I'm sick of this argument. Oh, you're no better than them; get off your high horse, etc. etc.. Shut the fuck up and stop whining like little girls; If anything, you should be crying about the 2 trillion dollars spent on Osama. Be a proud American; the only way you're able to maintain your lifestyle is because of these kinds of priorities; 20 years from now you'll look back and say, "Hey, invading the Middle East was sorta worth the present prosperity I'm enjoying." The argument at hand: Terrorists. These people are criminally insane. The have no value for human life either-Instead of engaging in peaceful political process they resort to what they know: Barbaric Political Violence. This violent terrorist movement has evolved over time. Remember, as with all things in the world; With Lying, deceitful, politics there HAS to be a polar side to the spectrum; straightforward, hard, deadly and violent "Fear Politics." The only way to deal with it? Counter Terrorism, which is essentially fighting fire with napalm: [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dYMjTnyd-b8]YouTube - Great SAS Missions: Liberating The Iranian Embassy -- Part 1[/ame] [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oenk8Dvo8d4&NR=1]YouTube - Great SAS Missions: Liberating The Iranian Embassy -- Part 2[/ame] Terrorism won't disappear; it can only be slowed down, much like a cancer, treatable, but not curable, until we have the means to do so. Still sympathizing? Complaining that we threw the first stone? Watch this video, hopefully you'll change your mind: VIEWER DISCRETION SEVERELY ADVISED! We all are capable of evil. This song is a perfect choice (IMO) to describe the negative aspect of our being: [ame]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VON4rlf5iVQ[/ame]
Killing thousands of innocents and spending trillions to do it in all sorts of ways is totally worth bringing the gas prices down. Yup. Instead of spending trillions killing random people from other countries, maybe a few trillions would be useful for solving problems like... Poverty, the energy crisis, you know, stuff that moves civilization forward. Instead, we just take money, or taxes as you call it, from everyone and use it to build crazier, faster, and cooler ways to kill. Yup. I totally agree, this terrorist group called the Yuess Ovae needs to be stopped
The ends don't justify the means. And an ends that we will never see most certainly doesn't justify the means.
OP is obviously mad about replys to him in other threads. Good. Now you're forced to think about it. Reason with yourself logically and take all these replys in. We are not idiots. I can guarantee you that much
Said the sheep to the wolf. Do you honestly think you have any control over these issues. No, and. No.
Your reply is completely irrelevant to my post but ill address it none the less. If people like you didnt demonize terrorists and cause intervention then these events would not happen. Think about it, your response would be thats how it always was. That is true but think about it at one point someone decided to interfere with foreign affairs and sparked over a century's worth of violence. Humans are remarkable. Our thirst for energy can change the world. Look at the celebration for OBL's death. The positive energy was amazing. But it was gated off. Think about if the whole world stopped worrying about each other, stopped looking for an outside source to the problems within their own state or nation and just lived. Just created positive energy within themselves. Then it would be celebration everyday. But unfortunately because everyone is so concerned with the world running the same way. We create the violence, the negativity, and somehow through violence we find celebration. It doesnt matter if we can change it or not man, that doesnt change the principle of it, it doesnt change the basis. So why in the world should it change your views?
Wrong. We the people didn't cause intervention; although the EXACT cause is debatable, the tree of liberty must be refreshed with the blood of patriots every now and then in order for us to maintain our lifestyle and global stability. Be a little bit more specific; You're putting words in my mouth, and it's hard to draw a line between your argument and an imminent counter-argument. Yes; The celebration was a release of a decade of denial and/or anger. For every event, there is always a spectrum that follows it; The left side, in this case: extreme happiness, celebration, joyous triumph, and pride. The middle: Denial, skepticism, indifference, disbelief, etc. The right side: Anger, hate, violent outburst, negativity, sadness, etc. Impossible. Not even worth consideration. For this to happen, many peoples lives would be destroyed and people would die because we have become so reliant on materialism that we have a constant thirst that needs to be quenched in order to maintain a low positive energy. I have my own views and am thinking realistically. While I do agree with the idea of Mass Human Unity, such a feat is not possible with all the conflicting factors in the world: Government (type), Power, Materialism, Religion, the "Rich---Poverish Spectrum," and the result of all combined, or factored in couple, trio, etc.: War.
