The Killing Joke

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
461

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell me, dear readers, what ended the 17th and 18th century scourge of piracy in the Caribbean (and elsewhere in many places for that matter)?

(Yes, there is a parallel)[/quote]

Colonial Navies in part and, more specifically, the rise of the U.S. Navy by the mid-1850s, IIRC.[/quote]

My studies have shown it was the absolutely relentless pursuit of the pirates by the Royal Navy. The British finally said enough is enough and unleashed the most formidable hounds of war ever known until then.

They hung and they hung and they hung and they hung 'em. Then after that they hung some more. And for good measure they kept on hanging 'em. If you were a scalawag you could barely breathe the proverbial refreshing salt air during your morning piss off the stern before a Union Jack showed up to nail your ass. There was some quarter given in certain circumstances but the bottom line is hard hitting aggressive violence by a major military power produces results.

The problem virtually vanished within a relatively short period of time. It was phenomenal.[/quote]

As an aside, I really enjoyed Black Sails Season I. I can’t wait for Season II.

http://www.starz.com/originals/blacksails/tumblr?cid=bss2got&gclid=CJfzz6-miMMCFRKUfgodpLAAuw

462

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM…

[/quote]

No, it’s not.

Terrorism is the unilateral attack on innocent civilians for non-defensive reasons.

Threatening to nuke Nagasaki or Hiroshima or Mecca in a defensive response to acts of war is not terrorism. It may not be prudent but it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Oh? I wasn’t aware we could pull definitions out of our respective asses. I’d be grateful if you could point me to the relevant citation in the literature that contradicts what I’ve written.

Threatening Mecca with a nuclear strike is by definition terrorism.[/quote]

Is there any crossover with terrorism when exercising hard power?

463

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Gkhan wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Tell me, dear readers, what ended the 17th and 18th century scourge of piracy in the Caribbean (and elsewhere in many places for that matter)?

(Yes, there is a parallel)[/quote]

A raid on the Muslim pirates in Libya.[/quote]

This in part ended one of the Barbary wars in North Africa.

Were the “Pirates of the Caribbean” Muslims? Jack Sparrow and his crew drank an awful lot of rum for a Muslim, at least in the Johnny Depp version. [/quote]

Good call. The pirates of the Mediterranean were.

History of the Barbary pirates. Pay close attention to the second paragraph. And the illustration of a man from the Barbary states.

This Barbary pirate sounds like he could be a rapper today:

464

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM…

[/quote]

No, it’s not.

Terrorism is the unilateral attack on innocent civilians for non-defensive reasons.

Threatening to nuke Nagasaki or Hiroshima or Mecca in a defensive response to acts of war is not terrorism. It may not be prudent but it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Oh? I wasn’t aware we could pull definitions out of our respective asses. I’d be grateful if you could point me to the relevant citation in the literature that contradicts what I’ve written.

Threatening Mecca with a nuclear strike is by definition terrorism.[/quote]

Is there any crossover with terrorism when exercising hard power?
[/quote]

Only if a state intentionally targets noncombatants or threatens to do so.

465

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Don’t worry, Bistro, my young chum, I wasn’t really angry at you. I can just tell that you don’t deadlift and folks here that don’t deadlift are pussies. Generally speaking.[/quote]

Can you explain to me why you believe threatening Mecca with a nuclear strike (and presumably following through) doesn’t constitute an act of terrorism?

466

[quote]Bismark wrote:

Only if a state intentionally targets noncombatants or threatens to do so. [/quote]

My problem is: the United States does NOT do this. But the terrorists, like the one in Paris somehow equate their brand of violence ie slaughtering innocents with our accidental killing of civilians, especially if the terrorists are hiding or firing from civilian areas, like schools or hospitals.

468

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM…

[/quote]

No, it’s not.

Terrorism is the unilateral attack on innocent civilians for non-defensive reasons.

Threatening to nuke Nagasaki or Hiroshima or Mecca in a defensive response to acts of war is not terrorism. It may not be prudent but it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Oh? I wasn’t aware we could pull definitions out of our respective asses. I’d be grateful if you could point me to the relevant citation in the literature that contradicts what I’ve written.

