[Irviding]

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 05:35)

But of course, the UN isn't trying to implement a one worldwide government at all, eh? They're just spreading worldwide peace, one kill at a time..

lol

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:35)

Well I guess if you don't 'technically' consider bombing a country with hundreds of cruise missiles, f16's shooting down anything in site and hundreds if not thousands of deaths as a war with Libya, then sure.

War "with", or war "in"? Bear in mind, that the (small) US contribution was on the side of a force deemed by the US authorities the legitimate ruling political establishment of Libya. So, in essence, the incursion wasn't against Libya, but in it. And exactly how many aircraft did US Air Force combat aircraft shoot down over Libya? None. In fact, the French were the only contributors to make a single air-to-air kill. Regardless, "war" signifies a protracted conflict with large comparative casualties; it also, in it's most traditional sense, requires a declaration of war- at least, according to US legislation. All wars are conflicts, but not all conflicts are wars.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:35)

The man is wasting millions on a war that we do not need to be fighting. 9/11 killed what, 3,000 people? How many of our troops have died, have many troops and innocent people have we killed? What's the point? We're just making sh*t worse..

You can't just look at raw casualty figures, it's the logical equivalent of saying "more people die of cancer than through murders, so let's legalise murder and criminalise cancer". All it does is show an incredibly naivety; a complete lack of understanding on the basic subject matters. I have, many times, said that the operational and strategic-level decision making on the part of all authorities involved in the "war on terror" (idiotic misnomer; against terror, sure, but terror in this sense is a concept and you cannot declare war on a concept) has been incredibly poor, short-sighted and downright counter-productive. But military incursions of all kinds- conflict/military operations other than war, war itself, counter-insurgency operations, military policing, peacekeeping, whatever you fancy, are not short-term enterprises. Saying "lots of people have died, we should stop" is about the most juvenile argument it's possible to make. It's the intellectual equivalent of voting someone into political office based on their political views in high school- utterly moronic. So, tell me, do you know what the future holds for Afghanistan in, say, 20 years? Can you definitively say "it won't be worth it" with no ability to effectively predict the medium-distant future? No, you cannot. You can be optimistic or pessimistic, but at the end of the day, they're just predictions. Prediction that, in your case, certainly don't appear to be driven by an understanding of the subject matter.

Put simply, anyone who tries to condense strategic and geopolitical decisions into raw figures to judge their worse is an ass.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:35)

"Oh, you just don't understand. We can't instantly pull out/ Preventable death and driving our country along with it's economy to the ground is needed for economic development and the advancement of the human civilization as a whole."

I'm not sure what arguments you've been listening to- the ones in your head, by the sounds of it- but I don't think that's the stance people are actually taking. I mean, my understanding of continued involvement in Afghanistan is that the last 2-3 years have seen significant counter-insurgency successes being made; the relative stabilisation of previously incredibly violent regions of Afghanistan and significant reductions in the ability of the Taliban- that is, the actual armed fighting force, not the accidental guerillas who have been created by poor strategic and operational level management on the part of Western forces in the country- to conduct business. You can see this quite plainly- the transition from direct attacks on military forces to attacks on "soft" targets in predominantly rural areas to try and force the population on-side. A transition from direct attacks against state and local-level political and military institutions to the civilian population usually indicates the death-knell of an insurgent organisation; the IRA during the early 1990s, LTTE in Sri Lanka in the mid-2000s, and so-on. Anyway, are you implying that a military evacuation leading (most likely) to a complete collapse of Afghan local, regional and national government, a large-scale conflict on the border of important US strategic allies and the likely establishment of a radical Salafi/Wahhabi government by violent force is a better strategic outcome for the United States than continued attempts to make good on recent progress? If so, your ideas about preferable outcomes are most bizarre.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:35)

Obama is president of the UNITED STATES, not the entire f*ckin globe. How many US bases do we even have worldwide?

Is it even relevant? Big deal, he's president of the United States. He's basically a neutered political figure-head, at the mercy of quarrelling factions inside the houses of the state legislature. Anyone with even the most rudimentary understanding of American politics knows that the power of the President as anything other than the head of the executive branch is severely limited. It's not as if he's governed by primes inter pares, is it? Besides, shouldn't you be glad of US power projection abroad? It's what gets you cheap consumer goods, cut-price fuel and that vague sense of national superiority that so many of your ilk seem to possess. The deeply saddening irony of the entire matter being that the very aggressive, posturing actions that you decry are, in recent times gone by, all that's made the United States what it is in the world today. I mean, what do you think the US was built on? Diplomacy and good sportsmanship?

