Jump to content


Photo

UN GLOBAL GUN BAN JULY 27TH


  • Please log in to reply
113 replies to this topic

#61 LoneWolf

LoneWolf

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oceanside, Ca.
  • Interests:Comics from the 90's. Movies. RPG's.

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:02 PM

Anyways, I think everyone pretty much agrees overall. Regardless, the 2nd amendment is not going to change. If you want a more interesting debate, come talk about Obama-care with the far-right here:

http://news.yahoo.co...-204936656.html

#62 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:08 PM

I think we can all agree that force_echo is smart enough to realize that Arab Spring was not one country.

#63 LoneWolf

LoneWolf

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oceanside, Ca.
  • Interests:Comics from the 90's. Movies. RPG's.

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:12 PM

Well it was worded unclearly in his original response.

#64 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:33 PM

Here you imply that the Arab Spring is fighting a singular army. Naturally this would mean a singular country as well, since countries do not normally share armies (the exception being U.N. members).

I am pretty familiar with the region actually. Sympathy with the 'Big Powers' is great to have, but mere non-violent protest will not necessarily achieve that

For example. The U.S. supports Israel, despite that country's questionable dealings with Palestine (to say the least, not trying to open this can at the moment).

Our support of Israel is used against us by countries like China and Russia during negotiations. For example, they can point out this support at time when we ask them to stop supporting Syria. It is often a trade-off.

Quite often throughout history a population has been decimated as a reward for being unable to defend themselves. I once again point out ethnic cleansings, such as those in the Bosnian-Serbias conflict, the Turkish-Armenian genocide and the previously mentioned Rwandan killings.

These ALL make rock-solid cases for having an armed population. It will not prevent a war perhaps... but it might prevent an out-right massacre.

The army is a generic term. As in, it could be any army- Syrian, Jordan, Lebanese, whatever. the army means whatever army they are against.

Yeah, too bad your example doesn't support your opinion at all. Palestine does not nonviolently protest. They protest by threatening to suicide bomb schools. The Syrian dissenters do not. You're obviously arguing when you don't really know what you're talking about.

If you actually knew anything at all about the Armenian Genocide, you would know that nonviolent methods employed by activists like Armin T. Wegner and Ahmed Riza, among others, did far more to help the plight among the Armenian people than trying to fight against the army of the Ottoman Empire.

I don't think you understand the Rwandan genocide either. Both sides HAD guns, that's WHY it was such a clusterf*ck. The Rwandan genocide follows the same point as the Israel-Palestine conflict- how can you support the Tutsi minority when the RPF, a faction well known for its war crimes, and how the hell do you support the Hutu when they basically start exterminating the Tutsi from the face of the planet? That's why there was nothing but some auxiliary UN support behind the RPF.

I think we've learned through history that the people and principles behind the revolutions is far more important to success than whether or not they have guns, or how many guns they have.

#65 LoneWolf

LoneWolf

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oceanside, Ca.
  • Interests:Comics from the 90's. Movies. RPG's.

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:43 PM

I don't think you understand the Rwandan genocide either. Both sides HAD guns, that's WHY it was such a clusterf*ck. The Rwandan genocide follows the same point as the Israel-Palestine conflict- how can you support the Tutsi minority when the RPF, a faction well known for its war crimes, and how the hell do you support the Hutu when they basically start exterminating the Tutsi from the face of the planet? That's why there was nothing but some auxiliary UN support behind the RPF.



On the Rwandan genocide: You might be interested in a book called 'A Time for Machetes'. Guns were actually uncommon on either side, however the Hutus armed themselves in mobs, wielding machetes. Being armed doesn't necessarily mean guns. It means having the capability to defend yourself.

Yeah, too bad your example doesn't support your opinion at all. Palestine does not nonviolently protest. They protest by threatening to suicide bomb schools. The Syrian dissenters do not. You're obviously arguing when you don't really know what you're talking about.



The Syrian revolutionary forces are indeed using bombs. Please take a look at recent events.

