NationStates Jolt Archive

GHAZNI, Afghanistan - The Taliban agreed Tuesday to free 19 South Korean church volunteers held hostage since July after the government in Seoul agreed to end all missionary work and keep a promise to withdraw its troops from Afghanistan by the end of the year.

The Taliban originally seized 23 South Koreans, but have since killed two of the hostages and released two others. They had initially demanded the withdrawal of South Korean troops from the country and the release of prisoners in exchange for freeing the hostages.

Qari Yousef Ahmadi, a Taliban spokesman, said South Korean and Taliban delegates at face-to-face talks Tuesday in the central town of Ghazni had “reached an agreement” to free the captives.

Troop, missionary withdrawal agreed,
South Korean presidential spokesman Cheon Ho-sun said the deal had been reached “on the condition that South Korea withdraws troops by the end of year and South Korea suspends missionary work in Afghanistan,” he said.

Sources: Yahoo/AP/MSNBC/OccNEWS
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20473825/some encouraging news for the Korean s Families.

hope it goes tru.

Great, extortion by the Taliban...at least the families are safe, however. If only we hadn't screwed up by wasting manpower in Iraq, we could have annihilated the Taliban and prevented things like this from happening.

Good news?

Must be really good news for the families of the people the Taliban killed.

Good news?yes.
...


is it bad news for you?

yes.
...


is it bad news for you?


I don't celebrate extortion.

Do you?

Well, does this mean that dem ebul moslum turrirsts aren't exactly as ebul as we thought?

I mean, letting hostages go, after extorting the s. Korean gov't is such a great thing to do.. I say they are up for a nobel peace prize soon.:rolleyes:

I don't calibrate extortion.

Do you?No, whatever that means.

my question is still standing,
is it bad news for you?

No, whatever that means.

my question is still standing,
is it bad news for you?

Answer me this.

Where did Mohammad instruct the capture and killing on unarmed civilians?

Answer me this.

Where did Mohammad instruct the capture and killing on unarmed civilians?How the f*ck would I know? go read a Quran.. or go find yourself an Iman.. or something.

my question is still standing:
is it bad news for you?

How the f*ck would I know? go read a Quran.. or go find yourself an Iman.. or something.

my question is still standing:
is it bad news for you?


Agreements don't mean much. People make them and break them all the time. Never mind the fact, your heroes haven't freed them yet.

Agreements don't mean much... blah blah blah ...I have asked the very same question 3 times on a roll..

I give up.

I have asked the very same question 3 times on roll..

I give up.


Well slick it was answered. I can't help it if you don't want to hear it.

I mean, letting hostages go, after extorting the s. Korean gov't is such a great thing to do.. I say they are up for a nobel peace prize soon.:rolleyes:

Such generosity. I guess they were busy stoning women to death and torturing and hanging dissidents.

Agreements don't mean much. People make them and break them all the time. Never mind the fact, the Taliban haven't freed them yet.I say the Taliban will keep their word (and free the koreans).. If the Korean Gov keeps his word.

wanna bet?

I say the Taliban will keep their word (and free the koreans).. If the Korean Gov keeps his word.

wanna bet?

The Koreans were already slated to take their 200 troops out by that deadline, so yes, the Koreans will.

And I doubt anyone will be stupid enough to send Christian missionaries there again.

I think they're freeing the Koreans because this is the best they can get.

What you're missing is that the Taliban didn't get what they really wanted - freedom for their captured members.

I say the Taliban will keep their word (and free the koreans).. If the Korean Gov keeps his word.

wanna bet?

What really decent people. So why did they kill a couple captives then?

Oh well after they are free they can go back to stoning women again.

What really decent people. So why did they kill a couple captives then?

Because they think it's fun, and they like the way the other captives shit themselves when they do it.

yes.
...


is it bad news for you?

Yes as they are forced to withdraw their medical and support forces as well as stopping all missionary activities in the nation. Fuck you Republic of Korea.

What you're missing is that the Taliban didn't get what they really wanted - freedom for their captured members.

Which is the only good thing in all of this.

Yes as they are forced to withdraw their medical and support forces as well as stopping all missionary activities in the nation. Fuck you Republic of Korea.

You're missing the point. The Koreans were already slated to leave at this time.

It was planned a year ago - so no need for the "fuck you".

You're missing the point. The Koreans were already slated to leave at this time.

It was planned a year ago - so no need for the "fuck you".

acually, I can still say it because they negotiated with them. Does not matter if they planned to leave or not and you are still missing the fact that the RoK can not have missionaries in Afghanistan. The "fuck you" stands.

acually, I can still say it because they negotiated with them. Does not matter if they planned to leave or not and you are still missing the fact that the RoK can not have missionaries in Afghanistan. The "fuck you" stands.

You would have to be stupid to put missionaries in a war zone.

I think that this "agreement" gave the Taliban an "out" - apparently, their demand for the release of captured Taliban wasn't going to fly, and they felt they were getting negative publicity holding civilian hostages.

They needed someone to suggest a means of saving face.

Sometimes you need to give people an "out" so that the innocent hostages can live.

There's plenty of opportunity to kill these Taliban later - it's not like they are resigning their positions as Taliban and moving to West Palm Beach.

Agreements don't mean much. apparently for the Afghans they do mean something... as they are starting to set the Korean free.
GHAZNI, Afghanistan (AFP) - The Taliban freed 12 of their 19 South Korean captives on Wednesday as the wrenching six-week hostage crisis in Afghanistan neared resolution.

The Islamic extremist movement handed over 10 women and two men to tribal elders in three separate releases several hours apart outside the central town of Ghazni. The aid workers were then driven to safety in Red Cross vehicles.

International Committee of the Red Cross (ICRC) representative Greg Muller confirmed to AFP that 12 hostages had been released and taken to the Red Crescent Society offices in Ghazni, 140 kilometres (90 miles) south of Kabul.

"They seem after six weeks in detention very much relieved which is a natural reaction after an extremely stressful experience," Muller said.

"But physically they seem in good shape," he added

http://news.yahoo.com/s/afp/20070829/wl_asia_afp/afghanistanunrest_10;_ylt=AgghZYwNma5QvMH5UwK1yTys0NUE

apparently for the Afghans they do mean something... as they are starting to set the Korean free.

Wowwwwwwwwww 1 agreement. Wowwww that sure proved me wrong. :rolleyes:

Too bad they didn't get what they originally wanted.

Never mind the fact they murdered a couple of unarmed hostages.

Really decent people *nods*

.... a couple of unarmed hostages...is there any other kind?

Imagine this scenario: the Latest Gulfstream N44982 from eastern Europe landing @ Guantanamo.. the administrative officer comes to welcome the new arrival.. and gives the following instructions "the armed prisoners to the right wing, the unarmed ones to the Left wing"

FYI hostages are always kept unarmed
:D

is there any other kind?

