[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by slateman

Sure they do. That's why they ship in Ethiopians and Somalis in to the Emirate States for lower class jobs

Funny how psuedo-slavery has nothing to do with what I said or the context it was said in.

[ArchAngelIon]

We have Israel using whatever means necessary to conduct surgical strikes on key enemy personal and artillery, while Hamas haphazardly lobs rockets at population centers going for the highest amount of damage.

Open Gaza borders? Hell, Gaza has been closed and look at the amount of weaponry brought in.

Even if Israel cleans house, this is just the start of something much much bigger.

[slateman]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

Funny how psuedo-slavery has nothing to do with what I said or the context it was said in.

Exactly what is sane about their view of race? They view Africans with disdain, even if they hold the same religion. They generally distrust white people. They have an extreme dislike of Jews, to the point where if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport, you're probably going to be meeting that country's state police.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by slateman

Exactly what is sane about their view of race? They view Africans with disdain, even if they hold the same religion. They generally distrust white people. They have an extreme dislike of Jews, to the point where if you have an Israeli stamp on your passport, you're probably going to be meeting that country's state police.

I was referring to this:

They view each other in terms of families and tribes. Most of the nations in the ME can be, and frequently are, divided in to various tribes and families

I don't really care how they feel about others.

[slateman]

I still don't see anything sane about it. You're going to decide who you like and who you hate based on the family they were born in to?

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by slateman

I still don't see anything sane about it. You're going to decide who you like and who you hate based on the family they were born in to?

No. You are caught in this moral fog here that you need to elevate yourself from.

[slateman]

Oh and MSNBC just said an Israeli official is in Cairo to discuss a cease-fire

[Overbear]

Have said it more times than I can count...


Russia, China, and the US systmaticly nuke ever major city in the ME from the far border of egypt, the border of turkey, and at the other end stoping at the border of china.

World problems solved, we now have a much lower population, much lower areas of problems, and minimal impact to the rest of the world.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Overbear

Have said it more times than I can count...


Russia, China, and the US systmaticly nuke ever major city in the ME from the far border of egypt, the border of turkey, and at the other end stoping at the border of china.

World problems solved, we now have a much lower population, much lower areas of problems, and minimal impact to the rest of the world.

I think you would have to bomb significant portions of Europe as well, seeing as how the "problem" has spilled over to other lands. Don't take this as an endorsement.

[ElJefe13]

The reason that Israel is taking heat is because they killed more people. Israel launched ten air strikes, killed 36ish people. Syria launched over 350 missiles and killed what, 3 people?

Also, as for the whole "nuke the ME and solve all the worlds problems" theory? No. First of all, Israel and/or Pakistan would go nuts and start nuking everybody, and then we have Armageddon. Second, Islam and the Arab world have a rich history of culture. Muslims brought the West out of the Dark Ages. Arabs were calculating the circumference of the sun when Europeans started figuring out that soap was a good idea. It would be the loss of a great culture.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Also, we are ignoring the blatent moral dilemma that genocide is bad; categorically and deontologically...

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by ElJefe13

The reason that Israel is taking heat is because they killed more people. Israel launched ten air strikes, killed 36ish people. Syria launched over 350 missiles and killed what, 3 people?

Also, as for the whole "nuke the ME and solve all the worlds problems" theory? No. First of all, Israel and/or Pakistan would go nuts and start nuking everybody, and then we have Armageddon. Second, Islam and the Arab world have a rich history of culture. Muslims brought the West out of the Dark Ages. Arabs were calculating the circumference of the sun when Europeans started figuring out that soap was a good idea. It would be the loss of a great culture.

if you hit Isreal, India, and Pakistan first, you take out the major threats. As to their "culture" that was a long time ago, and I suspect the world will continue on as a happy place without the ME in it.

Consider this, my option, rids the world of close to 1/3 of its population. Think about the resorces that opens up. Think about the drop in food needs, water needs, fuel, and so on. Now think of the fringe benifits, having the 3 most powerful countries on earth work together like that, to have a common goal. The open lines of comunication, the end of mistrust and posturing. No more fighting over who gets what, you split the area up in 3rds, everyone wins, the world wins, the human race wins.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

Also, we are ignoring the blatent moral dilemma that genocide is bad; categorically and deontologically...

If genocide, the systematic destruction of a demographic, is bad, then why do we support multiculturism such as it includes immigration, open borders and interracial marriages?

Please guys, keep your pants on if you are going to respond to this one.

[TheSilentAssassin]

Originally Posted by Iamamartianchurch

If genocide, the systematic destruction of a demographic, is bad, then why do we support multiculturism such as it includes immigration, open borders and interracial marriages?

