97 replies to this topic

[Spectre]

No, giving Radical Muslims more land = terrible idea. Giving any radical group more land is a bad idea.

Thanks for agreeing with me that Palestinians should not be given more land.

This would also mean you agree with taking away land from them, it's a good thing.

And the Kosovars got weapons from Al Qaeda.

How so?

You talk and talk about things, but you never give proof to back it up.

[Casen]

Israel taking more land = less land governed by theocrats. Therefore, always a good thing.

Also anyone who thinks Israel is worse than Saudi Arabia or Iran are idiots.

[Dauth]

Palestinians for the most part are not radical, however getting religious people to think is worse than trying to get blood from a stone.

I do love how people ignore those who present a threat to their position, Kacen, do you agree entirely with my previous post? If so then guys we best give up because there really is no hope for any educated reasoning.

That being said I really want to know your proof for this Kosovans/Al Qeada link.

[Vortigern]

And I'd really love to know how agreeing with one point means you must agree with several others. Ever heard the phrase 'difference of opinion'?

[Beleg]

No, giving Radical Muslims more land = terrible idea. Giving any radical group more land is a bad idea.

Thanks for agreeing with me that Palestinians should not be given more land.

Uh, you missed a word there. RADICAL. I actually totally disagree with you. Palestinians can be given more land and so can anyone else who is not RADICAL.

[Puppeteer]

Has Kacen ever heard of a False Dichotomy? He seems to spout them quite a bit.
I would've thought with Kacen's fascist views, "infallible opinions" (note sarcasm) and loathing of Islam and theocrats that he'd be a nilhilist.

Edited by Puppeteer, 16 August 2008 - 05:06 PM.

[MSpencer]

Just a point of information. Who says the Israelis aren't the equivalents of theocrats?
And I think puppeteer hit the nail on the head.

[duke_Qa]

hehehe, this is fun reading

Keep talking Kacen. It makes for great entertainment.

[partyzanPaulZy]

In the late middle ages there was king in Bohemia (sadly he lost Moravia and Selasia) - George of Poděbrady article on wikipedia about him in English. He sent diplomats to many European coutries to create united Christian Europe, pax Europe... Against Turks.
He was protestant and sadly failed, but it was first attempt on united Europe, at least military. EU now exists, but I don't think Turks and Albanians should be in EU when they are agresivly nationalistic.

During 30-years War we lost Lusatia, old Czech land, home of Lusatian Serbs (and Germans built Berlin there). This is old history, but why is Kosovo given to Albanians who settled there during late Turkic dominion...
BTW, fanatism of any way is bad.

[kosovo]

Some of you now history.But who is from you from Serbia?K O S O V O is heart of S E R B I A!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!We defened whole Europe from Turkey 1389.Albanians then did not be exist.And you "Americans" was last all wars you started.

[duke_Qa]

The british isles was under scandinavian control for centuries up to 1066 when we got pwned by the british king in the battle of Stamford Bridge, before the british got Pwned by the Norman army coming from the south in the battle of Hastings. This practically connected the british isles to the culture of the continent, instead of the scandinavian sphere of influence. But you don't see me complaining about how the brits should have been a part of Scandinavia.

century old excuses like Israel and whatnot are bad excuses. if a certain culture has its origin somewhere that doesn't stop you from moving it around to a location where it can thrive in peace.

[Dauth]

By logical extension then Kacen, you'd prefer if we went back to our historical lifestyle? Enjoy your life in a cave.

Secondly I am English and have a number of views about being called an American, which I am sure the US citizens would reciprocate if they were accused of being European.

[Casen]

You people force me into a deep rooted argument. It is not needed, it is off topic. Fact is, Kosovo is Serbia, the Albanians had no right to take it.

Case should be closed, I don't care what ever the fuck happened in past history. Just IMAGINE a Serbian's point of view. If you don't care, you do not care about your country. See things at face value, don't analyze it to much.

[Spectre]

Just IMAGINE a Serbian's point of view. If you don't care, you do not care about your country. See things at face value, don't analyze it to much.

Why not analyze it? Why not, dig deeper to know more? Looking at it face value is like reading the blurb on the back of a book and think you know it all, and will only come to false conclusions, you must examine and analyze the whole story, get to know all sides of the story, looking at it with face value is ignorance.

I'll leave 'If you don't care, you do not care for your country' to the other members willing to differ with your statement.

[CodeCat]

I don't care about my country indeed. You got that much right. *applauds*

[Vortigern]

I care very much about my country, and I would not stand by and let it be invaded. But Kosovo is not my country. Therefore I am able to form an objective opinion, and, given the evidence from all sides, Serbia had no right to Kosovo, but since when has that stopped anyone? They now have right of conquest, which is far more powerful and historically viable than right of ethnic origin.

Besides, no case can ever truly be closed. That's not how it works. There is no black and white in a matter like this. For example, do you have a right to eat meat? No, if you look at it one way. You are taking a liberty from the animal in question, which I'm pretty sure had no particular desire to die and become a steak. But I bet you eat meat anyway. It all depends on your perspective. Serbia were stronger than Kosovo and imposed their will upon the smaller nation, which is something that happens everywhere, and has done for centuries, if not millennia.

Oh, and, Kosovo, most people here aren't Americans. Just so you know.

[Casen]

http://www.kosovoliberationarmy.com/ This a good site that documents the horrific atrocities committed by the K.L.A. Albanians, Bosnians, Croatians, and NATO to the innocent Serbians during the Yugoslav war.

[duke_Qa]

Well duh. Nobody's innocent in war. as far as i recall there is a war trial going on here in Norway against a guy that worked in a prison-camp filled with serbs, where family and friends of victims claim that he did horrible things to the prisoners.

Ever wonder how many innocent civillians got killed during the end of ww2 by allied troops? I never hear anything about that but I assume the numbers were high. all sides are guilty of warcrimes in wartime.


*edit: pretty bad error, guilty=innocent*

Edited by duke_Qa, 13 September 2008 - 10:14 PM.

[Casen]

Do you understand the hypocrisy though? Most of those things were collateral damage in WWII, as in they were not DELIBERATLY killing civilians to kill civilians, but because they didn't have precision weaponry in WWII.

This one man Radovan Karadžić is being arrested while there are other people on the other sides of the conflict equally or more guilty than he is and no one is saying shit about them.

[Vortigern]

I'd say Hiroshima and Nagasaki were pretty deliberate attempts at killing civilians, wouldn't you?

Karadzic is just a scapegoat. Everyone knows he wasn't the worst, but he's the one that got caught so the authorities are making him out to be Satan in human form. That's just what happens. He is guilty of committing atrocities, and he must be accountable for that, regardless of whether there were worse people out there or not.

Personally, I would have liked to see Truman brought to account for his actions in the murder of the estimated half a million people that were killed by his decision to bomb two cities which happened to be in Japan and provide easiest access for American bombers.