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 11:35)

But of course, the UN isn't trying to implement a one worldwide government at all, eh? They're just spreading worldwide peace, one kill at a time..

Oh yes, because the logical conclusion of every discussion is that, whilst ostensibly being a largely incompetent rag-tag organisation of quarrelling political groups, nations and individual personalities, is actually a secretive and clever ruse run by some bastard whose presumably responsible for all the worlds ills, for their own nefarious and rather vague purpose. That's really a sensible logical process that any individual blessed with both enough knowledge to make a reasoned judgement, and enough intellect to keep their eyes pointing in the same direction, would make, isn't it? Quite aside from the complete absurdity of the implication that somehow the UN is implementing one-world government, despite being essentially powerless under most circumstances, have you been paying attention for the last, what, two decades or so? I'm not sure if you noticed, but the proportion of the world's population killed per decade in armed conflict has been declining quite steadily and quite rapidly for a few decades now. I mean, unless you happened to live in Sudan during the first decade of the 21st century, then your chances of being killed in conflict just about anywhere in the world were significantly lower than at any other time in history. Even the inter-war period had more people as a proportion of the earth's population die in conflict than the last decade did.

@Ivirding- whilst I agree with your sentiment, single-word posts are not acceptable in this sub-forum.

[GrandMaster Smith]

How am I not surprised you wrote out a book to try and actually defend war as if it's necessary..


"Besides, shouldn't you be glad of US power projection abroad? It's what gets you cheap consumer goods, cut-price fuel and that vague sense of national superiority that so many of your ilk seem to possess."

What the f*ck do I care about cheap consumer goods and cheap gas prices??? I am a human being, not a consumer. FFS if it wasn't for this entire corrupt system that's being implemented worldwide I could happily go out into the forest, claim 5 acres to myself, build my own house for my family out of materials that are already in nature FOR FREE, grow my own crops of food and weed and I'd be happy. Nothing more, nothing less, a very simple yet pleasurable life.

We get these cheap consumer goods from children being forced against their will.. You really think a pair of jeans for $8 is worth another human beings free will? Or gas for $3.00 a gallon is worth a single human beings life?? Can you really put a price on something as precious as life?

All of this is for what? For money? For power?.. money itself isn't even worth any more than the worthless paper it's printed on.. It's just an illusion that it's worth something.. It's because we actually allow this system to continue on that money even has it's value.


"So, tell me, do you know what the future holds for Afghanistan in, say, 20 years? Can you definitively say "it won't be worth it""

I can guarantee you this- it doesn't matter what outcome of this war is, with this system continuing on I can guarantee with my life it wont prevent other wars in the future.. It's just pushing the same old boulder up the giant hill, we're NEVER going to get anywhere until we have an entire revolution and ditch our current ways.



I find this graph to speak for itself-



Is the governments true intentions for the peoples own good? If people weren't blinded by what's going on then the majority would quit paying taxes and woops, now how's the government going to fund itself? Its the most cruel and unfair thing ever..

[Jeeebuuus]

Cancer kills more people than terrorism? This is not news. We spend more money on the military than to cure cancer? Of course. This is not about saving lives and it certainly is not fair by any means in the present, logical sense. Many more examples will prove this to be true but one thing we have to understand is that life, now and in the past, has never been fair or logical. Whats on t.v.?

[GrandMaster Smith]

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 23:44)

Cancer kills more people than terrorism? This is not news. We spend more money on the military than to cure cancer? Of course. This is not about saving lives and it certainly is not fair by any means in the present, logical sense. Many more examples will prove this to be true but one thing we have to understand is that life, now and in the past, has never been fair or logical. Whats on t.v.?

Well obviously it's not about saving lives.. we're out there mindlessly killing ourselves and others.. lol


"Many more examples will prove this to be true but one thing we have to understand is that life, now and in the past, has never been fair or logical. Whats on t.v.?"

Yeah, only if you sit around and let these higher up people treat you unfair while worrying more about who gets kicked off American Idol tonight than about your own fellow human beings.. then yeah things are going to continue being unfair in the future.

People don't seem to realize Citizens>Government. We can overthrow these people like nothing if people actually wanted to..

