Go Back   Computer Forums > Welcome To Computer Forums .org > Social Lounge | Off Topic
Click Here to Login
Join Computer forums Today


Closed Thread
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread Display Modes
 
Old 12-28-2004, 03:38 AM   #41
Fully Optimized
 
rakedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,718
Send a message via AIM to rakedog
Default

Well not to turn this into a religion thread or anything, but in my opinion, all religions were created from lack of knowledge. I mean at the time of christ, no one had any idea how come the world was how it was. They didn't know why plants grew, why people grew, why people died, why natural disasters occured. So they made up a tale about an almightly figure who created all of that. But modern science tears this to pieces.....

I'm not saying religion is bad, I mean a lot of my friends are religious, but I don't believe in God.
__________________

__________________
hackthissite.org (criticalsecurity.net) | gentoo.org

The best argument against evolution are creationists themselves. They prove that life is devolving rather than evolving.
rakedog is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 03:39 AM   #42
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Wat is 2005 gonna bring

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnowman
Do you people not see? United States leaders are as big terrorists as Iraq and Afghanistan "rebels" are. Sure when "terrorists" bomb our buildings we have to "liberate" the held country, but we do that all the time. We attack aspirin factories and say they were making WMD's.

Arnold knows nothing about politics, he was hoping that his movie stardom would get him into power and it did, sadly. I am not saying I know alot about politics but I am saying he knows very little.
You are a really sick person. Really sick in the head. The United States leaders are not terrorists. I don't even want to say how sick you are... you are ignorant. We liberated Afghanistan and gave them elections. We liberated Iraq and will give them elections. And we attacked aspirin factories? Since when?

And you don't know anything about Arnold. You are about as ignorant as they come. Knows very little? Really? Then why is he doing such a great job? People said the same thing about Ronald Reagan when he first came to power. They were wrong though. As are you about Arnold.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 03:44 AM   #43
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Wat is 2005 gonna bring

Quote:
Originally Posted by rakedog
I know that happened under suddam, but the media made most people believe that he did this with everyone who pissed him off. That is not true. Yes, he was horrible when he gassed people who were about to start a rebellion, but he didn't kill as many people as the media tells us. There was a better side to him (No i am NOT defending him in any way, i'm just stating the facts). But at this rate, over 50,000 have died in less then 2 years, as opposed to about 200,000 to 400,000 over saddams 25 years. The rate has been increased because of bombers. It might be considered balanced because saddam usually tortured before he killed, but nontheless....
This is shit. I'm sorry but that is totally wrong. This wasn't the media that took photos of the victims of the gas attacks of Saddam Hussein. It is well established fact by the Kurds themselves. This is true. You are wrong. He killed far more then the media tells us and you are a liar. I can back myself up too. He killed 2,000,000 Iraqis in his twenty years of power. That is established. There was not a better side to him. You are becoming like this other poster. You want some facts? I will tell you the facts: You are dead wrong. And you don't have any evidence to back yourself up. A liar at best.

http://wais.stanford.edu/Iraq/iraq_d...sein42503.html

"Tom Grey answers David Crow's request the empirical basis for his statement on the number of dead under Saddam Hussein. "See http://www.gbn.org/ArticleDisplaySer...=2400&msp=1242 Here is an excerpt:":Along with other human rights organizations, The Documental Centre for Human Rights in Iraq has compiled documentation on over 600,000 civilian executions in Iraq. Human Rights Watch reports that in one operation alone, the Anfal, Saddam killed 100,000 Kurdish Iraqis. Another 500,000 are estimated to have died in Saddam's needless war with Iran. Coldly taken as a daily average for the 24 years of Saddam's reign, these numbers give us a horrifying picture of between 70 and 125 civilian deaths per day for every one of Saddam's 8,000-odd days in power"

But such facts are not enough -- because for him the true question is whether civilians killed by the war are "unnecessary". I need to ask whether he thinks the civilian deaths were necessary or not. I clearly believe they were necessary to oust Saddam and save the lives he would have murdered, to free the children from prison, etc. -- in fact more necessary than the atomic bombs to force Japan's surrender If Mr. Crow is willing to accept Muslim fanatic terrorists with WMDs, or Muslim theocracy, rather than fight for Western/ Christian/ Capitalist/ Freedom, then indeed comparing death rates doesn't mean much"."