ter·ror·ist [ térrərist ] somebody using violence for political purposes: somebody who uses violence, especially bombing, kidnapping, and assassination, to intimidate others, often for political purposes Synonyms: guerrilla, radical, extremist, fanatic, bomber, kidnapper, assassin, saboteur Lets start wih "somebody using violence for political purposes:" If you created a list, with the objective being to label every country who uses violence for political purposes, you will come out with... Every single country that is in some way, shape or form, ruled by a government. If you want to use broad, over-generalized words to label a whole group of people, I suggest you start applying it to EVERYONE who fits the description, not just the ones that fit your political agenda. Otherwise, you better wise the fuck up and realize that we're fighting in a war we can't see. The battlefield is the hearts and minds of men, and the enemy is nothing more then an emotion.
Correct. In which case the ends justify the means. Lets insert the idea of Democracy and apply it here, which, in this case, the main idea would be "Majority." A timeline of major conflicts will be used to better illustrate the "ends." First I will apply "Alliances," since peace isn't possible when there are two sides of an argument/conflict. World War I: The Central Powers controlled strategic military and global transit positions throughout the middle of the world: This is a threat to practical (travel time minimized, as well as cutting out middlemen) international trade, especially if diplomatic relations are sharply contrasted with one another. Conflict ensued, mainly because the oppressive government types did not see incentive in "individual prosperity," aka, Capitalism. America (and other allies) succeeded in Uniting and establishing diplomatic relations with key transnational destinations in order to grow the centrifuge (figurative for America being the center, making the world go round), which in turn, saw near-global prosperity (inventions include: superheterodyne radio circuit, Mechanical Television, Penicillin, etc.). World War II: Same thing, though this opened the publics eyes on the magnitude of human atrocity and the possibility of our own extinction. The growing conflict in Germany united a large amount of nations worldwide and helped establish the United Nations. The idea of "Free World," was also established; which has indirectly been ingrained into every human being that lives in a free society. Current Conflict: Middle East: Everybody has a differing opinion on the political outcomes that justify the "Means" from a capitalistic and democratic perspective for the invasion, but I'll give the solid one: The invasion was not technically defined as terrorism on our part; especially since the outcome was for the greater good (establishment of a semi-sane government, removal of terror controlled governing body). In the coming years, expect to see dramatic economic growth in the region. On the contrary, I haven't applied the word "Terrorist" to a whole group of people, I apply it to people who use threats of violence, etc. in the name of "God;" which, by the way, isn't a good reason, considering the fact that there is no tangible evidence of "Its" existence and democracy doesn't apply to the horrible human invention that "God" is. [ame=http://www.liveleak.com/view?i=bfe_1211282615]LiveLeak.com - UAV Predator Takes Out A Group Of Taliban With Hellfire Missile - Afghanistan[/ame] Bastards didn't see that coming, now did they? Agree with the current situation: Enjoy a prosperous and bountiful future. Disagree with the current situation: GTFO of America, and try and live the way they do: A life that is not compatible with the world evolving, as well as the expansion of human intellect for the betterment of mankind.
See, I knew it would come down to this. Argumentum ad populum - This fallacy is sometimes committed while trying to convince a person that a widely popular thought is true. I.E. - Over 50% of the worlds population supports killing people, therefore killing people is a good form of conflict resolution. Appeal to tradition - is a common fallacy in which a thesis is deemed correct on the basis that it correlates with some past or present tradition. The appeal takes the form of "this is right because we've always done it this way." I.E. - People have been killing each other since the beginning of time, so we should continue killing as a form of conflict resolution. Your whole argument consists of these two fallacies. If you want to doublethink your way around the word terrorism, be my guest. Just remember that an eye for an eye makes the whole world blind. this type of thinking = LOL. Betterment of mankind = slaying brown people
It's not a matter of what people think is true; but rather the idea that if America sets its sights on something, it's going to fucking happen. You misapplied the logical fallacy there; the majority applies to the United Nations. The United Nations is not a thought, but is a physical organizations that exists not in the minds of people.
