[J m HofMarN]

Deucaon: Terrorism occurred in India/Pakistan because there was religious strife. THAT is the difference between Indians and Pakistanis (in case you didn't know.)

And where did that religious strife come from? Having different religions does not automatically produce strife. Economic and social conditions have more to do with it.

So 9/11 occurred because... members of the Al Qaeda family were killed by... accountants?

The Pentagon was the place where robbers who shoot people with AK47s lived. The WTC, in Qaeda's view, was the pawn shop where the robbers sold their stolen goods. The one would not exist without the other, so they went after both.

Deucaon: Apparently there was no religious freedom in the world before democracy.

You're intentionally misunderstanding my statement. You said that people were more worried about religious freedom than democracy. I stated that if they had the ability to choose their leaders, they would have freedom of religion. Did I say that democracy was required to have freedom of religion? I did not. I simply said that if the US and their Vietnamese puppets had not taken their right to vote, they would have been able to vote for someone who would have allowed them freedom of religion. Therefore the lack of freedom of religion was symptomatic of US imperialism, which was the overall cause of the Vietnam war.

Deucaon: Wikipedia isn't a viable source. Please post a source which doesn't change every 5 minutes.

Wait wait. You posted accounts from a clearly biased source which compared Vietnamese prisons to Nazi concentration camps, and I'M the one who needs better sources because Wikipedia can be edited? No. I think I'll keep using wiki, thanks very much.

On the liberation quandry: You read that statement wrong. The first definition of liberate is "to give equal rights" giving equal rights to women or minorities is an example of that. But it doesn't HAVE to be to a minority or to women. So did Minh give Vietnamese more rights than they had under the US or French regimes? Yes, I believe that he did. The right to self determination, to soveriegnty, for one. And if freeing your country from colonialism is not liberation I would still like to know an example of what you consider liberation.

Deucaon: So what is your point?

The point is that the US used fear mongering and propaganda to make people flee from the North, and helped them to flee, so they artificially created a refugee chrisis. Therefore the responsibility for that crisis falls on the US, not on the Vietnamese, and so that is just another part of the Vietnamese genocide of which the US is guilty.

[J m HofMarN]

Deucaon: Its good to know that the person I am debating with is an apologist for war crimes. It makes me feel much better knowing that.

Those who necessitated the Vietnam wars were imperialists, and having instigated the wars they hold ultimate responsibility for any and all war crimes. You paint the defenders as the villains while ignoring the crimes of the aggressors that forced the actions of the Vietnamese or Palestinians in self defense.

Deucaon: Only if you're mentally unstable and unable to comprehend reality. If what you defined as "holocaust" and "genocide" then every war where people were displaced and property was destroyed is a "genocide" and "holocaust" (every war people are displaced and property is destroyed so you're making light of the words genocide and holocaust.)

I am not using my definition of genocide, I am using that of the UN. You know, the council that acts basically as a global consensus building body? So basically in the battle to define genocide it's Deuacon VS The World. I'll side with the world. As for holocaust, the holocaust killed or displaced 4 million. Al Nakba killed or displaced between 1 and 4 million. I don't see why it's wrong to compare the event simply because one occured to the poor unfortunate (yet white) Jews and one was purpetrated upon the evil darkies.

Deucaon: There is barely any strife now because a little bit after the partition the Muslim minority in India went to Pakistan and the Hindu minority in Pakistan went to India. Though there are still problems in Bangladesh and Kashmir since those places have religious minorities.

soscio economic inequalities and conflict remaining from the imperialist era, etc etc.

Deucaon: Well in France people with crazed hatred riot over other reasons and Cuba is like a giant prison so it is able to easily clamp down on terrorism.

There isn't some kind of universal reason why people commit terrorism like you seem to think.

Why is it that anyone who takes violent action has crazed hatred? I'm really lost on this. And no, Cuba cannot clamp down on terrorism. Have you not noted the long lists of acts of terrorism against Cuba that have been comitted by the Miami traitors and terrorist groups funded by the CIA?

Deucaon: There was an assassination attempt on Saddam Hussein's life in 1982 (long before he fell out of favour with America.) Since then Saddam Hussein kept a tight lid on the country but that didn't stop attacks against his military personal in shape of sniper attacks and bombings in rural areas.

Yes, but that does not indicate organized terrorism, and it was most likely that the assassination attempt was comitted by a lone individual. I have heard little of sniper and bombing attacks in Iraq until gulf war 1.