[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 07:59)

QUOTE (Jeeebuuus @ Monday, Dec 26 2011, 23:44) Cancer kills more people than terrorism? This is not news. We spend more money on the military than to cure cancer? Of course. This is not about saving lives and it certainly is not fair by any means in the present, logical sense. Many more examples will prove this to be true but one thing we have to understand is that life, now and in the past, has never been fair or logical. Whats on t.v.? Well obviously it's not about saving lives.. we're out there mindlessly killing ourselves and others.. lol "Many more examples will prove this to be true but one thing we have to understand is that life, now and in the past, has never been fair or logical. Whats on t.v.?" Yeah, only if you sit around and let these higher up people treat you unfair while worrying more about who gets kicked off American Idol tonight than about your own fellow human beings.. then yeah things are going to continue being unfair in the future. People don't seem to realize Citizens>Government. We can overthrow these people like nothing if people actually wanted to..

I was not being serious with the "t.v." part. That is the drug of choice with the public, who are not willing to take revolutionary acts, at least in the U.S., seriously. If you think that as the most overweight and uninformed developed country in the world, we can do something outside of our normal daily habits, then you need to realize that this is not only implausable but highly counterproductive.

[GrandMaster Smith]

Lol I know, I detected your sarcasm I was just ranting.

People like sivis that actually try to back up and defend these things that each and every human beings knows deep down inside is wrong are just mind boggling..

Anyone who claims that politics is more important than the human beings that come together to even make politics possible in the first place can't be 100% stable in the brain.

Like what's this war going to get us? Cheaper gas? What good is cheap gas going to us when the dollar crashes and loses all it's value??

[Jeeebuuus]

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 08:45)

Lol I know, I detected your sarcasm I was just ranting. People like sivis that actually try to back up and defend these things that each and every human beings knows deep down inside is wrong are just mind boggling.. Anyone who claims that politics is more important than the human beings that come together to even make politics possible in the first place can't be 100% stable in the brain. Like what's this war going to get us? Cheaper gas? What good is cheap gas going to us when the dollar crashes and loses all it's value??

I often "skate" around certain issues out of neccesity when in reality no one perspective is absolutely right. Many factors go into understanding deep ideas such as politics, religion, and culture. They are often intertwined and multilayered. Your view is a valid one but ultimately flawed just like mine. No one really knows and if they do they keep it a deeply guarded secret.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 08:20)

What the f*ck do I care about cheap consumer goods and cheap gas prices??? I am a human being, not a consumer. FFS if it wasn't for this entire corrupt system that's being implemented worldwide I could happily go out into the forest, claim 5 acres to myself, build my own house for my family out of materials that are already in nature FOR FREE, grow my own crops of food and weed and I'd be happy. Nothing more, nothing less, a very simple yet pleasurable life. We get these cheap consumer goods from children being forced against their will.. You really think a pair of jeans for $8 is worth another human beings free will? Or gas for $3.00 a gallon is worth a single human beings life?? Can you really put a price on something as precious as life?

Granted, there are some reasonable points here, but it serves no purpose in this thread I'm afraid. A completely off-topic rant about the ills of modern society and the structure of Western politics. There are plenty of topics you could go cry in there. My initial post was calling you out on the factual inaccuracy of comments you've made. I see you've made no rebuttals to any of the primary points of my argument, aside from presenting a perfectly reasonable personal view- that is, that the overall value of conflict seldom exceeds the losses. I don't necessarily agree with it (over a short term, I do, but certainly not over a long term- I mean, you talk about deaths in combat and civilians killed, but seem to ignore the significant increases in birth ratios that always come in the immediate aftermath of conflicts, that almost always, in pure numbers, outweigh the losses. And for someone with such a large chip on their shoulder about consumerism and materialism, you seem to care about the financial implications a lot...)

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 08:20)

All of this is for what? For money? For power?.. money itself isn't even worth any more than the worthless paper it's printed on.. It's just an illusion that it's worth something.. It's because we actually allow this system to continue on that money even has it's value.

And yes, conflicts are always about power projection. And spheres of influence. Sometimes, some individuals will simplify that to "money," but it's unhelpful- money doesn't really have anything to do with it, and it's not directly about resources either. But no, fair enough, you object to the conflict in Afghanistan- it's your right to express your views. So, in that case, what would your legitimate response to large-scale terror attacks be, bearing in mind that you've got to balance the competing demands of international law, proportionality and rationality, and an extremely angry populace? Remember, it was never the US' (or UK's, for that matter) intention to be involved in a 10+ year long conflict in Afghanistan- they originally thought it would be as simple as a "decapitation strike" against the existing leadership and a bit of rural peacekeeping. Poor strategic and operational planning, yes, but once you've started conflicts, it's sheer lunacy to pull out of them before the endgame has been completed. It's bad for your interests in the region, its' bad for your own morale, it's bad for your own world standing, bad for your security and almost universally bad for the country involved. I mean, look at Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as an example. US bogged down in conflict, tens of thousands of servicemen killed over three decades, half a million civilian casualties. US pulls out, Khmer Rouge comes to power in Cambodia, genocide, mass-killing and small-scale conflict happens everywhere in the region, 3.5 million dead in 3 years. If one looks at objective, moral consequences, the Vietnam war was far better than what followed it.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 08:20)

