At least two of those knives have no place in any kitchen, but regardless does that explain the rifle scopes, bulletproof vests, and gas masks?
Which aren't weapons either.nukchebi0 wrote:
At least two of those knives have no place in any kitchen, but regardless does that explain the rifle scopes, bulletproof vests, and gas masks?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
the slingshots with marbles were toys too.
* I would concede that I carry two knives. A leatherman and a microtech. I guess the microtech is for hurting people. But then again I also carry a gun and a weapons permit.
* I would concede that I carry two knives. A leatherman and a microtech. I guess the microtech is for hurting people. But then again I also carry a gun and a weapons permit.
Last edited by DBBrinson1 (2010-06-11 18:39:52)
I stood in line for four hours. They better give me a Wal-Mart gift card, or something. - Rodney Booker, Job Fair attendee.
Uh huh, so you like carrying defensive weapons but the Turks shouldn't have been allowed to?DBBrinson1 wrote:
the slingshots with marbles were toys too.
* I would concede that I carry two knives. A leatherman and a microtech. I guess the microtech is for hurting people. But then again I also carry a gun and a weapons permit.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNViG5PAxcE
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Dilbert_X wrote:
Which aren't weapons either.nukchebi0 wrote:
At least two of those knives have no place in any kitchen, but regardless does that explain the rifle scopes, bulletproof vests, and gas masks?
Rifle scopes aren't weapons? Honestly? They don't fire projectiles, but the enhance the effectiveness of implements that do.The Dictionary wrote:
any instrument or device for use in attack or defense in combat, fighting, or war, as a sword, rifle, or cannon
Bulletproof vests and gas masks aren't weapons? See the above definition for clarification on what exactly a weapon is.
Regardless, you are obscuring the point that some of the "humanitarian aid" for Gaza the ship was carrying has no apparent civilian benefit, but would benefit Hamas fighters should they receive it. Intellectual dishonesty is something you should have transcended long ago.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-11 20:15:54)
hmmm
nuk has become so wrapped up in semantics he hasn't actually read what he posts.
how the fuck is one supposed to use a rifle scope as a weapon without having a rifle? What are you gonna do, throw it at them?
nuk has become so wrapped up in semantics he hasn't actually read what he posts.
how the fuck is one supposed to use a rifle scope as a weapon without having a rifle? What are you gonna do, throw it at them?
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
Spark wrote:
hmmm
nuk has become so wrapped up in semantics he hasn't actually read what he posts.
how the fuck is one supposed to use a rifle scope as a weapon without having a rifle? What are you gonna do, throw it at them?
i wrote:
enhance the effectiveness of implements that do
And even if there is no rifle, the fact doesn't change that this aid ship is sending Gaza "humanitarian aid" that has no applications for civilians improvement aside from hunting, which isn't exactly a popular form of recreation or food acquisition in the Gaza strip. That doesn't speak to good or honest intentions ont he part of the flotilla organizers, does it?dictionary, on the definition of weapon wrote:
or device for use in attack
Nice try, but I knew exactly what I was arguing.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-11 22:13:50)
You still haven't explained how the fuck a rifle scope is supposed to harm anyone if you don't have a fucking gun. We can do dictionary definitions all day but it means diddly in the real world. Are you arguing about the actual aid, or about the intentions when boarded?
Last edited by Spark (2010-06-11 22:29:31)
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
You can use the glass in a rifle scope to enhance the suns rays and create a fire, and a fire on a commando helicopter would have brought the whole thing down.
Are you saying the Hamas militants don't have guns? A very realistic assumption, to be sure.Spark wrote:
You still haven't explained how the fuck a rifle scope is supposed to harm anyone if you don't have a fucking gun. We can do dictionary definitions all day but it means diddly in the real world. Are you arguing about the actual aid, or about the intentions when boarded?
With that said, kindly read my posts prior to attacking them, as it will make you look less like you lack the reading comprehension of a fifth grader and more like an educated member of society. I'm arguing that the composition of the ship's cargo belies the facade of the flotilla as one solely intending to deliver peaceful "humanitarian aid" to the people of Gaza. A rifle scope doesn't injure anyone directly, but as I said earlier, it helps rifles become more effective (I'm sure you can envision how), something that has no application to the humanitarian aspects of civilian life in the Gaza Strip. Consequently, regardless of the actual availability of guns potentially utilizing rifle scopes among the Hamas-affiliated fighters in the Gaza strip, the inclusion of rifle scopes into the cargo of a ostensibly humanitarian flotilla indicates that the organizers had motivations beyond simply "aiding" the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and moreover that Israeli concerns regarding the smuggling of weapons in such aid shipments have merits. Is that clear enough for you to understand? You are the one wrapped up in semantics, not me. As noted before, nice try, but you ultimately fail. I knew exactly what I was saying when I wrote it.
Still waiting for pics of the rifle scopes.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
lol........ so they have no guns in gaza is what you are arguing so it seems. wow dude.Spark wrote:
You still haven't explained how the fuck a rifle scope is supposed to harm anyone if you don't have a fucking gun. We can do dictionary definitions all day but it means diddly in the real world. Are you arguing about the actual aid, or about the intentions when boarded?
http://idfspokesperson.com/2010/06/02/p … june-2010/Dilbert_X wrote:
Still waiting for pics of the rifle scopes.