Imagine this scenario: the Latest Gulfstream N44982 from eastern Europe landing @ Guantanamo.. the administrative officer comes to welcome the new arrival.. and gives the following instructions "the armed prisoners to the right wing, the unarmed ones to the Left wing"

FYI hostages are always kept unarmed
:D

HA! HA!

Yes as they are forced to withdraw their medical and support forces as well as stopping all missionary activities in the nation. Fuck you Republic of Korea.Its a tough call..

-To be honest- If I was the President of Korea.. I would probably handle it the same way.

Its a tough call..

-To be honest- If I was the President of Korea.. I would probably handle it the same way.

I would never negotiate with terrorists.

I would never negotiate with terrorists.
Then none of the missionaries would be coming home, and various NGOs would be too scared to come to Afghanistan any more, instead of South Korean missionaries not being legally allowed to go.

I would never negotiate with terrorists.would you negotiate with the 40s Nazi army?

would you negotiate with the 40s Nazi army?

Are we talking the straight German Army or the waffen SS?

Are we talking the straight German Army or the waffen SS?any army commanded by Hitler.

any army commanded by Hitler.

Again...are we talking about the actually military or his organizations such as the SS and the SA. Hitler (as the leader) is already head of all the military but if you bother to read up on history, even members in the military did not appreciate Hitler's micromanagement of the war.

So are we talking about the real military or their SS equivelents.

Again...are we talking about the actually military or his organizations such as the SS and the SA. Hitler (as the leader) is already head of all the military but if you bother to read up on history, even members in the military did not appreciate Hitler's micromanagement of the war.

So are we talking about the real military or their SS equivelents.:rolleyes:

If you want to complicate things.. I can help you ;)

The captured peps are being held by the SS Waffers.. but the officers that came to negotiate are the from regular Nazi army.

If you want to complicate things.. I can help you ;)

The captured peps are being held by the SS Waffers.. yet officers that came to negotiate are the from regular Nazi army.

You just answered your own question.

You just answered your own question. What????

err... so what was suposedly my answer :confused:

What????

err... so what was suposedly my answer :confused:

That we negotiated with the Regular Military.

That we negotiated with the Regular Military.the question is not what the US gov did or didnt.
The question is
What would You do?

I would never negotiate with terrorists.

the question is not what the US gov did or didnt.
The question is
What would You do?

Negotiate with the Regular Military.

(I would) Negotiate with the (Nazi army).see? that was not so difficult to answer...
The US Gov did negotiate with the Nazies.. just like you would.
Now lets go to the next level:
Lets say you are a General in the Nazi army.. Would you negotiate with the French resistance?

see? that was not so difficult to answer...
The US Gov did negotiate with the Nazi army.. just like you would.
Now lets go to the next level:
Lets say you are a General in the Nazi army.. Would you negotiate with the French resistance?

Ok let us get somethings straight since it is obvious you know jack shit about this subject.

1) It was called Nazi Germany and yes it was the Nazi Army though it was commonly reffered to as the Wehrmact...aka Army and the Luftwaffe (Air Force) and the Kreigsmarine (Navy) These names did not change under the rule of the NSDAP (Nazi Party)

Within the Nazi Party (Notice I said party) there were different organizations such as the SS and the SA (stormtroopers) They were seperate from the actual military structure with their own uniforms and under the command of Himmler and not the German High Command.

Are you understanding this lesson or do I have to go further?

see? that was not so difficult to answer...
The US Gov did negotiate with the Nazies.. just like you would.
Now lets go to the next level:
Lets say you are a General in the Nazi army.. Would you negotiate with the French resistance?

Nice edit. Why not put it back the way it was. As to the French Resistence, as they primarily went after the German Army, as any good insurgency goes after occupation troops, yes. I would negotiate with those people though who went after civilians who supported the German Army.

(...blah blah blah...) It was called Nazi (...blah blah blah...) yes it was the Nazi Army (...blah blah blah...) though it was commonly reffered to as the (...blah blah blah...) there were different organizations such as the (...blah blah blah...)They were seperate from the actual military structure with their own uniforms and (...blah blah blah...)wow I had no idea :rolleyes:.. its passionating ;)
.
Are you understanding this lesson or do I have to go further?please... go further :D

but before start telling us about the whole WWII.. just answer my simple question on post #40

as a General in the Nazi army.. Would you negotiate with the French resistance?

Yes as they are forced to withdraw their medical and support forces as well as stopping all missionary activities in the nation. Fuck you Republic of Korea.

Lets try that again. With American hostages this time. Lets see what you say to that Mr 101st Keyboarder.

Or better yet. Lets make YOU the hostage. We'll see what song you sing then.

wow I had no idea :rolleyes:.. its passionating ;)

nice editing of my post. You know that is against the rules?

as a General in the German army.. Would you negotiate with the French resistance?

Edit: Corrected for accuracy

As they primarily went after my military and not civilians, sure. After all, the French targeted the German Army with great pains to avoid mass civilian casualties and provided intel to the Allies, yes.

Nice edit. Why not put it back the way it was.there was spaces between the lines.. you like spaces? :confused:

As to the French Resistence...


yes. I would not negotiate with those people though who went after civilians who supported the German Army.Your answer is a bit of a clusterfuck..

Lets try that again. With American hostages this time. Lets see what you say to that Mr 101st Keyboarder.

Samething. I will not negotiate with terrorists.

Or better yet. Lets make YOU the hostage. We'll see what song you sing then.

The song I will sing is that I would tell the government the samething I am saying here. Do not worry about me. Continue with the mission. DO NOT NEGOTIATE for my release.

there was spaces beteween the lines.. you like spaces? :confused:

Your answer is a bit of a clusterfuck..

The word not should not have been in there. It has been deleted.

Samething. I will not negotiate with terrorists.

Of course. You'd say that because it's not your personal ass on the fire.


The song I will sing is that I would tell the government the samething I am saying here. Do not worry about me. Continue with the mission. DO NOT NEGOTIATE for my release.

Hah! Say's a 101st Keyboarder who advocates war but is too cowardly to sign up for it and manufactures all sorts of defunct excuses not to.

nice editing of my post. You know that is against the rules?there is a ruling on on moderation.. I went to the mods (Jocabia and some troll did edit my quotes) Kat said that if inside ()... it was not actionable.

BTW if they change the rule.. I would be supporting of such a change.

there is a Katganistan ruling on that thred where Jocbia was involved.. the ruling was that if it had to be inside () it was not against the rules.

I never agreed with that ruling.. so if they change the ruling.. I will be supporting of such a change.

Hopefully to never edit someone else's post.

Of course. You'd say that because it's not your personal ass on the fire.

I would say it even if it was.

Hah! Say's a 101st Keyboarder who advocates war but is too cowardly to sign up for it and manufactures all sorts of defunct excuses not to.

You asked me what I would say if my ass was on the line. I answered it.

I would say it even if it was.