"So, tell me, do you know what the future holds for Afghanistan in, say, 20 years? Can you definitively say "it won't be worth it"" I can guarantee you this- it doesn't matter what outcome of this war is, with this system continuing on I can guarantee with my life it wont prevent other wars in the future.. It's just pushing the same old boulder up the giant hill, we're NEVER going to get anywhere until we have an entire revolution and ditch our current ways.

No, it won't, but conflict is not a side product of the system, it's a side product of human societies. The fact that war has become both less frequent and less bloody over the last five decades should serve as an indicator to which direction conflict is going. I also don't see what good a revolution will do at preventing conflict- I mean, haven't revolutions in the past been amongst the bloodiest conflicts the world has seen?

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 08:20)

I find this graph to speak for itself- http://cafewitteveen.files.wordpress.com/2...xdtto1_1280.jpg Is the governments true intentions for the peoples own good? If people weren't blinded by what's going on then the majority would quit paying taxes and woops, now how's the government going to fund itself? Its the most cruel and unfair thing ever..

The graph doesn't say much at all, to be honest. I mean, the UK spends £200bn a year on welfare, and far less people die of malnutrition or poverty-related illnesses compared to cancer. Are you, therefore, saying that we should remove welfare and spend the money on cancer research? There are other factors not taken into account either, like the fact that the majority of deaths from cancer are preventable not through increased funding for treatment, but through better understanding on the part of the public. And whilst we're on the subject, the Iraq conflict had next to nothing to do with terrorism.

Also, are you insinuating that people don't need government? Because I disagree with that pretty strongly. You remove organised, regular government, and when people are done killing each other, they'll form small social groups, which will have de facto or de jure leaders. Hey presto, you've got government. Face it- as much as you dislike the idea of government, it's nigh-on impossible for societies to exist without one individual or a group of individuals at the helm, steering the direction of a society. Collective government in this sense, whilst a nice aspiration from a philosophical point of view, is inherently flawed as it treats all individuals as equally powerful and all views as equally valid- neither of which are true.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 09:45)

Anyone who claims that politics is more important than the human beings that come together to even make politics possible in the first place can't be 100% stable in the brain.

No-one has claimed that. I've made the claim that politics is long-term, whereas your assessment of it is short-term and therefore doesn't accurately reflect the likely outcome. You argue from a point of human life being more valuable than political ideas- whilst I agree to some extent (but disagree vehemently in some circumstances, such as popular uprisings against governments which you seem to be in favour of, despite this statement) you can't definitively say "the war on terror (if you wish to use that term) has been in terms of loss of life more harmful than if it had not taken place", for two reasons- one, you cannot see the future and therefore you can only judge on short-term outcomes rather than long-term, and two because you're not omniscient and cannot therefore predict what would have happened if the war had not commenced. You can suppose, but supposition isn't much use in making long-term decisions.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 09:45)

Like what's this war going to get us? Cheaper gas? What good is cheap gas going to us when the dollar crashes and loses all it's value??

Well, in what ways have wars benefited us in the past? Lets see, we've got modern mechanisation, industrial processes, computers, the internet and long-distance communication, satellite technology, nuclear power, air transport, trauma medicine, radioisotope cancer treatments and other branches of nuclear medicine, composite materials, fire-resistant fibres like Nomex and Kevlar, personal protection equipment, scuba diving, space exploration and artificial organs as direct results of either military research or direct military confrontation. The sad irony is that, for all the cancer deaths and the huge gap in spending that you mentioned before, nuclear medicine- made possible only by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- has probably saved more lives than anything else when it comes to cancer treatment.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 08:59)

Well obviously it's not about saving lives.. we're out there mindlessly killing ourselves and others.. lol

If that's the case, and it is indeed a relatively recent development as you imply, then why have the casualties from conflict, both inter-state and sub-national, dropped so dramatically over the last four decades or so?

