Al-Qaeda video threatens Melbourne as next bomb

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Riamus
Registered User
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:40 pm

Post by Riamus » Wed Sep 14, 2005 1:46 pm

Darth Wong wrote: So, even if they had none of these "oppression of Muslims" incidents to put in their recruiting videos, these videos would be just as successful? I don't really see how that follows. Or were you unaware that Al-Quaeda recruiting videos largely consist of images of Muslims being killed by American and/or Israeli forces? How do you justify your claim that these groups would be just as influential without their main raison d'etre?


And other terrorists with other agendas don't manage to stir up support? It's only possible to have support if they show Muslims being killed by Americans? It's not possible to get support by showing something else? My point is that their group (and all terrorist groups, for that matter) have an agenda. And they can come up with anything they want to get people to agree with them so they can fulfill their agenda. If they don't have one option, they'll have another, and another, and another.
Darth Wong wrote: Why not? If you start a war with the stated purpose of making the world safe and you end up only fuelling the enemy's strength because he thrives on misery and hate, why does that not count as a reason against the war? Let's compare this to the American Prohibition era back in the early 20th century. Did Al Capone have the "right" to commit criminal acts in pursuit of contraband alcohol sales? Of course not. But that doesn't mean his criminal enterprise was not immensely enriched by Prohibition, or that Prohibition was not a bad idea as a result.


Let's see. If you start a war with the stated purpose of making a safe world (or country or whatever) and it causes deaths before it's done, but the end result after it is all over is that the world/country/etc is safer, you are saying that the war was wrong because of those deaths? All wars will have deaths. Whether you have deaths from another military, or from terrorists, the outcome is the same... death. You can't just say that the deaths are meaningless and that the war is meaningless just because some die. You have to wait and see what the final outcome is. Did it work to make the world better in the way you wanted, or did it not work?

Personally, I don't like war and usually won't support it. However, I do believe that sometimes it is the only way to accomplish what needs done. In 12? years, Saddam constantly went against UN requests and continued to harm Iraqis no matter what diplomatic or "coercive" methods were used. Do you just give up on peace just because you don't want to take it to the next step of war? As I said, I am not saying this war was right or the reasons behind it were right. I'm saying only that saying it is wrong JUST BECAUSE terrorist groups get stronger off from it. In the end, it could allow us to make a real impact in destroying these groups. We'll never be rid of them, but by bringing them out in the open, we have more chance of killing them than just sitting around waiting for them to attack us.
Darth Wong wrote:
CTCNetwork wrote:BTW: I remember reading that the aircraft use in the 11/9 attacks were not able to manoeuver and bank as steeply as they did.. At least not when being controlled from the *beep*?? They could only have carried out the pre-crash manoeuvres if remotely flown... ?

I would love to know what physics principles are used in order to determine that an aircraft would be more maneuverable when piloted remotely. Do its control surfaces become bigger when the cockpit is empty?


It is possible to manually bypass the safety precautions put into aircraft computers if you know what you are doing. And, considering the comment about linux user and root accounts, think of it like this... who will have the most control of a computer? The user at the computer, or the user accessing remotely? And, I'd like to see the communications port that gives ground control access to flight controls on the plane... as far as I know, there isn't one. Otherwise, ground control would have the ability given to them (at least those with some sort of management level) and no planes could be hijacked and flown off course and those 9/11 planes could have been diverted.
Kakkoii Translation Team
格好いい 翻訳

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:17 pm

Riamus wrote:
Darth Wong wrote:So, even if they had none of these "oppression of Muslims" incidents to put in their recruiting videos, these videos would be just as successful? I don't really see how that follows. Or were you unaware that Al-Quaeda recruiting videos largely consist of images of Muslims being killed by American and/or Israeli forces? How do you justify your claim that these groups would be just as influential without their main raison d'etre?

And other terrorists with other agendas don't manage to stir up support? It's only possible to have support if they show Muslims being killed by Americans? It's not possible to get support by showing something else? My point is that their group (and all terrorist groups, for that matter) have an agenda. And they can come up with anything they want to get people to agree with them so they can fulfill their agenda. If they don't have one option, they'll have another, and another, and another.