You asked me what I would say if my ass was on the line. I answered it.

And I say that you're, as usual, lying. Your previous behavior is evidence enough to give the statement credence.

You're never willing to risk your personal ass, not even on 50/50 odds. In a hostage situation? Even more unlikely.

I would say it even if it was.

Yeah, I bet:rolleyes:

And I say that you're, as usual, lying. Your previous behavior is evidence enough to give the statement credence.

You're never willing to risk your personal ass, not even on 50/50 odds. In a hostage situation? Even more unlikely.

Now you are just moving things. That's ok. It is what you are good at. I'm done with you. If you cannot accept the fact that I answered your question with honesty without exhorting to moving goalposts to try to prove my answer wrong (which you can't without a polygraph test) then you are nothing.

Yeah, I bet:rolleyes:

Prove me wrong.

Now you are just moving things. That's ok. It is what you are good at. I'm done with you. If you cannot accept the fact that I answered your question with honesty without exhorting to moving goalposts to try to prove my answer wrong (which you can't without a polygraph test) then you are nothing.

I have outlined a scenario. You have given a HYPOTHETICAL answer without field testing of the scenario. Furthermore, your previous behavior indicates that your supposed answer is false, not as you called it "with honesty".

To get a true answer, it must be tested in the field, with the associated risks.

Your use of strawmen will not get you out of this. You have been proven to be a hypocrite of the highest order well before this thread ever came about. Bringing it to the fore now is a simple reminder of that.

What about those like me, who have advocated war, and have not only gone twice, but have killed and liked it?

Forget it RO. He asked me a direct question and I answered it with a direct answer and he had the gall to move the goal posts and claimed that my answer was false because I do not want to put on the uniform and he thinks that is cowardly of me to do so.

You can not have an intelligent conversation with people like those.

Hah! Say's a 101st Keyboarder who advocates war but is too cowardly to sign up for it and manufactures all sorts of defunct excuses not to.

What about those like me, who have advocated war, and have not only gone twice, but have killed and liked it?

What about those like me, who have advocated war, and have not only gone twice, but have killed and liked it?

I'd say your opinion is a tad more useful, due to experience, than the chickenhawks we find here all the time.

I'd say your opinion is a tad more useful, due to experience, than the chickenhawks we find here all the time.

It may also be noted that I don't always like the way that Bush has done the wars. Afghanistan started well, and now they've fucked that up. Iraq was a mistake - it might be said that the initial invasion went well, but knowing that a power vacuum would form, and that multiple parties with major hate towards each other would vie for power, there wasn't any plan at all for managing the outcome (personally, "a plan to win the peace" is a daft phrase), it's gotten fucked up beyond belief.

I think that on a military level at this point, there are signs that we could manage the insurgency - but that is treating the symptoms, not the disease. Allowing them to have a democracy at this point has only allowed them to formally enshrine their long standing hatred of each other. It would have been better to rule them and write their Constitution (as we did with Japan initially) and gradually hand power over to them.

It would have been better not to invade Iraq. But, if you MUST, then it's probably better to split the country into parts, and rule them for a few years before leaving.

Just invading, and thinking that "oh, everyone loves democracy" is naive.

Militaries are made for one thing - killing and conquest. They aren't any good at nationbuilding - if they are, then they suck as a military force.

I would add that invading a country, and thinking "we'll be home for Christmas this year" is ignorant - look at how long we stayed in Germany.

The Koreans were already slated to take their 200 troops out by that deadline, so yes, the Koreans will.

And I doubt anyone will be stupid enough to send Christian missionaries there again.

I think they're freeing the Koreans because this is the best they can get.

What you're missing is that the Taliban didn't get what they really wanted - freedom for their captured members.
I agree, I'd expect SK probably gave them an offer they couldn't refuse. A real deal, if you will. Something along the lines of, "You have two options here, either we fuck you, or you play our game. If you play our game you will lose no face, but if you don't we will fuck you." Either SK win Taliban wins, or SK wins Taliban loses.

I agree, I'd expect SK probably gave them an offer they couldn't refuse. A real deal, if you will. Something along the lines of, "You have two options here, either we fuck you, or you play our game. If you play our game you will lose no face, but if you don't we will fuck you." Either SK win Taliban wins, or SK wins Taliban loses.

The whole "losing face" thing is deeply engrained in eastern cultures.

I believe the SK negotiators understood this applied to the Taliban's motivations.

It appears to have worked. Apparently, Taliban don't want to go on record as the guys who shot unarmed women captives in the head - they realize now (and maybe not until now) that it plays badly.

The whole "losing face" thing is deeply engrained in eastern cultures.

I believe the SK negotiators understood this applied to the Taliban's motivations.

It appears to have worked. Apparently, Taliban don't want to go on record as the guys who shot unarmed women captives in the head - they realize now (and maybe not until now) that it plays badly. I sounds needlessly contrived, but I agree. One would expect such a scenario to be more contrived than necessary.
I was actually pondering last night as to what precisely was going through the head of the Taliban-guy who shoots the burqa clad women in the head in packed out soccer stadiums. What is he actually thinking, and feeling?

I sounds needlessly contrived, but I agree. One would expect such a scenario to be more contrived than necessary.
I was actually pondering last night as to what precisely was going through the head of the Taliban-guy who shoots the burqa clad women in the head in packed out soccer stadiums. What is he actually thinking, and feeling?

He probably believes he's doing the right thing, because he was raised with the idea that apostates and blasphemers and other violators of the faith are to be eliminated.

I think the first inkling that some of these people get that "maybe this is wrong" is when they are exposed to ideas outside of the country.

The Taliban are sensitive to how the press perceives them - they don't want people to think they are the bad guys - they see themselves as heroes and good guys. The outside idea that "shooting unarmed innocent women" is wrong is a new idea to them, and they seem to understand that it makes other people upset.

He probably believes he's doing the right thing, because he was raised with the idea that apostates and blasphemers and other violators of the faith are to be eliminated.

I think the first inkling that some of these people get that "maybe this is wrong" is when they are exposed to ideas outside of the country.

The Taliban are sensitive to how the press perceives them - they don't want people to think they are the bad guys - they see themselves as heroes and good guys. The outside idea that "shooting unarmed innocent women" is wrong is a new idea to them, and they seem to understand that it makes other people upset. So you'd say he'd be enthusiastic, or regretfully doing what he sees to be ultimately the best and only thing to do? Surely he wouldn't be happy about killing the woman, I'm fairly sure we have something of a universal guilt gene in that regard.

Hah! Say's a 101st Keyboarder who advocates war but is too cowardly to sign up for it and manufactures all sorts of defunct excuses not to.
IIRC he fought in Vietnam ;)

So you'd say he'd be enthusiastic, or regretfully doing what he sees to be ultimately the best and only thing to do? Surely he wouldn't be happy about killing the woman, I'm fairly sure we have something of a universal guilt gene in that regard.

