News Stories

[Nosauz]

Well Islamist in the UN have been bullying everybody, stripping freedom of speech and expression. As a pundit said, it's scary when you combine not being able to question a religion that says it is one thats the truth. Even if its a nonbinding resolution, the possiblity of the UN becoming an enforcer of antifreedom legislation is a scary thought. If there were another war it will not be between china and us. It will be those that value freedom and those that choose to suppress it.

[Aoie_Emesai]

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presi...weapons/412784

PRAGUE (April 5) - Declaring the future of mankind at stake, President Barack Obama on Sunday said all nations must strive to rid the world of nuclear arms and that the U.S. had a "moral responsibility" to lead because no other country has used one.
A North Korean rocket launch upstaged Obama's idealistic call to action, delivered in the capital of the Czech Republic, a former satellite of the Soviet Union. But Obama dismissed those who say the spread of nuclear weapons, "the most dangerous legacy of the Cold War," cannot be checked.

I feel it is safer to have them to eliminate it all entirely. I rather have them as a deterrenting force than none at all.

[Anh_Minh]

Didn't he say it might not happen in his lifetime? So, really, no hurry.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presi...weapons/412784



I feel it is safer to have them to eliminate it all entirely. I rather have them as a deterrenting force than none at all.

They forgot about India using one to make a dam, and Russia built the largest nuke ever, the Tsar Bomba to blowa you backa to the stone agea.

I think he probably meant that US is the only country to use nukes and blast 1.2 million people into quantum bits 64 years ago.

[mg1942]

Russians pretty much reduced the number of missile in their arsenal, BUT they stuff their launchers with 30+ MIRV (nukes and dummies) warheads!

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Russians pretty much reduced the number of missile launchers in their arsenal, BUT they stuff their missiles with 30+ MIRV (nukes and dummies) warheads!

Fixed that for you. Talking about that, even the Stalin's Wagon (the Reds' version of the US M270 MLRS) has tactical nuclear artillery rockets to be launched in salvos.

Since NK has built a MRBM, it would be probably that terrorists would want to buy the blueprints for the missile. It went further than predicted (due to wind direction and forward momentum probably). I would like to see how immortal Kim's paeans are when we drop a 550Kt warhead in Pyongyang.

[mg1942]

Originally Posted by Aoie_Emesai

http://news.aol.com/main/obama-presi...weapons/412784



I feel it is safer to have them to eliminate it all entirely. I rather have them as a deterrenting force than none at all.

Hooray for green movement Nuclear fallout is nasty and have lasting effects. They should be replaced by environmentally-friendly MOABs and the other russian equivalent - FOAB.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

Well Islamist in the UN have been bullying everybody, stripping freedom of speech and expression. As a pundit said, it's scary when you combine not being able to question a religion that says it is one thats the truth. Even if its a nonbinding resolution, the possiblity of the UN becoming an enforcer of antifreedom legislation is a scary thought. If there were another war it will not be between china and us. It will be those that value freedom and those that choose to suppress it.

A fine example of what I mean by propaganda.^

It sounds quite reasonable yet it makes no sense. Perhaps, people who don't understand the situation regarding United Nations and the mentioned nations would find that this belief carries a rather logical understanding. However, if you do know what is going on,, then this makes absolutely no sense at all.

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

Obama to Muslim world: No US war with Islam

Although there is tension between the two worlds but there is definitely no reason why the United States would want to have a war with Islam when there are a third force that is trying to revert attention. However, I do not think mere words out of goodwill would be able to change the current situation suddenly but through time of mutual understanding, I am certain that the day will come in which the United States and Islam will be friendly with each other.

The least to say, a first step has been taken by Obama!

This is nothing new. Even Bush Jr. was careful to point this out.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by mg1942

Hooray for green movement Nuclear fallout is nasty and have lasting effects. They should be replaced by environmentally-friendly MOABs and the other russian equivalent - FOAB.