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 16:34

[GrandMaster Smith]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 03:52)

And yes, conflicts are always about power projection. And spheres of influence. Sometimes, some individuals will simplify that to "money," but it's unhelpful- money doesn't really have anything to do with it, and it's not directly about resources either. But no, fair enough, you object to the conflict in Afghanistan- it's your right to express your views. So, in that case, what would your legitimate response to large-scale terror attacks be, bearing in mind that you've got to balance the competing demands of international law, proportionality and rationality, and an extremely angry populace? Remember, it was never the US' (or UK's, for that matter) intention to be involved in a 10+ year long conflict in Afghanistan- they originally thought it would be as simple as a "decapitation strike" against the existing leadership and a bit of rural peacekeeping. Poor strategic and operational planning, yes, but once you've started conflicts, it's sheer lunacy to pull out of them before the endgame has been completed. It's bad for your interests in the region, its' bad for your own morale, it's bad for your own world standing, bad for your security and almost universally bad for the country involved. I mean, look at Vietnam, Laos and Cambodia as an example. US bogged down in conflict, tens of thousands of servicemen killed over three decades, half a million civilian casualties. US pulls out, Khmer Rouge comes to power in Cambodia, genocide, mass-killing and small-scale conflict happens everywhere in the region, 3.5 million dead in 3 years. If one looks at objective, moral consequences, the Vietnam war was far better than what followed it.

You have to look at why they attacked us in the very first place.. it's not because 'they're jealous of our freedoms' (I laugh everytime I hear that one..) It's because we were over there in the first place long before 9/11.. I was watching a video of Bin Laden speak and he was saying 100 Americans get killed by a terrorist group and it makes headlines for years, but if Americans kill innocent children and families, nothing. No news coverage, no remorse, just more mindless killing. Bin Laden was obviously saying he was sick of how America thinks they can police the world. I'm not siding with Laden saying what he did was in any way right, but we have to think that we can't do whatever we want and expect people not to get pissed off at us..

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 03:52)

Well, in what ways have wars benefited us in the past? Lets see, we've got modern mechanisation, industrial processes, computers, the internet and long-distance communication, satellite technology, nuclear power, air transport, trauma medicine, radioisotope cancer treatments and other branches of nuclear medicine, composite materials, fire-resistant fibres like Nomex and Kevlar, personal protection equipment, scuba diving, space exploration and artificial organs as direct results of either military research or direct military confrontation. The sad irony is that, for all the cancer deaths and the huge gap in spending that you mentioned before, nuclear medicine- made possible only by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- has probably saved more lives than anything else when it comes to cancer treatment

Let me tell you one thing that I want to make perfectly clear- War may have pushed towards it, but war did not create these things, MAN did. Human intelligence. These things could've just as easily came about in any other way without a war nor mindless killing involved..

If humans would stop all this and realize we're all the same bacteria species living in the same petri dish and actually put all of our minds together and threw money out the door, we could accomplish ANYTHING.

Right now we have the technology to explore the entire bottom floor of the ocean. What's stopping us? Money.

We have the technology to be able to send every man woman and child into space to experience zero gravity and a view like nothing we've ever seen before. What's stopping us? Money.

FFS we could all be riding around in jetpacks right now lol.. but guess what's stopping that? Money..

We have the technology to collect FREE endless supplies of energy from the sun, but guess what's stopping that as well.. I mean it goes on and on..


This current system is only holding us back when you really think about it.. Imagine all the people we could feed or treat with medical care right now TODAY if it weren't for this giant barrier we call money..


And of course I believe we need some form of government but going into that would dive into a whole different and deeper topic involving religion and whatnot and I don't want to get into that right now lol. But personally I don't believe even if we didn't have a government people could perfectly well take care of themselves without going rampant and killing one another, we're not cavemen..

What all does one need anyways? A house for shelter, land for privacy, a garden for food, a craft to offer supplies for the community and a family for happiness. All of that could easily be dealt with without a giant government always watching over your back..

[sivispacem]

Apologies in advance, but this response is going to be quite long. It goes into some detail about the actual nature of al-Qaeda and their true aspirations, so it's quite complex. So some forewarning may be needed there...

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 15:42)

You have to look at why they attacked us in the very first place.. it's not because 'they're jealous of our freedoms' (I laugh everytime I hear that one..) It's because we were over there in the first place long before 9/11.. I was watching a video of Bin Laden speak and he was saying 100 Americans get killed by a terrorist group and it makes headlines for years, but if Americans kill innocent children and families, nothing. No news coverage, no remorse, just more mindless killing. Bin Laden was obviously saying he was sick of how America thinks they can police the world. I'm not siding with Laden saying what he did was in any way right, but we have to think that we can't do whatever we want and expect people not to get pissed off at us..

