Jump to content
3000AD Forums
Sign in to follow this  
LostInSpace

Russia Bans ABC News

Recommended Posts

RIGHT ON! I wonder if ABC will get the message. These bloodsucking journalists have no problem sitting down to tea with some of the world's most vicious killers. It makes you wonder...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL, just like I said in the other thread last week, that's what I love about Russian people, they don't take this BS.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad - I am not that interested in the Chechen war or their cause. I have always been vaguely aware of the conflict, and have always thought to myself that Russia should leave them alone.

All I know is that through sheer audacity or an equally unfathomable talent at wreaking havoc, Basayev has been responsible for more high-profile acts of barbarism than any other Chechen alive - acts which have targeted civilians as well as soldiers, conscripts as well as professional military men. Basayev is well aware of the bad PR such attacks garner among Russians and even radical Chechens; he simply doesn't care.

He is a terrorist. NOT a freedom fighter. I don't care about his cause when he murders innocents.

You seem unable to grasp the concept that I despise terrorists and all who sympathize with their cause.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, I'll do all that and then get some blood-sucking vulture at ABC to interview me. That'll be FUN!

Rebels I can handle. Terrorists are not rebels. They are murderers.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad, they TERRORISE, KILL, MURDER, TORTURE, the Russian CIVILIANS. By you talking what happened in the 18th century, and what is going on today, by the same token maybe Russians should then go and take over France because of all the attacks. What do you think? Or are you unfamiliar with all the Napoleons (yes, generations of them) trying to conquer Russia, maybe it skiped your mind huh. Or maybe the Great Otoman Empire skiped your mind too, and all the bloodshed that happened when they were attacking Russia throughout centuries. And you talk about Russia conquering a muslim state over two hundred years ago, and now justifying muslim terrorists killing children.

"I do not grant the terms of reason to men who propose to deprive me of reason. I do not place my moral sanction upon a murderer's wish to kill me. When a man attempts to deal with me by force, I answer him - by force. It is only as retaliation that force may be used. No, Russians do not share their evil or sink to their CONCEPT OF MORALITY (what's the terrorists concept of morality?) They merely grant them their choice, destruction, the only destruction they had the right to choose: their own. They use force to kill, Russians use it to destry destruction. Terrorists grow stronger by killing CIVILIANS, Russian military does not grow stronger by killing them. So don't confuse Russian military fighting Chechens, with Chechens figting Russian CIVILIANS, and KILLING CHILDREN.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Nomad: You are trying to justify terrorism again and it still ain't working. I will not ask Chechen terrorists why they kill innocent men women and children. If I DID meet a terrorist, I would do my duty as a human and kill him. Think of all the lives I would save. I have no beef with Chechen REBELS. How many times do I really have to make this distinction for you to understand it?

The assertion that Russian civilians somehow deserve to be blown to bits because their taxes fund a government's wrongful occupation is downright offensive. Frankly, coming from you, I find that rather shocking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

You are throwing out NON ABSOLUTES Nomad. NON ABSOLUTES don't exist. Check your premises, you can't go to a socer game, root for one team but hope that the other will win. You are decieving your own mind, and you are decieving the mind of those who do not yet know their own potential. That is the greatest evil, the destruction of ones mind.

Wrong is just that WRONG, there's no such thing as partially wrong. You can't say that Chechens have the right to ocupy Russian school and kill kids because the struggle never settled down.

Check your premises Nomad, and get back to me with real answer instead of that NON ANSWER that you posted above.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Posted by Nomad

"Maybe you should go to war yourself, not as combatant, but as an observer. Your misplaced romanticism about what is wrong and right would die rather quickly. Humans are fragile beings. You just need to suffer enough until hate blinds you, and you will either transform into a murderer, kill yourself, or break down. If you don't believe me, it's probably because you don't know the smell of rotten flesh, specially when it comes from loved ones."

Am I putting words in your mouth? Really? By this statement are you not saying that Chechens are killing Russian citizens, have occupied their school (last year) and killed those children, and that it's somewhere in between right and wrong? Here's your sentence: "Your misplaced romanticism about what is wrong and right would die rather quickly. Humans are fragile beings. You just need to suffer enough until hate blinds you..." Are you not saying by this sentence that what they do is NOT WRONG, but somehow you try to avoid saying that ITS RIGHT? Aren't you trying to make a NON ABSOLUTE statement? It's EITHER WRONG Nomad, or it's RIGHT. Like I said, AGAIN, check your premises, and GIVE AN ANSWER, instead of that non answer above, AGAIN.

ANYONE here who has been reading this disagrees with me?