Here's my take on killing and guilt:

People must have an ingrained, innate inhibition against killing others of their own kind (humans killing humans) or else we would have died out as a species long ago. You don't see wolves killing wolves that often, so they must have a similar inhibition. So let's take that as a starting point.

On the other hand, we don't have a major problem (outside of vegetarians) killing chickens and eating them. We don't even have a problem killing dolphins (who are fairly intelligent) by accident when we're really trying to kill tuna (although there are some who will object - the fishermen have no such compunctions unless it's forced on them).

Thus, in war, and preparation for war, our enemies are often described in terms that make them less than human. There are too many examples of this for me to post. Suffice to say that once your enemy becomes the faceless "they", it's easier to kill them - if the mental conditioning is strong enough, and done for long enough, it's even possible to get people to kill women and children (not all people, but most of them).

Thus, we see that it was possible to talk an enormous number of Germans into putting Jews and others on trains, shipping them to a camp, and killing them using an industrial method - and if you were to ask a guard, "Why?" he would answer, "It must be so!"

Same thing here. While there may have been Taliban at the stadium who didn't really relish the idea of shooting a woman in the head, the shooter himself was probably someone who was convinced that she was the Devil in person, and was probably quite happy at having the job.

IIRC he fought in Vietnam ;)

If you mean Corne, I believe he said it was his dad.....

If you mean Corne, I believe he said it was his dad.....

My father was never in 'nam.

IIRC he fought in Vietnam ;)

Nice, and thats why you don't make such general assumptions.

Wait! Aiee!

I think I managed to confuse Eutrusca and Corneliu in my head some how. Note : Corni may or may not have fought in 'Nam, Eutrusca CERTAINLY did.

Corne did you fight in 'Nam or not?

Corne did you fight in 'Nam or not?

Since I am only 24 years old...

My father was never in 'nam.

Luke... I am your father.
http://www.starstore.com/acatalog/Vader_Battle-01.jpg

Wait! Aiee!

I think I managed to confuse Eutrusca and Corneliu in my head some how. Note : Corni may or may not have fought in 'Nam, Eutrusca CERTAINLY did.

The only person on here that I know of who fought in 'Nam would be, I think, Myrmidonisia.

Yeah, nice guys...

The seven remaining South Korean hostages taken captive last July by the Taliban have been released, and insurgents have vowed they will abduct more foreigners.

“We will do the same thing with the other allies in Afghanistan, because we found this way to be successful,” Taliban spokesman Qari Yousef Ahmadi told The Associated Press by phone on Thursday.

http://www.ctv.ca/servlet/ArticleNews/story/CTVNews/20070829/hostages_follow_070830/20070830?hub=TopStories

Forget it RO. He asked me a direct question and I answered it with a direct answer and he had the gall to move the goal posts and claimed that my answer was false because I do not want to put on the uniform and he thinks that is cowardly of me to do so.

No, I think you're a hypocrite. As for gall of moving goal posts. Not at all. I give you a scenario, and declare your answer false because you have given me reason to believe it is not a true opinion.


You can not have an intelligent conversation with people like those.

You certainly can't have intelligent conversation with hypocrites. The only thing you can do is expose them to their own hypocrisy. Preferably in a way that forces complete mental breakdown.


What about those like me, who have advocated war, and have not only gone twice, but have killed and liked it?

Have you or have you not ever been in a very potentially lethal hostage situation as a hostage?

Yes or no. That's the only two possible answers. Don't try your usual weasalling.

Nice, and thats why you don't make such general assumptions.

Corny has never been anywhere near a combat zone, or for that fact, been a part of any military organization.

Have you or have you not ever been in a very potentially lethal hostage situation as a hostage?

Yes or no. That's the only two possible answers. Don't try your usual weasalling.

Never been a hostage myself. What do you mean, "your usual weasalling"?

Have you or have you not ever been in a very potentially lethal hostage situation as a hostage?

Yes or no. That's the only two possible answers. Don't try your usual weasalling.

Oh, I think I know where you're going with this.

No, I haven't been a hostage.

Yes, I've been in situations where it seemed quite certain that I would be killed.

No, I didn't avoid the situation. There are worse things than death.

Given my attitude, if I was a hostage, I would give a rat's ass if anyone bothered to negotiate (especially if my captors were Taliban).

Given my attitude, if I was a hostage, I would give a rat's ass if anyone bothered to negotiate (especially if my captors were Taliban).

Clarify. You would want someone to negotiate or would want them not to?

Clarify. You would want someone to negotiate or would want them not to?

No, I wouldn't want them to, because it's stupid.

As you may see from the most recent Taliban official comment, it only encourages more hostage taking.

So, at the beginning of my captivity, I would tell my captors,

"Neek Nef-sick"

it's the phonetic for the Arabic phrase, "Go fuck yourself".

Corny has never been anywhere near a combat zone, or for that fact, been a part of any military organization.

Actually, civil air patrol is a military organization. :rolleyes:

Actually, civil air patrol is a military organization. :rolleyes:

Actually it's a civilian organization attached to USAF as an auxilliary.

No doubt the Americans will get back whatever the Koreans paid in bullets.

Actually, civil air patrol is a military organization. :rolleyes:

Actually it's a civilian organization attached to USAF as an auxilliary.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol


The Civil Air Patrol (CAP) is the civilian auxiliary of the United States Air Force (USAF)

http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeid=6081&audienceID=4

Another lie Corny? How unsurprising.

Actually it's a civilian organization attached to USAF as an auxilliary.

Complete with ranks, uniforms, and everything else that goes with the military. Just minus the guns unless its at an encampment that is runned like boot camp.

As a former member, it trains people to be in the military. So yes. It is technicly a military organization but on the other hand, it is volunteer, no pay, and runned completely by civilians with the USAF overseeing everything we do (which it never used to until the turn of the century)

On a side note, I was a high ranking cadet in the program too.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Air_Patrol



http://www.cap.gov/index.cfm?nodeid=6081&audienceID=4

Another lie Corny? How unsurprising.

Are you telling me there there cannot be civilian military programs out there?

Complete with ranks, uniforms, and everything else that goes with the military. Just minus the guns unless its at an encampment that is runned like boot camp.

Riiiight. Like the Boy Scouts are a paramilitary organization. Oooh! How about the red cross society? They've got uniforms and ranks too. I bet they're military too. Keep dreaming Cornster. You're factually impaired.

Are you telling me there there cannot be civilian military programs out there?

Civilians are not military. It's mutually exclusive. What next? Capitalistic communists? And the CAP is certainly not militia either.


On a side note, I was a high ranking cadet in the program too.

And I suppose you're going to prove that Mr "I make up excuses not to enlist"?

Riiiight. Like the Boy Scouts are a paramilitary organization. Oooh! How about the red cross society? They've got uniforms and ranks too. I bet they're military too. Keep dreaming Cornster. You're factually impaired.