No, it's not because they're jealous of US freedoms- and yes that is an absurd and laughable proposition- but it's also nowhere near as simple as the "US incursions onto Arab turf" argument that many often make as some kind of vague defence of their actions, or attack on those of the US. The basic premise is about right- yes, the US became such a public target because of their interference in Middle Eastern issues- but there are two far more fundamental concerns for al-Qaeda, and in order to understand them you've gotta know what AQ actually is. They're not, as some would have you believe, the devil incarnate. But nor are they a hodge-podge organisation made up of those who oppose the presence of the US on foreign soil. It's far, far more than that. Though al-Qaeda have lost some direction over recent years, with the deaths of regional leaders and in-fighting between factions, they do have aspirations and ideologies. I'll sum them up in the order in which they would take place, should AQ succeed to pull themselves out of their current rut. Basically, the aspiration we all know is that they wish to force foreign nations, their citizens and their assets out of the Arab world through domestic and foreign violence. The more fundamental reason is "why"? Basically, AQ are a Salafi/Wahhabi, Sunni, Takfiri (Takfir is roughly translated to "those who accuse others of apostasy"- basically, the act of casting all other individuals as infidels) organisation seeking to establish a pan-Islamic, Sharia-led worldwide caliphate. Their basic aspirations are-

1) Destroy all foreign and non-Sunni influence in the Arab world through force.
2) Convert or destroy followers of all other religions- Christianity, Judaism, Hinduism; all equally fair game in their eyes- as well as all forms of Islam that don't conform to their ideas. That's Sufism (Islamic mysticism, and the most practised variant of Islam in the world), Shia Islam (the second largest Islamic denomination), moderate Sunni Islam in all its forms (Sufism is the most notable, but there are other popular branches of Sunni Islam which aren't "extreme" enough; regional Islamic denominations such as Ibadi, Ahmadiyya, Liberal Islam, Zikri et cetera). That's basically 99% of the Arab world, and explains why much of AQ's attention goes on stoking up sectarian tension and attacking fellow Arabs.
3) Remove national borders and establish a pan-Islamic caliphate across the Middle East, North Africa and Southern Asia, ruled under strict Sharia law and supported and enlarged by aggressive military action.
4) Take over world, converting or destroying all other religions and their followers, with aforementioned caliphate.

Put simply, if, in a hypothetical situation, all US and Western influence were to be withdrawn from the Arab world, the security situation for both those countries involved, and the US/other Western states would significant deteriorate. We've already seen the spread of these ideologies in Afghanistan, where they were essentially forced on the population through a routine of targeting killing, extortion and local-level tribal violent instigation in the early years after the Mujahideen's defeat of the Soviet Union; basically, that's how the Taliban forces won the Afghan Civil War. As well as the obvious involvement in the region, Western powers offers significant assistance to Arab nations in combating and negating the threat caused by organisations such as al-Qaeda; in other worlds, a Western pull-out would leave some governments- most notably that of Yemen, but also potentially those of Mali, Algeria, Sudan, Nigeria, Somalia and Pakistan, plus (given enough time and a continued lack of intervention) those of Saudi Arabia, Indonesia, Bahrain, Iraq , Eritrea, Ethiopia and even the Arab Emirates. Now, whilst the populations of most of these nations have no interest in the aggressive, destructive and Takfiri branch of Islam presented by AQ and their affiliates, the same was the case in Afghanistan, and in the FATA (Federally Administered Tribal Areas) and/or Swat valley region of Pakistan today, and in Somalia, and North Yemen, and Sudan, and Northern Nigera- and these have all to some extent already fallen to organisations with similar operating tactics and beliefs to AQ and their affiliates. So those who say "all al-Qaeda want is the West and their influence to leave the Muslim world" are completely incorrect- as they and their affiliates have already engaged in significant land-grabs, extortion against local populations and regional and tribal-level conflict to gain power. It doesn't take a strategist to see the potential negative implications for Western nations if this trend were to continue.

Basically, al-Qaeda doesn't share an aspirational similarity to separatist groups and other terrorist organisations they're often lumped alongside because of the tactics they use. Their grand strategic objectives are more in line with those of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union- in essence, they're an existential threat- a more dangerous one in some ways, as they aren't bound by the rules, moral and culture of the international community- in fact, they're diametrically opposed to it.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 15:42)

Let me tell you one thing that I want to make perfectly clear- War may have pushed towards it, but war did not create these things, MAN did. Human intelligence. These things could've just as easily came about in any other way without a war nor mindless killing involved.

