This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
Messages - Winy
Pages: 1 ... 525354 5556 ... 106
1591
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:28:14 PM »
wow winy this isnt the bragging thread
But I have to put down the stereotype that all Bronies were and still are doomed to be social pariahs and weird. Don't you see the glorious justice?
1592
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:26:22 PM »
I mean I was a Brony four years ago but now I'm fucking jacked, so there must be a correlation.
lmao you're not jacked, get the fuck out of here
When was the last time you saw a picture of me shirtless?
you have muscles--you're not jacked
bodybuilders are jacked
Well, the vast majority of people who've judged my physique seem to classify me as "Jacked," but I suppose the word has leeway.
1593
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:18:58 PM »
I mean I was a Brony four years ago but now I'm fucking jacked, so there must be a correlation.
lmao you're not jacked, get the fuck out of here
When was the last time you saw a picture of me shirtless?
1594
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:18:01 PM »
There's a stark difference between being a "Social Justice Warrior" and having the very reasonable expectation that people talk to you respectively.
1595
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:16:46 PM »
I mean I was a Brony four years ago but now I'm fucking jacked, so there must be a correlation.
1596
« on: December 02, 2015, 10:03:49 PM »
The angrier people get at Muslims because of acts of terror
This phenomenon doesn't even exist; Muslims became more popular in the wake of 9/11 in the U.S. and Charlie Hebdo in France. Westerners, believe it or not, are capable of nuanced thought.
As far as I'm aware, contempt towards the Islamic community increases whenever this sort of attack happens. I honestly just don't believe you, because everything I read and observe suggests otherwise.
1597
« on: December 02, 2015, 06:58:04 PM »
Media coverage, for example, only promotes the idea that ISIS is a legitimate state The only thing that can be gathered from that statement is "Media covering paints the idea that ISIS is a state." Literally nothing is said about how to defeat ISIS. Ultimately, reactions of the public are what allow for ISIS to thrive. I already revised that part and put "A large percentage of" to clarify that it is not the entire reason ISIS can thrive. And I still think largely I'm right. You can't have terrorism without fear. Sorry bub. Take away the fear, take away their legitimacy, and the group will die out. I remain firmly convinced that this statement is completely true. Remove the properties of successful terrorism to suppress the appeal people have to terrorists? Who would've thought? We're done with this conversation. Good luck with the essay. I mean I got a 96 on my midterm so I'm probably gonna score fantastic on this one, too.
1598
« on: December 02, 2015, 06:38:14 PM »
Because you go on to say that removing that legitimacy (gained by the media) will cause them to die out, No, I don't. The removal of their legitimacy is mentioned before I take any note of media coverage. Media coverage is not written in as what allows for them to gain notoriety, it's put in as an extension of what perpetuates it in the West. At no point, at all, do I state "The media ceasing coverage of ISIS will cause them to die out." Nowhere. To put it bluntly, that entire section of your essay you quoted is just riddled with falsehoods. It's not. Granted, I should have expected this from taking a random chunk out of my essay and throwing it in, but many people in this thread have repeatedly made their own assumptions about the purposes and intentions behind some of the things that are written, and I'm saying this even acknowledging that they're out of context.
1599
« on: December 02, 2015, 06:25:35 PM »
Take away the fear, take away their legitimacy, and the group will die out. This is 100% correct. And it's done in more ways than "Ignoring them." But you wouldn't know that, would you? Considering you read two paragraphs of the essay. Removing the legitimacy of an organization such as ISIS does disallow for them to appeal to young and frustrated Muslims. Media coverage, for example, only promotes the idea that ISIS is a legitimate state How is that wrong, and how does it imply anything about ignoring ISIS to the point of extinction? If the group is no longer formally recognized, and are seen as foolish or insignificant, then the supposedly glamorous caliphate that they declare will sunk further and further into illegitimacy, losing its appeal to potential recruits Note that I don't say that ISIS will magically disappear. I say it will cause it to lose its appeal to potential recruits. Which is 100% correct. Ultimately, reactions of the public are what allow for ISIS to thrive. They do. But I'll give you that it would've been more correct to write that they're a "Significant" amount of what allows for ISIS to thrive. Edit made to my essay.
