al-Qaeda wants US war with Iran - Page 6

there's nothing here · 09-12-2007, 08:05 AM

Hey, locking threads is like just drinking:

The answer just ain't in the bottle, son.

Scuzzy · 09-12-2007, 01:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekiM

I never did. In resonse to your post justifying war in the abstract by saying that freedom, liberty and self determination must always be fought for and paid for with blood I pointed out that non-violent methods have accomplished many things in the past. You agreed.

Ok ekiM, I'll humor you and ask you DIRECTLY since your apparent mentioning of non-violent resistance had absolutely nothing to do with this thread's topic.

Do you believe the Al Qaeda conflict can be resolved with non-violent resistance?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekiM

Later you started demanding proof for something you already agreed with. I have no idea why.

Ok.

Scuzzy

ekiM · 09-12-2007, 01:24 PM

I've already made it clear that I have no desire to debate current affairs with a wingnut.

Your post that I responded to was nothing to do with the thread's original topic. Fighting Al-Qaeda is about national security and combating radicalism and extremism. You said "Freedom, liberty, and self rule have never been given away, [they] must be fought for and bought, and that currency is courage and blood.". This is nothing to do with the thread's topic. However, I felt like repsonding, pointing out that non-violent resistance can accomplish things in some situations. You agreed.

Later in the thread, when I reiterated that I don't want to discuss current affairs with you, you demanded that I prove that non-violence has ever solved anything and tried to imply hypocricy and dishonesty on my part for not providing evidence for a statement you had agreed was true - utterly bizarre behavior.

Now you say "OK". I guess that's your way of acknowledging how far out of your tree you were and apologizing. Accepted.

halo · 09-12-2007, 01:27 PM

I think it can be solved without war. Infact I think war is very much counter-productive to fighting terrorism, an opinion that seems to be gaining ground amongst the western intelligence community. If Al Qaeda were to be contested by non-violent resistance that resistance would have to originate in the arab world.

Non-violent resistance is, in a large part, about winning hearts and minds which I think is quite essential to combating terrorism. But at the same time you have to arrest terrorists and try them in courts of law. I suppose arresting people is by nature an act of force and as such could be construed as violence.

Scuzzy · 09-12-2007, 01:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekiM

I've already made it clear that I have no desire to debate current affairs with a wingnut.

I'll take that as tacit response of "No, it cannot be solved through non-violent means."

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekiM

Now you say "OK". I guess that's your way of acknowledging how far out of your tree you were and apologizing. Accepted.

In your world I'm sure that's what it means. In mine I was acknowledging your lack of understanding. I didn't explain, simply because you really don't care to listen, but I wanted you to know I understand you're confused. Hence the "OK".

Thanks,
Scuzzy

Scuzzy · 09-12-2007, 01:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

I think it can be solved without war. Infact I think war is very much counter-productive to fighting terrorism, an opinion that seems to be gaining ground amongst the western intelligence community. If Al Qaeda were to be contested by non-violent resistance that resistance would have to originate in the arab world.

Wouldn't you say that terrorism first (before a reaction by the target) is counter productive to the desire to be left alone? If we take Al Qaeda's at their word and their true goal is to get us out of the middle east, isn't terrorism and attacking your enemies civilian population much more counter productive?

Quote:

Originally Posted by halo

Non-violent resistance is, in a large part, about winning hearts and minds which I think is quite essential to combating terrorism. But at the same time you have to arrest terrorists and try them in courts of law. I suppose arresting people is by nature an act of force and as such could be construed as violence.

Would winning the hearts and minds of people like Osama Bin Laden would require every American to become muslim?

BTW, thanks for keeping in the debate, it's good to see someone on topic.

Scuzzy

ekiM · 09-12-2007, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

I'll take that as tacit response of "No, it cannot be solved through non-violent means."

Take it however you wish. I am not interested in debating this with you.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Scuzzy

In your world I'm sure that's what it means. In mine I was acknowledging your lack of understanding. I didn't explain, simply because you really don't care to listen, but I wanted you to know I understand you're confused. Hence the "OK".

Hillarious. You realised what an utter shmuck you are for trying to make something out of me not "proving" something you already agreed to. That's all.

Scuzzy · 09-12-2007, 01:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ekiM

Take it however you wish. I am not interested in debating this with you.

Great, thanks.

Scuzzy

Ginger Lord · 09-12-2007, 02:14 PM

Enough.

This thread is going nowhere but down.

**mervaka** · 09-12-2007, 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MyNameIsChuck

If I was a moderator, I would warn you for posting crap in a serious thread. I would suggest you post crap elsewhere more suitable, like on the steampowered forums for example.

you really have a chip on your shoulder..

09-12-2007, 08:05 AM	#101
there's nothing here lol Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Halfway sprawled out of a cardboard box at the bottom of a flight of stairs. Posts Rated Helpful 2 Times	Hey, locking threads is like just drinking: The answer just ain't in the bottle, son.

09-12-2007, 01:24 PM	#103
ekiM Arrogance is Bliss Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Bristol UK Posts Rated Helpful 1 Times	I've already made it clear that I have no desire to debate current affairs with a wingnut. Your post that I responded to was nothing to do with the thread's original topic. Fighting Al-Qaeda is about national security and combating radicalism and extremism. You said "Freedom, liberty, and self rule have never been given away, [they] must be fought for and bought, and that currency is courage and blood.". This is nothing to do with the thread's topic. However, I felt like repsonding, pointing out that non-violent resistance can accomplish things in some situations. You agreed. Later in the thread, when I reiterated that I don't want to discuss current affairs with you, you demanded that I prove that non-violence has ever solved anything and tried to imply hypocricy and dishonesty on my part for not providing evidence for a statement you had agreed was true - utterly bizarre behavior. Now you say "OK". I guess that's your way of acknowledging how far out of your tree you were and apologizing. Accepted.

09-12-2007, 01:27 PM	#104
halo Join Date: May 2007 Location: Barnsley, UK Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	I think it can be solved without war. Infact I think war is very much counter-productive to fighting terrorism, an opinion that seems to be gaining ground amongst the western intelligence community. If Al Qaeda were to be contested by non-violent resistance that resistance would have to originate in the arab world. Non-violent resistance is, in a large part, about winning hearts and minds which I think is quite essential to combating terrorism. But at the same time you have to arrest terrorists and try them in courts of law. I suppose arresting people is by nature an act of force and as such could be construed as violence.

09-12-2007, 02:14 PM	#109
Ginger Lord Retired FF Staff Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Sunny England Affiliations: Custard Posts Rated Helpful 0 Times	Enough. This thread is going nowhere but down.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)