Ancient Ruins destroyed

RetiredGreyFox · 7 Mar 2015 at 17:34

sand_dune said:
S
Smashing my face up is definitely going to help the discussion and give you an upper hand. What's better than smash up some "hateful" people's faces?

but you were the one who said it was OK to smash things up if it was inappropriate.
Make your mind up.

sand_dune · 7 Mar 2015 at 17:42

Dimple said:
but you were the one who said it was OK to smash things up if it was inappropriate.
Make your mind up.

If you think my suggestion that a democratic country issues a law disallowing certain religious practices is the same like smashing my face in it becomes obvious how hopeless and incompetent you are at any sort of an intelligent conversation. Or any sort of conversation really. I hope they keep you chained up.

Nitefly · 7 Mar 2015 at 17:44

Come out with a comment that make no sense.

Wildly lash out at anyone who comments.

Win hearts and minds.

.....

Profit.

Castiel · 7 Mar 2015 at 17:54

sand_dune said:
That's irony, sorry you got confused.

I'm not confused. I suspect it's more like stupidity than irony.

RetiredGreyFox · 7 Mar 2015 at 17:56

sand_dune said:
If you think my suggestion that a democratic country issues a law disallowing certain religious practices

It isn't a democratic country though doing the damage is it?
It is Islamic State invading and destroying stuff.

So if I invade your house and smash your face, even though neither belong to me, then by your rules it is OK.

RDM · 7 Mar 2015 at 17:58

Mr Jack said:
We left both Iraq and Afghanistan too early. We should have stayed until the job was done; we didn't.

We hadn't really defined what the job was or how it could be achieved. Not that I have a say but I wouldn't support military action unless we had an achievable end goal and the ability to meet it.

Tefal · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:03

sand_dune said:
You(we) killed 1 million Iraqis for no reason whatsoever. .

no we didn't.

Iraqis killed **** loads of other Iraqis though, the west killed hardly anyone in comparison.

but please show me the evidence coalition force killed 1 million Iraqis.

Tefal · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:05

AndyT said:
I thought they were trashing all these sites as they contain statues/images of people from history which they consider idolatry and a slight on Muhammad. Either way, awful idiots.

Bit weird as they base their interpretation of Islam on Wahhabism, peddled by the Saudis, who's leaders have absolutely no problems putting pictures of themselves all over the place.

actually they're selling anything they an if the smugglers don't buy it through then they smash it.

sand_dune · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:11

Castiel said:
I'm not confused. I suspect it's more like stupidity than irony.

Please explain. How exactly creating a word "talibanians" to describe remote and undeveloped group of people including women and children not just active members of Taliban and avoid such expressions like "members of Taliban" or "everyone who lives in Taliban occupied territories" makes me stupid?

Because If you can't, you still are confused and become stupid too.

sand_dune · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:17

Dimple said:
It isn't a democratic country though doing the damage is it?
It is Islamic State invading and destroying stuff.

So if I invade your house and smash your face, even though neither belong to me, then by your rules it is OK.

It's not some kind of a dictator is it? These "terrorists" are the same people that were starting uprisings in every of the affected countries (like Libya, Egypt, Syria). They all were called democratic by the West and they all agree on what they all are doing. Therefore I can call it a democracy. You have no definition of them at all and again are focused around smashing my face. Because you are a very amusing but simple person. But I commend your attempts at key bashing.

sand_dune · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:24

RDM said:
We hadn't really defined what the job was or how it could be achieved. Not that I have a say but I wouldn't support military action unless we had an achievable end goal and the ability to meet it.

So either there was no reason to go in in the first place and we just are in the wrong.

Or we went there and achieved the aims, like grabbing the oil, which was successfully done. Staging training exercises for the army and the huge budget of US army. And it's fine to kill a million or three along the way.

Churchill wanted to kill a lot more, just because he felt like it, by nuking the Russians before they got their own Abomb.