You have been debunked, once again.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 03:46 AM   #44
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Wat is 2005 gonna bring

How about more evidence against that wrong statement rakedog made:

http://www.cpa-iraq.org/pressrelease...ss_graves.html

"Since the Saddam Hussein regime was overthrown in May, 270 mass graves have been reported. By mid-January, 2004, the number of confirmed sites climbed to fifty-three. Some graves hold a few dozen bodies—their arms lashed together and the bullet holes in the backs of skulls testimony to their execution. Other graves go on for hundreds of meters, densely packed with thousands of bodies.

"We've already discovered just so far the remains of 400,000 people in mass graves," said British Prime Minister Tony Blair on November 20 in London. The United Nations, the U.S. State Department, Amnesty International, and Human Rights Watch (HRW) all estimate that Saddam Hussein's regime murdered hundreds of thousands of innocent people. "Human Rights Watch estimates that as many as 290,000 Iraqis have been 'disappeared' by the Iraqi government over the past two decades," said the group in a statement in May. "Many of these 'disappeared' are those whose remains are now being unearthed in mass graves all over Iraq."

If these numbers prove accurate, they represent a crime against humanity surpassed only by the Rwandan genocide of 1994, Pol Pot's Cambodian killing fields in the 1970s, and the Nazi Holocaust of World War II."

So these mass graves are a media lie? Hmmm... RAKEDOG = LIAR!
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 04:24 AM   #45
Fully Optimized
 
rakedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,718
Send a message via AIM to rakedog
Default

I'm not going to bother to argue with you. You'll just crush whatever I say. Let's just say that he is among the worst people to ever walk the face of this earth, and that he had to be taken down. The world is now a better place. Iraq is now happier then ever. The bombers will be crushed, and the US will win the war. Is that what you wanted to hear? Because I just said it...

* sigh * I just don't know what to say. This world can be shitty at times, with all these people hating each other. Some say religion is the cause of it, others say that war is natural for humans, and there is no way to stop it. The human race has been pecked at with wars, plauges, natural disasters, and hardships, but we have still managed to survive. Time will tell the full consequences of the war in Iraq, and hopefully, it will reflect a good cause and a good resolution. Nobody will ever truly get along with everyone, but I just hope that people try, and people will have a will for peace, not a will for war and terror. Then again, we can't change will, and if there is a group of people who's will is to kill people, then we can only counter them with force, because trying to convince them to not do it will only intensify the situation. The middle east will obviously never be the same after this conflict, but hopefully, that reflects a good thing. One can also hope that other world situations can be resolved in our upcoming years, but perhaps with a more peaceful approach. Then again, if will for war is the case, then we, or others, will have to enforce the idea of peace with force. Kind of oxymoronic, but unfortunately, it would be one of the only things that would work out. That's how we had to act in the past, and that is how we will probably have to act in the future. World peace is at hope for many people, but because of the natural unbalace of things, it is highly unprobable. But like I said before, we can only hope for the best, which means striving to achieve peace and love in the world in any way we can. Trying to control unbalance of things is the worng way to approach conflicts, and usually does not work, as history has proven. Instead, an idea of acceptance of unbalance, and help for any victims who are hurt from the unbalance is the more logical way to approach conflicts. Unless, of course, the winning side of an unbalanced conflict has it's will set on absolutely crushing any hope or help for the losing side of a conflict, in which case, force must be used. So perhaps, those of you who read this, might start thinking of the true roots and origins of war and conflict. As some philosophers state: War and Conflict is natural, because unbalance is natural, and human will to fix unbalance is natural, which evolves into a confilct. These ideas can obviously be countered and questioned, but they do have their meaning. At hard times, simple hope can be all we have to survive a conflict, because we may face terrible and horrid things and situations. But hopefully, our hope for peace, at least to the fullest possible extent, is a reality that our generations will face.