So we're up to two knives and one telescopic sight?
Try harder.
Try harder.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
nukchebi0 wrote:
Are you saying the Hamas militants don't have guns? A very realistic assumption, to be sure.Spark wrote:
You still haven't explained how the fuck a rifle scope is supposed to harm anyone if you don't have a fucking gun. We can do dictionary definitions all day but it means diddly in the real world. Are you arguing about the actual aid, or about the intentions when boarded?
With that said, kindly read my posts prior to attacking them, as it will make you look less like you lack the reading comprehension of a fifth grader and more like an educated member of society. I'm arguing that the composition of the ship's cargo belies the facade of the flotilla as one solely intending to deliver peaceful "humanitarian aid" to the people of Gaza. A rifle scope doesn't injure anyone directly, but as I said earlier, it helps rifles become more effective (I'm sure you can envision how), something that has no application to the humanitarian aspects of civilian life in the Gaza Strip. Consequently, regardless of the actual availability of guns potentially utilizing rifle scopes among the Hamas-affiliated fighters in the Gaza strip, the inclusion of rifle scopes into the cargo of a ostensibly humanitarian flotilla indicates that the organizers had motivations beyond simply "aiding" the humanitarian crisis in Gaza, and moreover that Israeli concerns regarding the smuggling of weapons in such aid shipments have merits. Is that clear enough for you to understand? You are the one wrapped up in semantics, not me. As noted before, nice try, but you ultimately fail. I knew exactly what I was saying when I wrote it.
So... are you saying the activists are Hamas militants? Or are you insinuating as I first thought, that the activists were preparing for a spoil with the Israelis when they boarded - in which case a rifle scope is pretty hopeless.With that said, the previous link indicating some activists we preparing for a fight is all that is necessary to prove what I want to prove, so this point is moot.
The paradox is only a conflict between reality and your feeling what reality ought to be.
~ Richard Feynman
~ Richard Feynman
So why did they take a rifle scope? So a civilian can trade it for food or something?
the activists were looking for trouble. period. end of story.
And the Israelis weren't?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
no activists = no dead activistsDilbert_X wrote:
And the Israelis weren't?
No armed commandos fast-roping off helicopters onto ships in international waters = no dead anyone.11 Bravo wrote:
no activists = no dead activistsDilbert_X wrote:
And the Israelis weren't?
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
they have a blockade...they are allowed to. they didnt shoot first. so once again.........Dilbert_X wrote:
No armed commandos fast-roping off helicopters onto ships in international waters = no dead anyone.11 Bravo wrote:
no activists = no dead activistsDilbert_X wrote:
And the Israelis weren't?
No, I'm saying the preponderance of the evidence suggests they are supporting Hamas militants and actively opposing Israel, rather that simply attending to assuage the humanitarian crisis transpiring in Gaza. My apologies, as I realize I discussed the case solely using the rifle scope (which might have made it seem weaker), rather than all weapons found aboard, but I think the point remains. I do believe they were intending to fight the IDF commandos, as it helps in the efforts against Israel. There is more than just the presence of the weapons suggesting the intention, though I'm not going to retype the arguments here as they can easily be found in the previous seven pages. In essence, the presence of weapons on board the ship suggests the activists were more than simple humanitarians; coupled with knowing the benefits each side has to gain from a conflict on the flotilla (hint: Israel has none), the religious background of those dead, and statements made by members prior to the incident, it seems reasonable to conclude they were anti-Israeli interests actively fighting a war against Israel, rather than victimized and impartial foreigners attempting to reduce human suffering.Spark wrote:
So... are you saying the activists are Hamas militants? Or are you insinuating as I first thought, that the activists were preparing for a spoil with the Israelis when they boarded - in which case a rifle scope is pretty hopeless.
Dude, this is getting pathetic. The bulletproof vests? The gas masks? I see you haven't addressed those in the slightest.Dilbert_X wrote:
So we're up to two knives and one telescopic sight?
Try harder.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-12 04:02:34)
Still waiting for some offensive weapons.nukchebi0 wrote:
Dude, this is getting pathetic. The bulletproof vests? The gas masks? I see you haven't addressed those in the slightest.Dilbert_X wrote:
So we're up to two knives and one telescopic sight?
Try harder.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
Well, the activists didn't have firearms so they clearly did shoot first.11 Bravo wrote:
they have a blockade...they are allowed to. they didnt shoot first. so once again.........Dilbert_X wrote:
No armed commandos fast-roping off helicopters onto ships in international waters = no dead anyone.11 Bravo wrote:
no activists = no dead activists
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
one can argue every weapon is defensive.Dilbert_X wrote:
Still waiting for some offensive weapons.nukchebi0 wrote:
Dude, this is getting pathetic. The bulletproof vests? The gas masks? I see you haven't addressed those in the slightest.Dilbert_X wrote:
So we're up to two knives and one telescopic sight?
Try harder.