Threatening Mecca with a nuclear strike is by definition terrorism.[/quote]

Is there any crossover with terrorism when exercising hard power?
[/quote]

Only if a state intentionally targets noncombatants or threatens to do so. [/quote]

So Hiroshima was __________

469

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
So Hiroshima was __________
[/quote]

Both targeting a population center and targeting a military/industrial target during a great-power war. Nagasaki was much less of a military target then Hiroshima, but also arguably had military/industrial value. Dresden was also fucked up with fire bombs to about the same extent and might has well have been nuked considering the inferno the fire bombs caused. Its tough to compare WWII to today’s conflict, however, and the indiscriminate targeting of population centers with heavy conventional bombing or a nuke is pretty tough to justify outside the context of a global world war, especially now that technology allows for better more discriminate targeting of military targets.

470

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

I asserted that threatening to use nuclear weapons against a predominantly Muslim city in response to terrorism is in fact TERRORISM…

[/quote]

No, it’s not.

Terrorism is the unilateral attack on innocent civilians for non-defensive reasons.

Threatening to nuke Nagasaki or Hiroshima or Mecca in a defensive response to acts of war is not terrorism. It may not be prudent but it’s not terrorism.[/quote]

Oh? I wasn’t aware we could pull definitions out of our respective asses. I’d be grateful if you could point me to the relevant citation in the literature that contradicts what I’ve written.

Threatening Mecca with a nuclear strike is by definition terrorism.[/quote]

Is there any crossover with terrorism when exercising hard power?
[/quote]

Only if a state intentionally targets noncombatants or threatens to do so. [/quote]

So Hiroshima was __________
[/quote]

Hiroshima and Nagasaki were strategic bombings made necessary by the lack of precision munitions in 1945. The ends justified the means. Ultimately, Japanese lives were saved. Given the technological advances made since, strategic nuclear weapons are no longer a tenable means of waging war.

471

True, true.

472

[quote]Dr. Pangloss wrote:
Because by being purposefully vague, you’re attempting to set up a false equivalence between “things we do” and “things they do”.[/quote]

Well, I wasn’t trying to be vague

Nor was I trying to set up any equivalence.

The fact is- Western people think many of the things Muslims do abhorrent, and Muslims think many of the things Western people do is abhorrent.

And when people consider one another abhorrent, conflict is the only thing that can arise.

This is literally all I meant by that statement you took issue with. I don’t even know how you started getting all this crap about false equivalences and my belief concerning morality from it.

For the record- I believe that believing in any established morality requires you to believe that an outside power with the authority to establish said morality actually established said morality. In simpler terms- you need to believe that a god gave you the morals you believe in.

There is a definite difference between morals and doing things that seem kind and helpful. Nowadays people confuse the two, which leads to all this crap about how harming people=immoral and its contrapositive. But that really isn’t the case.

473

[quote]Bismark wrote:

[quote]angry chicken wrote:
No, there is a DISTINCT difference: muslims blow shit up without warning, killing as many people as possible. They choose trains, boats, buildings, markets, businesses. What I am proposing is entirely different. I want to USE THE THREAT of the destruction of the holiest part of their entire religion as a check and balance AGAINST further terrorist attacks.
[/quote]

Terrorism is the USE or THREAT of violence against non-combatants to achieve political objectives. There exists no distinct difference. Far more Muslims have died in terrorist attacks than non-Muslims. Pakistan alone has lost over 35,000 citizens to terrorism since the events of 11 September 2001. You cannot tenably treat the Islamic world as a homogeneous unit.[/quote]