On the other hand Nomad, I think you are afraid, Afraid of actually saying that you agree with what Chechens are doing, let me give you an example on how to speak ones mind, how to make a choice, how to tell people what you are trying to convey to them, I (me, not you) WHOLE HEARTEDLY AGREE WITH WHAT THE RUSSIANS ARE DOING, and that's why all the double sided talk (from you) and all the excuses. It's alright Nomad, I know where you stand and what you mean, what I am doing is NAMING the truth of what you say to those who might be confused by your double talk.

PS, read my quote Nomad. Think about what it says. Then think again if you want to reply again, in the same way, for the third time.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

But were I have to agree with you, is that it's soo easier to see the world in little white and black boxes. It's very convenient to compense the inability to see the whole picture...

Ah, Nomad. How hard you try to confuse a very simple issue. I don't care WHAT their reasons are. Terrorists are bloodythirsty savages who need to be completely wiped off the face of the earth. I will say it again. THERE IS NEVER JUSTIFICATION FOR TERRORISM!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If the Chechens are willing to fight the agression of the Russian military, then I say, more power to 'em. What I find hysterical is that you continue to defend terrorist atrocities by saying that the Russian military is wrong. This is wrong-headed and dangerous logic. If the Chechens want to fight for their independence they should target those who seek to stifle their independence - the Russian MILITARY.

There is NO moral equivalency between the Chechens fighting the Russian troops for their freedom and the filthy animals who gleefully murder children.

Keep telling me I see everything in black and white. I'll keep telling you you are making excuses for murder.

The simple fact is that the Chechen resistance loses legitimacy with every terrorist attack on civilians. If they want freedom, the first thing they should do is cease all attacks on innocent civilians and focus their ire on those who are the real enemy. Until that happens, I frankly don't give a damn about Chechen independence.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROFL< Dogs Nomad, you had to run a comparison based on DOGS> You know why you had to do a comparison with DOGS? BECAUSE IT WOULDN'T WORK WITH HUMANS.

Here's how a comparison with humans would go. I have 10 acres of land, there's 20 people living on my land. My neighbor has 10 acres of land, there's 20 people living on his land. 5 of the guys from my land start going over to my neighbors land and start killing some of his people living there, and move in in their houses. Next thing you know, 15 people from his land, start harrasing those 5 people who moved into their land, then they go over to my land and start killing the other 15 living there, who had NOTHING to do with it, indiscriminatively. That's when they cease to be humans, and become dogs, just like in YOUR comparison. ROFL. Double talk doesn't work with me Nomad, I will be making it my business to expose you every single time, whenever I can. Here's to EVERYONE reading his posts, HE has to run a comparison with DOGS, because dogs are animals, unable to reason, unable to separate right from wrong, humans have the ability to reason, to know what is right and wrong. If he would use humans in his comparison, everyone would see how wrong it was.He had to separate reason from the actions that's why he had to name them DOGS.

Read my signature again Nomad. Humans have the ability to think, to define their actions, to REASON. Terrorists REASON, they reason that their killings are justified, that's it's ok because of the reasons you named in your own post, three up. "Because Russian civilians support the military with their taxes" Well, their reasoning is WRONG.

Like I said, I know where you stand, I KNOW YOU AGREE WITH TERRORISTS, Everyone who has read this thread knows it by now. That's why you work so had on double answers and NON ABSOLUTS. I told you that you can't be both at the same time, just like you can't be stuffed and hungry, just like a glass can't be full and empty, just like you can't be wet and dry. Your double talk is useless, you should have listened.

ROFL - DOGS

[ 08-04-2005, 12:59 PM: Message edited by: Soback ]

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Here, lets try your comparison again, this time changing dogs with humans.

"Let's put it that way. I walk with my children near a fenced area "with people on the other side".

One day, I stop by, want this area for me, and start to throw stones at "those people". At other times, I jump in the area, throw a few more stones, and manage to kill a few "of them", and so on day by day.

Then, one day, a few "people" jump out, see my children with my wife, and kill them all.

Were "those people" wrong ? Yes, they killed people who did not harm them. Was I wrong (what you are missing, is those "people" have killed the ones nearby, the ones who had NOTHING to do with it, the only reason they killed them was because there were next to THEIR FENCE. You were wrong, they killed you too, justly, to stop your violence of killing them, and THEN they went on to kill indiscriminatly, everyone else in sight) to start the struggle ? Yes, I could have lived perfectly well without attempting to seize that area. And don't come with the silly arguments that those inside the fence aren't dogs but humans, unless you also define the indecency and ultimate responsability of the guy who instigated the conflict."

Still works for you Nomad? Still say that those people going over and just killing whoever was on the other side is not plain out WRONG. Still say it's a GRAY AREA, somewhere in BETWEEN RIGHT AND WRONG.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Well, their reasoning is WRONG.