Prove it. Prove that Al-Quaeda would be just as strong and popular without their main raison d'etre. Because I'm a little tired of the way you keep stating this proposition as a fact.
Let's see. If you start a war with the stated purpose of making a safe world (or country or whatever) and it causes deaths before it's done, but the end result after it is all over is that the world/country/etc is safer, you are saying that the war was wrong because of those deaths?

No, because that's not what happened. The end result is NOT that the world is safer. The Middle East is destabilized, America's military is stretched too thin to respond to other threats, Iraq itself is a disaster, Afghanistan has been put on the back burner, and the American economy is in danger of long-term structural problems because of the massive deficit spending that was used in order to finance this boondoggle.
Personally, I don't like war and usually won't support it. However, I do believe that sometimes it is the only way to accomplish what needs done. In 12? years, Saddam constantly went against UN requests and continued to harm Iraqis no matter what diplomatic or "coercive" methods were used.

So the solution is to go against UN requests yourself? Iraqis are safe from "harm" now? Have you been watching the news? And why was no real attempt ever made to negotiate with Hussein rather than keeping your foot on his throat and waiting for him to voluntarily give up his power, which would surely mean a death sentence for him and which would therefore never happen?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

User avatar
CTCNetwork
Former Team Member
Posts: 15424
Joined: Fri Dec 19, 2003 3:50 am
Location: In that Volvo behind you!
Contact:

Post by CTCNetwork » Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:42 pm

Riamus wrote: It is possible to manually bypass the safety precautions put into aircraft computers if you know what you are doing. And, considering the comment about linux user and root accounts, think of it like this... who will have the most control of a computer? The user at the computer, or the user accessing remotely? And, I'd like to see the communications port that gives ground control access to flight controls on the plane... as far as I know, there isn't one. Otherwise, ground control would have the ability given to them (at least those with some sort of management level) and no planes could be hijacked and flown off course and those 9/11 planes could have been diverted.

Unless the people who took control of the craft did so expressly to carry out those actions that took place.
I was this that sparked the debate I read soon after the 11/9 incidents...

The planes used do have remote control access.
And if a Workstation Admin logs into a user PC remotely, they will have more rights than the user....

Have a look Here - should open your eyes...

Des. . . :?
Density:- Not just a measurement~Its a whole way of Life.! ! !
| Welcome! | RTFM!!! | Search! It's Easy! | Problem? | Spam? | Advice! |

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Wed Sep 14, 2005 2:45 pm

CTCNetwork wrote: Have a look Here - should open your eyes...

Des. . . :?

Why should we believe any of the claims made by that website? Did you notice that all of their critical supporting references (as opposed to the ones used for non-critical claims) are self-referential, ie- they use themselves as a reference? It doesn't really mean much to make referenced claims when the reference is yourself, does it?

Here, I can do that too:
All credible sources have concluded that the 9/11 planes were being flown by fire-breathing giraffes. We know this because the cockpits were modified in order to suit a giraffe's body[1]. Why would they modify the cockpits to suit a fire-breathing giraffe if they weren't planning to use fire-breathing giraffe pilots?

References:
1. Darth Wong, on phpbb.com

See how easy it is? Base a seemingly logical argument upon a completely false, self-referential claim.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Riamus
Registered User
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:40 pm

Post by Riamus » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:54 pm

I'll just respond by asking, is the war and all the work in the Middle East over? If not, then there is no end result to look at yet.
Kakkoii Translation Team
格好いい 翻訳

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Wed Sep 14, 2005 3:55 pm

Riamus wrote: I'll just respond by asking, is the war and all the work in the Middle East over? If not, then there is no end result to look at yet.

What would you define as "over", since there is no set victory condition in the War on Terror, hence it will never end?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Riamus
Registered User
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:40 pm

Post by Riamus » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:08 pm

What do you? Do you really think it's over? That was my question. Is it over in your eyes? You are the one who stated that there is an end result already. So, you must think it's over and there will not be any change in the results of what went on over there. No improvements or anything due to the changes made by this war in the months or years to come. You can only have an end result when all changes that have anything to do with the catalyst are done.

