Bullet-proof vests, gas masks = Defensive
Assault rifles, RPGs = Offensive
Assault rifles, RPGs = Offensive
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
How obtuse are you, honestly? Why do they have to be offensive? Do defensive weapons not help Hamas militants, too? This is embarrassingly pathetic, even for you.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.
Protip: Guns carried in self-defense are defensive weapons; they are active, rather than passive defense. Stop arguing the useless semantics to avoid the fact weapons were found aboard a ship intending to deliver "humanitarian aid". You've essentially already admitted it, so your futile evasion of conceding the obvious seems especially unnecessary. It's really poor form and something someone with your education should be above.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-12 04:09:33)
no activists = population of sheep ready to be assfucked by Hitlers Pinochets Mussolinis and Francos11 Bravo wrote:
no activists = no dead activistsDilbert_X wrote:
And the Israelis weren't?
no activists = you working in a coalmine 24/7 from the age of 5
no activists = less freedom
ƒ³
not rly, no
Yes, absolutely.11 Bravo wrote:
not rly, no
Where do you think any freedom you have has come from?
guns/black powderBertster7 wrote:
Yes, absolutely.11 Bravo wrote:
not rly, no
Where do you think any freedom you have has come from?
Wielded by activists.11 Bravo wrote:
guns/black powderBertster7 wrote:
Yes, absolutely.11 Bravo wrote:
not rly, no
Where do you think any freedom you have has come from?
ok...semantics eh? these guys, according to some here, didnt have weapons. so, my point stands.Bertster7 wrote:
Wielded by activists.11 Bravo wrote:
guns/black powderBertster7 wrote:
Yes, absolutely.
Where do you think any freedom you have has come from?
No it doesn't.11 Bravo wrote:
ok...semantics eh? these guys, according to some here, didnt have weapons. so, my point stands.Bertster7 wrote:
Wielded by activists.11 Bravo wrote:
guns/black powder
Not all activists who have achieved great things have needed weapons.
The suffragettes, Martin Luther King - they're well know examples of activists who have helped a lot of people get a lot more freedom without needing weapons.
maybe MLK didnt carry a weapon but his group did.........you need to learn some history on the US south if you think they didnt have weapons.Bertster7 wrote:
No it doesn't.11 Bravo wrote:
ok...semantics eh? these guys, according to some here, didnt have weapons. so, my point stands.Bertster7 wrote:
Wielded by activists.
Not all activists who have achieved great things have needed weapons.
The suffragettes, Martin Luther King - they're well know examples of activists who have helped a lot of people get a lot more freedom without needing weapons.
I was under the impression that it was Malcolm X's followers that carried weapons and King was very against violence and very much a voice for non-violent protest.11 Bravo wrote:
maybe MLK didnt carry a weapon but his group did.........you need to learn some history on the US south if you think they didnt have weapons.Bertster7 wrote:
No it doesn't.11 Bravo wrote:
ok...semantics eh? these guys, according to some here, didnt have weapons. so, my point stands.
Not all activists who have achieved great things have needed weapons.
The suffragettes, Martin Luther King - they're well know examples of activists who have helped a lot of people get a lot more freedom without needing weapons.
None of which detracts from all the other groups who didn't use weapons at all - like the suffragettes.
Of course it's up for debate.oug wrote:
This is not up for debate FEOS. You like to take into consideration the Iranian threats, I prefer to base my opinion on actions.FEOS wrote:
See point about having them and not threatening others with them...or not threatening others, in general.
The Israeli government has been suppressing the Palestiniansin every possible way, defying UN resolutions and refusing to cooperate in negotiations, all based on its vast military capabilities.
Sure enough nukes can't play an active role in this, that's why they're never mentioned, but as a defence mechanism and a last resort - the ace on the sleeve shall we say - they're pretty effective in building a fearful image for Israel.
Now for me that's the only thing nukes are good for. Especially when we're talking about conflicts between neighboring nations, like NK and SK, Iran and Israel etc, nukes are completely pointless. In that respect, the more gonvermnents have them, the bigger the stalemate. And that's a good thing.
