not everything fell to pieces. and not immediately.Uzique wrote:
i'm not sure you can call a country successful if immediately after the government dissolves it all falls to pieces. house of cards?
Russia went to absolute shits.Shahter wrote:
not everything fell to pieces. and not immediately.Uzique wrote:
i'm not sure you can call a country successful if immediately after the government dissolves it all falls to pieces. house of cards?
Last edited by Uzique (2011-05-11 06:02:39)
Id say it demonstrates that America and the USSR were equal in a lot of ways, contrary to them being the under developed third world country you are suggesting with America being vastly superior.Uzique wrote:
hahaha that's ridiculous logic. what does the cold war have to do with domestic conditions?
does that mean pakistan is a developed country, too? because they have nukes and we fear them?
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-05-11 06:45:33)
Uzique wrote:
does that mean pakistan is a developed country, too? because they have nukes and we fear them?
Not on a par with the USA no but I would not call them a 3rd world country.Sturgeon wrote:
Uzique wrote:
does that mean pakistan is a developed country, too? because they have nukes and we fear them?
Last edited by Cheeky_Ninja06 (2011-05-11 07:07:11)
lol trolling.Sturgeon wrote:
Again, having a space program isn't the sign of a 'developed' country, especially in terms of domestic condition.
India has a space program yet it's a shithole...
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3283935rdx-fx (2 years ago) wrote:
Pakistani ISI;
Tons of information, all for sale to the highest any bidder.
But not a clue to be bought for any price.
In other words, as I've said before;
If the Pakistani ISI knows about it, it may as well be on eBay
During the 1970's and 1980's Afghani-Soviet war, 90% of every dollar the US/CIA put through the Pakistani ISI to help the Afghani ... got lost.
90%. Poof. Gone. Rerouted to the wrong people.
this is a large part of the reason the US is disliked in that region, by so many people. This was our step zero: mother of all fuckups in the middle east - trusting the Pakistani ISI with anything of importance.
Major error #2:
US Middle East policy from 1970-1991; "The enemy of my enemy is my friend"
Bullshit.
The enemy of my enemy is NOT my friend.
The enemy of my enemy may well be my enemy too. There is such thing as a three-way fight, if one can count past two.
Don't help one minor enemy against another -- set it up so both enemies destroy each other.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 1#p2862481rdx-fx (8 months ago) wrote:
All of the Pakistani agencies I can think of (the ISI being the 1st), are corrupt beyond belief.
Like 90% of the money you send through them for any purpose, is going to be funneled off to hostile organizations, or get "lost".
The only organizations that can work within that environment are "terrorist" organizations.
"Misdirect my funds, and we'll tell the UN on you!" doesn't work worth a damn in Pakistan
"Misdirect my funds, and we'll send a suicide bomber into your HQ, then sodomize your sons, then rape your women, then set YOU on fire after we've made you watch all that" that works in Pakistan. There is precious little in-between.
If you don't have a very strong Or Else hanging over their heads, you cannot trust the Pakistanis with anything, especially money or secrets.
If the Pakistani ISI knows about it, it may as well be on e-bay.
(Note: Pakistani above meaning governmental agencies, the individual people may be more reliable. YMMV)
rdx-fx wrote:
IMHO, the Pakistani ISI can go choke on one of their own nukes. The Persians just need a new (moderate, sane, representative-of-the-people) government, without a supreme religious leader as the head of state.
http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?pi … 5#p3299265rdx-fx (1 year ago) wrote:
Have I mentioned my dislike for the Pakistani ISI lately?
Something along the lines of "If the Pakistanis know a secret, it may as well be in the front page of the New York Times"
Spy riddled, insecure, corrupt pile of steaming pig excrement.
etc etcrdx-fx wrote:
Pretty sure Osama bin Laden is in Pakistan right now, either with the approval of elements of the Pakistani government or ISI, or their intentional ignorance.
[...]
Pakistan and Saudi Arabia are no longer the peaceful side of Islam that the West has a chance of working with. Though they are still our allies in name, they are openly playing against us too.