Ahh, but I can use the same argument to counter your points. War is not a human invention, it's a concept. It's not war that kills people, it's people. So, by your own logic, both innovation and conflict- which are not physical entities but concepts, are essentially meaningless as they only describe a behaviour or state, rather than represent one. The simple fact of the matter is that humanity is at it's most innovative when it comes to destroying members of it's fellow species. And war is not "mindless". For something to be mindless, it must be without purpose, and war has a purpose. Whether the ends of that purpose are justified by the means is a subjective, case-by-case debate, but conflict still has purpose and those that deny that and label it as either "senseless" or "mindless" are rather missing the point. That's not me saying "war is a good thing", it's me saying "war is an inevitability" that nothing can remove from human or animal behaviour.

If war, in relation to innovation, creates the environment but not the end product, then the same can be said about death. War, as a concept, doesn't kill people. Wars don't even necessarily have to involve the deaths of individuals. If it's humans that innovate, it's humans that kill.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 15:42)

If humans would stop all this and realize we're all the same bacteria species living in the same petri dish and actually put all of our minds together and threw money out the door, we could accomplish ANYTHING.

I fail to see how the removal of our current monetary system will do anything to prevent conflict or accomplish anything more than we already do. All currency is is a manifestation of resources, a commodity that can be traded. A world without money would be exactly the same; something would replace it as a form of trade. Whether that's raw materials, a basic barter system or any other alternative, currency will still exist to some extent and the same apparent ills created by wealth- profiteering, hoarding, conflict for objective gain et cetera- will still exist.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 15:42)

We have the technology to be able to send every man woman and child into space to experience zero gravity and a view like nothing we've ever seen before. What's stopping us? Money. FFS we could all be riding around in jetpacks right now lol.. but guess what's stopping that? Money..

What's stopping us? Ostensibly money, but money is really just a manifestation of resources. We have the technology to give people this experience, sure, but does doing so actually benefit humankind to a greater degree than the finite resource outlay which is effectively expended when doing so? No. Hey presto. Just replace "money", which is, after all, infinite and largely theoretical, with something finite and expendable- resources- and you've got the same system, the same circumstance and absolutely no way of getting around it.

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 15:42)

We have the technology to collect FREE endless supplies of energy from the sun, but guess what's stopping that as well.. I mean it goes on and on.. This current system is only holding us back when you really think about it.. Imagine all the people we could feed or treat with medical care right now TODAY if it weren't for this giant barrier we call money..

Okay, so, hypothetically, say that government ceases to exist, along with all the institutions which it controls. How do you settle grievances? What if someone takes your house from you? Removal of government doesn't stop greed or human desire, so who will mediate and legislate to prevent someone doing it? What if someone steals your food? What if you're employed by an institution whose existence is based entirely on the functioning of a government- like a public service, such as transportation, health provisions et al? What incentive do you have to continue contributing towards society if there is no form of payment, no monetary system to allow you to purchase goods and services and no government to distribute these resources?

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 15:42)

But personally I don't believe even if we didn't have a government people could perfectly well take care of themselves without going rampant and killing one another, we're not cavemen. What all does one need anyways? A house for shelter, land for privacy, a garden for food, a craft to offer supplies for the community and a family for happiness. All of that could easily be dealt with without a giant government always watching over your back..

At the end of the day, we are cavemen. The genetic and mental differences between early and modern humans are negligible. We're essentially the same beast. So, without institutions to control the behaviour of those who transcend the laws of nature and seek personal gratification and gain over the good of the masses, who will maintain law, order and security? Who is to stop the neighbouring social group, who will inevitably maintain some kind of hierarchical structure as that's basically the only thing that keeps society functioning, from coming in and taking your land and resources? Nothing.

[Bruceafc]

Broken video link removed

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Thursday, Jan 19 2012, 21:34

[Bruceafc]

f*cking bulssh*t, cant post a video on here

- Solely video posts are not welcome in D&D. In future, please present arguments properly and cohesively. I've removed the broken link. SVP-

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Thursday, Jan 19 2012, 21:34

[universetwisters]

i love it how conspiracy theorists flip sh*t whenever they find a boxcar near an abandoned warehouse

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (universetwisters @ Friday, Jan 20 2012, 23:59)

i love it how conspiracy theorists flip sh*t whenever they find a boxcar near an abandoned warehouse

Congratulations, you've made that contribution to about 4 threads in the last month. Have anything intelligent to add?