Well since you're so logical,please explain why that is wrong *using only logic*.I dont want to turn this into a philosophical debate,but you cannot produce ideas using only "logic",you need a base from which you can build your ideas(axiom).Which means there can be multiple ideas that are equally consistent(which means-logically-TRUE).

So I'm waiting for you to point out the contradiction(which is the only logical way to disprove an idea) in Chechen rebels actions(in nomads posts).

Nomads ability to understand chechen rebels actions does not mean he supports them.People do NOT support things based on their truth values but rather egoism(a superset of pragmatism).If their actions harm Nomad in any way,he'll be against them.You're mixing two different subjects.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Nomads ability to understand chechen rebels actions does not mean he supports them.


Could we PLEASE stop diluting the issue by calling them all REBELS? Those Chechens that have taken up arms against the Russian aggressors are rebels. The animals that slaughter innocents are TERRORISTS. By continually failing to make this distinction, you enhance the lie that serves to fuel terrorism.

quote:

There is such an hypocrisy when defining terrorism according to your political agenda, and when giving precedence to form instead of substance...

There is no hypocricy; it's only that you refuse to see the obvious. There IS no political agenda when it comes to terrorism. You either condemn terrorism for what it is or you support it by making excuses for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can't actually think of any other terrorist-organization than Al-Qaida who doesn't have an political agenda: IRA, Hizbolla, the spanish organization (can't remember the name of it), etc. I'm sure there are more.

Actually, come to think about it, I think I heard som "expert" say that the new thing with Al-Qaida was that it did't have any clear political agenda.

I may be wrong though

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The political agenda is implied in the beginning, before the terrorist ring descends into its orgasmic orgy of violence, where only pain and suffering is what they seek.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Soback:

Would you have read accurately my post, you would have seen that I contempled beforehand changing the dogs with humans and what this implied.

To resume:

4) Being convinced that both sides are wrong, russian army and chechen terrorists, I don't take sides. Furthermore, I don't focus in the way people was killed, but in the final numbers and result. In this perspective, chechen losses are magnitudes higher that russian losses (both civilian and military included). Poison is poison, it doesen't matter if you were the victim of a sweet or an arrow. What counts is wich population numerically and factually suffered the most, and in this sense, it's the chechens.

5) There are situations were logic doesen't apply, and only non-intervention is reasonable. Now there is always people who interpret non-intervention as tacite agreement, but this is due either to their lack of intellect, or to tentative manipulation of someone's else stance to fit their agenda.

If I say "Did you forget to lie to me ?" What can you answer ? The question in itself denies any response if you did'n lie or did not have the intention to lie. Therefore you can only remain silent. Can I do anything about my interlocutor interpreting this silence as a tacite agreement ? No.

The man who refuses to judge, who neither agrees nor disagrees, who declares that there are no absolutes, and believes that he escapes responsibility, is the man responsible for all the blood that is now spilled in the world. Reality is an absolute, existence is an absolute, a speck of dust is an absolute and so is HUMAN LIFE. Whether you live or die is an absolute. Wheter you eat your bread or see it vanish into a looters stomach is an absolute.

There are two sides to every issue; one side is right the other is wrong, but middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of CHOICE. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can you plagiarize in a forum thread? I think it was obvious he was quoting, or at least I thought it was...

It's the relevancy of the excerpt to the topic, and how it exquisitely encapsulates the viewpoint, that I found amazing. He is rather poetic...

I can't speak for Soback, but I do not consider your pov "illegitimate" as you put it. If it is yours, it IS legitimate. Whether it is based on objective reasoning or subjective experience is another matter.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Both chechen and russian civilians died, be it for wars, occupations or terrorism. My opinion is that they're both (Chechnya and Russia) wrong. The only people that are right are the ones who, even living between extremists and the like, don't share their point of view and try to live far from these puerile concepts. And most of the times I think they're dead or imprisoned. I mean, russian children died cause of the chechen terrorists, and many chechen families were imprisoned in Siberia by Stalin. Violence generates more violence if there's ignorance. I'm not justifying anyone, nor terrorists, nor dictators, nor aggressors in general. As you're talking about taking positions here's mine: the only thing to blame here is ignorance (scarce knowledge, lack of manners and everything that comes to mind when you hear that word). Ignorance makes people's minds malleable, so anyone that is a little more astute (not intelligent, let's say an overpowered ignorant) than the rest can tell what he wants and make the people do what he wants to. I think that many intellectuals, that are the most intelligent beings out there, are even the most peaceful people. Take scientists or philosophers like Gandhi, look what he did without waging a thermonuclear war against England.

And back to the topic, I don't watch ABC since I can't receive it where I live, but from what I have read that's the sort of scumbag that should be classified as ignorant, very lacking in good sense for putting oil on the fire between Russia and Chechnya.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Asso, welcome to the discussion.