Also, I am pretty aware of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notice my current location? Many Israelis are divided on this issue, I have seen quite a few Pro-Palestinian protests by Israeli participants.

I think we've learned through history that the people and principles behind the revolutions is far more important to success than whether or not they have guns, or how many guns they have.


Fact of the matter is: For your revolution to succeed, it is necessary to have some sort of armed element. Do you think the American or French Revolutions would have succeeded if the revolutionaries had simply protested non-violently?

I promise they would not have.

#66 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 07 July 2012 - 01:52 PM

The South Africans did it non-violently. The Glorious Revolution did it non-violently.

#67 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:05 PM

[/font][/color]

On the Rwandan genocide: You might be interested in a book called 'A Time for Machetes'. Guns were actually uncommon on either side, however the Tutsis armed themselves in mobs, wielding machetes. Being armed doesn't necessarily mean guns. It means having the capability to defend yourself.



The Syrian revolutionary forces are indeed using bombs. Please take a look at recent events.

Also, I am pretty aware of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict. Notice my current location? Many Israelis are divided on this issue, I have seen quite a few Pro-Palestinian protests by Israeli participants.


Fact of the matter is: For your revolution to succeed, it is necessary to have some sort of armed element. Do you think the American or French Revolutions would have succeeded if the revolutionaries had simply protested non-violently?

I promise they would not have.

Congratulations for completely and absolutely missing my point on the Rwandan Genocide.

No, some terrorist cells are using bombs. Almost all organized Syrian revolution is nonviolent. I suggest you read the recent Thomas Friedman article about the Syrian Revolution. At least then we can have somewhat of an informed debate.

Do you think the American or French revolutionaries had an excess of arms? No, if it weren't for French support, the American patriots would have gotten their asses kicked. Guns don't make a successful revolution. What makes a successful revolution is the principles and the people behind the revolution. If you have that, then you'll get military support eventually.

#68 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:38 PM

First of all, the idea that Bush went to war in Iraq for oil is stupid.

Second of all, no one in this thread said that the American government is pure.

Third, it's extremely amusing (and kind of sad) to see Hayes say that "knowledge is power" while spouting complete ignorance. You need look no further than the title of the topic for evidence.

Fourth, I've never seen such a hilariously oversimplification of the Iraq War since I stopped watching Fox News. Here I thought the Iraq War was an immensely complicated and volatile situation with many warring religious factions, here I thought that a guy had to write a 60+ page report to adequately explain reasons for US intervention and its ramifications and reasons with the political situation in Iraq. But no, I guess we just went in there to kill civilians. For what? Shits and giggles? Because we enjoy killing people? The US' placement of a dictator in Vietnam was done to contain communism. The support of the Panamanian rebels was to gain access to the Panama Canal. I know our government has done some unsavory things as far as unilateral interventionism, but they usually have a solid political, or economic reason for doing so.

Fifth, the reason why we are supporting rebels has absolutely nothing to do with the fact that Al-Qaeda is also supporting them. To stop supporting a noble cause because an enemy of the state is also supporting it is stupid. Also, I suggest you actually read something about Gaddafi's reign other than "Dudez, he rodez in carzz with no roofxors, obviouslie every1 in Libya L0v3zzz him!!!"

Sixth, what point are you trying to make? That international relations are extremely complicated and can't be oversimplified down to "shoot these people" and "don't shoot these people"? Yeah, thanks genius.

1. When did I say that? I said it is for money, not just oil.

2. Yet some just blindly accept what they are told. History is written by the winners. How do we truly know what has happened. How do we not know it's made up bullshit?

3. I'm pretty sure I made a difference between FACT and what I THINK is going to happen. You are blurring the two,

4. Yeah, there are people killing civilians for shits and giggles. Go to bestgore.com, look up the Iraq War so you can get an idea of what really is going on there. I understand people in any army will do that, but this is a whole other level. Look up Black Water Mercenaries while you are at it. I get we put people in power for us to control them, it just pisses me off that our media makes us look like heroes when we are the ones causing most of the problems. The only reason the middle east hates the US is because we support Israel. It isn't even a real country. After WW2 the Brits circled some land on a map and named it Israel. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced from their homes, how would you feel?