Deucaon: Which is why its illogical to attack them for giving rights to women which is why you would have to be at least a little bit crazy for attacking those things for that. You see what I mean?

Wait wait... You admit that it would be crazy to attack the US embassy in Sudan to stop women's rights in the US, or the middle east, or wherever, but you're still sticking to your theorem that that is why it is done. Your argument is self reliant on being right. What if terrorists ARENT crazy? Wouldnt they then not attack those places for that reason? So basically terrorists are crazy because they do things for crazy reasons, which they would not do if they were not crazy. Your circular logic is amazing.

Deucaon: Well it shits all over your point that because a person made a video before committing a terrorist attack they weren't crazy.

I don't believe that was my point at all. What I said was that if you thought terrorists did not know why they do what they do, you should watch some of the videos made by them. You dissected that sentence and put it back together to produce "terrorists make videos, so they're not crazy". I would still like to hear your reply to my actual post, IE: Why you believe terrorists are unwitting dupes when you can see suicide bombers saying otherwise on video.

Deucaon: No... EH&DK has a very straightforward philosophical/social/political belief called "Social Darwinism" which they changed to suit their crazed intentions. Just like other terrorists who justify terrorism by claiming it is written in a holy script or that the ends justify the means (it rarely does.)

Ok let me get this straight. Eric Harris and Dillain Klebold are the ONLY terrorists who were motivated by social ideals. The rest, all the vast networks of people fighting imperialism, are motivated ONLY by crazed hatred. Men who give their lives to take down an Israeli tank, or to free their comrades being tortured by the US, they are crazed with hatred, but two kids who shot random people in their school were motivated by ideology and NOT by crazed hatred?

Deucaon: Well its very fitting that you should bring up a fictional event to prove your fictional argument.

I don't believe that my example is made less poignant by whether it is fictious or not. I still want to know whether those who fight for freedom are somehow wrong simply because the oppressors will inevitably try to destroy them through increased oppression. To me, the problem is that oppression exists in the first place. To you the problem seems to be that the people fighting oppression provide an EXCUSE for the oppressing class to resort to more vile methods.

Deucaon: People like Hussein and Mugabe repress their people quite well without outside support.

Hussein oppressed people on his own? I was under the impression that the US extensively funded his regime, provided them with chemical weapons, targeting equipment, and CIA training in torture. Silly me.

[J m HofMarN]

Deucaon: I've already proven that someone making a video before that person commits a terrorist act doesn't mean that person isn't crazy so lets just drop this part of the debate before I embarrass you further.

Yes, but the contents of the video can surely go a long way to proving that they're not. You're simplifying the statement to only be about making a video, while I made my remark to encourage you to view the contents of the videos, as they provide rational justification for suicide bombings, etc, hence proving that those in the videos are not crazy.

Though I think the policy of governments (which usually involves the survival of that government) have more logic then that of terrorists.

I never did say that imperialism wasn't logical. Greed is logical to an extent, so is imperialism. The long term consequences it brings are not considered often, but yes, it's quite logical to rape the world for your profit as long as all you see is the profit. Evil, yes, but rational.

Deucaon: Except Israelites bought the land of the Palestinians so if there was an expulsion of Palestinians then it was legal.

Regardless, since the act alone did nothing to curb terrorist attacks against Israel, it proves that Israel doing anything to appease HAMAS or other terrorist groups which want "Israel wiped off the map" is akin to feeding a crocodile before it eats you.

Please dont make me repost all the statements from the wiki article, complete with their cited sources. The Israelis forcibly expelled Palestinians, then passed absentee property laws which said that unoccupied land could be settled by Jews with NO mention of paying for it.

No, sending Jews to concentration camps didn't constitute genocide.

So, only the Nazis who physically executed Jews are guilty of war crimes? Those who arrested them, transported them, inventoried their confiscated property, etc, are blameless for genocide or holocaust? And you have the nerve to call me an antisemite?

Deucaon: Let me get this right... Vietnamese Catholics and capitalists were sent to concentration camps and fled the communist because... the US was involved.

Had the US allowed democratic elections to occur, Vietnam would have been spared at least 1 decade of war. Fewer lives would have been lost, fewer homes destroyed. And so people would have had less reason to leave the country. I don't at all believe that most who fled Vietnam did so primarily for political reasons. I think the fact that the US bombed their country into the stone age had more to do with it.