1600
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:57:05 PM »
Maybe it's not what you think now, but it's what you've said repeatedly. If we stopped showing ISIS in the media or talking about them on a national scale, they wouldn't give a fuck. In fact, turning a blind eye to them would probably embolden them even more. None of those quotes remotely imply that I believe ignoring ISIS in its entirety will solve the problem. You can't read at a ninth-grade level if you think otherwise, sorry. I made it very clear, many times, that I believe that these are methods that can be used effectively to diminish the legitimacy of a terrorist organization such as ISIS, and that conventional methods of war are less effective than many of us believe them to be in this situation. I would say "Stop twisting what I'm saying," but you really didn't twist anything-- You just read everything I said completely incorrectly and then made a baseless accusation against what you believe is my position. Try harder.
1601
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:41:21 PM »
They aren't "An assumption." It clearly is unless you've learned to predict the future.
Calling it an "Assumption" trivializes the concept of being able to rather accurately predict what will happen later on. If it helps you sleep at night, call it that. I really don't care. I'm not bothered very much by the fact that I don't have a crystal ball. Yeah no shit that's what they want. That's what every single radical group in existence wants, that's what radicalism is. It's still going to spread if we don't directly intervene with ISIS.
Tell me, should we have not intervened with the Nazis? Irrelevant comparison. Nazism was a political ideology, ISIS operates off of religious extremism. One is much more easy to put down than the other, and neither are particularly similar in the ways by which they function on a psychological level. Plus, the geopolitical situation in Germany was profoundly different than what's going on in the Middle East.
1602
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:28:48 PM »
I concur that's why we need troops on the ground, rather than salting the earth of the people that live there, but you've given indication in this thread that you're against that too. I really haven't. People have been perpetually misrepresenting my posts since this discussion started. Paying attention to what I've said so far, it's very clear that the majority of my criticisms of "Conventional warfare methodology" is exclusively in reference to bombs. That being said, I would prefer armed conflict be kept to a minimum. The 50 are a guarantee the 200 are an assumption. I'd keep that in mind when answering that. They aren't "An assumption." They're a very well-rounded estimation for the success of unconventional, public tactics for defending against acts of terror, and destroying the fighting force that ISIS is attempting to expand. Once again, I'm going to post a direct quote from an ISIS member: "We wish to expose the weakness of America’s centralized power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and war by proxy until it fights directly." ISIS wants war. Don't give it to them. Giving into rage is what the organization is striving to draw out of the United States public.
1603
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:22:42 PM »
You heard it here folks, if we stop reporting about ISIS they'll just go away.
That's not what I'm saying, and pretty dissimilar from anything I've said at all.
1604
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:19:15 PM »
So Winy you would trade not intervening with ISIS directly in hopes of suppressing their spread in return for allowing them to continue their atrocities upon the civilian population they hold?
How can you live with that on your conscience?
I'm not completely against direct intervention. But I am against the usage of bombing methods as the primary way of handling the threat of the Islamic State. In my opinion, people severely underestimate the damage that air raids can do. This is my entire point. Bombs are a shitty way of dealing with this. The growing anti-Muslim sentiment in the United States and other nations needs to go away, and I believe that the accomplishment of this goal will yield surprisingly better results in mitigating ISIS as a threat than many anticipate. Let refugees in, promote acceptance and understanding, and drop the anti-Islam attitude. This war can't be successfully fought only with weaponry. And to answer your last question, if I had to save fifty people right now, or 200 people in twenty years, I'd save the 200.
1605
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:12:37 PM »
Conventional warfare is inefficient at combating insurgency and plainclothes rebels or guerrilla fighters, as logic would dictate. These are not conventional enemies and operate within your own or your allies borders.
The Caliphate has its own borders. It has its own standing army. It has its own supply lines and convoys that travel beyond it's held territory. It is not an insurgency, it is a rogue state.
Yes, but the territories that it occupies are still the former property of other governments, and the civilians that live there. On top of that, innocent people are still held within these borders, and the influence of ISIS stretches beyond them. Continuously destroying these regions by bombing them will inevitably lead to civilian casualties, and destruction of civilian property. The issue with this way of solving the problem is that, while you've successfully killed all of your intended targets, you've instilled a sense of rage and frustration into the survivors. People who once were either neutral or sympathetic to the cause of the UN will likely end up despising them as a result of the wasteland they leave behind, and any lingering traces of extremist ideologies (And those will stay for a while) will eventually be used to mold this enmity into a brand new generation of jihadists and insurgents.