RetiredGreyFox · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:26

sand_dune said:
It's not some kind of a dictator is it? These "terrorists" are the same people that were starting uprisings in every of the affected countries (like Libya, Egypt, Syria). They all were called democratic by the West and they all agree on what they all are doing. Therefore I can call it a democracy. You have no definition of them at all and again are focused around smashing my face. Because you are a very amusing but simple person. But I commend your attempts at key bashing.

Islamic State do not own the countries, how can you not see this?

Let's give you another analogy since you are confused by the face smashing.
I enter your home, is it now my home?
Well it is by your ideology.
Now because I don't like technology I now smash your computer up because you will be OK with that because I now own your home and everything in it.

sand_dune · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:27

Tefal said:
no we didn't.

Iraqis killed **** loads of other Iraqis though, the west killed hardly anyone in comparison.

but please show me the evidence coalition force killed 1 million Iraqis.

Yes you did. Hussein was blamed for "unlawfully" killing some hundreds or so of his citizens-prisoners (I don't know the exact number) and his country was a "normal" dictatorship, without any mass murders. Then west went in, bam million dead.

Should I mention 2 million dead in Vietnam? Some people may hate Asian food, but killing 2 million food farmers, why?

wazza300 · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:29

don't these people have anything better to do other than destroy ancient monuments?

cant they get a nice hobby or something? other than being brainwashed by religion?

RDM · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:31

sand_dune said:
Yes you did. Hussein was blamed for "unlawfully" killing some hundreds or so of his citizens-prisoners (I don't know the exact number) and his country was a "normal" dictatorship, without any mass murders. Then west went in, bam million dead.

Should I mention 2 million dead in Vietnam? Some people may hate Asian food, but killing 2 million food farmers, why?

I don't think Tefal killed anyone.

You are coming across as somewhat erratic btw, jumping all over the place and I am not entirely sure what your point is, if you even have one.

RetiredGreyFox · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:34

RDM said:
I don't think Tefal killed anyone.

You are coming across as somewhat erratic btw, jumping all over the place and I am not entirely sure what your point is, if you even have one.

He actually sounds like he's an IS sympathiser.

sand_dune · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:36

Dimple said:
Islamic State do not own the countries, how can you not see this?

Let's give you another analogy since you are confused by the face smashing.
I enter your home, is it now my home?
Well it is by your ideology.
Now because I don't like technology I now smash your computer up because you will be OK with that because I now own your home and everything in it.

You like the technology, therefore you won't smash the computer. I am done answering you. It's a waste of time.

RetiredGreyFox · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:38

sand_dune said:
You like the technology, therefore you won't smash the computer. I am done answering you. It's a waste of time.

Yes I will, I have invaded your country, it is now mine and everything in it belongs to me.
I will smash whatever I want and you will agree with it because you said so.

Destination · 7 Mar 2015 at 18:46

Dimple said:
He actually sounds like he's an IS sympathiser.

Apologist perhaps.
...and to correct something he said earlier, IS were not the people starting the revolutions in each of the states, far from it. Some of them may have been involved, but the vast majority of those in the various uprisings including Syria want nothing to do with IS. They didn't up rise from one dictatorship to live under Wahhabi rule. Far from it.

Castiel · 7 Mar 2015 at 19:00

sand_dune said:
Please explain. How exactly creating a word "talibanians" to describe remote and undeveloped group of people including women and children not just active members of Taliban and avoid such expressions like "members of Taliban" or "everyone who lives in Taliban occupied territories" makes me stupid?

Because If you can't, you still are confused and become stupid too.

Because The Taliban are an Islamic Political Movement, not an ethnic group. You can be a member of The Taliban like you can be a member of The Army. Or The Police Force...the Taliban do not include women and children simply by association to extant members...they retain their original ethnic or national identity, be it Afghan, Pashtun, Pakistani or otherwise.

Aside from this, etymologically and given the rules governing English, the word Talibanian simply doesn't exist no matter how much you might want it to. The term is Pashto for "Students", so it is already plural as Taliban, in Arabic the singular would be Talib, but In English the term has dual singular and plural properties.

Using your term would be like saying a group of Students are called Studentians...which is demonstrably and patently ridiculous.

So there is your explanation, unreservedly demonstrating that I am neither confused or stupid.