Prove to me that the suicide bombers aren't "unwitting dupes." Prove to me that they aren't either consumed by hatred, brainwashed, retarded or children.

being consumed by hatred does not make one an unwitting dupe, it makes one quite willing. But if you believe that logic or reason are completely absent in all terrorists and freedom fighters than there is no way to prove otherwise to you. You believe it's perfectly reasonable for the US to kill millions of Vietnamese, but as soon as a guy sacrifices his life bravely in the fight against zionism or imperialism, he must be crazy, or somehow retarded/a child.

Deucaon: ...because children cannot organize themselves because they cant comprehend why they fight. Which is what you would know if you had bothered to read the things you are arguing against.

So if children were capable of organizing, they would instantly rise against their parental oppressors and slaughter them? Why not? They're clearly very good fighters as you have pointed out by claiming that an army of children is equally preferable to an army of people who know what they're doing and why they're doing it.

If you sit down with one they would go on a tirade about things that doesn't involve them or say that they are doing it in the name of a higher religious power (so that they may be accepted into their version of afterlife paradise.) If you sit with the other then they wouldn't either of those things.

Do you honestly believe this shit? I thought you were saying just a while ago that terrorists hate womens right, and its that reason that makes them blow us up. Now you claim that, if given the opportunity to converse with a Western voter, they would either just talk about their religion, and NOT try to convince us to beat our wives more often, or they would try to convince us to beat our wives more often and COMPLETELY IGNORE the fact that we routinely bomb and terrorize their countries. So, an Arab victim of US aggression is more concerned with whether I beat my wife than whether my country drops bombs on him.

Deucaon: I am going to give you the benefit of the doubt that you're half blind (and not incredibly stupid) as to not see that was in quotation marks. Though, if you look back throughout this debate you will see no mention of a suicide bomber not knowing what will happen when they push the red button (unless they are mentally retarded or children.)

So if they know what they're doing and what the results will be, how can they be an unwitting dupe? Also, I never want to hear about mentally retarded people or children. That has nothing to do with the overall subject of suicide bombing or terrorism, or anything except primary school or the special olympics.

Deucaon: So they blew up the Twin Towers because... they are a symbol of American economic power? Which would mean there was no strategic reason to bomb the Twin Towers save for lowering morale (which only ever works in the minds of lunatics) which is the point of terrorism.

They were a symbol of economic power derived from imperialist aggression against Arabs. That seems a perfectly logical reason to me. And the point of terrorism is not to scare people. That's the point of Bush's public relations policy.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 12 July 2008 - 11:09 PM

[civilian_number_two]

Deucaon:

Re: genocide. Ok, so I formulate a plan and put int into action, and that plan is to round up all of the people of a certain race of religion and drive them somewhere. At that place soldiers will contain them so that they can't escape, and I will work them to death. They will literally die working. You says this is not an act of genocide, because there are no killing fields. This is exactly the point of view of many holocaust deniers, who deny mass exterminations and insist that all deaths in concentration camps were due to bad conditions in the camps. They also insist that the numbers are exaggerated. This is wrong. Conspiracy to commit murder is murder, so conspiracy to commit genocide must be genocide. Not wanting to mention Hitler, but was he not guilty of genocide because he never personally rounded up nor exterminated anyone?

Re: WTC bombing. The motivation was to plunge the United States into a depression. Even the US government acted as though they believed this would happen, with Bush going on tv and pleading with the American people to keep spending money to show those terrorists that were were not hurt. Meanwhile businesses across America used the bombing as an excuse to pretend there was a depression and to downsize employees. There WAS an economic effect after all, though not as powerful a one as the perpetrators had hoped. So the not-impoverished nation was able to bomb a country roughly 1000 miles away from the one that was most likely to have funded the terrorists, if any country funded them at all. Note: having less of an effect than one hoped doesn't mean that the perpetrators were dupes or that they had no purpose. JM is wrong that the towers were a "symbol;" they were working office buildings involved in iternational commerce, and the desired effect was very real, if unrealistic.

Re: "Dupes." Not all terrorists are unwitting dupes, and not all terrorists are crazed with hatred, frothing at the mouth about some religious ideal. Numerous motivations have been provided, which you've shoehorned into these bogus topic headers (usually with anecdotal examples of children and retards, who were NOT by the way folks who flew those planes). If this is what you believe, that all terrorists are retards, children, crazed zealots or unwitting dupes, then this is something you need to prove with a statistical analysis and with extensive sources. Further ranting on this subject without (non-anecdotal) sources will be ignored. Because come on, where is this leading you? To some cartoon idea of terrorism? If there is no organization to it, if it's just a bunch of loony zealots, then whom are we waging war on?