Which countries of those three proliferate arms to others? Particularly in violation of international agreements and laws? It's not Israel. Iran proliferates arms to Hizbollah and others to wage proxy wars against Israel and the West. North Korea proliferates nuclear and other technologies to whomever will buy them, without regard.
Your problem is how Israel is treating the Palestinians. That has zero to do with how they could be expected to handle nuclear weapons or a nuclear program. Iran and North Korea have already given examples of how they can be expected to or have in fact performed their nuclear stewardship role.
“Everybody is a genius. But if you judge a fish by its ability to climb a tree, it will live its whole life believing that it is stupid.”
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
― Albert Einstein
Doing the popular thing is not always right. Doing the right thing is not always popular
Although Israel don't have the best track record when it comes to serious weapons proliferation to really dodgy regimes.FEOS wrote:
Of course it's up for debate.oug wrote:
This is not up for debate FEOS. You like to take into consideration the Iranian threats, I prefer to base my opinion on actions.FEOS wrote:
See point about having them and not threatening others with them...or not threatening others, in general.
The Israeli government has been suppressing the Palestiniansin every possible way, defying UN resolutions and refusing to cooperate in negotiations, all based on its vast military capabilities.
Sure enough nukes can't play an active role in this, that's why they're never mentioned, but as a defence mechanism and a last resort - the ace on the sleeve shall we say - they're pretty effective in building a fearful image for Israel.
Now for me that's the only thing nukes are good for. Especially when we're talking about conflicts between neighboring nations, like NK and SK, Iran and Israel etc, nukes are completely pointless. In that respect, the more gonvermnents have them, the bigger the stalemate. And that's a good thing.
Which countries of those three proliferate arms to others? Particularly in violation of international agreements and laws? It's not Israel. Iran proliferates arms to Hizbollah and others to wage proxy wars against Israel and the West. North Korea proliferates nuclear and other technologies to whomever will buy them, without regard.
Your problem is how Israel is treating the Palestinians. That has zero to do with how they could be expected to handle nuclear weapons or a nuclear program. Iran and North Korea have already given examples of how they can be expected to or have in fact performed their nuclear stewardship role.
They offered to sell nuclear weapons to the apartheid regime in South Africa. That's pretty fucked up (and kind of undermines the point you are making).
Last edited by Bertster7 (2010-06-12 08:16:32)
good for them. my freedoms were made by dudes with guns initially.Bertster7 wrote:
I was under the impression that it was Malcolm X's followers that carried weapons and King was very against violence and very much a voice for non-violent protest.11 Bravo wrote:
maybe MLK didnt carry a weapon but his group did.........you need to learn some history on the US south if you think they didnt have weapons.Bertster7 wrote:
No it doesn't.
Not all activists who have achieved great things have needed weapons.
The suffragettes, Martin Luther King - they're well know examples of activists who have helped a lot of people get a lot more freedom without needing weapons.
None of which detracts from all the other groups who didn't use weapons at all - like the suffragettes.
Point is, having guns isn't a prerequisite for getting people rights.11 Bravo wrote:
good for them. my freedoms were made by dudes with guns initially.Bertster7 wrote:
I was under the impression that it was Malcolm X's followers that carried weapons and King was very against violence and very much a voice for non-violent protest.11 Bravo wrote:
maybe MLK didnt carry a weapon but his group did.........you need to learn some history on the US south if you think they didnt have weapons.
None of which detracts from all the other groups who didn't use weapons at all - like the suffragettes.
lol Feos either you leave parts of my posts off, or you don't bother to read them altogether! Maybe it will register now, coming from BertBertster7 wrote:
Although Israel don't have the best track record when it comes to serious weapons proliferation to really dodgy regimes.FEOS wrote:
Of course it's up for debate.
Which countries of those three proliferate arms to others? Particularly in violation of international agreements and laws? It's not Israel. Iran proliferates arms to Hizbollah and others to wage proxy wars against Israel and the West. North Korea proliferates nuclear and other technologies to whomever will buy them, without regard.
Your problem is how Israel is treating the Palestinians. That has zero to do with how they could be expected to handle nuclear weapons or a nuclear program. Iran and North Korea have already given examples of how they can be expected to or have in fact performed their nuclear stewardship role.
They offered to sell nuclear weapons to the apartheid regime in South Africa. That's pretty fucked up (and kind of undermines the point you are making).