When Hitler was defeated, Germany and many other countries and parts of countries were in ruins. Life for many (probably for most anyone who wasn't being imprisoned for being a Jew or whatever) was harder and more problematic than when Hitler was in power for some time afterwards. During that time period, someone could have said that the end result was such that it would have been better to leave him in power. Some could have said (and I'm sure many did) that the loss of life on D-Day was too much and that the carpet bombing that killed so many was too much and it would have been better to leave him in power; that it just wasn't worth it. Now, decades later, we look back and see the real end results of that and see that everything was rebuilt and that it was worth removing him and not just letting him take over the world. Yes, I know there is a difference between a leader and a terrorist and between a country and a group and so on. This is an example to show only how you can't look at end results before everything is done; it's not meant for any other comparison.
Kakkoii Translation Team
格好いい 翻訳

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong » Wed Sep 14, 2005 4:24 pm

Riamus wrote: What do you? Do you really think it's over? That was my question. Is it over in your eyes? You are the one who stated that there is an end result already.

I am the one who described the only results which we can identify and evaluate. You are appealing to fantasy results which do not exist, but which you confidently believe will come to pass.
So, you must think it's over and there will not be any change in the results of what went on over there. No improvements or anything due to the changes made by this war in the months or years to come. You can only have an end result when all changes that have anything to do with the catalyst are done.

It will never be "over". But Bush declared the "end of major combat operations" back in 2002, so it's perfectly reasonable to say that the war itself is over and that we are looking at its results. What we're looking at now is the post-war occupation: an event which could drag on indefinitely.

What makes you think there will ever be positive results? Iraq is passing a Sharia Law-based Constitution, so the net result of our actions so far is chaos, death, and destruction, and the long-term result may to be add yet another Islamic theocracy to the Middle East, run by clerics and mullahs. Congratulations.
When Hitler was defeated ...

Why am I not surprised that you tried to equate this to Hitler? Nice false analogy, though.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:10 pm

CTCNetwork wrote: Maybe, just maybe, our muslim friends were not wholly responsible for 11/9?

Islamist terrorists did WTC. Image

I know this because I don't have a radioactive eel inside my skull eating my brain.

Image
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

phantomk
Registered User
Posts: 1039
Joined: Wed Apr 14, 2004 5:32 am
Location: Canada Eh?
Name: Daniel Lee
Contact:

Post by phantomk » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:28 pm

Are you implying that CTCNetwork has an electric eel in his skull ? I just don't get the eel bit ...

User avatar
Techie-Micheal
Security Consultant
Posts: 19511
Joined: Sun Oct 14, 2001 12:11 am
Location: In your servers

Post by Techie-Micheal » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:57 pm

Pit wrote:
CTCNetwork wrote:Maybe, just maybe, our muslim friends were not wholly responsible for 11/9?

Islamist terrorists did WTC. Image

I know this because I don't have a radioactive eel inside my skull eating my brain.

Image
I'm not really sure how many times I have to tell you Pit, lay off the wise-cracks. This isn't a comic book store, this is General Discussion. I am tired of your antics, and you should know this by now after our PM discussions.
Proven Offensive Security Expertise. OSCP - GXPN

Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit » Wed Sep 14, 2005 5:59 pm

Techie-Micheal wrote: I'm not really sure how many times I have to tell you Pit, lay off the wise-cracks. This isn't a comic book store, this is General Discussion. I am tired of your antics, and you should know this by now after our PM discussions.

Let's have another one.
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

Riamus
Registered User
Posts: 886
Joined: Tue Jun 21, 2005 7:40 pm

Post by Riamus » Wed Sep 14, 2005 6:39 pm

Why am I not surprised that you tried to equate this to Hitler? Nice false analogy, though.