[Deucaon]

Deucaon:

Re: genocide. Ok, so I formulate a plan and put int into action, and that plan is to round up all of the people of a certain race of religion and drive them somewhere. At that place soldiers will contain them so that they can't escape, and I will work them to death. They will literally die working. You says this is not an act of genocide, because there are no killing fields. This is exactly the point of view of many holocaust deniers, who deny mass exterminations and insist that all deaths in concentration camps were due to bad conditions in the camps. They also insist that the numbers are exaggerated. This is wrong. Conspiracy to commit murder is murder, so conspiracy to commit genocide must be genocide. Not wanting to mention Hitler, but was he not guilty of genocide because he never personally rounded up nor exterminated anyone?

Exactly! I'm am glad you realise that Israel isn't guilty of genocide because it isn't killing, starving or using Palestinians as slave labour because they are Palestinians.

Re: WTC bombing. The motivation was to plunge the United States into a depression. Even the US government acted as though they believed this would happen, with Bush going on tv and pleading with the American people to keep spending money to show those terrorists that were were not hurt. Meanwhile businesses across America used the bombing as an excuse to pretend there was a depression and to downsize employees. There WAS an economic effect after all, though not as powerful a one as the perpetrators had hoped. So the not-impoverished nation was able to bomb a country roughly 1000 miles away from the one that was most likely to have funded the terrorists, if any country funded them at all. Note: having less of an effect than one hoped doesn't mean that the perpetrators were dupes or that they had no purpose. JM is wrong that the towers were a "symbol;" they were working office buildings involved in iternational commerce, and the desired effect was very real, if unrealistic.

So economic ruin was the Al Qaeda's target? If Osama wanted to destroy America's economy then why not blow up Fort Knox? Surely blowing up (or melting) the gold reserves is more logical then destroying the centre of trade of paper money and digital dollars? I am assuming that you believe inflation was Al Qaeda's goal and that you have proof of this.

Re: "Dupes." Not all terrorists are unwitting dupes, and not all terrorists are crazed with hatred, frothing at the mouth about some religious ideal. Numerous motivations have been provided, which you've shoehorned into these bogus topic headers (usually with anecdotal examples of children and retards, who were NOT by the way folks who flew those planes). If this is what you believe, that all terrorists are retards, children, crazed zealots or unwitting dupes, then this is something you need to prove with a statistical analysis and with extensive sources. Further ranting on this subject without (non-anecdotal) sources will be ignored. Because come on, where is this leading you? To some cartoon idea of terrorism? If there is no organization to it, if it's just a bunch of loony zealots, then whom are we waging war on?

Your mom.

I have no idea what you're on about or replying to. Seriously.

[J m HofMarN]

Exactly! I'm am glad you realise that Israel isn't guilty of genocide because it isn't killing, starving or using Palestinians as slave labour because they are Palestinians.

I seem to recall the small matter of a gigantic blockade on Gaza which is seriously degrading the ability of the Palestinians to get food, water, and fuel. Cultural genocide can be achieved without the physical killing of a people. Also one could argue that destroying the economic and trade capacity of an occupied area and sealing the borders so that the only place people can find work is at cut rates in Israel, is very much akin to slavery.

So economic ruin was the Al Qaeda's target? If Osama wanted to destroy America's economy then why not blow up Fort Knox? Surely blowing up (or melting) the gold reserves is more logical then destroying the centre of trade of paper money and digital dollars? I am assuming that you believe inflation was Al Qaeda's goal and that you have proof of this.

Maybe because he isn't a comic book villain? Maybe because Fort Knox is an actual fort, and therefore can be expected to have certain defenses? Maybe because gold that's been melted is still fugging gold? It doesn't like, burn or anything.

As for the last one, yes, I think you do. You've asserted that terrorists cannot possibly have a reasonable if not noble motivation for sacrificing their lives. You claim that they are all either unwitting dupes, children/retards, or crazy with hatred. That so far seems to be the core argument of this debate, and if you have no idea what it's about I'm not terribly surprised.

[civilian_number_two]

Deuc: I said nothing about Palestine and Israel. I was responding to your claim that arresting and containing people based on race and religion, knowing that ultimately they would be killed or worked to death, was not an act of genocide. You can talk about Israel and Palestine all you like; I was replying to your Holocause denial.