Ever been in CAP? If you have then you must know that we know the Boy Scouts are nowhere near the level of training that CAP members are at. Boy scouts are not paramilitary.

Civilians are not military. It's mutually exclusive. What next? Capitalistic communists? And the CAP is certainly not militia either.

I did not say we were militia. I said we were a military organization. A civilian voluntary military auxillary organization. Which is true.

And I suppose you're going to prove that Mr "I make up excuses not to enlist"?

Of course I can prove it. I will post a pic of me in my uniform later today. They are on the desktop computer and not on my laptop.

Ever been in CAP? If you have then you must know that we know the Boy Scouts are nowhere near the level of training that CAP members are at. Boy scouts are not paramilitary.


I did not say we were militia. I said we were a military organization. A civilian voluntary military auxillary organization. Which is true.


Of course I can prove it. I will post a pic of me in my uniform later today. They are on the desktop computer and not on my laptop.

*ahem*

A civilian under international humanitarian law is a person who is not a member of his or her country's armed forces.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian

Military has two broad meanings. In its first sense, it refers to soldiers and soldiering. In its second sense, it refers to armed forces as a whole.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military

Calling something a civilian military organization is a contradiction.

*ahem*


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civilian


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military

Calling something a civilian military organization is a contradiction.

Except for the simple fact that we have to adhere to pretty much all standards that the US Air Force,render all members full courtesy (including foreign military as well), and alot more...

Anyways...this has been lovely but it is late.

Except for the simple fact that we have to adhere to pretty much all standards that the US Air Force,render all members full courtesy (including foreign military as well), and alot more...

Anyways...this has been lovely but it is late.

Except that it doesn't really matter. You could develop an organization that drills people in military protocol and train people for military action. This would not make them a military organization if they are not a component of the armed forces. They would be, at best, a militia.

Yep, run away :rolleyes:

Except that it doesn't really matter. You could develop an organization that drills people in military protocol and train people for military action. This would not make them a military organization if they are not a component of the armed forces. They would be, at best, a militia.

To be a militia, we would have to have guns. Incase ya missed it, we do not carry guns nor are we allowed to handle them unless with written permission from headquarters and with a certified instructor.

And I will go with all of my experience in the program over a wikipedia website.

CAP may not see combat again (unless of course members are in the actual military) but we perform vital missions for them as well as for our local communities.

Yep, run away :rolleyes:

So going to bed is me running away? After all it is 2 AM where I am at.

GROW THE FUCK UP!!

Except that it doesn't really matter. You could develop an organization that drills people in military protocol and train people for military action. This would not make them a military organization if they are not a component of the armed forces. They would be, at best, a militia.

Yep, run away :rolleyes:
Even then technically not, although it depends what paramilitary you refer to. Reserve forces are also militias, and they are part of the military.

To be a militia, we would have to have guns. Incase ya missed it, we do not carry guns nor are we allowed to handle them unless with written permission from headquarters and with a certified instructor.

And I will go with all of my experience in the program over a wikipedia website.

CAP may not see combat again (unless of course members are in the actual military) but we perform vital missions for them as well as for our local communities.

Yes, well, I'm sure by now you're well aware what your personal experience is worth here on NSG.

So going to bed is me running away? After all it is 2 AM where I am at.

GROW THE FUCK UP!!

Weren't your scurrying off, like 20 minutes ago?

Ever been in CAP? If you have then you must know that we know the Boy Scouts are nowhere near the level of training that CAP members are at. Boy scouts are not paramilitary.


Pah. So what if you have a higher level of training? That does not make you a military organization. The Blackwater company certainly had high levels of military type training for its employees, but that does not magically transform it from a mercenary corporation into a military organization.

You're still trying to lie your way out of it I see.


I did not say we were militia. I said we were a military organization. A civilian voluntary military auxillary organization. Which is true.

Which is a lie. CAP is a civilian auxillary to a military branch. It is not a military organization, contrary to your claims.


Of course I can prove it. I will post a pic of me in my uniform later today. They are on the desktop computer and not on my laptop.

All that will prove is that you have a uniform that could be bought at any surplus store. I want records that can be double checked.


Anyways...this has been lovely but it is late.

Ahhh, the standard Corny response when he know's he's being outed as a liar.

Yes, well, I'm sure by now you're well aware what your personal experience is worth here on NSG.

Just like you are well aware what your opinions are worth here on NSG. You have your opinion and I have mine.

Weren't your scurrying off, like 20 minutes ago?

No! I was retiring to my bed because it was late.

All that will prove is that you have a uniform that could be bought at any surplus store. I want records that can be double checked.

I have my personnel file here at my house. National HQ either a)still has my personnel records or they destroyed them because I have been out for more than 5 years.

Ahhh, the standard Corny response when he know's he's being outed as a liar.

Aww I guess I did not run away as I am still posting. Learn timezones people.

I have my personnel file here at my house. National HQ either a)still has my personnel records or they destroyed them because I have been out for more than 5 years.


I'm still waiting for this alleged "proof".

And I also see you've stopped pushing "CAP is a military organization"

I'm still waiting for this alleged "proof".

And I also see you've stopped pushing "CAP is a military organization"

Jesus fucking christ. What the hell is your problem? First he answered your question directly, in a fairly honest answer (which you can't prove its not by the way other than with some bullshit excuse that he actually has to go into the situation) then he has to prove himself? fuck that I doubt whether you would possibly have the balls to join any sort of military organization so lay off the man.

Weren't your scurrying off, like 20 minutes ago?

If sleeping is running away sir, then I have retreated on too many times to count. :D

Jesus fucking christ. What the hell is your problem? First he answered your question directly, in a fairly honest answer (which you can't prove its not by the way other than with some bullshit excuse that he actually has to go into the situation) then he has to prove himself?


Because the answer to the situation is prone to lies as often as the answers to the question "Would you die for your country?"

Many say they would. But when put to the test, fail. Your statement that it is a "bullshit excuse" does not apply because Corny has been proven to be a hypocrite many times, and so cannot be relied to give honest answers without undeniable proof.

It's easy to use a lot of hot air. You're relatively new, so I can understand, but if you've been here long enough, you'll know that Corny is nothing BUT hot air. He has made several claims before on how he would like to join the military, but when called on it, manufactured excuses that do not actually function in the real world like being exempted because the parents served before.

Learn a bit more about him before you start defending him.


fuck that I doubt whether you would possibly have the balls to join any sort of military organization so lay off the man.

You'll have to find where I've espoused military action, or for that fact, the kind of random invasions and killings that Corny has desired first Mr Cheese.

Because the answer to the situation is prone to lies as often as the answers to the question "Would you die for your country?"

Would you die for your country?

Many say they would. But when put to the test, fail. Your statement that it is a "bullshit excuse" does not apply because Corny has been proven to be a hypocrite many times, and so cannot be relied to give honest answers without undeniable proof.