5. You really are going to justify working with Al-Qaeda? I have looked into a lot about Gaddafi. He wasn't the man western media made him out to be. He tripled the literacy rate, built schools, hospitals etc. He was Africa's best chance of being united together, and because he called out Israel and the US, he was killed. When have I ever typ3d liek thi5? The point I was making is that he was a well loved man, to the point where he walked the streets with no trouble. That says a lot about him compared to Obama.

6. The point I made was that everything is about money. It isn't about spreading democracy or freedom, it is all about the paper. Leave your bubble you live in and talk to people that live in these countries that this is taking place in. Your whole perception of reality will change.

#69 LoneWolf

LoneWolf

    Believes Han shot first

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,287 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Oceanside, Ca.
  • Interests:Comics from the 90's. Movies. RPG's.

Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:45 PM

No, some terrorist cells are using bombs. Almost all organized Syrian revolution is nonviolent. I suggest you read the recent Thomas Friedman article about the Syrian Revolution. At least then we can have somewhat of an informed debate.

"According to various sources, including the United Nations, up to 16,505–23,715 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians, but also including 8,175–9,080 armed combatants from both sides and up to 1,400 opposition protesters."

Doesn't sound like a non-violent revolution...

Do you think the American or French revolutionaries had an excess of arms? No, if it weren't for French support, the American patriots would have gotten their asses kicked. Guns don't make a successful revolution. What makes a successful revolution is the principles and the people behind the revolution. If you have that, then you'll get military support eventually.


What guarantees another country will come to the aid of the revolutionaries? The French had a long history of war with the English at the time. What if they hadn't? Point is, it was won by fighting, not protesting.

A truly tyrannical government would have little problem massacring unarmed protesters...

@Hayes: We weren't working with Al-Qaeda. There are many off-shoots of religious fundamentalists in that region. HAMAS, The Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Shabaab (sp?) etc.. Either way, we weighed it before had I'm sure, and immediate regime change outweighed the possible drawbacks.

#70 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 07 July 2012 - 02:54 PM

The one thing I noticed no one has answered is this; if they already have taken away our 5th amendment, what is stopping them from taking away the 2nd?

All this bullshit is hidden under the guise of security. To save us from terrorists. Yet the Occupy people, Tea Party, and other NON violent protesters have been labeled terrorists. How do you justify all these cops pepper spraying and arresting non violent protesters? I thought we lived in 2012 not 1960.

#71 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:05 PM

I'll answer your question. "They've taken neither you idiot".

Yeah you're completely right. I mean, if a few police officers are pepper spraying people, what's to stop the congressmen in washington from stripping away our constitutional rights!

#72 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:06 PM

So throwing American civilians in jail without trial isn't a violation of the 5th amendment?

EDIT: Throwing a 19 year old girl in a "holding camp" for supporting Ron Paul is ok with you?

#73 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:17 PM

"According to various sources, including the United Nations, up to 16,505–23,715 people have been killed, of which about half were civilians, but also including 8,175–9,080 armed combatants from both sides and up to 1,400 opposition protesters."

Doesn't sound like a non-violent revolution...

[size=3]
What guarantees another country will come to the aid of the revolutionaries? The French had a long history of war with the English at the time. What if they hadn't? Point is, it was won by fighting, not protesting.

A truly tyrannical government would have little problem massacring unarmed protesters...

@Hayes: We weren't working with Al-Qaeda. There are many off-shoots of religious fundamentalists in that region. HAMAS, The Muslim Brotherhood, Al-Shabaab (sp?) etc.. Either way, we weighed it before had I'm sure, and immediate regime change outweighed the possible drawbacks.