MOAB stands for Massive Ordnance Air Burst. Mother Of All Bombs means that it is the only conventional weapon capable of rivalling the nuke. Father Of All Bombs is the Tsar Bomba.

It would be easier to use the name thermobaric weapons.

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

A fine example of what I mean by propaganda.^

It sounds quite reasonable yet it makes no sense. Perhaps, people who don't understand the situation regarding United Nations and the mentioned nations would find that this belief carries a rather logical understanding. However, if you do know what is going on,, then this makes absolutely no sense at all.

It is because Turkey is the only Muslim country flapping their wings to send the olive branch in the UN. Although whatever they say may sound gobbledygook for now, there may be a chance that they do side with freedom of thought. Hopefully their presence will draw UAE countries into the gathering so we can have a more world-cohesive "thanksgiving". If they don't, our descendants or us will be roasted by WMDs or pulped into stuffing.

DISCLAIMER : The puns in the above paragraph are unintentional. All words matches are purely coincidental.

[Nosauz]

Originally Posted by Shadow Minato

A fine example of what I mean by propaganda.^

It sounds quite reasonable yet it makes no sense. Perhaps, people who don't understand the situation regarding United Nations and the mentioned nations would find that this belief carries a rather logical understanding. However, if you do know what is going on,, then this makes absolutely no sense at all.

No actually if you do understand whats going on this is very scary thought, the fact that just because Muslims have already been seen to riot in the streets over an unfunny cartoon of Muhammad is the reason the UN passed this nonbinding resolution. Also this resolution is specifically for Islam, even though it doesn't single out Islam, its meant as so. Being unable to criticize something that is not based in logic is basically tyrranny. As an American I value freedom over anything, and hell as humans I think we ALL value freedom over the ficticious rights of deities, if they really were that omnipotent, I think they can handle a couple of non believers. The UN guises all these anti freedom, fascist ideas trojaned in supposedly benign manners such as the non binding resolution or even UNICEF. Just tell me how this non binding resolution is going to play out in Islamic countries, where Islam is the rule of law? Its basically allowing for state sponsored censorship, and tyranny and I wish that on no other human beings.

[WanderingKnight]

Obama Seeks to Abolish World's Nukes

Better start by destroying all of your own nukes, right?

Hypocrite.

[yezhanquan]

The usual. Everyone wants to go to heaven, but no one wants to die.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Better start by destroying all of your own nukes, right?

That is a stupid idea. What zhangquan says is right, everyone wants a slice of the pie but nobody is willing to pay for it.

I would say, keep the arsenal there, just in case of an alien invasion. Even if we get wiped out, at least those grays get hit by the best of the most primitive weapon we have.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by Nosauz

The UN guises all these anti freedom, fascist ideas trojaned in supposedly benign manners such as the non binding resolution or even UNICEF. Just tell me how this non binding resolution is going to play out in Islamic countries, where Islam is the rule of law? Its basically allowing for state sponsored censorship, and tyranny and I wish that on no other human beings.

You need to be blind to not see the hatred among a non-negligible portion of the western people towards Islam (vice versa). Some may appear in the form of the cartoonists in Denmark, that may have started drawing with the sole intention of insulting other people, people they see not equal to them, or at the level of slaves. Some (who may or may not be drawn in to such insulting critics) may go beyond that and appear in the form of Neo-Nazis, or next generation crusaders. When you are starting to lose control over some of your so-called civilized modern-minded people, and if those people appear to use those so-called freedom of speech with solely hurting other people, you need to make a pause. Especially when the tension among religions follows a worsening trajectory.

And, coming from US, interesting that you mention those ideas. Especially when your country is a country that gives the biggest support to such despotic regimes for your sake, so that you can enjoy your freedom of speech in your country. And I don't think there were many critics of those politics, until the Sep. 11 attacks. So, it is not tyranny when those people are pushed towards that non-tolerating boundaries by the politics in your country (towards inhuman living conditions), but it is tyranny when the result your politics created in other countries is affecting your freedom of speech.