[universetwisters]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Jan 20 2012, 23:53)

QUOTE (universetwisters @ Friday, Jan 20 2012, 23:59) i love it how conspiracy theorists flip sh*t whenever they find a boxcar near an abandoned warehouse Congratulations, you've made that contribution to about 4 threads in the last month. Have anything intelligent to add?

meh

just wanted to bring up the point that the people who believe in this 'fema concentration camp' are retarded


that is all.

[shotGTA]

the first thing i think about with the word : global nation , global governent and that sh*t is assassins creed

we cant stop it , LMAO we are all freaking doomd , look at what the police is doing on the street , just slamming people ( not all the police guys there are good ones )
their will be a global governemnt f*cking us up
we cant stop this , even IF we kill them all , get them in prison or ban them to the freaking MOON . their will always be a new leader stand up
one that is corrupted even more ,
you kill one and the next one is standing up
this contineus till we are all dead and their is noone to command us
maybe that is better for the world ?
look what we do to animals
LMAO look what we do to children , Kony just gives them a motherf*cking gun , then they need to shoot their motherf*cking parents , then their sisters will get raped while their brothers need to shoot people down .
if amerika , china , japan , korea ,afganistan , france ETC ever will take over the world .
ill be the first one standing their befor their big bang house fuld with slaves .
saying no , not that it will help . they will shoot every man just standing their not doing their slave job.
this is how I see the future.
just bangd up , the world is seeing it too . is it normal what is happening ? japan got crushed ! there are floods everywhere ! WE ARE DOING THAT !
ITS OUR OWN f*ckING FAULT !

yes i got bad english

-What a lovely, eloquent post of pure sh*te. Please, read the forum rules for D&D and come back when you intend on abiding by them-

This post has been edited by sivispacem on Monday, Mar 26 2012, 21:05

[Irviding]

ShotGTA, why Afghanistan?

[Melchior]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 21:52)

QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 09:45) Like what's this war going to get us? Cheaper gas? What good is cheap gas going to us when the dollar crashes and loses all it's value?? Well, in what ways have wars benefited us in the past? Lets see, we've got modern mechanisation, industrial processes, computers, the internet and long-distance communication, satellite technology, nuclear power, air transport, trauma medicine, radioisotope cancer treatments and other branches of nuclear medicine, composite materials, fire-resistant fibres like Nomex and Kevlar, personal protection equipment, scuba diving, space exploration and artificial organs as direct results of either military research or direct military confrontation. The sad irony is that, for all the cancer deaths and the huge gap in spending that you mentioned before, nuclear medicine- made possible only by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- has probably saved more lives than anything else when it comes to cancer treatment.

It's not inaccurate to say that war leads to discovery, but it's certainly anachronistic. Maybe when global superpowers were at each other's throats and war was an urgent affair, but you can't suggest that this is still the case in the modern world - resources are no longer being desperately poured into solving conflicts.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (Melchior @ Wednesday, Mar 28 2012, 06:51)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 21:52) QUOTE (GrandMaster Smith @ Tuesday, Dec 27 2011, 09:45) Like what's this war going to get us? Cheaper gas? What good is cheap gas going to us when the dollar crashes and loses all it's value?? Well, in what ways have wars benefited us in the past? Lets see, we've got modern mechanisation, industrial processes, computers, the internet and long-distance communication, satellite technology, nuclear power, air transport, trauma medicine, radioisotope cancer treatments and other branches of nuclear medicine, composite materials, fire-resistant fibres like Nomex and Kevlar, personal protection equipment, scuba diving, space exploration and artificial organs as direct results of either military research or direct military confrontation. The sad irony is that, for all the cancer deaths and the huge gap in spending that you mentioned before, nuclear medicine- made possible only by the bombings of Hiroshima and Nagasaki- has probably saved more lives than anything else when it comes to cancer treatment. It's not inaccurate to say that war leads to discovery, but it's certainly anachronistic. Maybe when global superpowers were at each other's throats and war was an urgent affair, but you can't suggest that this is still the case in the modern world - resources are no longer being desperately poured into solving conflicts.

Conflict amd the potential of conflict still drives innovation. Just look at the incredible advances in artificial limb technology and the treatment of serious trauma brought on by the use of IEDs in Iraq and Afghanistan. Whats anachronistic about that? What about the development of semi-autonomous UAVs, which are now finding their way into civilian use? Just because there is no (obvious) superpower stand-off doesn't mean conflict no longer drives innovation. You should look into the work BAE are doing on things like electromagnetic weapons (with a potential dual use in STOL propultion and reusable space launches or non-lethal/non-crippling weapons which can be used in thehumane stunning of animals for slaughter or medical purposes.