Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

An Eye for an Eye?Follow

#52 Feb 06 2015 at 5:45 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
If you think this is news to a commie anarchist then you are astonishingly ignorant.

Or anyone. I mean the mechanism is obvious, if you are of mediocre intelligence and largely ignorant from an education standpoint, your ego would require thinking many incredibly obvious things were subtle insights you had made. Long division, for example.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#53 Feb 06 2015 at 5:46 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Kavekkk wrote:
Quote:
All laws, all sanctions, all legal systems, all penalties, all fines, are all ultimately underwritten with threat of violence. I get that this is a hard pill for some to swallow, but this is true and will remain true unless/until human nature itself changes radically.


If you think this is news to a commie anarchist then you are astonishingly ignorant.


I'm just covering the bases. He either does know this and lies about it to convince others that it's not true, or he doesn't know it. Either way, clearly stating this truth is the correct course of action.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#54 Feb 06 2015 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
If you think this is news to a commie anarchist then you are astonishingly ignorant.

Or anyone. I mean the mechanism is obvious, if you are of mediocre intelligence and largely ignorant from an education standpoint, your ego would require thinking many incredibly obvious things were subtle insights you had made. Long division, for example.


And yet, you still argue that fighting violence with violence doesn't work. Strange disconnect you've got going on there.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#55 Feb 06 2015 at 5:48 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Game. Set. Match.

Because I appropriately used the same words you use in a ****** metaphor? We could have used more force in Vietnam, it just wouldn't have resulted in a military victory. Because of the victory condition. The victory condition is rarely "destroy everything and kill everyone". Which is the entire point.

I'd understand why you'd declare victory and move on, though, what with the beating you've been taking and all.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#56 Feb 06 2015 at 5:51 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
And yet, you still argue that fighting violence with violence doesn't work. Strange disconnect you've got going on there.

No, moron, I'm arguing that a scalpel and a blender are different tools and that the blender isn't always the one to use for the result you want. You are arguing that they are the same. Because you lack education and intellect, one would assume. We should also, I suppose, leave open the possibility that your entire persona is all an elaborate performance art piece about the banality of stupidity.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#57 Feb 06 2015 at 6:14 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Game. Set. Match.

Because I appropriately used the same words you use in a ****** metaphor? We could have used more force in Vietnam, it just wouldn't have resulted in a military victory. Because of the victory condition. The victory condition is rarely "destroy everything and kill everyone". Which is the entire point.

I'd understand why you'd declare victory and move on, though, what with the beating you've been taking and all.


Um... Because you are failing to grasp that North Vietnam won the war. By, as you directly stated, militarily defeating the US. Earlier, you listed that very same conflict as one that didn't end as a result of defeating the other side militarily. I guess you couldn't grasp that "the other side" can mean us.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#58 Feb 06 2015 at 6:16 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Um... Because you are failing to grasp that North Vietnam won the war. By, as you directly stated, militarily defeating the US. Earlier, you listed that very same conflict as one that didn't end as a result of defeating the other side militarily.

Edit: Let me rephrase. Wars have victory conditions. Achieving the victory condition is winning the war by defeating the other side militarily. North Vietnam did that. Ghandi did that. The Taliban did that. The Allies in World War 2 did that. Grant and Sherman did that. Dropping more bombs on Vietnam wasn't going to bring us any closer to the victory condition. That's the point. Force isn't the same as military success.

Edited, Feb 6th 2015 7:20pm by Smasharoo
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#59 Feb 06 2015 at 6:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
And yet, you still argue that fighting violence with violence doesn't work. Strange disconnect you've got going on there.

No, moron, I'm arguing that a scalpel and a blender are different tools and that the blender isn't always the one to use for the result you want.


Then argue that in this case, a blender isn't the correct tool to use because of some specific reason having to do with the case at hand. What you did was argue that since a blender wasn't the correct tool in some other cases in the past, that it must not be the correct tool in this one. Which is another way of saying "if a blender isn't always the correct tool, then it never is".