[Kamui4356]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

That is a stupid idea. What zhangquan says is right, everyone wants a slice of the pie but nobody is willing to pay for it.

Got to agree there. A unilateral dismantling of the US nuclear arsenal would be disasterous for preventing nuclear proliferation. Maybe Russia would in turn reduce their stockpile a bit, but no one else would, and nations without nukes like Japan would now see a need for their own nukes and fast, setting off an arms race with China. The US might not have nukes any more, but in the end a lot more nations would.

I would say, keep the arsenal there, just in case of an alien invasion. Even if we get wiped out, at least those grays get hit by the best of the most primitive weapon we have.

While alien invasions are highly unlikely outside movies, tv, and anime, I'd be more worried abut needing a nuke to combat another threat from space, namely asteroids. While using a nuke to blow one up might make the problem worse, a chain of nukes, each detonated a bit of a distance away, could change its course away from earth.

[Shadow Kira01]

Originally Posted by WanderingKnight

Better start by destroying all of your own nukes, right?

Hypocrite.

Not exactly.. It is true that the United States led by Obama would like to abolish nuclear weaponry but it is actually impossible to do so, when other nations, some of which are actually aggressive to the United States won't cooperate. Unless, everybody start to schedule an international date in which everyone abolishes nukes, it cannot be done successfully.

We cannot push the United States to abolish nukes, when China is increasing the number of nukes they are making, while Iran are currently testing to make some successful nukes. North Korea is trying to improve their nuclear capabilities. Russia, on the other hand has 600 more nukes than the United States at a number of 2800. If the United States suddenly declares that their nation will abolish nukes, it would only mean disadvantage to their national security, not mentioning a severe tarnish of their military influence, as well as political influence since they will no longer be capable of utilizing the idea of "mutually-assured destruction" to prevent a war involving nukes. Thus, I support the abolishment of nukes yet I can understand that the United States cannot do so, unless every other nation supports the same ideal and are willing to cooperate in making a world free of nukes.

[SaintessHeart]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

You need to be blind to not see the hatred among a non-negligible portion of the western people towards Islam (vice versa). Some may appear in the form of the cartoonists in Denmark, that may have started drawing with the sole intention of insulting other people, people they see not equal to them, or at the level of slaves. Some (who may or may not be drawn in to such insulting critics) may go beyond that and appear in the form of Neo-Nazis, or next generation crusaders. When you are starting to lose control over some of your so-called civilized modern-minded people, and if those people appear to use those so-called freedom of speech with solely hurting other people, you need to make a pause. Especially when the tension among religions follows a worsening trajectory.

And, coming from US, interesting that you mention those ideas. Especially when your country is a country that gives the biggest support to such despotic regimes for your sake, so that you can enjoy your freedom of speech in your country. And I don't think there were many critics of those politics, until the Sep. 11 attacks. So, it is not tyranny when those people are pushed towards that non-tolerating boundaries by the politics in your country (towards inhuman living conditions), but it is tyranny when the result your politics created in other countries is affecting your freedom of speech.

I would say that the Denmark comic controversy is seriously overblown. The cartoonist had the right to draw, yes but he should have put it forward at a clearer way so it doesn't draw fire and misunderstanding. Also, the people who slammed the comics in the name of their religion are no different from a group of 6-year-olds fighting over their share of a cake. It would be better if anyone who denounced it as an insult to their god, then threaten all cartoonists in general, to be shot and buried 6 feet under, and that cartoonist should be hung from his feet from the Empire State building for a month.

Controversies such as these often make me question the sanctity of life : so those who do not believe in what you do should not have the right to live? So there can be only one model of thought, and people who don't adhere should die?

There is no real value to life in modern society. Nobody cares what others believe in anymore, so long that they do not share the same thought, the person is an enemy of your group of believers. That is probably why wars never end! If only we are willing to accept each other for our differences, the world would be a better place. Since we have inflexible minds such as the Taleban, and manipulative ones of the politicians and religious leaders, I propose 3 enforcements for world peace.

