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.
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 8:21 pm

Pit wrote:
the rat wrote:WWII ended when Hitler surrended.

Actually, I would say that WWII ended when Japan surrendered.


:roll:

Whatever... my point still stands. That's if you care to have a discussion...

Who would surrender in the War on Terror?

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 8:26 pm

the rat wrote: Who would surrender in the War on Terror?

Well, the US Government could, but I'm not suggesting they do so. Or they could say it's not a "war" in the classical sense. If you want to go on about interminable wars, perhaps we should talk about the War on Drugs? Who can surrender in that war?
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

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 8:28 pm

It's interesting to note that Kadafi, dictator of Libya, once occupied a position very similar to the position occupied by Hussein. But the US marginalized him rather than invading and occupying his country, and today relations between Libya and the US are really not that bad. They certainly aren't considered a serious threat, and it's pretty hard to argue that this approach worked out worse than what they're doing in Iraq.

Riamus: I find it hard to believe that you can call your speculation about the future to be "fact" when you don't even have any evidence that we're moving in the right direction. A logical person makes conclusions based on the facts at hand, not facts that do not exist but that he hopes will exist someday.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

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 8:34 pm

Pit wrote: If you want to go on about interminable wars, perhaps we should talk about the War on Drugs? Who can surrender in that war?


No one. You cannot fight a war against a noun. It shows how ridiculous the concept is.

You can fight a war against a country like Germany in WWII because someone can surrender. But you couldn't fight a war against the nazis because no one can surrender. And consider if we had, nazis still exist and have no overall leadership, so the war would still be continuing now.

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 8:51 pm

the rat wrote: No one. You cannot fight a war against a noun. It shows how ridiculous the concept is.

So in fact we don't have the "indefinate war"?

I'm going to start a war on "Invasion of civil liberties" and "Dishonest politics". You'll be really surprised when I win.
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

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 8:53 pm

Pit wrote:
the rat wrote:No one. You cannot fight a war against a noun. It shows how ridiculous the concept is.

So in fact we don't have the "indefinate war"?


I was going to reply but I've already seen your replies so I won't bother. I know what you are trying to do and I will not rise to your bait. Please stick to the discussion in hand. As you well know, what I am saying and what our leaders are saying are completely different things. It seems your only issue is to be anal to the point of annoying people. You don't annoy me, but I hope you can stay on topic because I'd hate to see this thread locked because of one person's childishness.

Please, stay on topic.

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 9:02 pm

the rat wrote: I know what you are trying to do

What I'm trying to do is respond to your claim that we're encountering 1984 20 years late, which is ridiculous. Terrorism has been around for a while now, and governments have been combating terrorists in sometimes inflammatory ways for a long time now. I still haven't had a cage full of rats put on my head, as any halfway decent Big Brother would have done.
Image
super fun rainbow colour sig

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 9:09 pm

Deleted by The Rat.
Last edited by the rat on Wed Sep 14, 2005 9:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

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 9:11 pm

Darth Wong wrote: It's interesting to note that Kadafi, dictator of Libya, once occupied a position very similar to the position occupied by Hussein.


Gaddafi (as our media spelt it) is an interesting case to bring up. I'm fairly sure I remember Blair not so long ago saying how wonderful he was as a man and how trustworthy he now is.

And let's not forget, Osama was also a friend of the West many years ago. It's strange how these people go from enemies to friends or vice versa.

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 10:53 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


You baad Pit.. :!: :D
phantomk wrote: Are you implying that CTCNetwork has an electric eel in his skull ? I just don't get the eel bit ...

I didn't either, 'till I had eel for lunch! My thinking was much clearer afterwards...!

However, I personally thing this was all set up for the US's benefit - to get ann excuse to send the boys out and "secure resources" (for the US of course") and to maybe ramp up the oil profits that 80% of the members of the federal cabinet are now enjoying back on their oil companies..

Looks like it worked!

Des. . . :wink:

PS: Anyone got a spare eel??
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 » Thu Sep 15, 2005 5:33 am

CTCNetwork wrote: However, I personally thing this was all set up for the US's benefit - to get ann excuse to send the boys out and "secure resources" (for the US of course") and to maybe ramp up the oil profits that 80% of the members of the federal cabinet are now enjoying back on their oil companies..

Looks like it worked!

Des. . . :wink:

PS: Anyone got a spare eel??

No, but I do have a few ideas to throw your way. The psychology of conspiracy theories is interesting; people tend to start by discarding the primary suspect, perhaps because they've read too many detective stories in which the primary suspect is always innocent (this is the problem with fiction; people who read too much of it might start testing reality against the conventions of fiction, which is pretty much exactly backwards). Then they ask a detective question: "who stood to gain from this", once again pretending that the primary suspect is beyond suspicion. Once they come up with a candidate, they ask "could the new suspect have possibly forged the evidence which makes the primary suspect look guilty"? Generally speaking, it usually isn't possible. So he concludes that the new suspect must have had help framing the primary suspect, ergo we have a conspiracy theory.