Quote:
You are arguing that they are the same.


No. I'm really not. I'm arguing that they are different and we have to actually talk about the differences and when/why one might be the correct tool to use in any given situation. You're just saying "blender==bad" over and over. That's not terribly useful though.


Here. Let's test this. How about you tell me when the correct time/reason to hang a couple of terrorists would be. You're claiming that you're only arguing it isn't "always the one to use for the result you want" so let's see if it's "not always" or if it's really "never".
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#60 Feb 06 2015 at 6:28 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Then argue that in this case, a blender isn't the correct tool to use because of some specific reason having to do with the case at hand. What you did was argue that since a blender wasn't the correct tool in some other cases in the past, that it must not be the correct tool in this one. Which is another way of saying "if a blender isn't always the correct tool, then it never is".

Nope, I never said anything of the sort. Very occasionally, total war is the best option. The Civil War is a pretty good example of when.

So, now that we've dispensed with the make believe prop that your entire argument balances on, do you want to just give up or do you want to pretend I said something else that I didn't?
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#61 Feb 06 2015 at 6:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Um... Because you are failing to grasp that North Vietnam won the war. By, as you directly stated, militarily defeating the US. Earlier, you listed that very same conflict as one that didn't end as a result of defeating the other side militarily.

Edit: Let me rephrase. Wars have victory conditions. Achieving the victory condition is winning the war by defeating the other side militarily. North Vietnam did that. Ghandi did that. The Taliban did that. The Allies in World War 2 did that. Grant and Sherman did that. Dropping more bombs on Vietnam wasn't going to bring us any closer to the victory condition. That's the point. Force isn't the same as military success.


But putting on black pajamas and engaging in sneak attacks, attacking across neighboring borders, and the Tet offensive were. That's the real point. They defeated our military using these tactics. The very thing you claimed earlier didn't happen. The war ended because one side's military was defeated.

You're the one stuck on *how* they did this, which is bizarre given that you're also making a point to say that bombs aren't the only way to win. I'm not restricting "force" and "violence" to the kind used by the US military. I'm taking a very broad view of the issue. Which seems perfectly appropriate given that we were talking initially about using the hanging of a couple of terrorists as a response to the burning death of a pilot. We weren't talking about bombs, were we? So why are you talking bout bombs and traditional military action? I didn't bring that up. You did.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#62 Feb 06 2015 at 6:33 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Then argue that in this case, a blender isn't the correct tool to use because of some specific reason having to do with the case at hand. What you did was argue that since a blender wasn't the correct tool in some other cases in the past, that it must not be the correct tool in this one. Which is another way of saying "if a blender isn't always the correct tool, then it never is".

Nope, I never said anything of the sort. Very occasionally, total war is the best option. The Civil War is a pretty good example of when.


And again, you are stuck on the assumption that I was talking about total war or even traditional war. WTF? Did you forget that we were talking about hanging two terrorists?

You don't actually think that Israel is engaged in anything resembling "total war" with anyone, do you?

Edited, Feb 6th 2015 4:35pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#63 Feb 06 2015 at 6:35 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
You're the one stuck on *how* they did this, which is bizarre given that you're also making a point to say that bombs aren't the only way to win. I'm not restricting "force" and "violence" to the kind used by the US military. I'm taking a very broad view of the issue.

Your arguing with no one about nothing, my friend. It's less that you've created a straw man and more that you simply can't read.

Why don't you just provide a 20 word thesis of what you believe and we'll take it from there instead of "responding" to imaginary things.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#64 Feb 06 2015 at 6:36 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
And again, you are stuck on the assumption that I was talking about total war or even traditional war. WTF? Did you forget that we were talking about hanging two terrorists?