The 9/11 bombings had a disastrous economic effect, and an immediate rise in the value of gold. I don't know whether Fort Knox would have been a better target, but if it were that wouldn't make WTC a bad one.

I am glad that you claim not to know what I am taking about, because that means you are finished with the arguments that all terrorists are "hate-crazed" of "unwitting dupes." Glad to see those arguments conceded, dropped or forgotten.

[J m HofMarN]

I think what you're neglecting to understand with the genocide issue is that genocide is a lot more labor intensive than just going out and whacking a few guys. Ben Affleck is right to say that it's the most exhausting activity one can participate in next to soccer. There is a lot that goes into it. You have to identify the people through public records or snitches, the researchers for both have to be paid and employed. Then you have to incarcerate them (you cant just kill from house to house. What if they got the wrong house and killed other members of the master race?) then you have to feed them until you do kill them and then do something with the bodies, then you have to appropriate their property.

And you claim that simply by skipping the step where you kill and bury them, that that scenario suddenly stops being genocide? Genocide does not and cannot rely solely on death toll or who does the killing. The US government didnt physically kill all the Indians, but there sure aren't a lot of them left. You take people's land, destroy their culture and spirit, etc etc, that people will eventually die out or at least become far less numerous and important. Therefore the people as a whole is still killed, ergo its still genocide.

[Deucaon]

I seem to recall the small matter of a gigantic blockade on Gaza which is seriously degrading the ability of the Palestinians to get food, water, and fuel. Cultural genocide can be achieved without the physical killing of a people. Also one could argue that destroying the economic and trade capacity of an occupied area and sealing the borders so that the only place people can find work is at cut rates in Israel, is very much akin to slavery.

The blockade on the Gaza Strip is there because that area is controlled by an army that is constantly lobbing rockets into Israel. Its not an act of genocide because Israel doesn't want to wipe out the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and because Israel has let fuel and food go through (even though its being hoarded by HAMAS.)

Maybe because he isn't a comic book villain? Maybe because Fort Knox is an actual fort, and therefore can be expected to have certain defenses? Maybe because gold that's been melted is still fugging gold? It doesn't like, burn or anything.

Somehow I don't think Fort Knox will resist a kamikaze attack better then the Pentagon.

Deuc: I said nothing about Palestine and Israel. I was responding to your claim that arresting and containing people based on race and religion, knowing that ultimately they would be killed or worked to death, was not an act of genocide.

I never made such a claim. I claimed that destroying property, making people homeless and containing people isn't genocide which it isn't. I don't see any gas chambers or work camps in Israel so I can assume Israel doesn't plan to "kill" or "work to death" any Palestinians.

I mean if you believe containing people is genocide then surely American authorities locking up Japanese and German civilians is the same as the SS gassing and shooting people in your opinion.

You can talk about Israel and Palestine all you like; I was replying to your Holocause denial.

If I am a holocaust/genocide denier then you two are holocaust/genocide minimizers.

The 9/11 bombings had a disastrous economic effect, and an immediate rise in the value of gold. I don't know whether Fort Knox would have been a better target, but if it were that wouldn't make WTC a bad one.

Point taken: The terrorist attacks were to damage the economy through fear of more terrorist attacks. Did those who carried out the attacks think of that or do you hold the belief that they were uneducated fools?

I am glad that you claim not to know what I am taking about, because that means you are finished with the arguments that all terrorists are "hate-crazed" of "unwitting dupes." Glad to see those arguments conceded, dropped or forgotten.

As for the last one, yes, I think you do. You've asserted that terrorists cannot possibly have a reasonable if not noble motivation for sacrificing their lives. You claim that they are all either unwitting dupes, children/retards, or crazy with hatred. That so far seems to be the core argument of this debate, and if you have no idea what it's about I'm not terribly surprised.

I was replying to J m HofMarN's opinion that terrorists aren't "unwitting dupes." He cant prove to me that they aren't save for a few comments which I easily refuted.

This post has been edited by Deucaon: 20 July 2008 - 12:10 AM

[J m HofMarN]

The blockade on the Gaza Strip is there because that area is controlled by an army that is constantly lobbing rockets into Israel. Its not an act of genocide because Israel doesn't want to wipe out the Palestinians in the Gaza Strip and because Israel has let fuel and food go through (even though its being hoarded by HAMAS.)