1. Ban religion. Nobody is allowed to practice religion.
2. All resistance are not to be enslaved, but rather used as test subjects for the betterment of the human race.
3. Excesses of subjects are to be killed, then their bodies are to be made into fertiliser for agriculture. After all, recycling is one of the keys to a better world.

Would you like it? I don't mind.

[Hage-bai]

Originally Posted by Fipskuul

You need to be blind to not see the hatred among a non-negligible portion of the western people towards Islam (vice versa). Some may appear in the form of the cartoonists in Denmark, that may have started drawing with the sole intention of insulting other people, people they see not equal to them, or at the level of slaves. Some (who may or may not be drawn in to such insulting critics) may go beyond that and appear in the form of Neo-Nazis, or next generation crusaders. When you are starting to lose control over some of your so-called civilized modern-minded people, and if those people appear to use those so-called freedom of speech with solely hurting other people, you need to make a pause. Especially when the tension among religions follows a worsening trajectory.

And, coming from US, interesting that you mention those ideas. Especially when your country is a country that gives the biggest support to such despotic regimes for your sake, so that you can enjoy your freedom of speech in your country. And I don't think there were many critics of those politics, until the Sep. 11 attacks. So, it is not tyranny when those people are pushed towards that non-tolerating boundaries by the politics in your country (towards inhuman living conditions), but it is tyranny when the result your politics created in other countries is affecting your freedom of speech.

Ah yes, the denmark cartoonists and those infamous cartoons (some of which were fabricated by immams themselves to generate false anger.) Face it, someone somewhere is insulted if you take any sort of political stance. The artists stance is clearly that islam and current western culture are incompatible (imo very valid.) When islamic countries stop printing things about other ideological/religious groups as they have done for years, I may give a shit.

I will pay attention to these islamic dictatorships in the hijacked human rights council when they practice what they preach..religous tolerance. Give me a few churches in Saudi somebody as a fair trade for that megamosque thats going to lie in London.

Ah yes, those poor 9/11 whackos, pushed to desperation by their growing anger because of events in Palestine etc. Guess what, a little meddling here and there is nothing in comparison to their lust for a global ummah, the true goal of the fanatics.

[Sazelyt]

Originally Posted by SaintessHeart

I would say that the Denmark comic controversy is seriously overblown. The cartoonist had the right to draw, yes but he should have put it forward at a clearer way so it doesn't draw fire and misunderstanding.

I guess, a better way to say, unless these cartoonists are overly ignorant of Islam, they knew what they were doing. They could have also published cartoons showing a hateful leader of the 2nd world war as a God that the religion he preyed on believes in, or maybe showing another Prophet, for the religion that is surrounded by controversies, having sex with a minor, etc. Expect to see powerful reactions to those too. Just because you have freedom of speech does not mean you have every right to insult another, and especially if that is done with the sole intent of doing that. Just an example, but if you know that a group of members in a community are going to be executed if you draw cartoons that will trigger that. That time, do you continue to do that using freedom of speech, or should you be stopped to prevent that?

There is no real value to life in modern society. Nobody cares what others believe in anymore, so long that they do not share the same thought, the person is an enemy of your group of believers. That is probably why wars never end!

And that is why one's freedom of speech does not equal to another's.

Originally Posted by Hage-bai

I will pay attention to these islamic dictatorships in the hijacked human rights council when they practice what they preach..religous tolerance. Give me a few churches in Saudi somebody as a fair trade for that megamosque thats going to lie in London.

That kind of grouping, I believe, is not fair. Many people living in those dictatorships suffer more than you can imagine. And, in many cases, there is nothing those people can do, because the governments of those freedom-lovers all around the world support those dictatorships. And, those people may be the ones that would show tolerance towards another religions, but of course cannot do anything because of the consequences. If you start hurting those people, it will only help you strengthen those dictatorships, by giving them the argument they need to limit that tolerance. And in the current religiously polarized world I doubt that is something you would want to encourage.