So now that we got our facts straight, I won't even bother to point out the vagueness of your accusations toward Iran and NK as opposed to the facts about Israel, I will just repeat what I already said before:
I don't trust any of the three governments at all. Whether it's religious fundamentalists from the middle ages, Hollywood-style demented baddie dictators or zionist pigs, it makes no difference to me. In fact, I wouldn't even trust them less than western governments like the US, France or any other nuclear power - as I refuse to be swayed by attempts to mask their true intentions.
ƒ³
and they got lost again once you lost public awareness and demonized disobedience by the few still aware.11 Bravo wrote:
my freedoms were made by dudes with guns initially.
ƒ³
erm.....what freedoms did i lose?oug wrote:
and they got lost again once you lost public awareness and demonized disobedience by the few still aware.11 Bravo wrote:
my freedoms were made by dudes with guns initially.
Thanks for the concession oug.
It's so obvious, if you have to ask you'll never know.11 Bravo wrote:
erm.....what freedoms did i lose?oug wrote:
and they got lost again once you lost public awareness and demonized disobedience by the few still aware.11 Bravo wrote:
my freedoms were made by dudes with guns initially.
watnukchebi0 wrote:
Thanks for the concession oug.
ƒ³
no, please tell me. we are all waiting.oug wrote:
It's so obvious, if you have to ask you'll never know.11 Bravo wrote:
erm.....what freedoms did i lose?oug wrote:
and they got lost again once you lost public awareness and demonized disobedience by the few still aware.watnukchebi0 wrote:
Thanks for the concession oug.
Haven't a response to this post, bud. I'm just going to assume you can't answer it and thus conceded. Please feel free to correct me if that is wrong.oug wrote:
wat
nukchebi0 wrote:
See, the thing you don't understand is that you haven't done anything but attempt to deny my conclusions with unsupported assertions they are merely assumptions. I've laid out for you in plain terms exactly what my reasoning is, what legitimate evidence I used to initially reach it, and what further evidence since then I've found that buttresses my points. Until you can deconstruct my argument and point out exactly what is wrong, and explain why certain "assumptions" are assumptions, my conclusions are going to appear a lot more valid than your pitiful attempts to universally victimize the activists. As it appears right now, you hate Israel and have an egregious inability to comprehend the nuances of arguments, meaning you disagree with my posts because they aren't blindly criticizing Israel but lack the mental fortitude to compose anything but feeble responses that are woefully inadequate for the debate.oug wrote:
Did I concede anything in my previous post? Talk about inability to understand... I told you over and over why your assumptions are just that. Assumptions and irrational, unsupported conclusions. Saying them over and over won't make them any more true you know. But then again supporting such a theory in the first place probably means you won't be willing to change your mind, you will only seek more straws to grasp from in fear of admitting the obvious.Hmm, I don't know. As my previous post pointed out though, and you failed to acknowledge (probably because it torpedos your pathetic opposition to the validity of the evidence), there hasn't been much in the way of vocal denial that these items were aboard the ship. Wouldn't we see more vociforous opposition to such claims if Israel had faked the weaponry they found abroad the Mavi Marmara?Wait you think they used paint.exe? I thought they just placed everything there quite conveniently and then took pics and vids.
And where's the part that shows activists preparing etc? You mean the men cutting up some iron bars? Why would activists make a video of themselves doing that? Rather mundane and pointless wouldn't you say? I'd rather make a fencing video with them curvy knives and some gas masks and the turkish vests!