Note: all of this speculation is predicated upon the initial premise that the primary suspect could not have done it, which is why a conspiracy theorist will usually make up a lot of BS to pretend that the primary suspect could not have possibly done it under any circumstances. Often by distorting evidence. And then, of course, he must circulate these false claims until they're repeated so often that they become "common knowledge" and people don't bother to check them against primary sources (the JFK "magic bullet" falsehood is a good example of this).

It worked for the JFK conspiracy theorists, and it will work for the 9/11 guys.
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
battye
Extension Customisations
Extension Customisations
Posts: 10940
Joined: Wed Feb 11, 2004 11:02 am
Location: Australia
Contact:

Post by battye » Thu Sep 15, 2005 10:52 am

Melbourne is a worry, AFL Grand Final is in a few weeks. Australia's biggest sporting event, 100000 people in one stadium. Quite frightening.

Then there's the Commonwealth Games next year.
Customisations Team Member

https://github.com/battye/php-array-parser - Give it a Star! :D

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

Post by Riamus » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:37 pm

Darth Wong wrote: Riamus: I find it hard to believe that you can call your speculation about the future to be "fact" when you don't even have any evidence that we're moving in the right direction. A logical person makes conclusions based on the facts at hand, not facts that do not exist but that he hopes will exist someday.


How many times do I need to repeat myself? I did not state that I was making a conclusion about whether or not this was a worthwhile war. I've stated over and over that I'm not making such a conclusion. I've not said that we're moving in the right direction. The entire thing you keep responding to (but never actually responding to as you side step my entire point and put words in my mouth) is that the END RESULT is not a result in the middle of an outcome, but the result found after EVERYTHING is finished.

I said the future was fact, and it is. Whether the future proves the war to be good or if it proves the war to be bad, it's still the future and it is still fact. The future is not fantasy. It will happen. There is no doubt of that.

And, as I stated a few times already, my statements are treating what happens in the future with open eyes and you are treating it with a firm determination that you know what the future will be. I know the future could prove the war to be good or bad. I don't speculate that it will be one or the other. You are speculating that the future will prove that the war is bad. Yes, you are basing it on current facts, but if you're going to talk about END RESULTS, you have to consider the fact that the future can go either way. Yes, you should base assumptions about the future based on currect facts. However, they are assumptions and nothing else.

I started out by saying that people can't really say for certain whether or not this war will prove to be good or bad until the end results are seen. I've given 2 examples to show what I mean, one based on history, one based on a possible situation. Both are valid examples of my point. In response, you are saying that the end result is already here and that the future doesn't matter as it will be the same. You can't know that for certain. No one can. For that reason, there is not an end result yet, which is what I said to begin with.

To clarify once again, I am NOT saying that the war was good, and I am NOT saying the war was bad. I am NOT saying whether or not it will end up benefiting people or hurting people. I *am* saying that we should be open to either option as we don't know what the end result of the war will be. After everything is done, we could find that things will be better for more people than not. Or, we could find what you believe to be the future, that things will be worse than they were before. I'm open to either future. You're open to only one. You're treating the future as if it's already happened, which isn't a good way to treat an unknown future.

My one and only point in everything I have said is that you can't be certain of the future and you can't know for certain if the results of this war will be good or bad until everything related to the war (including post war stuff) is finished... even if that takes decades.
Kakkoii Translation Team
格好いい 翻訳

Kanuck
Former Team Member
Posts: 2791
Joined: Thu Jul 05, 2001 9:33 pm
Location: Toronto, Ontario

Post by Kanuck » Thu Sep 15, 2005 2:57 pm

Pit wrote: So in fact we don't have the "indefinate war"?

We might have the "indefinite" war, however. :P

We could have a PM discussion about the root word of "indefinite" if you like, or maybe about how you can't spell. I suggest an image exchange however, as my database is sorely lacking animated brain-consuming species.
Kanuck
Former phpBB.com team member

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

Post by Darth Wong » Thu Sep 15, 2005 3:02 pm

Riamus wrote: How many times do I need to repeat myself? I did not state that I was making a conclusion about whether or not this was a worthwhile war. I've stated over and over that I'm not making such a conclusion. I've not said that we're moving in the right direction. The entire thing you keep responding to (but never actually responding to as you side step my entire point and put words in my mouth) is that the END RESULT is not a result in the middle of an outcome, but the result found after EVERYTHING is finished.

And how many times do I need to point out that this is an utterly nonsensical criterion, since nobody knows what it means for "everything" to be "finished"? All you're really saying is that nobody should make any conclusions or decisions until ... never. Which is an utterly useless argument.

In any realistic plan, one must continually be able to evaluate what's happening, compare it to expectations, and then decide whether things are going well. To say "well, we can't evaluate how well a plan is going until it's over, and we won't declare it's over until it's going well, however long that takes, which we can't predict" is just meaningless handwaving at best, and outright dishonest at worst.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Post Reply

Return to “General Discussion”