In your assertion in that both Chechens and Russians are wrong, do you mean the Chechen Rebels or the Chechen terrorists? There is a BIG difference.

I personally think Russia had every right to ban ABC, since giving this murderer camera time is akin to aiding and abetting the enemy.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by nomad:

Soback, I am a little bit tired of your plagiarism. There is no harm in referring to third party works. The problem is that you don't mention it. Half of what you post lately in these threads are exact paragraphs of "Atlas Shrugged" by Ayn Rand...

So, it's a point of view among many others. The difference is that I consider that your point of view is legitime, when in the inverse you don't.

But don't worry. The world is full of people who can't make any decent move when playing chess alone against themselves. It requires a bit of abstraction...

Pligiarizm Nomad? Oh no, those are my views, and they are my words. If you have read Atlash Shrugged you would see that I change it to fit the situation. All those facts have already been made a long time ago. You can't argue with reason Nomad. Just like Cruis.In. has been reduced to a single sentence in another thread, so are you reduced to calling my words plagiarizm, while I am telling you exactly what my thoughts are. Go ahead Nomad, argue reason, everytime you evade reality, evertime you cheat the facts, everytime you try to fool yourself that an absolute is a non-absolute, an A is an A Nomad, you can't make it a B, or substitue it with a C. Everytime you do so, reality will catch up, and you will pay tenfold on every absolute you have dismissed, on every fact cheated, on every truth you turned your head on, and every A you substituted with a B (calling terrorist Rebels). When people evade reality, they die, just because you choose not to notice an animal that is there to kill you, it doesn't mean that that animal doesn't exist, just because you choose to call a lion a cat, it doesn't mean that it actually is.

You see Nomad, am I plagiarizing? You know why you are tired of my posts, because you can't argue with reality. You know why I don't consider your answers legitimate, because I don't consider Non-reality true. I am the thinker that wont meet a fool half way. One of us is wrong, one is right, reality will be the final arbiter.

Oh, and by the way, just to show you something Nomad, within the next week I will be posting a link in this thread, it will be an audio clip of an interview with the "rebel", not Chechen, but it will still give you an insight into a "different point of view". Once you listen to it, we will see if a "different point of view" is just that, and if a "different point of view" is ok no matter what it is. To give you a heads up, the guy talks about killing jews, and everyone else who does not believe in Islam, he goes on to say that his religion does not tollerate other religions, that wherever it's not Islam, they need to be Islam or die. Wrong or Right Nomad, or you still taking the middle? You want me to insert the second paragraph of my post in here too? Or would that be plagiarizm? How about this, I will summarize, with a question. Are you waiting who's point of view ends up Right, while in this truggle you will be sitting out, who will be proffiting on peoples blood, one side or the other? Or those who sit aside, taking no side, bidding their time, losing nothing, to crawl to the winner who is proven to be right, and say that while they did't fully support him, they didn't opose him either. "Go read my second paragraph from last post Nomad" Becaue that's exactly, in those exact words, is what I would insert here. No need to reinvent the wheel, if it's there, you use it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

quote:

Originally posted by Soback:

I am the thinker that wont meet a fool half way.

And before anyone tries to call this a personal insult. It is not. It is a statement. It means that I will not compromise and meet anyone half way by calling terrorists rebels, I am not going to meet anyone half way and say that those terrorist killing civilians is ok because they are a part of Russia, by the same token I am not going to meet anyone half way when they say that terrorists kill civilians because Russian soldiers are killing them, Russian soldiers are killing them TO STOP the violence against CIVILIANS, terrorists are killing CIVILIANS to CREATE violence, to MURDER another person, that's why anyone who says otherwise and tries to justify it, is justly making a foolish statement.

That's why Nomad, I take your views as illegitimate. Simply because in a statement like that, when you say that one side is not right, that both sides are wrong, that Russians killing the terrorists is just as wrong as those terrorists killing civilians, that's an illegitimate view.

That's why Russia banned ABC by the way, they don't have the corruption that is the idea of "anything goes". Their people can still distinguish RIGHT from WRONG, and they are not afraid to stand up and say "HEY, you are WRONG, GET OUT" You think it was a political decission, let me clue you IN, NO Russian person wants to hear a sniveling terrorist tell them that they are killing Russian children because THEY ARE RUSSIAN, and to hear those same terrorists make demands on them, to watch that in their own homes. You want to know why? Because when your family member dies, will you listen to the killer that tells you that he killed your whole family because your uncle thrise removed killed his? As a rational person your thoughts would be "what did my family had to do with it, it was that uncle that killed his" and then you would make sure the killer dies, not because you stoop to his level and become a killer like him, but to stop him from killing others. Rationalize that Nomad. Go ahead, try to split that and create a middle for yourself, without taking a side.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×