There are no “non-combatants” in my proposed scenario… What you and most politically correct liberals fail to realize (or openly acknowledge) is that EVERY FUCKING MUSLIM is a potential combatant! Seriously, why do you pretend that they are on the same level with us? They cut the clitorises of of baby girls, worship a child molester and the MAJORITY believe that jihad is sometimes justified. They are fucking ANIMALS that would kill a jew for just being a jew. They are not civilized. They WANT sharia law… The only form of communication they understand (or respect) is VIOLENCE. And besides, they believe that if they die fighting the infidels that they will go to heaven and have virgins (because obviously they are insecure about the size of their cocks so the need virgins). We’d be doing them a favor AND making the world a better place. Win:Win

And I also said that the nuclear option was the LAST option. I think we should start bombing mosques with pig carcases and using every psychological weapon we can to make them feel defiled, cuz they obviously take that shit seriously. Make sure they can’t have a “holy” burial. Embarrass and shame them and humiliate them and defile them first. The campaign should begin with that.

And for those of you that say that will bring on more terrorism, I say GOOD: it flushes out the crazy ones so that we can kill them quicker. I think we can all agree that the crazy terrorists are never going to stop unless we kill them. You peace loving liberals DO understand that, right? WE HAVE TO KILL THEM…

474

[quote]magick wrote:

For the record- I believe that believing in any established morality requires you to believe that an outside power with the authority to establish said morality actually established said morality. In simpler terms- you need to believe that a god gave you the morals you believe in.

There is a definite difference between morals and doing things that seem kind and helpful. Nowadays people confuse the two, which leads to all this crap about how harming people=immoral and its contrapositive. But that really isn’t the case.[/quote]

Oh for fuks sake. Are you tolling me?

Are you christian?

475

[quote]on edge wrote:
Beans, you gotta be kidding me. You come at me for calling some other poster stupid and here you are doing the same thing? In the same day? The same thread even? Unbelievable.[/quote]

lmao… You feel better now?

You know the major difference between my meme was, I posted it in jest, after he said “no hard feelings” which leads the reasonable reader to conclude that my jest picture was along those lines.

Secondly, even if it was intended as a personal attack, which is wasn’t, it came after volumes of substantive posts by both of us, not you’re one off, undetailed, pointless post.

You’re so focused on WHO is saying WHAT, you ignore the what. Shit, here we are days and posts later and you still refuse to explain why you think DD is wrong, stupid, close minded or any other insults you’ve hurled at him. That is more telling than your insistence to comment on the poster, over and over, and ignore the content.

This is cute. Well done.

You started the personal attacks, but demand others be held to a higher standard… And then turn around and call OTHERS hypocrites… Priceless.

Hilarious. Not only is this a massive contradiction, but you just can’t help but insult the person and make zero substantiated rebuttals.

And again, you completely neglect to address his point, only insult him and ride your high horse because his opinion is different than yours, so in your mind, he is inferior.

Tiger, changing stripes, all that.

[quote] is not because he’s dumb, it’s because he’s close minded. Another thing I hate about organized religions is the whole ‘the one and only way’ theme.

So fellow poster who I offended a few pages back, I’m sorry I called you dumb. You’re really just an elitist prick.[/quote]

Stop projecting. It’s rather embarrassing to watch you struggle to point out your own flaws in others.

Your mind is no where near open.

476

[quote]angry chicken wrote:

You know, one of the rules to be a card carrying member of the FACC* is that you have to CAPITALIZE when you troll my posts…

*Fuck Angry Chicken Club[/quote]

You know I say the shit I say to you on purpose because I know you think about it right?

And you know I like making you think about uncomfortable ideas right?

My ball busting is actually a compliment, at least from my side of the screen.

477

[quote]jjackkrash wrote:

[quote]Brett620 wrote:
So Hiroshima was __________
[/quote]

Both targeting a population center and targeting a military/industrial target during a great-power war. Nagasaki was much less of a military target then Hiroshima, but also arguably had military/industrial value. Dresden was also fucked up with fire bombs to about the same extent and might has well have been nuked considering the inferno the fire bombs caused. Its tough to compare WWII to today’s conflict, however, and the indiscriminate targeting of population centers with heavy conventional bombing or a nuke is pretty tough to justify outside the context of a global world war, especially now that technology allows for better more discriminate targeting of military targets. [/quote]

I agree, people seem to forget that there were cities destroyed every bit as thoroughly as Hiroshima and Nagasaki without a nuke being dropped. And later in the war with huge allied air power, similar destruction was even achieved over night.