It was not an analogy. Read the end of that. It was a clear description of only that just because the war is over doesn't mean those results at that time are the final and end results. End results are after all outcomes of the catalyst are finished (this includes post war stuff as post war things are a direct result of the war itself). The people at that time didn't know what the results would ultimately be, just as we don't. Looking back now, would you say that nothing should have been done to him just because people couldn't see into the future to see what the end results would be? I'd think most people would agree that removing Hitler from power was right to do, now that we look back on it and can see the end result of everything that happened in the war and after it. Wait 30 years and look back and you may have a very different opinion on this war.

You like to point out that people can't use the future as an argument because it's an unknown. However, not considering it, is still using the future as an argument. Your argument certainly appears to show that you believe the future to be that the end results of the war will show it to be pointless based on what you see today. That is considering the future in your argument... and it actually considers it as an argument more than I do... I am saying, "wait and see" because we don't know the future, and you're saying you can't wait and see because the future is unknown, so look at it only based on today.

The future is fact, not fantasy, even if it hasn't happened yet. You can't say that the results in the future aren't important in determining whether or not something is good today.

I have never said that the end results won't prove this war to have been pointless. I've never said anything about supporting the war. I've just said that you can't judge the war until all results of it are finished... whether that is in 1 year or 50 years.

Consider this other example since you don't like that I mentioned Hitler (and as I said, I clearly pointed out that I wasn't using it as an analogy)...

If someone gets into a car accident because of a drunk driver and both legs need to be amputated, you could ask them after it happened what they thought about the accident and I'm sure you would find extremely angry and hateful feelings toward the drunk driver. These feelings could last for months, or even years. Now, perhaps some day in the future, this person makes use of his or her disability to help people and he or she ends up making a very big difference in the lives of many others who they wouldn't ever have touched if the accident didn't happen. Ask that same person after that what he or she thinks about the accident and he or she could very well have an opposite opinion on it. The person could consider it to be, not a "good" thing, but a way to give meaning to his or her life as they are now able to make a difference in people's lives that may not have happened otherwise. Where is the end result in that example? After the accident? Or after the person has made use of the disability? Your responses point to saying the end result is after the accident because you don't know what will happen. Perhaps the person will be miserable for the rest of his or her life. Right? So, since you don't know, you would proclaim the accident to be a bad point in the person's life because that was where the end results were. I do consider the accident to be a bad point in the life of the person, but I look at what the future could hold. I let the end result be at the real ending. After the person chooses to make use of the disability or to be miserable, that is where the end point is. Then, I would make the decision of whether or not the accident was also a powerful turning point in the person's life.

The future IS clouded, but that doesn't make it fantasy. That doesn't make it wrong to consider when discussing whether something was good or bad, as long as you are treating the future as a maybe and not as fact. And, I don't believe I've ever said anything about things that will definitely happen in the future. I never said I "confidently believe" that the future will prove this or that. I basically said "wait and see". That, maybe the results, after everything, will be that the world WILL be better off because of this. Saying that you can't think that way is crazy because by doing so is saying the complete opposite... that it's not going to be that way (stating facts about the future rather than treating the future as only a possibility) and that it will be based only on what you see today (denying the possibilities of the future).

Saying that "no, the future doesn't matter. We're seeing this bad government set up right now, so it's obvious that the future will be worse now than before the war" is saying that you know what the future is. You're actually contradicting yourself when you try to prevent talk of "what ifs" at the same time that you say what you believe will be true in the future (that in itself is a what if).
Kakkoii Translation Team
格好いい 翻訳

the rat
Registered User
Posts: 140
Joined: Thu Jun 30, 2005 12:58 pm
Location: The UK

Post by the rat » Wed Sep 14, 2005 8:16 pm

WWII ended when Hitler surrended. But who will surrender in the War on Terror? Who are terror?

Read 1984. What we have, albeit 20 years late, is the indefinite war. This will never end because there is no enemy with which to defeat.

Pit
Security Consultant
Posts: 2056
Joined: Sat Oct 13, 2001 8:17 pm
Location: kµlt øƒ Ø™
Contact:

Post by Pit » Wed Sep 14, 2005 8:18 pm

the rat wrote: WWII ended when Hitler surrended.

Actually, I would say that WWII ended when Japan surrendered.
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”