1. you kinda sorta forgot the free and non-violent change of govt. thing, a free people, but hey a small details don't matter.Shahter wrote:
wow this thread has gone wild.
anyway, i'm back, lowing come get some:1. "ussr" stands as an example you asked for. you know, a developed society with unique culture, high standarts of living, high education levels, advanced technology, industry and science, good social and medical care, unmatched levels of social security and... nothing in the ways of what you call "freedom". there you go.lowing wrote:
1. not sure what kind of response "user" means, so point 1 is still on the table.Shahter wrote:
1. ussr.
2. did you give them the ways to develop their resources for free? no? did they pay you back for the technology? no, scratch that, did you allow them to pay you back anyway? no? fuck off.
now, how exactly can their resources be held hostage against you?
do you have your own recourses? yes? why don't you start developing those and leave those people on the other side of the globe alone.
what actions? how about bombings? or assassinations of their leaders? how about continuous support for their enemies?
3. ...
4. oh, it's about numbers now. and intentions - you, aparrently, wanted to forcibly "elevate" them to your level. haven't you though that maybe they do not want to develop that way? or maybe they are not ready for that yet? who the fuck are you again to decide for other people?
5. i never said it wasn't true - there's simply no way for me to tell. and you know what i do when i don't know something but really interested? - i ask people who do know and who have no reason to lie to me. and that practially rules out any and all media.
6. yes, he was. and he said he did those horrible things in the name of islam. does that mean that islam itself is to blame?
2. ya lost me on that one as well, what exactly did the ME have to offer in payment BEFORE they had oil? Anyway for the rest of your response I refer you to OPEC.
4. No it isn't about numbers, it is about action. We take action in the building of the infrastructure that mentioned. The extremists take action in its destruction. Really? People of the ME don't want clean drinking water, an education, electricity, or communications? please tell me more about that
5. this is a bunch of complete bullshit, but I think you already know that. You mean you really don't know that a tsunami wiped out cities in Japan until you talked to someone that survived it?
6. He got his teachings from somewhere and I am pretty sure it wasn't wikipedia.
2. now you lost me - what does it have to do with anything they had before you "helped" them? ME had no means to get their oil. you helped them. now they do have oil. how much of it do you need as payment for your help? all of it? then what was the point?
4. the "extremists" take action in trying to prevent their home lands from being dominated by you. they are trying to preserve their culture and tradition from being overrun by something they view as intrusive and alien. yeah, they do some really fucked up shit, but you hammered them to the point of desperation and they've nothing to lose. some things cannot be simply bought with all the goodies you mentioned there - and as it can clearly be seen in those countries who did allow themselves to be consumed by this "global market" bullshit of yours, those awesome things are only going to be available to very small part of the population, the rest get shafted.
5. crap, you got me there, man. tsunami... oh, wait, there's really no way this thing could be used for information manipulation, huh? it's sensationalist material, it's only good for making noises and getting the ratings up so that when it comes to the real propaganda those who do that kinda thing would pay for the services of the most popular of the media. if somebody tried to really research the matter and see how many locals actually approved of hanging the corpses and burning them who do you think would pay for that kinda report? nobody would, and you know it. the only things that sells these days is sensational bullshit and "news" paid for by those interested in this kinda stuff.
6. do you really need "teachings" to understand that when you are attacked you need to fight back? i'd simply call it common sence and self preservation instincts. mind you, i don't approve of the stuff i'm told obl did, but blaming islam - an information manipulation tool which could be swang any way based on situation - for that is completely idiotic. you've got that "freedom and democracy"-thing for ideology in usa, man, and in its name so many innocent people are having the crap beaten out of them right now that all the terrorist attacks would seem child's play in comparison. should i now start calling that ideological shtick "violent and intolerant"?
"Since we hear from so many critics who either don't take the time to read this site, or simply can't understand the distinction between Islam and Muslims, we thought it best to bring together in one place what we have said in so many others over the years.Jaekus wrote:
Twisting things once more I see. When will you stop playing this tired game? I'm sure the shoe would be on the other foot if someone started flinging Michael Moore quotes and references around the place the back up their arguments. Or do you also feel such a person on the far opposite side of the fence has equal merit as to those on yours? I somehow suspect not in your eyes. Point is, how about trying to construct an argument using unbiased reporting, than biased? It's like going to a KKK site to argue about all the negatives of black people. I'm sure a lot of their info is based on actual events, just really fucking slanted and twisted by their bias.
