Bombs over Boston

Discussion in 'General Discussion Forum' started by mobucks, Apr 15, 2013.

  1. BonusWaffle

    BonusWaffle Still Mildly Glowing

    244
    Mar 6, 2013
    If only it were possible. Diplomacy is just giving away your resources in order to delay war. Any world without violence would have horrific oppression because the people in power would have no fear of retaliation. Violence is an integral and inescapable part of our nature and the usa has just as much right to open military bases as al qaeda does to blow them up.
     
  2. Arden

    Arden Still Mildly Glowing

    250
    Feb 26, 2010
    Really? Me too? It's my nature isn't it?

    Civilized behaviour consists partly in overcoming the "human nature" wich is actually more the animal nature. That's what states are about ultimately: providing order and security so we aren't at each others throat all the time and problems get solved in a non-violent matter. It escapes me why this should not apply to governments. Those consist of people after all.

    If I resort to violence to solve my problems I am justly fingered as an antisocial violent fuckwit with no self-control and a lack of empathy. But if governments behave like that, it's ok and in accord with their "nature"?
     
  3. BonusWaffle

    BonusWaffle Still Mildly Glowing

    244
    Mar 6, 2013
    Individuals are able to stop killing each other precisely because governments do that for them. If you look at every successful powerful country with a high quality of life and scientific advances you will see that they have a long history of violence (or alliances with countries that do, similar to pilot fish).
     
  4. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    still war should never be the first option. Its the ultima ratio. But as we have seen in the past, most politicans think its the other way.

    thats why I said IF possible. I am not naive. I know that its a pipe dream to believe it could be always avoided.

    But, to say this, I am pretty sure, if we look at at least the last 100 years, most of the "conflicts" we saw, could have been avoided, and its also pretty obvious that many of those conflicts had a negative effect on both parties - just look at vietnam, both the South and North have been destroyed and the US did not achieved any of their targets. And that all becaues of the Gulf of Tonkin Incident, which as we know today was false. The korean war literaly just ensured the "status quo", but thousands if not millions of lifes have been destroyed. The Soviets in Afghanistan had to retreat and left the nation in ruins. And many Soviet soldiers traumatized.

    Many of the conflicts we have seen in the past have been one way or another driven by economical reasons or simple power game.

    Seriously. There are not many conflicts where you could say the end justifies the means.
     
  5. Cimmerian Nights

    Cimmerian Nights So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Aug 20, 2004
    I think every country that has ever been liberated from imperial rule through conflict would disagree. Start by asking any Asian country under Imperial Japanese rule.
     
  6. Crni Vuk

    Crni Vuk M4A3 Oldfag oTO Orderite

    Nov 25, 2008
    I never said there are no exceptions. Its a very complicated matter. But many people agree, that wars have to be avoided if possible. Because imagine that, if Britain would have decided to stay home instad of ruling over China or India, they would have never lost it in the first place!

    What I mean are conflicts like Afghanistan (Soviet conflict), or Vietnam, Korean war, etc. People fighting for independence because of occupation happens usually because they lost a war before. its not like Japan was ruling over China since China was created. China lost many of the battles against Japan and Japan became the super power in Asia believing they wold be the superior race with the birthright to rule over all of Asia, they have been the Nazis of Asia to speak so. And the same is true for many other nations when they start wars and occupy territory because they feel superior.

    Its not like I do not see the need of conflicts. Just as how it happens sometimes that you have to defend your self, in your job, at school, or because a drunk guy has this urge to beat you. Then you HAVE to fight. Thats a difference. Because you dont have any options left, you are forced in to it.

    But in general people try to teach others to actually stay calm, not trying to get in to fighting and violance, because something like that is always dangerous for both parties. You will rather shout at your coworker then beat him, and you will rather try to reason with him then shout and so on. Strange enough, those principles of "living" together in our life are thrown out of the window as soon you get in to world politics. Because there are a lot of twisted rules at work here. For example one where the strong nations push the weak nations around. The sad part is that what societies have doesnt exist in politics. Laws. They tried to create a lot of regulations, a lot of contracts, all that. But those actually only have an meaning if there is actually an punishment that works. And history has proven that with strong opponents like the UDSSR and the USA those mean nothing. If one side starts nuclear tests again what is the world going to do now? or if the US simply decides to still manufacture mines, despite that they are "outlawed"? Exactly. Laws, only count for the loosers in politics.

    Thats the reason why Kissinger gets a price and can retire in the US and someone like Milosovic had to face a trial in Den Hag for war crimes and such. For example the difference between Putin and Saddam is that Putin has the weapons Saddam only talked about. That makes Putin an "politican" and Saddam an crazy maniac that killed innocent people. When Putin is doing that, then its called fighting islamic terrorism in Chechnya. If Saddam had really nuclear weapons for example they would have said that Saddam was not killing inocent Civilians, he was hunting down kurdish terrorists. Just as how it is right now with China and the Uyghur people, where they paint someone like Rebiya Kadeer and her family as "terrorists". But do you see the US or Europe jump on China for that? Sure not. Becaues our nobel "rulers" damn well know, that a war with China might earn them a blody nose. And you dont attack someone that can fight back with nuclear weapons.

