
307310

[mstriumph]

Now you advocate killing ... if you find an appropriate excuse ... <_<

HEY!! I'm part Celt - those of whom it is said "and all their wars are merry, and all their songs are sad" ............. nothing I enjoy more than a good scrap (thought you knew that?).

Difference is that I choose and it's personal.

have a great new year!

[mstriumph]

Warfare in the name of God is not unique to Islam. Other faiths throughout the world have waged wars with religious justifications ...

I don't believe that morality necessarily has anything to do with religion? The two are not interdependent.

[mstriumph]

Nah, not hear to discuss things with a dead guy ......................

Dead guys is what this thread is about so it seemed appropriate
Personally I'd love to be able to know the opinions of our war dead, see how they feel in retrospect about the whole 'king and country' thingy and the rousing words and false promises of politicians who stayed safe at home.. see if they think that where the world has ended up now, a few minutes 'remembrance' and a few poppies once a year were worth dying for

What you, I or anyone here thinks can only ever be supposition and speculation.

[bogan]

Dead guys is what this thread is about so it seemed appropriate
Personally I'd love to be able to know the opinions of our war dead, see how they feel in retrospect about the whole 'king and country' thingy and the rousing words and false promises of politicians who stayed safe at home.. see if they think that where the world has ended up now, a few minutes 'remembrance' and a few poppies once a year were worth dying for

What you, I or anyone here thinks can only ever be supposition and speculation.

I think it insulting to their memory for you to imply a few minutes remembrance and a few poppies once a year were all they died for. Pull your fucking head in.

[FJRider]

Difference is that I choose and it's personal.

have a great new year!

Always has been MY choice ... for MY reasons ... that's what makes it personal.

[FJRider]

I don't believe that morality necessarily has anything to do with religion? The two are not interdependent.

Not necessarily ... but morality is easily claimed if it's in the name of God ... ;)

But it is sort of funny ... when both sides claim that God is on their side ... :pinch:

Does God need us to fight his wars .. ??? Legend has it ... He could manage to smite the unbelievers on his own ... :scratch:


I doubt if you could (in all honestly) fight any war in the name of (your) God ... without believing it was morally right.




Interesting reading here ...

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9

[mstriumph]

I think it insulting to their memory for you to imply a few minutes remembrance and a few poppies once a year were all they died for. Pull your fucking head in.

wrong! ... again ... and in soooooo many ways

again YOU inferred something I certainly didn't imply and all your repetition won't make it so- seems to be a habit of yours (appropriate subject for a new year's resolution perhaps?)

.. rude - and silly

- here's a tip (no pun intended ;) ) ... if you are trying to use your head to fuck with you are doing it wrong (could be why you always appear sooooooooooooo frustrated?) - then again, mebbe it's worth it to you to avoid spending hours looking for your minuscule dick?

dogs - crochet - that's all she wrote.

[mstriumph]

Not necessarily ... but morality is easily claimed if it's in the name of God ... ;)
yep

But it is sort of funny ... when both sides claim that God is on their side ... :pinch:
absolutely

Does God need us to fight his wars .. ??? Legend has it ... He could manage to smite the unbelievers on his own ... :scratch:
never understood that either


I doubt if you could (in all honestly) fight any war in the name of (your) God ... without believing it was morally right.
I don't actually have one so can't comment about religious morality (decided when I was five that, if god did exist from the state of the world he'd probably packed up and gone fishing a long time ago so i'd better learn to accept responsibility for my own actions :devil2:) - have often pondered, though, whether religious morality is sometimes a cloak for something infinitely less praiseworthy and more sinister...

I think I'm with George Carlin on most of it (links posted previously - cynical as all get-out)



Interesting reading here ...

http://islamicsupremecouncil.org/understanding-islam/legal-rulings/5-jihad-a-misunderstood-concept-from-islam.html?start=9
thanks for that - am struck by the phrase "If there is no peaceful alternative, Islam also allows the use of force, but there are strict rules of engagement. Innocents - such as women, children, or invalids - must never be harmed, and any peaceful overtures from the enemy must be accepted. " Makes me wonder if those currently causing problems have actually read their own scriptures (could also say the same about other religions ...)

[FJRider]

(decided when I was five that, if god did exist from the state of the world he'd probably packed up and gone fishing a long time ago so i'd better learn to accept responsibility for my own actions :devil2:)

It took me until age 10 to figure that out ... :whistle:


have often pondered, though, whether religious morality is sometimes a cloak for something infinitely less praiseworthy and more sinister...

See reply above ... ;)


Makes me wonder if those currently causing problems have actually read their own scriptures (could also say the same about other religions ...)

See reply above the one above :calm:

[huff3r]

Dead guys is what this thread is about so it seemed appropriate
Personally I'd love to be able to know the opinions of our war dead, see how they feel in retrospect about the whole 'king and country' thingy and the rousing words and false promises of politicians who stayed safe at home.. see if they think that where the world has ended up now, a few minutes 'remembrance' and a few poppies once a year were worth dying for

What you, I or anyone here thinks can only ever be supposition and speculation.

Have you thought of talking to the living? Those who lost friends and brothers to war? Those who lost limbs and freedom? Plenty of them will tell you what it's all about, and you might be surprised how many of them would do it all again.

Oh and nobody has to convince a soldier to go to war, the many I know are all far more keen than most would realise to get out there and do what they are trained to do.

[bogan]

wrong! ... again ... and in soooooo many ways

again YOU inferred something I certainly didn't imply and all your repetition won't make it so- seems to be a habit of yours (appropriate subject for a new year's resolution perhaps?)

.. rude - and silly

- here's a tip (no pun intended ;) ) ... if you are trying to use your head to fuck with you are doing it wrong (could be why you always appear sooooooooooooo frustrated?) - then again, mebbe it's worth it to you to avoid spending hours looking for your minuscule dick?

dogs - crochet - that's all she wrote.

Sorry, I missed the bit about 'where the world has ended up now'; though the overall implication still seems heavily on the achieved-fuck-all side. You still miss the point about hindsight not being available at the time, and I think the objectives they set out to achieve in those wars were achieved anyway. Perhaps a better scoped question would be: see if they think stopping the central powers advance across europe and winning the war for the allies was worth dying for.

Any observed frustration is just my needling you to stay on topic, not really working so well (considering the time you're spending thinking about my penis) since you backed yourself into a corner quite a number of pages ago though.

[Akzle]

decided when I was five that, if god did exist from the state of the world he'd probably packed up and gone fishing a long time ago

what does he catch?

Btw, a big 'fuck you' to all the dorklanders on the coro, scaring all the fish and driving at 50km/h - god.

[mstriumph]

what does he catch?
..............
excellent question - wish I had a halfway decent answer for you ...

[mstriumph]

Have you thought of talking to the living? Those who lost friends and brothers to war? yep, I'm one of those

Those who lost limbs and freedom? Did that - rehab ward at RAF Halton, and elsewhere. The sheer bravery in the face of a prognosis generally not good on so many levels was equal parts uplifting and totally distressing ...


Plenty of them will tell you what it's all about, and you might be surprised how many of them would do it all again. the living, mebbe ... surviving horror must be a huge rush. One of my mates is ex vietnam ... came back badly damaged ... would go back in a flash if able, those were his glory days, everything else has been a let down since then. But I have been trying to focus here on the ones who got their names on the war memorials ... no talking to them


Oh and nobody has to convince a soldier to go to war, the many I know are all far more keen than most would realise to get out there and do what they are trained to do. I was one of those - airforce, though.