Again, there's a difference between radical organizations who try to respond with violence, and the nonviolent protesters, who are rallying wide support for the region. Again, many people realize this, read Time's Man of the Year article last year, read Thomas Friedman's article about it, someone who's been studying political and economic issues for all of his life, and is smarter than both of us put together times 100. The common element in the revolutions is a core that's dedicated to protesting even without guns.

I don't think you understand me. I'm not saying weaponry is not needed to fight a revolution. I'm saying that even if you are unarmed, if you show people that you are willing to fight with the principle of nonviolent protest, you will get not only weapons, but support too. Hell, you can even make other people fight the war for you. I gave multiple historical examples of this, hell you gave me historical examples of this. A pre-armed population is not needed to spearhead a revolution at all.

#74 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:22 PM

So throwing American civilians in jail without trial isn't a violation of the 5th amendment?

EDIT: Throwing a 19 year old girl in a "holding camp" for supporting Ron Paul is ok with you?

I don't know what part of "that part of the defense act was constitutionally voided via court cases that deemed it unconstitutional" you don't understand, but if you need a dictionary, there are some pretty good ones online.

Where exactly is this story about a 19 year old girl? I'll research it myself.

#75 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:22 PM

I'll answer your question. "They've taken neither you idiot".

Taken from NDAA:

The detention sections of the NDAA begin by "affirm[ing]" that the authority of the President under the AUMF, a joint resolution passed in the immediate aftermath of the September 11, 2001 attacks, includes the power to detain, via the Armed Forces, any person (including U.S. citizens) "who was part of or substantially supported al-Qaeda, the Taliban, or associated forces that are engaged in hostilities against the United States or its coalition partners", and anyone who commits a "belligerent act" against the U.S. or its coalition allies in aid of such enemy forces, under the law of war, "without trial, until the end of the hostilities authorized by the [AUMF]". The text authorizes trial by military tribunal, or "transfer to the custody or control of the person's country of origin", or transfer to "any other foreign country, or any other foreign entity".

So the Occupy Wallstreet movement is supporting Al-Qaeda? Pretty hypocritical considering we freed many Al-Qaeda operatives and armed them during the Gaddafi rebellion.

EDIT: As for the 19 year old: http://www.infowars....ate-fema-camps/ Before I hear a smart ass comment, Jesse Ventura is more credible and knowledgeable about any of this than anyone on this site. That specific episode aired once and is not allowed on TV again.

#76 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:31 PM

If that part has been voided, I wasn't aware. The fact that they'd pass a bill knowingly raping our constitutional rights still speaks volumes of our leaders. Not too mention they gave Congress an hour to read and vote on 1,000 page bill is pretty shady to me.

I've said all I can here. Continue with the insults, I don't care.

#77 deojusto

deojusto

    I am One with the Ferret.

  • FPL Undercards Admin
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,023 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:California

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:36 PM

If that part has been voided, I wasn't aware. The fact that they'd pass a bill knowingly raping our constitutional rights still speaks volumes of our leaders. Not too mention they gave Congress an hour to read and vote on 1,000 page bill is pretty shady to me.

I've said all I can here. Continue with the insults, I don't care.


You earlier said you had no intention of starting an argument. You have done nothing but argue for 4 pages. Don't try to act like a victim, you brought all of this on yourself.

#78 force_echo

force_echo

    Pretentious, Obnoxious, Annoying...humanity's last hope

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 8,750 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Charlotte, NC
  • Interests:Anything Interesting

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:37 PM

1. When did I say that? I said it is for money, not just oil.

2. Yet some just blindly accept what they are told. History is written by the winners. How do we truly know what has happened. How do we not know it's made up bullshit?

3. I'm pretty sure I made a difference between FACT and what I THINK is going to happen. You are blurring the two,

4. Yeah, there are people killing civilians for shits and giggles. Go to bestgore.com, look up the Iraq War so you can get an idea of what really is going on there. I understand people in any army will do that, but this is a whole other level. Look up Black Water Mercenaries while you are at it. I get we put people in power for us to control them, it just pisses me off that our media makes us look like heroes when we are the ones causing most of the problems. The only reason the middle east hates the US is because we support Israel. It isn't even a real country. After WW2 the Brits circled some land on a map and named it Israel. Hundreds of thousands of people were forced from their homes, how would you feel?