A hypocrit because I support the military and support the action in Iraq even though I myself can not serve in uniform?

It's easy to use a lot of hot air. You're relatively new, so I can understand, but if you've been here long enough, you'll know that Corny is nothing BUT hot air.

Which is a bunch of bullshit. You are only sayin that because I disagree with you on most every issue.

He has made several claims before on how he would like to join the military, but when called on it, manufactured excuses that do not actually function in the real world like being exempted because the parents served before.

Some info was out of date but not all of it. That I have admitted to. I see you failed that part of reading comprehension.

Learn a bit more about him before you start defending him.

Let him make up his own mind.

You'll have to find where I've espoused military action, or for that fact, the kind of random invasions and killings that Corny has desired first Mr Cheese.

And where would that be?

Would you die for your country?

What a silly thing to do.

What a silly thing to do.

So if your nation was invaded, you would not die to defend it?

So if your nation was invaded, you would not die to defend it?
Depends by whom, I don't much care for my countries capitalist tendencies so probably not if I sympathized with the invaders.

Depends by whom, I don't much care for my countries capitalist tendencies so probably not if I sympathized with the invaders.

If you support the invaders and they lose, you will be branded a traitor.

If you support the invaders and they lose, you will be branded a traitor.

Lol, getting a bit too hypothetical here I think, there is no nation that could really invade my nation whom I would support anyways.

Little bit of trivia here, did you know the leader of the Communist Party of Australia back in the early Cold War was going to be tried for treason for saying that Australian workers would welcome Soviet troops on their soil.

Lol, getting a bit too hypothetical here I think, there is no nation that could really invade my nation whom I would support anyways.

hehe.

Little bit of trivia here, did you know the leader of the Communist Party of Australia back in the early Cold War was going to be tried for treason for saying that Australian workers would welcome Soviet troops on their soil.

That does not surprise me in the least. Oh and you should have ended that statement with a ? and not a .

Fascinating. I cannot help but notice that the same jackasses who bemoan the Korean government for "negotiating with terrorists" would be the first ones crying for their government to do the same should it happen to their families. But, of course, the families of OTHERS are usable as pawns in realpolitik games. So, in essence, what the anti-negotiation crowd here thinks is "don't negotiate or else you'll be deflating My President Dubya's dick pump. Because his dick is more important than your families, but less important than mine."

Would you die for your country?

No. The way it's run, there's no point sacrificing anything for it. It's corrupted beyond repair and the government actively works to marginalize people of certain racial compositions (Not minority!) of which I am a part of. I see no reason to desire it's continued rule as is.


A hypocrit because I support the military and support the action in Iraq even though I myself can not serve in uniform?

Don't weasel out of this. You DON'T WANT to serve in the military. You are not prohibited from doing so. You're excuses to date have been full of bullshit and unproven claims.


Which is a bunch of bullshit. You are only sayin that because I disagree with you on most every issue.


So, where's that proof of CAP membership hmm? Gone with the wind again? Keep your mouth closed when there's paperwork around. All that hot air makes it fly really far.


Some info was out of date but not all of it. That I have admitted to. I see you failed that part of reading comprehension.

Hah. Riiight. You haven't made one valid claim to date that would keep you out of uniform other than lack of desire to risk your ass.


Let him make up his own mind.


Pot meet kettle.

No. The way it's run, there's no point sacrificing anything for it. It's corrupted beyond repair and the government actively works to marginalize people of certain racial compositions (Not minority!) of which I am a part of. I see no reason to desire it's continued rule as is.

At least you are being honest for once.

Don't weasel out of this. You DON'T WANT to serve in the military. You are not prohibited from doing so. You're excuses to date have been full of bullshit and unproven claims.

Claims that can not be proven over the net but can be proven in person.

So, where's that proof of CAP membership hmm? Gone with the wind again? Keep your mouth closed when there's paperwork around. All that hot air makes it fly really far.

Oh I'm sorry. I was unaware you were still interested. I told you that for me to prove it, you would have to come here and I can show you my paperwork, complete with test scores. I offered by you accused me of lying. Besides, you did not want to see me in my uniform. Something I was willing to share. But you stated that it would prove nothing.

Hah. Riiight. You haven't made one valid claim to date that would keep you out of uniform other than lack of desire to risk your ass.

If you want to stick to that opinion, that is your problem. Not mine.

Pot meet kettle.

What? Am I keeping him from making up his own mind? No I am not.

At least you are being honest for once.

Once? If there is one thing I don't tolerate. It's hypocrisy. From myself or anyone else. And you've got a lot of it.


Claims that can not be proven over the net but can be proven in person.


What? Like having serving parents prevents you from enlisting? No such law. Medical condition? The doctor's report can be scanned and sent. Still waiting.


Oh I'm sorry. I was unaware you were still interested. I told you that for me to prove it, you would have to come here and I can show you my paperwork, complete with test scores.


Liar. You said no such thing.


I offered by you accused me of lying. Besides, you did not want to see me in my uniform. Something I was willing to share. But you stated that it would prove nothing.

A uniform proves nothing beyond the ability to find a surplus store or tailor willing to bend the rules a bit. Paperwork, with official stamps and signatures are much harder to forge.

And said paperwork can be photographed, turned to digital format and sent. Or are you suddenly computer deficient?


If you want to stick to that opinion, that is your problem. Not mine.


It's a logical conclusion based on your constant fabricated excuses.


What? Am I keeping him from making up his own mind? No I am not.

And how am I doing that hmm? I told him to learn a bit more about you before trying to defend you. I must have missed the "CONFORM AND OBEY!" signs.

Once? If there is one thing I don't tolerate. It's hypocrisy. From myself or anyone else. And you've got a lot of it.

So do you wether you want to believe it or not. I do the best I can to keep my hypocracy down. Like you, I do not tolerate it either. At the sametime, I have been up front and honest. Just like I am going to do now:

You want to continue this petty argument, let us move it out of NS and into a better realm.

What? Like having serving parents prevents you from enlisting? No such law. Medical condition? The doctor's report can be scanned and sent. Still waiting.

As much as I am willing to oblige, I will not have my medical records sent over the net. So you are just going to have to wait a hell of a long time.

Liar. You said no such thing.

I told you where the paper work was and what I was willing to do. Sorry but I spoke truthfully.

A uniform proves nothing beyond the ability to find a surplus store or tailor willing to bend the rules a bit. Paperwork, with official stamps and signatures are much harder to forge.

Another truth. I told you where the paper work is. You want to look at it, you will have to come here or I can meet you at Maxwell with my personnel file in hand.

And said paperwork can be photographed, turned to digital format and sent. Or are you suddenly computer deficient?

Nope! Just not a trusting person.

It's a logical conclusion based on your constant fabricated excuses.

Sorry. not making excuses.