So why doesn't Israel just fight the army instead of trying to starve people into submission? Isn't it possible that, rather than risk guerilla war such as that which defeated their rabid aggression in Lebanon, that they'd rather attempt to break the will of the people to resist through hardship? And wiping out a people is not the only definition of genocide as I have said many times before, and as the UN has agreed.

Somehow I don't think Fort Knox will resist a kamikaze attack better then the Pentagon.

First of all it's low to the ground, and one would not be able to tell one building from another. The trade center was tall, and the pentagon was pentagonal. Second, Fort Knox is a goddamn fort. There are patriot batteries in the area. Not that they WOULD have been launched against a passenger jet, but Bin Laden and the hijackers couldnt have known that, and in any event I doubt they were dumb enough to think that the attack would have somehow made the gold burn down or something.

never made such a claim. I claimed that destroying property, making people homeless and containing people isn't genocide which it isn't.

Genocide is the death of a culture, not the death of people. The Roman's destroyed countless cultures without wiping out all the people affiliated with them. Christians too. Most of that was willing assimiliation, but forcible destruction of a culture is genocide whether it involves killing or not. The UN convention o nthe prevention and punishment of genocide agrees. You are the only person arguing otherwise.

I mean if you believe containing people is genocide then surely American authorities locking up Japanese and German civilians is the same as the SS gassing and shooting people in your opinion.

Those people were indeed contained based upon their nationality, but after the war they were released, and since there are still plenty of Japanese and German cultural mores around the US, we must conclude that this did not constitute a genocide or attempted genocide.

If I am a holocaust/genocide denier then you two are holocaust/genocide minimizers.

Ah, the debate equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

I was replying to J m HofMarN's opinion that terrorists aren't "unwitting dupes." He cant prove to me that they aren't save for a few comments which I easily refuted.

Ah, so now you know what you were talking about, but before you didn't. Curious. Well if we're still belabouring this point, I'm going to have to concede. You do not accept the fact that they HAVE to be conscious of what will happen when they press the detonator or hit the building. You do not accept the fact that they produce videos showing their motivations for doing what they do. You do not accept the fact that they often come from distant countries and volunteer for suicide missions. You simply cling to the fact that I cannot definitively prove that there is not, somewhere, a guy tricking people into blowing themselves up to somehow further a whacky cartoonish scheme, and that ALL suicide bombers are a part of his evil machinations to do................... something.

So, you watch out for that evil guy, his army of unwitting dupes, and his plan for something. Maybe once you figure out what these people are unwittingly duped into we can talk.

This post has been edited by J m HofMarN: 20 July 2008 - 04:09 AM

[civilian_number_two]

Well, to be fair, JM, he followed up his claims that all terrorists are hate-crazed or that they are unwitting dupes with a complete reversal. When I asked him directly if he believed that, he said "NO to all counts." So yes, he was deliberately wasting your time.

He also told me I looked stupid for not reading every word that you guys have written here. I disagree; someone would have to be stupid not simply to skim this topic, because it's maddening. But the next guy to try to call me stupid is going to see me commit genocide on all of his posts.

This post has been edited by civilian_number_two: 20 July 2008 - 01:00 PM

[J m HofMarN]

I've seen that tactic enough not to mind. "This isn't my argument but if it was this is what I'd say" is still an argument from someone, so it's fine for a debate. At least I wasn't "stupid" (zing!) enough to get suckered into explaining in great detail why society predates religion.

I hardly see how you can look stupid for not taking notes on four pages chocked full of madness, but he's fine to skip over three posts. I DO hope we're not playing sim-ignore list again. If so though I want to play as Rome. Their legion units have the highest ignore skill.

[civilian_number_two]

Crap. You raise a good point. I did waste a lot of time explaining that society and human interaction necessarily predated religion, and that while wolves could possibly have it, it wasn't likely and shouldn't need a source. Man, even recalling that horrible time adds on to the minutes of my life I would take back if I could.

[Deucaon]

Well, to be fair, JM, he followed up his claims that all terrorists are hate-crazed or that they are unwitting dupes with a complete reversal. When I asked him directly if he believed that, he said "NO to all counts." So yes, he was deliberately wasting your time.

He also told me I looked stupid for not reading every word that you guys have written here. I disagree; someone would have to be stupid not simply to skim this topic, because it's maddening. But the next guy to try to call me stupid is going to see me commit genocide on all of his posts.

I understand. Terrorism argument is out the window.