Please guys, keep your pants on if you are going to respond to this one.

multiculturalism does not inherently imply homogeneity. and it shouldn't. also, blending can occur without the destruction of the original cultures (and it should) creating 3 cultures (old + old = old + old + new blend) instead of just 1 (old + old = new blend). If done correctly, multiculturalism can develop new culture while also preserving old. Genocide on the other hand simply destroys.

Also, let's not pretend the moral dilemma of genocide is strictly about cultural preservation.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by TheSilentAssassin

multiculturalism does not inherently imply homogeneity. and it shouldn't. also, blending can occur without the destruction of the original cultures (and it should) creating 3 cultures (old + old = old + old + new blend) instead of just 1 (old + old = new blend). If done correctly, multiculturalism can develop new culture while also preserving old. Genocide on the other hand simply destroys.

Also, let's not pretend the moral dilemma of genocide is strictly about cultural preservation.

Theoretically it can, yet look at the demographics across the west and tell me who is on their way out the door. I think societies tend towards homogeneity, if they strive for stability. Multiculturalism exists on the worlds stage, from society to society, results vary.


Cultural preservation is racial in nature because one proceeds from the other. Nazi Germany sought to rid the cultural influence of the Jews by ridding themselves of the cause of that influence. I'm not being sympathetic, but I think there's a high level of dishonesty around this subject.

[SniperForce-Duffek]

Originally Posted by Overbear

Consider this, my option, rids the world of close to 1/3 of its population. Think about the resorces that opens up. Think about the drop in food needs, water needs, fuel, and so on. Now think of the fringe benifits, having the 3 most powerful countries on earth work together like that, to have a common goal. The open lines of comunication, the end of mistrust and posturing. No more fighting over who gets what, you split the area up in 3rds, everyone wins, the world wins, the human race wins.

There might come a day where this might have to happen in order for the world to survive; opening up resources.

[Space Pope]

There is a ****-ton of just about everything, untouched, in Africa.

Originally Posted by Overbear

if you hit Isreal, India, and Pakistan first, you take out the major threats. As to their "culture" that was a long time ago, and I suspect the world will continue on as a happy place without the ME in it.

Consider this, my option, rids the world of close to 1/3 of its population. Think about the resorces that opens up. Think about the drop in food needs, water needs, fuel, and so on. Now think of the fringe benifits, having the 3 most powerful countries on earth work together like that, to have a common goal. The open lines of comunication, the end of mistrust and posturing. No more fighting over who gets what, you split the area up in 3rds, everyone wins, the world wins, the human race wins.

Except you leave the countries that consume the most natural resources by a large margin in place, you idiot. Not to mention the radioactive fallout you would dump on the rest of the planet, and how you would render that land completely worthless.

Do you take yourself seriously?

[Overbear]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

There is a ****-ton of just about everything, untouched, in Africa.



Except you leave the countries that consume the most natural resources by a large margin in place, you idiot. Not to mention the radioactive fallout you would dump on the rest of the planet, and how you would render that land completely worthless.

Do you take yourself seriously?

Fallout can be mitigated by using low yeld and non-nuke devices. It does not matter that china/soviet union/USA use more natural resources. By removing 1/3 of the worlds population, you offset that and still come out with a net gain for the earth and the human race.

Worthless land? nope, look at japan, both cities we used bombs on, are now thriving cities. The land will recover, earth has this great way of healing herself.

Do I? yes, very, deadly serious. We humans are out of control, we need to cull 2-3 billion. I fail to see what the big deal is if we take out the section of our populus that happen to be the biggest problems right now in the world. Seems to be a Win/Win to me.

[Space Pope]

You do know that using "low yield devices" will simply require using more devices, and that given the same required destructive energy to level that particular area of land you will generate the same amount of nuclear fallout, right? It is basic physics after all.

Of course you did, as your plan is well thought out and reasonable...

Please bring up how you maintained steam boilers heated by nuclear reactors maintained by people smarter than yourself as evidence of your understanding of nuclear reactions and their effects. That is always amusing.

[F1VENOM]

Use nuclear weapons against three countries armed with nuclear devices themselves.

[Iamamartianchurch]

Originally Posted by Space Pope

You do know that using "low yield devices" will simply require using more devices, and that given the same required destructive energy to level that particular area of land you will generate the same amount of nuclear fallout, right? It is basic physics after all.

Of course you did, as your plan is well thought out and reasonable...

Please bring up how you maintained steam boilers heated by nuclear reactors maintained by people smarter than yourself as evidence of your understanding of nuclear reactions and their effects. That is always amusing.

Hi tafari.

The use of Nukes as a weapon, not a deterrent, would provoke international incident. Nobody wants this, nor does anyone want to be the cause of nuclear conflict. If Overbear was actually given such authority, he wouldn't do it. Want to know how I know? Hitler had a healthy stockpile of biological weapons but never used them, why? The answer is because the allies also had them, the use of which would have caused a conceivably large loss of life.