I wasn't. Again with the not being able to read, I see.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#65 Feb 06 2015 at 7:02 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Sigh... Irony is overwhelming.

gbaji wrote:
Smasharoo wrote:
Will this deter the capture of future Jordanians,

Of course. As everyone knows "all these people understand is violence," so now they will just pick softer targets, being careful to free Jordanian fighters and providing them safe conduct to the border. You know, just how Israel's hard line with Hezbollah has resulted in that situation being all sunshine, rainbows and puppy dogs. Missiles. Also the occasional missile. Oy, ven you make an omlet?


Yeah. Cause not using violence of any kind against people who do things you don't like has such an amazingly good track record of success. Lol!

I get that this is a hard concept for the PC obsessed to grasp, but in the history of the world, the one thing that has by far the most proven rate of ending violence has been... wait for it... opposing violence. Escalating violence even. And no, it's not because "that's all those people understand", complete with some kind of implication that anyone who adopts the "opposing violence" position is somehow bigoted because of it, but because, by and large, while it's not the only thing people understand, it is the one thing all people understand. There's a pretty long list of wars that only ended when one side was sufficiently defeated militarily that they had no choice but to surrender, yet, only the most simple minded would suggest that this was because "that's all those people understand". What a ridiculous cop out.


So, not only did you fail to grasp the primary point I was making (that the fact that a side lost because its military was defeated doesn't mean that violence is "all they understand"), when you stripped out the second part of my sentence and tried to make this about whether wars can end without a side being defeated militarily, you managed to fail even at that. Can you even follow a train of thought at all?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#66 Feb 06 2015 at 7:07 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
So, not only did you fail to grasp the primary point I was making (that the fact that a side lost because its military was defeated doesn't mean that violence is "all they understand"), when you stripped out the second part of my sentence and tried to make this about whether wars can end without a side being defeated militarily, you managed to fail even at that. Can you even follow a train of thought at all?

Well, to be honest, I think part of it is that quite literally, you think on such a lower level than I do that I assume you can't possibly be arguing effectively "There are trees" in response to "I like maple trees better than oak trees" so I probably give you the benefit of the doubt when I shouldn't.

Is the tautology that you are arguing "sometimes wars end when someone wins"? I'm not really clear on it.

I ask again for the simple statement of what it is you think you are arguing that other people disagree with. I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to provide.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#67 Feb 06 2015 at 7:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
I'm pretty sure Gbaji is arguing against a non-existent person who feels that violence/conflict is never the answer. Hence the masturbatory "I get that this is a hard concept for the PC obsessed to grasp..." bit where Gbaji gets to feel like he's the gatekeeper to secret knowledge.

Edited, Feb 6th 2015 7:16pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#68 Feb 06 2015 at 7:36 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
I'm pretty sure Gbaji is arguing against a non-existent person who feels that violence/conflict is never the answer. Hence the ************ "I get that this is a hard concept for the PC obsessed to grasp..." bit where Gbaji gets to feel like he's the gatekeeper to secret knowledge.

Oh...THAT guy! He calls me on his Obammaphone all the time trying to convince me to sign this petition about some video game...
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#69 Feb 06 2015 at 7:40 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Smasharoo wrote:
Oh...THAT guy! He calls me on his Obammaphone all the time trying to convince me to sign this petition about some video game...

Poldaran?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#70 Feb 06 2015 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
35,568 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Is the tautology that you are arguing "sometimes wars end when someone wins"? I'm not really clear on it.


Perhaps if you had not removed the second half of the sentence, you'd have realized that I wasn't saying that at all. I was saying that when a war is lost because a side's military is defeated, it didn't happen because "all they understand is violence". It was in direct response to your own post where you portrayed those who use violence against terrorists as justifying it because "all they understand is violence". I was simply countering that this is absurd because lots of violence is inflicted on others without that justification being required.


But good job totally missing the point. Again, next time, maybe *don't* strip off half of my sentence? Just a thought.

Quote:
I ask again for the simple statement of what it is you think you are arguing that other people disagree with.


Um... That categorizing anyone who fights terrorism with violence does so because they think that "all they understand is violence". I thought you, of all people, with your ability to think on such a high level, would be able to manage simple reading comprehension.