I did address your last post that actually said something. Here.nukchebi0 wrote:
Haven't a response to this post, bud. I'm just going to assume you can't answer it and thus conceded. Please feel free to correct me if that is wrong.oug wrote:
watnukchebi0 wrote:
See, the thing you don't understand is that you haven't done anything but attempt to deny my conclusions with unsupported assertions they are merely assumptions. I've laid out for you in plain terms exactly what my reasoning is, what legitimate evidence I used to initially reach it, and what further evidence since then I've found that buttresses my points. Until you can deconstruct my argument and point out exactly what is wrong, and explain why certain "assumptions" are assumptions, my conclusions are going to appear a lot more valid than your pitiful attempts to universally victimize the activists. As it appears right now, you hate Israel and have an egregious inability to comprehend the nuances of arguments, meaning you disagree with my posts because they aren't blindly criticizing Israel but lack the mental fortitude to compose anything but feeble responses that are woefully inadequate for the debate.oug wrote:
Did I concede anything in my previous post? Talk about inability to understand... I told you over and over why your assumptions are just that. Assumptions and irrational, unsupported conclusions. Saying them over and over won't make them any more true you know. But then again supporting such a theory in the first place probably means you won't be willing to change your mind, you will only seek more straws to grasp from in fear of admitting the obvious.Hmm, I don't know. As my previous post pointed out though, and you failed to acknowledge (probably because it torpedos your pathetic opposition to the validity of the evidence), there hasn't been much in the way of vocal denial that these items were aboard the ship. Wouldn't we see more vociforous opposition to such claims if Israel had faked the weaponry they found abroad the Mavi Marmara?Wait you think they used paint.exe? I thought they just placed everything there quite conveniently and then took pics and vids.
And where's the part that shows activists preparing etc? You mean the men cutting up some iron bars? Why would activists make a video of themselves doing that? Rather mundane and pointless wouldn't you say? I'd rather make a fencing video with them curvy knives and some gas masks and the turkish vests!
After that you haven't said anything new I think. I explained why I consider your stance to be based on far fetched assumptions and one-sided interpretations of circumstancial evidence. Since then all you've done is ignore my points about the video and the pictures etc and hurled the same accusations of assumption back at me.
ƒ³
No, see, you keep telling me I'm wrong because my assumptions are assumptions without explaining why. It doesn't mean anything if you just say something without support. Your current "explanations" are already disproven as obvious assumptions and gross mischaracterizations of what was being argued. If you want to achieve anything, I suggest trying slightly harder prior to posting in the thread.oug wrote:
I did address your last post that actually said something. Here.nukchebi0 wrote:
Haven't a response to this post, bud. I'm just going to assume you can't answer it and thus conceded. Please feel free to correct me if that is wrong.oug wrote:
watnukchebi0 wrote:
See, the thing you don't understand is that you haven't done anything but attempt to deny my conclusions with unsupported assertions they are merely assumptions. I've laid out for you in plain terms exactly what my reasoning is, what legitimate evidence I used to initially reach it, and what further evidence since then I've found that buttresses my points. Until you can deconstruct my argument and point out exactly what is wrong, and explain why certain "assumptions" are assumptions, my conclusions are going to appear a lot more valid than your pitiful attempts to universally victimize the activists. As it appears right now, you hate Israel and have an egregious inability to comprehend the nuances of arguments, meaning you disagree with my posts because they aren't blindly criticizing Israel but lack the mental fortitude to compose anything but feeble responses that are woefully inadequate for the debate.
Hmm, I don't know. As my previous post pointed out though, and you failed to acknowledge (probably because it torpedos your pathetic opposition to the validity of the evidence), there hasn't been much in the way of vocal denial that these items were aboard the ship. Wouldn't we see more vociforous opposition to such claims if Israel had faked the weaponry they found abroad the Mavi Marmara?
After that you haven't said anything new I think. I explained why I consider your stance to be based on far fetched assumptions and one-sided interpretations of circumstancial evidence. Since then all you've done is ignore my points about the video and the pictures etc and hurled the same accusations of assumption back at me.
An example of the gross mischaracterization, just to be nice, is the following:
We already established a better source than that, so this statement is misleading plain stupid. Your arguments are compromised fully of such inadequacy.you wrote:
And you seem quite set on the latter so I guess that makes us even? Oh but surely not! You have proof from that lady who never leaves her office, riiight.
Regarding the pictures, you've completely ignored my justification of their veracity. The post you claim "says nothing new" includes a nice detailing of why it seems they are accurate,something you completely ignored. I'm beginning to think you are just being intentionally stupid like Dilbert is because you irrationally hate Israel, so if that is the case, I don't really want to waste my time laughing at your delusional statements much longer.
Last edited by nukchebi0 (2010-06-12 19:28:14)
No activists = USA under British control11 Bravo wrote:
not rly, no
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!