    But see, in society, the government and the police, in the ideal case, put everyone on "even" ground. Of course money, power etc. is changing many things here as well, but for the "common" man it at least creates this feeling that we all are "equal" in the eyes of justice.

    Many of the wars we have seen in history though could have been avoided. Wars where the situation was not clear for either side, like the Korean war. Or when foreign forces "occupy" territory in the name of "liberation" and "freedom". This was used many times by many different forces to justify their actions. Including the USA - See Vietnam for that matter.

    People defending their homes and own nation have an clear advantage as far as the morale and the location goes. But those situations are many times the REACTION to violance or because someone lost a war here already.
     
  7. BonusWaffle

    BonusWaffle Still Mildly Glowing

    244
    Mar 6, 2013
    Its about influence. The excuses the government makes for it make me sick (yeah, right, we are "helping" the people), but i dont deny the usefulness of influence over the world. Most countries arent going to go against your wishes when you have a military base on their border. Veitnam was not exactly worth it for france or the us, afghanistan wasnt worth it for the soviets, but the us does have a substantial presence in the middle east and asia, as well as a foothold on chinas doorstep (south korea) which gives them a very big advantage over other nations. The morality of proxy wars for influence is as irrelevant as the morality of a lion hunting a gazelle, the usefulness of them is not.
     
  8. mobucks

    mobucks As a goof Orderite

    May 22, 2010
    Crni you give me an boner.
     
  9. Ilosar

    Ilosar Vault Fossil

    Apr 20, 2010
    Not to mention the US's own record regarding bombing civilians ain't exactly spotless. They killed hundreds of thousands of those during WW2, along with the Brits. Also a lot during the Vietnam War, because apparently the smell of napalm in the morning is lovely enough to justify burning people alive. And again in Irak, can you say white phosphorus?
     
  10. SimpleMinded

    SimpleMinded Vault Fossil

    Jun 17, 2003
  11. SmartCheetah

    SmartCheetah It Wandered In From the Wastes

    182
    Feb 23, 2009
    A shame, really. Too bad things like that happen to innocent bystanders(To anyone, really :/). Still, so called "terrorism" doesnt strike me so much, as eg. public executions in places like Nigeria, Kenya and other SA countries. >.> Seriously, getting burned alive for being accused of "witchcraft" or other stupid stuff in XXI century...? But yeah, that's another topic.

    Can't tell shit about people who did this thing tho'. Photos are really confusing. Maybe they were muslims, or maybe it wasn't relligious matter at all? Probably the actual investigation will tell. Guy with the white cap looks pretty caucasian and non-muslim to me, to be honest.
     
  12. TheWesDude

    TheWesDude Sonny, I Watched the Vault Bein' Built!

    Feb 25, 2005
    suspect #1 is dead by GSW, and #2 escaped police.

    these pictures are why you spend the extra money for good cameras.

    all i see is blurry person #1, and blurry person #2.
     
  13. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    So it appears they're Chechens who moved to the USA half a decade ago.

    Chechen terrorists in the US. That is weird.
     
  14. Jebus

    Jebus Background Radiant
    Orderite

    Jan 29, 2004
    US terrorists in Chechnya would be even weirder.
     
  15. valcik

    valcik So Old I'm Losing Radiation Signs

    Dec 20, 2008
    They are from Dagestan. Probably some refugees from the second Chechen war, trained in one of Afghan training camps and hired as a mercenaries.
     
  16. Guiltyofbeingtrite

    Guiltyofbeingtrite Vault Dweller

    751
    Oct 13, 2008
    It seems like their parents were refugees. Being that one brother, now dead, is 26 and the other 19 I wonder if they were "radicalized" by others.
     
  17. Mad Max RW

    Mad Max RW Mildly Dipped

    520
    Jan 12, 2004
    So it looks like trying to blame the bombings on white pro-gun American conservative Christians didn't pan out again. I'm sure people will continue singing that same tired song, though. Never give up pushing your agenda. MSNBC and Michael Moore I'm looking at you.
     
  18. Sander

    Sander This ghoul has seen it all
    Staff Member Admin Orderite

    Jul 5, 2003
    NBC is reporting they'd been in the country for a decade, so your second point seems like a hasty conclusion.

    No one relevant was trying to blame "white pro-gun American conservative Christians" (certainly not 'again'). So you can feel all indignant and cynical, but you're attacking a strawman.

    Premature jumping to conclusions on any side is unjustified and cannot be vindicated by the result.
     
  19. Mad Max RW

    Mad Max RW Mildly Dipped

    520
    Jan 12, 2004
    Did you watch MSNBC at all this week?
     
  20. Guiltyofbeingtrite

    Guiltyofbeingtrite Vault Dweller

    751
    Oct 13, 2008
    Last time I checked nobody on NMA worked for MSNBC. And if you want to single out MSNBC, include CNN and Fox News for their reports of suspects being arrested before it happened