5. You really are going to justify working with Al-Qaeda? I have looked into a lot about Gaddafi. He wasn't the man western media made him out to be. He tripled the literacy rate, built schools, hospitals etc. He was Africa's best chance of being united together, and because he called out Israel and the US, he was killed. When have I ever typ3d liek thi5? The point I was making is that he was a well loved man, to the point where he walked the streets with no trouble. That says a lot about him compared to Obama.

6. The point I made was that everything is about money. It isn't about spreading democracy or freedom, it is all about the paper. Leave your bubble you live in and talk to people that live in these countries that this is taking place in. Your whole perception of reality will change.

1. Yeah, that's equally as stupid.

2. Because historians spend their whole lives researching and analyzing these events?

3. You're right, it's just that what you think is going to happen is completely ungrounded in fact.

4. How does the actions of a private contractor reflect the views of the US government's mission in Iraq? Private contractors that were reprimanded and taken to court BY THE US? No that's not the only reason people in the Middle East hate us, PLEASE go read SOMETHING, ANYTHING about the Middle East. You don't even have to have an informed opinion, just realize that nothing in the middle east as simple as that. Do you really think civilians in Iraq give a shit about Israel? That's the government's political agenda towards Israel. I'm not going to comment on the Israeli-Palestine conflict, because that has little to do with this debate.

5. It amazes me that you're so incredibly hypocritical that you make this topic talking about the government taking away civilian freedoms, and then go on and SUPPORT A DICTATOR. You do realize that Gaddafi could have his army clear out the dissenting people when he rides through town right? Make a border zone and only put in people that like him? When North Korea's dictator died, they showed everyone crying. I guess everyone in North Korea loves Kim right? Just a heads up Hayes, there's this thing dictatorships use, and its called propaganda. The people of Libya live in squander, with no freedoms, while Gaddafi literally steals billions and billions of dollars out from under him for his own personal gain? do you know how sick you have to be to watch as your people die, and take away their life blood from them? Give your son a bank check of 70 BILLION while there are people who want the basest of human rights? You keep telling me to get outside of my bubble Hayes, how about YOU get outside the bubble.

6. Actually, that's funny, because there literally cannot be any other reason for the Iraq Intervention besides spreading democracy and freedom. I want to talk to the people who say that we intervened in Iraq for money, and teach them basic arithmetic. Even if we took the ENTIRE GDP of the WHOLE FREAKING COUNTRY it doesn't offset the cost of war, which was actually LOWER than expected. Again, get out of your bubble Hayes. talk to people who have had the first non-rigged election in their lifetime. Talk to the people who no longer fear an opposing religious faction gunning them down when they go to the polls. Get out and talk to the people Hayes, I couldn't have said it better myself.

EDIT: Wait. Jesse Ventura? On a freaking site dedicated to Conspiracy theories? Are you f*cking kidding me? They didn't air that episode again because whatever news network it was had to maintain some credibility. Not even Fox freaking news would run that trash.

#79 Hayesmeister5651

Hayesmeister5651

    That guy with poo brains

  • CBUB Match Judges
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 7,047 posts
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:The Batcave
  • Interests:Things

Posted 07 July 2012 - 08:45 PM

You earlier said you had no intention of starting an argument. You have done nothing but argue for 4 pages. Don't try to act like a victim, you brought all of this on yourself.

I didn't have the intention, but when people reply to what I say, I reply back. Not acting like a victim at all.

#80 silversurfer092

silversurfer092

    Yeezus

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 4,631 posts
  • Gender:Male

Posted 08 July 2012 - 07:40 AM

I didn't have the intention, but when people reply to what I say, I reply back. Not acting like a victim at all.


Hayes, honestly, you've been nothing but proven wrong with every single thing you have said on this thread. Give it a rest.


PS: Still waiting for comic_book_fan to show that you can be smart while being illiterate.




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users