1606
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:07:26 PM »
Winy getting BTFO
Not at all.
1607
« on: December 02, 2015, 05:02:27 PM »
ISIS wants glory, and they want recognition; I'll go out on a limb here and draw parallels to what allows for fucked up kids to believe that shooting up a school is how they can remedy their lack of identity and depression. Take away the fear, take away their legitimacy, and the group will die out.
This is a monumentally wrong understanding of the motivations of ISIS.
This is a monumentally wrong misunderstanding of the point of that comparison. It's not just about motivation. It's about appeal. What makes terrorism be seen as a viable solution to the problem? Because then you get attention, glory, and can instill fear. The motivation of ISIS is to establish the caliphate. The means through which they seek to accomplish this goal is loosely comparable to psychological motivations behind other mass killings. And these methods contribute to attaining the goal of creating a Caliphate.
1608
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:59:45 PM »
I really just don't understand how you and others in this thread are getting the idea that terrorist groups exist for the sake of chaos, with no tangible goals like establishment of a caliphate, eradication of undesirable ethnic groups, and annexation of territory. Probably because none of us are saying that. Yes they yearn for legitimization, but that doesn't come from the media showing their victims or presidents declaring war on them, it comes from sovereign nations standing by with their thumbs up their asses, watching as they gain more and more ground. We sat by and watched ISIS grow from an insurgency to a standing army that pays its members, has established governments in conquered areas, and has active supply lines. Isolationism is insane.
Once again; nobody said anything about isolationism.
1609
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:58:30 PM »
So what's the answer? Because what I'm reading translates to "ignore them and they'll stop killing people"
That really isn't what's implied at all, and there's no way you'd really be able to pull any sort of greater solution out of the paper, considering you read one-tenth of it. The essay is a fairly equal split between why conventional tactics are inefficient, and then what unconventional, non-combat methods can be used to combat terrorism. ISIS wants glory, and they want recognition; I'll go out on a limb here and draw parallels to what allows for fucked up kids to believe that shooting up a school is how they can remedy their lack of identity and depression. Take away the fear, take away their legitimacy, and the group will die out. Not just through "Ignoring them," but that's quite a large part of it on the public's hands.
1610
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:51:37 PM »
These people are fucking insane; they blow themselves up constantly.
Yeah, the most devout and brainwashed of the footsoldiers who are mostly illiterate teens and twenty-somethings. Most insurgents don't explode. You can't hold ground when you're dead.
Leadership is scared shitless of actual boot-on-ground intervention for any superpower or coalition.
Their ideas aren't going to die with them, I hope you know that.
Well no shit, we still have neo-nazis.
Guess who has no fucking power in the world? The neo-nazis.
Because Neo-Nazi's didn't have sympathizers to any remotely significant degree.
1611
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:50:49 PM »
I'm gonna rip two paragraphs from my World Politics final essay, because one of the prompts was on whether or not conventional warfare tactics were effective against terrorism. The paper's eight pages long, but these two sections are some of the most relevant: Traditional methods of war have been demonstrated to be largely inefficient. The very treatment of ISIS and other terrorist groups as legitimate threats also contributes to their ego and motivation to continue acts of violence. Even the declaration of war against terrorism, in and of itself, is counterproductive to the goal of stopping it. As stated in The Nation, and following François Hollande declaring war on the Islamic State, “Actual states should not grant such legitimacy to small bands of violent criminals, and the deployment of the language and techniques of war is the best way to lose a campaign against them.” It is explained that France’s efforts to bomb targets in Syria will only further depict it and other UN members as ignorant and unconcerned for civilians, which will then provide ample opportunities for Jihadists to recruit victims of the conflict in dire need of a purpose and revenge. They will be “Groomed as heroes, as soldiers saving their people” (Juan Cole). Force cannot be used in a manner that will result in the destruction of targets who pose no threat, as this creates more threats in the future. This type of solution will contribute little to the greater purpose of eliminating ISIS and its influence from the world.