Fallacy of Accident or Sweeping Generalization: a generalization that disregards exceptions. Example Argument: Cutting people is a crime. Surgeons cut people. Therefore, surgeons are criminals. Problem: Cutting people is only sometimes a crime. Argument: It is illegal for a stranger to enter someone's home uninvited. Firefighters enter people's homes uninvited, therefore firefighters are breaking the law. Problem: The exception does not break nor define the rule; a dicto simpliciter ad dictum secundum quid (where an accountable exception is ignored). Irrelevant Conclusion Irrelevant Conclusion: diverts attention away from a fact in dispute rather than addressing it directly. Example Argument: Billy believes that war is justifiable, therefore it must be justifiable. Problem: Billy can be wrong. (In particular this is an appeal to authority.) Special cases: purely personal considerations (argumentum ad hominem), popular sentiment (argumentum ad populum-appeal to the majority; appeal to loyalty.), fear (argumentum ad baculum), conventional propriety (argumentum ad verecundiam-appeal to authority) to arouse pity for getting one's conclusion accepted (argumentum ad misericordiam) proving the proposition under dispute without any certain proof (argumentum ad ignorantiam) assuming a perceived defect in the origin of a claim discredits the claim itself (genetic fallacy) Also called Ignoratio Elenchi, a "red herring" Denying the antecedent Denying the antecedent: draws a conclusion from premises that do not support that conclusion. Example Argument: If it is raining outside, it must be cloudy. It is not raining outside. Therefore, it is not cloudy. Problem: There does not have to be rain in order for there to be clouds. Fallacy of False Cause Fallacy of False Cause or Non Sequitur: incorrectly assumes one thing is the cause of another. Non Sequitur is Latin for "It does not follow." Example Argument: I hear the rain falling outside my window; therefore, the sun is not shining. Problem: The conclusion is false because the sun can shine while it is raining. Special cases post hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that temporal succession implies a causal relation. Example Argument: After Billy was vaccinated he developed autism, therefore the vaccine caused his autism. Problem: This does not provide any evidence that the vaccine was the cause. The characteristics of autism may generally become noticeable at the age just following the typical age children receive vaccinations. cum hoc ergo propter hoc: believing that correlation implies a causal relation. Example Argument: More cows die in India in the summer months. More ice cream is consumed in summer months. Therefore, the consumption of ice cream in the summer months is killing Indian cows. Problem: It is hotter in the summer, resulting in both the death of cows and the consumption of ice cream. Also called causation versus correlation. Equivocation Equivocation consists in employing the same word in two or more senses, e.g. in a syllogism, the middle term being used in one sense in the major and another in the minor premise, so that in fact there are four not three terms. Example Argument: All heavy things have a great mass; Jim has a heavy heart; therefore Jim's heart has a great mass. Problem: Heavy describes more than just weight. (Jim is sad.) Your argument consists of all of these fallacies. Fucking hypocrite
No, the fallacy is abundant throughout your argument. Terrorists are not just brown people in the middle-east cutting off peoples heads, despite the fact thats what the majority labels them as. At some point or another, the Human Race is going to have to understand that the idea of punishing a killer with murder is the most hypocritical and fucked up idea in the history of our existence on this planet. You can't demonstrate that killing is bad by killing someone. It's a never-ending cycle. The punishment for killing is death, so the person issuing the punishment should be killed as well, and the person issuing that punishment will need to be killed too, and then that person would also need to be killed, until there was one person left on the whole fucking planet, and he was surrounded by dead corpses. So tell me how killing these people is going to solve our problems, Mr. Majority.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nT0OqHr3wHQ]YouTube - If you don't like america, you can git out[/ame]
Stop twisting the argument. The objective of the war in the middle east is not to slay the entire population, but rather to root out the supporters of the old regime and certain abhorrent individuals and organizations.
What you don't understand is that at this point they aren't fighting for any reason except against the occupation. Its not about who we are or what we do its because we invaded and our occupying their country. Thats what people like you can't conceive of. Our policy actually causes more people to hate us and want to fight against us.
I'd gladly gouge the eyes of any terrorist than slit their throat. I just wil never celebrate their death like a dumb redneck I'd get relief from killing them but it doesn't change any of what they have done to the innocent.