So why doesn't Israel just fight the army instead of trying to starve people into submission? Isn't it possible that, rather than risk guerilla war such as that which defeated their rabid aggression in Lebanon, that they'd rather attempt to break the will of the people to resist through hardship? And wiping out a people is not the only definition of genocide as I have said many times before, and as the UN has agreed.

Israel has allowed food and fuel to go through the blockade. Its not Israel's fault if HAMAS is hording all the food and fuel.

Genocide is the death of a culture, not the death of people. The Roman's destroyed countless cultures without wiping out all the people affiliated with them. Christians too. Most of that was willing assimiliation, but forcible destruction of a culture is genocide whether it involves killing or not. The UN convention o nthe prevention and punishment of genocide agrees. You are the only person arguing otherwise.

Which Israel hasn't tried to do. Show me where Israel has banned the Palestinians using their language or practising their faith. Show me where Israel has told the Palestinians to convert (to Judaism? WTF?) or die.

Those people were indeed contained based upon their nationality, but after the war they were released, and since there are still plenty of Japanese and German cultural mores around the US, we must conclude that this did not constitute a genocide or attempted genocide.

My point exactly. According to your definition (or civilian_number_two's definition) America committed genocide on German and Japanese civilians simply by containing them... which is why I call your definition of genocide ridiculous.

Ah, the debate equivalent of "I know you are but what am I?"

No... its more like: stop calling me stupid names because your argument doesn't make any sense.

Crap. You raise a good point. I did waste a lot of time explaining that society and human interaction necessarily predated religion, and that while wolves could possibly have it, it wasn't likely and shouldn't need a source. Man, even recalling that horrible time adds on to the minutes of my life I would take back if I could.

You did not waste it since I am more enlightened now. Now its my turn to enlighten you two.

[J m HofMarN]

Israel has allowed food and fuel to go through the blockade. Its not Israel's fault if HAMAS is hording all the food and fuel.

Oh come on. What motivation could there possibly be for Hamas to horde food or fuel from Palestinians under their government? Their people rarely drive in cars, and they're the elected government of Gaza, so I'd say they have a pretty good reason to equally distribute supplies. The problem is that Hamas' distributions are almost the only food available, since under the economic embargo no one can make any money to buy other food with.

Which Israel hasn't tried to do. Show me where Israel has banned the Palestinians using their language or practising their faith. Show me where Israel has told the Palestinians to convert (to Judaism? WTF?) or die.

Issrael purged Palestinians based upon religion. Israel denies Muslim arabs citizenship, but does not deny Jewish arabs. Israel closes the borders of Gaza and the West Bank, so the only work to be gotten is in Israel where you must speak Yiddish, and where it helps to be a Jew.

My point exactly. According to your definition (or civilian_number_two's definition) America committed genocide on German and Japanese civilians simply by containing them... which is why I call your definition of genocide ridiculous.

It is not OUR definition, it is THE WORLD's definition. from the 1948 treaty on the prevention and punishment of genocide:

...any of the following acts committed with intent to destroy, in whole or in part, a national, ethnical, racial or religious group, as such:
(a) Killing members of the group;
( Causing serious bodily or mental harm to members of the group;
© Deliberately inflicting on the group conditions of life calculated to bring about its physical destruction in whole or in part;
(d) Imposing measures intended to prevent births within the group;
(e) Forcibly transferring children of the group to another group.

Israel is guilty of A, B, and C. C, by the way, would cover putting people in concentration camps, or making their living space a concentration camp by, I dunno, building a big fucking wall around it and lobbing in bombs. You'll also notice the part about the intent of the actions. That's why what the US did was not genocide.

No... its more like: stop calling me stupid names because your argument doesn't make any sense.

You claimed that we were somehow holocaust minimizers, though neither of us had made any statement to disparage the factuality of the holocaust or reduce the generally accepted number of humans killed therein. This was baseless and was just a knee jerk rebuttal to something that clearly bothered you: The statement that, if you don't think herding Palestinians out of their homes and confining them in squalid conditions isn't genocide, that you must think the same of what was done to the Jews before they were killed. To say that only when Hitler actually had them killed was genocide being comitted, and not until then, is a form of holocaust denial. And runs contrary, as I've shown, to international law.

You did not waste it since I am more enlightened now. Now its my turn to enlighten you two.

Oh for fucks sake. If you start preaching the finer points of Wolverine The Wolf Lord of Latter Day Saints there's going to be trouble.