The destruction of their legitimacy, not only their forces, will see greater contributions to the eventual removal of the Islamic State from world affairs. The governments united against the threat of extremism may eventually favor a type of social rejection of the threat in favor of direct confrontation, which directly contributes to what fuels the fire of militant Jihadists. As quoted in The New York Review of Books, an ISIS member directly stated that the organization wishes to “Expose the weakness of America’s centralized power by pushing it to abandon the media psychological war and war by proxy until it fights directly.” Some of the responses towards the group’s actions, both militarily and socially, have catered to these wishes (Blog, Scott Atran and Nafees Hamid). Media coverage, for example, only promotes the idea that ISIS is a legitimate state, and one whose threats citizens must be weary of. Terrorism is defined as “The use of violence and threats to intimidate or coerce, especially for political purposes.” By removing the factors of intimidation and coercion, one can effectively kill the power associated with acts of terror— Ultimately, reactions of the public are what allow for ISIS to thrive. If the group is no longer formally recognized, and are seen as foolish or insignificant, then the supposedly glamorous caliphate that they declare will sunk further and further into illegitimacy, losing its appeal to potential recruits. The leaders of ISIS fear this perhaps more than any bombs that they can be killed by.
1612
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:45:46 PM »
These people are fucking insane; they blow themselves up constantly.
Yeah, the most devout and brainwashed of the footsoldiers who are mostly illiterate teens and twenty-somethings. Most insurgents don't explode. You can't hold ground when you're dead.
Leadership is scared shitless of actual boot-on-ground intervention for any superpower or coalition.
Their ideas aren't going to die with them, I hope you know that.
1613
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:41:06 PM »
The Islamic State's worst nightmare is a Desert Storm 2.
I'm convinced they fear a loss of glory and appeal more than bombs. These people are fucking insane; they blow themselves up constantly. Death isn't primarily what should be used to get rid of them. Ruin their legitimacy, ignore their actions, and let the appeal to young, frustrated Muslims die. There's not as strong of a point in continuing to drop bombs on an enemy that feeds off of reactions to armed warfare.
1614
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:37:41 PM »
i get the feeling it's going to be really shit
Why? Same creator as before, and it's on Adult Swim, so they can get away with blood n' stuff.
so it'll be jarring and inconsistent
Probably not. If the only addition is a slight increase in violence, then I don't see how that's a problem.
1615
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:23:22 PM »
Sex. How is this disgusting? Human beings. 💉🔪 💉🔪💉🔪edgy shit edgY sHit 🔪thats 🔫some edgy💉💉 shit right 🔪th🔪 ere💉💉💉 right there 🚬🚬if i do ƽaү so my selｆ 🔫i say so 🔫 thats what im talking about right there right there (chorus: ʳᶦᵍʰᵗ ᵗʰᵉʳᵉ) mMMMMᎷМ🔫 🔪🔪🔪НO0ОଠＯOOＯOОଠଠOoooᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒᵒ🔪🔪🔪 🔫 💉💉 🔪🔪 Edgy shit
1616
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:21:25 PM »
shitting on every Muslim on the planet
But we're not.
Tons of people do.
1617
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:15:51 PM »
When a dog eats poop it's because they have a deficiency in their diet.
If humans developed poop eating habits naturally then I would assume it would have had some kind of logical merit at the time... like your appendix.
I don't see how something having a logical basis prevents it from being disgusting. Everything has a logical basis--that doesn't mean some things aren't objectively disgusting.
Like what.
1618
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:14:05 PM »
Doesn't matter either way, honestly.
If ties are found, this proves that we need to be doing more to combat these factions.
Yes, like not shitting on every Muslim on the planet and encouraging more people to sympathize with extremist motivations.
1619
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:06:37 PM »
Why am I saying this, do we even know if they're Muslim?
Doesn't matter either way, honestly.
1620
« on: December 02, 2015, 04:06:12 PM »
The angrier people get at Muslims because of acts of terror, the more recruits ISIS has the capacity to gather.
Stop feeding into their psychological war strategies, they are literally banking on turning this into an Islam vs. All situation. Demonizing and stereotyping the Muslim community is the least productive thing we can do to prevent the spread and deter the appeal of ISIS. Everything they do is for the greater purpose of turning everybody against Islam so that they can garner sympathizers.
Pages: 1 ... 525354 5556 ... 106
|
Show Posts