Do you get this, how this bias in presenting facts just twists things? Somehow I think not.
You attempt to portray the entire Islamic culture based on the actions of very few (I've done the maths for you, of course you ignore this because it is win against you and you cannot handle that). Have a good life, bigot.
Gee, Uzi, sorry ya feel that way.Uzique wrote:
before i came to d&st many many years ago i thought that people with the mentality of lowing were just a joke stereotype. i have yet to see the zealot commitment to bigotry and grand delusion anywhere else. it's like a unique product of the post 9/11 conservative american world. i genuinely think that jews in the west bank are more open-minded.
I appreciate your superiority complex Ken, but did you read the statement I just posted? Did you agree with it, or disagree with it. Out of all of that all you could challenge was the "subjugate" thing? Also, the site is nothing more than a collection of articles and reports already written from various media outlets. the site does did not write them.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Lowing really in the spirit of information and debate it's on you to independently verify the claims of that site if you want to have any validity to your argument. You can use that site as a source all you want, but the fact of the matter is you don't check the veracity of the information on that site because it fits into your agenda. I could reference a site with spurious claims all I want, but at the end of the day all it does is make me look like an idiot for parroting some stupid misinformed website.
FYI - Islam doesn't seek to subjugate non-Muslims. It's more of a separate-but-equal policy. That's one (of many) erroneous 'facts' the religionofpeace website propagates. I know this because I've actually done a bit of studying Islam.
It's not worth the time and effort to go through and debunk all the parroting you've done from that website. For me it's much more amusing watching you argue and go round and round spouting off about something you've repeatedly demonstrated you have very little knowledge and understanding about.
Carry on the good fight, sir.
well you didn't answer my question so I will try again.."But for argument sake lets say you are right, Islam has a separate but equal attitude regarding non-muslims. Would you give a person the same understanding and defense if they endorsed "separate but equal" water fountains for blacks and whites? Or "separate but equal" schools, or would you consider such an attitude to be intolerant and bigoted? any chance you see where I am going with this?"KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Of course I think any ideology should be critiqued constantly. Of course I think we should judge individuals based on their actions. The idea that Islam is submissive in ideology is both correct and incorrect. Abrahamic religions are all based along the idea of submitting to the higher power - it's not exclusive to Islam. The idea that women are subservient to men within Islam is not correct. That's a cultural characteristic of certain regions where Islam is dominant. The idea that all non-Muslims are subservient to Islam is also not correct. The power/cultural elite in these societies put forth these ideas under the guise of Islam because it allows for people to be controlled. Just like we should judge individuals based on their merits, we need to be judicious in our criticism regarding Islam and contrast the prevailing Islamic thought against cultural attitudes.
As with any religion, there are moral gaps that exist which run against contemporary thought (including the place in society for homosexuals, polygamists, etc). This is the nature of a constantly morphing social moral structure - it's not something endemic to Islam, nor is it something that will cease to exist. Religion and in fact morals are constantly changing to fit the evolution of society.
This isn't me trying to exert a feeling of superiority to anyone. This is me showing at least a basic understanding of the way society and religion interact with each other and the historical impressions they have left on each other.
you have addressed nothing. My entire argument about Islam is that it is an intolerant archaic religion and there are too many examples to show this. You have basically re-enforced my argument by claiming it holds a "separate but equal" attitude regarding non-Muslims. Now tell me, how can you view any such attitude as anything other than intolerant? Address the merits of your post? Address what you wrote? What do think I have been doing? Hell, I have put your post on center stage.KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
Please tell me where I am defending that idea. I offered no defense. I think its retarded, which is one of many reasons I would never choose to live in an Islamic society.
If you'd like to continue this debate please address what I've wrote instead of trying to get me involved in a straw man argument. Otherwise I guess we are done with this conversation. I at least have the courtesy to address the merits of your post, I'd like the same respect.
not surprised in the least. Does this mean you are not gunna tell me if you feel "separate but equal" is to be considered intolerant and bigoted? How about showing me some Islamic text to support that "separate but equal" ideology you say Islam holds regarding non- Muslims. Still waiting for that as well. Guess it is gunna be a long wait huh?KEN-JENNINGS wrote:
K bye lowing. Keep up the good fight.
Last edited by lowing (2011-05-11 18:28:51)