And how am I doing that hmm? I told him to learn a bit more about you before trying to defend you. I must have missed the "CONFORM AND OBEY!" signs.

Sorry. I misspoke there.

I'm reading this thread and laughing my ass off at NAS.

His responses are so ridiculous. His question didn't receive the answer he wanted so he has completely diverged from the topic and pretty much shown all readers of this thread that he's a fool.

I'm reading this thread and laughing my ass off at NAS.

His responses are so ridiculous. His question didn't receive the answer he wanted so he has completely diverged from the topic and pretty much shown all readers of this thread that he's a fool.

He's always been like that and he wants to talk about hypocracy.

I'm reading this thread and laughing my ass off at NAS.

His responses are so ridiculous. His question didn't receive the answer he wanted so he has completely diverged from the topic and pretty much shown all readers of this thread that he's a fool.

There's something called "caught in a lie". I called him on it, and as such, have to prove it. Don't think I forgot about your own bit of stupidity Mr "I can destroy whatever I want so long as I call it anti-semitic"

So do you wether you want to believe it or not. I do the best I can to keep my hypocracy down. Like you, I do not tolerate it either. At the sametime, I have been up front and honest. Just like I am going to do now:

Your "honest and upfront" is lacking in honesty. Like that bit about saying I was forcing Mr Cheese to think otherwise. Or that bit where you claim the CAP is a military organization.


You want to continue this petty argument, let us move it out of NS and into a better realm.

Petty arguments fuel NSG. But as to the op, I'll make this clear. The negotiations gave nothing but face. Korea gave nothing that it wasn't already planning on doing. Calling it cowardice is pure naiveté and maybe bull headed jingoism.


As much as I am willing to oblige, I will not have my medical records sent over the net. So you are just going to have to wait a hell of a long time.


Yes, yes. And I'm a 4,000 year old little green muppet with a glowstick. Claims are easy to make. Proving it is a hell lot harder. Your willingness to oblige is as willing as a bank's willingness to be robbed.


I told you where the paper work was and what I was willing to do. Sorry but I spoke truthfully.

You said nothing about what you were willing to do at the time of my post.


Another truth. I told you where the paper work is. You want to look at it, you will have to come here or I can meet you at Maxwell with my personnel file in hand.

And I'm supposed to look for a random, faceless, nameless, stranger who has no address. You sure make this easy.

/sarcasm


Nope! Just not a trusting person.


And you expect us to take your word for it?


Sorry. not making excuses.


Oh? So why haven't you joined up then hmm?

There's something called "caught in a lie". I called him on it, and as such, have to prove it. Don't think I forgot about your own bit of stupidity Mr "I can destroy whatever I want so long as I call it anti-semitic"

He answered your question. If you are calling him a liar, then you have the burden of proof. You haven't proven a thing other than the fact that you suck at debating.

You lost your point with Corn so you have to go completely off topic and argue about the CAP. There honestly is no clear answer on whether or not CAP is a military organization. It keeps changing based on the situation. It certainly was founded as one and has had its status change from time to time.

Now try to put together an intelligent response.

He answered your question. If you are calling him a liar, then you have the burden of proof. You haven't proven a thing other than the fact that you suck at debating.

It's called credibility. The debate so far proves that he lacks it. No evidence has been given to back any claims to date. Answers in regards to personal situations, of which the gist of the question was, are meaningless if given falsely.

As for CAP, he was the one who brought it up, not I. If you cannot be bothered to read the entirety of the debate before leaping in with allegations, please be so courteous as to step outside, or take the effort to read it properly first.

It's called credibility. The debate so far proves that he lacks it. No evidence has been given to back any claims to date. Answers in regards to personal situations, of which the gist of the question was, are meaningless if given falsely.

A question was asked on what I would do about hostages. I answered 100% truthfully. If you think I did not answer 100% truthfully then prove it asshole.

A question was asked on what I would do about hostages. I answered 100% truthfully. If you think I did not answer 100% truthfully then prove it asshole.

This is a question of your credibility and ability to answer truthfully when responding to a particular scenario.

I cannot prove conclusively that this particular answer is false short of recreating the scenario in real world events. However, I can and have asserted that your opinions in advocating war and conflict are at odds at your actual attempts to contribute to the conflicts you espouse.

Your use of excuses, more than a few of them outright false, for not contributing, lends credence to the assertion that you are not willing to risk your personal health under any combat related scenario, as a soldier or hostage.

If it is your desire to put these events to the test, be so kind as to provide me with your real name, address and photo. I will endeavor to put this matter to the acid test. In order to maximize real world situations, I cannot, and will not, guarantee your well being in this test.

Are you willing to prove that once and for all, you stand by your convictions? Or will you slink away?

This is a question of your credibility and ability to answer truthfully when responding to a particular scenario.

I cannot prove conclusively that this particular answer is false short of recreating the scenario in real world events.

Thank You. You just contradicted yourself with this statement.

However, I can and have asserted that your opinions in advocating war and conflict are at odds at your actual attempts to contribute to the conflicts you espouse.[/quote]

Actually no. They are not at odds. If you have followed any of my posts, you would see that I have been 100% consistent.

Your use of excuses, more than a few of them outright false,

Which I have recognized on more than one occassion but apparently no one listened.

for not contributing, lends credence to the assertion that you are not willing to risk your personal health under any combat related scenario, as a soldier or hostage.

Which is 100% bullshit. Care to back this statement up with facts. Just because I have a health problem does not mean that my body cannot stand up to combat. The problem is that I am a health risk to the military.

If it is your desire to put these events to the test, be so kind as to provide me with your real name, address and photo. I will endeavor to put this matter to the acid test. In order to maximize real world situations, I cannot, and will not, guarantee your well being in this test.

And the first thing that my mother taught was never to give that information over a chat forum. You want it, I would be more than happy to give it to ya. Just not over this chat forum.

Are you willing to prove that once and for all, you stand by your convictions? Or will you slink away?

I am more than willing to stand by my convictions.

Thank You. You just contradicted yourself with this statement.

Not quite. If this were assertions of facts, yes, you would be. But it isn't. It's a assertion of your willingness to back up your stance. Those cannot be proven short of direct experiments. However, analysis of your previous habits can provide a pattern of your behavior in certain scenarios. Like the one I outlined.

It's called profiling.


Actually no. They are not at odds. If you have followed any of my posts, you would see that I have been 100% consistent.


What have you contributed in terms of labor or resources towards the conflicts you have supported? You may not use FAG's "Posting on NSG contributes more to the conflict than actual soldiers"


Which I have recognized on more than one occassion but apparently no one listened.

Oh, we did. But your recognition was only after several weeks of people calling you out on it. It is highly suspect to say the least.


Which is 100% bullshit. Care to back this statement up with facts. Just because I have a health problem does not mean that my body cannot stand up to combat. The problem is that I am a health risk to the military.