I would like to apologize to people for my previous post on the crimes of saddam, I was a bit angered, and changed the numbers a bit to try and fight my point. Giancarlo's explanation is more correct. I'm sorry again for that.
__________________
hackthissite.org (criticalsecurity.net) | gentoo.org

The best argument against evolution are creationists themselves. They prove that life is devolving rather than evolving.
rakedog is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 04:44 AM   #46
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Wat is 2005 gonna bring

Saddam was one of the worst to ever walk this planet and you should acknowledge that without the sarcasm. There are some world facts you have to know about. Nobody will ever get along with anybody? That's a double negative. Don't worry I use those every now and then but it is best to avoid them. It is best to say will everybody get along with each other? I believe so. I believe there can be a solution with peace and honor. We are going to have to take out people in the way like Hussein and Osama, but it would be a worthy mission and those who are taking part of it deserve all the honor and respect we can give them, our soldiers. The middle east won't be the same sure. It will be better. It will be more peaceful. More nations will follow the United Arab Emirates model I usually refer to in modernizing themselves. Your ideas of imbalance are misguided I think at best. You must look at why this war was started and how it will be ended. It will be ended in an honorable solution with great results. I accept your apology about your previous post on the crimes of Saddam... but you should of thought before you posted it. It made me incredibly angry because I knew kurds who left Iraq because of Saddam.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 04:51 AM   #47
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Wat is 2005 gonna bring

Quote:
Originally Posted by yellowsnowman
As for what 2005 is going to bring, less poor black single mothers/families.

...hopefully
You sound like that idiot they elected in your city.. Barack Obama... he must do his daily brainwashings on TV.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 04:55 AM   #48
Fully Optimized
 
rakedog's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 2,718
Send a message via AIM to rakedog
Default

Whoops, thanks for pointing out that double negative, bad habit there. Anyways, forget about the sarcasm on saddam, he was a horrible man.
You can theoretically think of start of the war as an unbalance... Saddam though it was okay to murder his own people. The war would have never started if the US thought the same. But the ideas were unbalanced, and the US thought that it was wrong. So we have an unbalanced idea right there. This was one of the reasons that led to the conflict.

But nontheless, thanks for accepting the apology.

I guess our debates and differences of opinions between the two of us do lead to some new knowledge and points of views, which is a good thing.
__________________
hackthissite.org (criticalsecurity.net) | gentoo.org

The best argument against evolution are creationists themselves. They prove that life is devolving rather than evolving.
rakedog is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 04:58 AM   #49
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Wat is 2005 gonna bring

I think of this whole thing about Saddam being there a mistake. A mistake I acknowledge the US was partly responsible for (we should of made the UN establish elections in Iraq far before Saddam came to power). I don't think it was an unbalance. I think it was an error on our part to let this man stay in power for so long but I blame Bill Clinton for that... he had many chances. I think the war was a correction. I don't like using the words "error" and "correction" when it comes to hundreds of thousands of lives but I really don't see any other way to describe it. Just as I see the Vietnamese going into Cambodia to take out Pol Pot. A huge correction of great proportions.
Giancarlo is offline  
Old 12-28-2004, 05:07 AM   #50
BSOD
 
Giancarlo's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Posts: 4,788
Send a message via AIM to Giancarlo
Default Re: Wat is 2005 gonna bring

When going through the threads I found a little something...

Quote:
Originally Posted by airiox
oh and on the draft, No one wants it but when we get attacked by China, Iran and other unfriendly nations, a draft will be the only solution. But you are going to argue anyways... If I happened to say Gian is gay, you would respond back with something like you are stupid I am not gay, statitics show 95% of the population is straight, which means I have a more likely chance of being straight then gay.
You have to accept the facts that the draft won't happen. For several reasons... China and Iran know it would be suicide to attack us. And why China? This isn't the 1950s. China was opened up by Richard Nixon long ago and is doing a lot of economic dealings with us. It isn't in their interests to attack us. This talk about a draft is f--king ridiculous, pardon my french. There is more then enough enlisted in the volunteer force. This isn't WWII or the 1960s, we don't need a bunch of useless, poorly trained conscripts. We need more specialized forces. And only 90% of the population is straight, 10% if considered LGBT.

But I'm not going to argue with anyone else here.. I'm tired of arguing.
__________________

Giancarlo is offline  
Closed Thread

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:19 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8 Beta 4
Copyright ©2000 - 2017, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.6.0