The allies dropped staggering tonnages of conventional bombs in the middd of cities with very little in the way of targeting capabilities. Britton even did all of their bombing at night where the meager targeting available wouldn’t really work.

In that war everyone bombed the crap out of population centers, not military targets.

478

[quote]on edge wrote:
Oh for fuks sake. Are you tolling me?

Are you christian?[/quote]

I’m not a Christian.

479

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
In many instances what you say is correct. But with terrorism like what happened in Paris the issue is entirely religious. Fanatical people who acted radically, purely based on religion.[/quote]

Absolutely. Their religious belief caused them to do this.

[quote]BPCorso wrote:
Without fanatical religious beliefs, and assuming no severe mental disorders, I just don’t see how people can indiscriminately murder others or use barbaric actions like a pocket knife beheading.[/quote]

This is what I disagree with. Of course people can commit mass murder without being religious or having mental disorders. Stalin and Mao Zedong are two easy examples. The people who worked under the two and actually committed the orders are as well.

480

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]on edge wrote:
Beans, you gotta be kidding me. You come at me for calling some other poster stupid and here you are doing the same thing? In the same day? The same thread even? Unbelievable.[/quote]

lmao… You feel better now?

You know the major difference between my meme was, I posted it in jest, after he said “no hard feelings” which leads the reasonable reader to conclude that my jest picture was along those lines.

Secondly, even if it was intended as a personal attack, which is wasn’t, it came after volumes of substantive posts by both of us, not you’re one off, undetailed, pointless post.

You’re so focused on WHO is saying WHAT, you ignore the what. Shit, here we are days and posts later and you still refuse to explain why you think DD is wrong, stupid, close minded or any other insults you’ve hurled at him. That is more telling than your insistence to comment on the poster, over and over, and ignore the content.

This is cute. Well done.

You started the personal attacks, but demand others be held to a higher standard… And then turn around and call OTHERS hypocrites… Priceless.

Hilarious. Not only is this a massive contradiction, but you just can’t help but insult the person and make zero substantiated rebuttals.

And again, you completely neglect to address his point, only insult him and ride your high horse because his opinion is different than yours, so in your mind, he is inferior.

Tiger, changing stripes, all that.

[quote] is not because he’s dumb, it’s because he’s close minded. Another thing I hate about organized religions is the whole ‘the one and only way’ theme.

So fellow poster who I offended a few pages back, I’m sorry I called you dumb. You’re really just an elitist prick.[/quote]

Stop projecting. It’s rather embarrassing to watch you struggle to point out your own flaws in others.

Your mind is no where near open. [/quote]

You’ve got nothing Beans. You’re like the kid in the playground who has no idea what to say to the other kid so he yells “fagot” at him. Instead of fagot you just throw around hypocrite and elitist. You’re just an older version of that kid. Those HURTFUL words just don’t apply to me or anything I’ve written.

I’ve been very consistent and not hypocritical. I even agree with you that guy you called stupid is pretty dumb. You repeatedly made a point to him and he just didn’t get it. I understand your frustration but it was hypocritical of you to call him stupid after you called me out on doing the same thing. Then it was pathetic and even more hypocritical when you tried to back out of that. You got frustrated and you called him stupid. You weren’t joking around with him and you pretty much admitted it in your very next sentence.

I think the burden of proof that morality comes from god is on you religious types. You would have to prove god before you could do that and there is no undeniable proof of god at this point.

Never the less, I will acquiesce. Lets take one of the corner stones of christian morality. Do unto others as you would have them do unto you (or something similar). This doesn’t require or come from any type of divinity. It’s a simple BARTER SYSTEM! It’s people coming to an agreement that they won’t kill, rob and slander each other, among other things. It’s like in college when you moved in with a buddy, you both said “Hey, lets set up some cool rules so we can get along and remain friends.”

Are you happy now?