Quote:
I'm not sure why that is so difficult for you to provide.


It isn't. You just have some kind of mental block that prevents you from actually reading the whole sentence. I just quoted it for you and pointed it out, and you still failed to read it properly. You still seem to think I was talking about how wars end. That's just bizarre.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#71 Feb 06 2015 at 7:42 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
Poldaran?

Probably? I'll be honest: there's You, Gbaji, Samira, My wife, your wife....and "people". I tend to forget who "people" are much of the time unless I've been responding to them in a thread recently.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#72 Feb 06 2015 at 8:07 PM Rating: Good
****
4,135 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Poldaran?

Probably? I'll be honest: there's You, Gbaji, Samira, My wife, your wife....and "people". I tend to forget who "people" are much of the time unless I've been responding to them in a thread recently.


CTRL+f stupidmonkey = DIAF
____________________________
Dandruffshampoo wrote:
Curses, beaten by Professor stupidopo-opo.
Annabella, Goblin in Disguise wrote:
Stupidmonkey is more organized than a bag of raccoons.
#73 Feb 06 2015 at 9:04 PM Rating: Excellent
Will swallow your soul
******
29,360 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Poldaran?

Probably? I'll be honest: there's You, Gbaji, Samira, My wife, your wife....and "people". I tend to forget who "people" are much of the time unless I've been responding to them in a thread recently.


If that's a seating chart you'd better not give me anything sharper than a spoon.
____________________________
In a time of universal deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act.

#74 Feb 06 2015 at 9:16 PM Rating: Decent
Lunatic
******
30,086 posts
If that's a seating chart you'd better not give me anything sharper than a spoon.

I'm going to assume this means you and Nexa have a long standing blood feud that's been kept secret from my by mutual agreement.
____________________________
Disclaimer:

To make a long story short, I don't take any responsibility for anything I post here. It's not news, it's not truth, it's not serious. It's parody. It's satire. It's bitter. It's angsty. Your mother's a *****. You like to jack off dogs. That's right, you heard me. You like to grab that dog by the bone and rub it like a ski pole. Your dad? Gay. Your priest? Straight. **** off and let me post. It's not true, it's all in good fun. Now go away.

#76 Feb 06 2015 at 9:45 PM Rating: Decent
**
902 posts
Smasharoo wrote:
Actually, in the case of the Vietnam war we easily had the resources to defeat the NVA and the Vietcong. What we did have was political leadership that tried to run the war instead of the military. An example being we allowed the NVA to cross into Laos and Cambodia and the military was not allowed to follow. The political leadership couldn't come up with a consistent strategy about how to run the war. America could have easily ( and nearly did anyway ) crushed both the NVA and the Vietcong from a military standpoint.

This just isn't true. It's not fucking close to true. The idea that "we could have won in Vietnam if we only tried harder" is an absurd fantasy people espouse to avoid dealing with the simple truth that WE LOST. We were defeated. Militarily. We fought a war, and we lost a war.

Not because we didn't commit enough. Not because people protested the war. Not because of some minor rules of engagement issue, but because of broad in theater realities we couldn't overcome. The victory condition for the war was to end communist control in Indochina by installing a capitalist puppet state in Vietnam. We failed to do this.

We were wildly overconfident and continually assumed follow on strategic results of tactical victories that never materialized. It turned out Giap was a bonafide military genius. Surprise! We were outfought on every possible level *even while having a massive technological advantage*.

We gave up, not because of lack of "will". We gave up because we were getting our asses kicked, and it became apparent that it was impossible to achieve the victory condition.



American casualties in the Vietnam war = 47,378 killed
NVA casualties ( as reported by the Vietnamese government in 1995 ) 1,100,000 killed

Yeah, Giap was a military genius. He ran his men through the meat grinder. If those numbers indicate we "got our *** kicked", that "We were outfought on every possible level", well....

Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 272 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (272)