I would counter this with a challenge of my own. Back your statements. A health problem. What sort of health problem? When did it occur? What are the symptoms. Is it infectious? Provide details.


And the first thing that my mother taught was never to give that information over a chat forum. You want it, I would be more than happy to give it to ya. Just not over this chat forum.


There is this thing called email. Or barring that, a miraculous breakthrough of modern IT development on the cutting edge of software research called TG.


I am more than willing to stand by my convictions.

Then prove it.

I would counter this with a challenge of my own. Back your statements. A health problem. What sort of health problem?

Enough of one that would keep me out of uniform

When did it occur?

Even the docs do not know that one.

What are the symptoms.

None.

Is it infectious? Provide details.


No it is not infectious. As to details, it deals with my blood.

There is this thing called email. Or barring that, a miraculous breakthrough of modern IT development on the cutting edge of software research called TG.

Which can still be intercepted and used for dubious purposes. Do you honestly think I am going to be that dumb?

Then prove it.

I have but you just do not like the fact that I am not going to play your little game.

Enough of one that would keep me out of uniform
Even the docs do not know that one.
None.
No it is not infectious. As to details, it deals with my blood.

A health problem, no known occurrence date. No symptoms. Non infectious. And all you have to say is that it's something to do with your blood.

Give more details. What's it called? What are the effects?


Which can still be intercepted and used for dubious purposes. Do you honestly think I am going to be that dumb?

I have but you just do not like the fact that I am not going to play your little game.


I am more than willing to stand by my convictions.


So much for your convictions. You are unwilling to take even a single step towards backing them.

You have not proven anything. Saying "I did" means nothing without proof.

A health problem, no known occurrence date. No symptoms. Non infectious. And all you have to say is that it's something to do with your blood.

Give more details. What's it called? What are the effects?

That if it drops to a certain number, I would not be allowed to do anything because of the dangers of bleeding to death. That are about as severe a consequence that can occur.

That if it drops to a certain number, I would not be allowed to do anything because of the dangers of bleeding to death. That are about as severe a consequence that can occur.

If what drops below a certain number? Do not try and drip feed facts Corny. I want names. I want facts. Don't try and tell me you have some strange hitherto unknown condition which is neither named nor documented.

Your continued evasiveness is extremely suspect.

A health problem, no known occurrence date. No symptoms. Non infectious. And all you have to say is that it's something to do with your blood.

Give more details. What's it called? What are the effects?


That really is enough.

You claim to know Corneliu well (in your post to Cheese Incident) but now you are trying to gouge personal information out of him, to support your assertion that Corny is a hypocrit because of a disconnect between his prescriptions of proper behaviour and details about his real life which he has been gracious enough to share.

You are making enemies. You really should stop.

If what drops below a certain number? Do not try and drip feed facts Corny. I want names. I want facts. Don't try and tell me you have some strange hitherto unknown condition which is neither named nor documented.

Your continued evasiveness is extremely suspect.

Oh it has a name but I am going to reveal this to you even though I already know you are going to say that I am lying because I am refusing to show you the medical report.

My blood platelets are half the number it should be.

That really is enough.

You claim to know Corneliu well (in your post to Cheese Incident) but now you are trying to gouge personal information out of him, to support your assertion that Corny is a hypocrit because of a disconnect between his prescriptions of proper behaviour and details about his real life which he has been gracious enough to share.

One of the more commonly accepted definitions of a hypocrite is one who says one thing, but does another is it not?


You are making enemies. You really should stop.

In either case, this altercation with Corny has gone beyond pointlessness.

Corny, you can either name the condition, which cannot identify you in any meaningful way whatsoever, or you won't. I am beyond caring at this point. It changes nothing.

Corny, you can either name the condition, which cannot identify you in any meaningful way whatsoever, or you won't. I am beyond caring at this point. It changes nothing.

The bolded lies the rub. I spoke truthfully and you called me a liar. Asked to prove that I was lying and you attack me for asking for proof that I am lying because you have no evidence to prove that I am lying.

Good day.

Here's where I usually make a joke.

Hostage-taking is the mildest form of terrorism. It's plainly unlawful: depriving people (almost always innocent civilians) of their liberty, and holding their lives forfeit. It is desperate behaviour: the initial demands are almost always abandoned for some lesser payoff.

But compared with "bomb first, make demands later" it is a step in the right direction. The Madrid train bombing was "bf, mdl." The IRA campaign was much the same: "negotiate, or we will keep bombing you."

"Bomb first, make demands later" is a lesser form of terrorism than "we will bomb you, to inspire a wave of bombings which will destroy you."

These are steps towards reality, to a realization by the Taliban (in this case) that they can't win outright and negotiation is their best option. From "we will destroy you" to "we will hurt you" to "you must negotiate with us" is progress.

Yes, these hostage-takers killed two of the hostages. In the scale of killing which happens daily in Iraq, that isn't enough to explain the attention the hostage situation got. Hostage-taking is about getting attention and having your demands heard, if not met.

As has been pointed out several times in the thread, the demands which were met were things that were going to happen anyway. The hostage-takers backed down to the point of settling for the appearance of their demands being met. They got to negotiate with someone, a big step up from stewing about their lost power in afghanistan.

It is reasonable to think money might have changed hands as well, but as long as the Koreans don't own up to "funding the Taliban" ... what does it matter? This year's harvest of opium in Afghanistan breaks all previous records (they'll have a piece of that) and they get funding in places like Pakistan where economic embargo isn't enforced. So long as the deal isn't revealed, hostage-taking for money isn't encouraged, so overall ...

Good result.

well, it really doesn't matter if Corneliu can or cannot, wants to or doesn't want to, serve in the military

I am going to assume he is an American

Thus


Regardless of his occupational aspirations (yes, the military is an occupation, they are paid for their services), he has the inherit, democratic right to either dissent or commend his government's actions both domestically and abroad.

It is irrelevant if he is in the military or not, because as a citizen of the United States, as a taxpayer, as a constituent, he has the RIGHT, not the privilege, mind you, but the RIGHT to voice his opinion and to hold fast to whatever his beliefs may be, and to express them through his casting of votes and through online forums, such as this.

I may not agree with him, you may not agree with him, but he has the right to believe what he believes regardless of his current status as a citizen, and no one has the right to deny him that, or harrass him over it.

One of the more commonly accepted definitions of a hypocrite is one who says one thing, but does another is it not?


It is. A disparity between what a poster seriously says and what they claim to actually do can show their hypocrisy.

If those two don't match, either they lied about their real life (and why would they bother, except to bolster their opinions with fictional experience) or they are in some degree a hypocrit.

But delving for medical information seems to me to be crossing the line from trying to catch someone out, to actively persecuting them. Suppose Corny divulges what might be very personal information, to deflect your attack this time, suppose even that they do it by a private channel to you. What assurance does Corny have that you won't share it with anyone of your choosing? Might as well put it right there on the forum, for the sake of deflecting an attack which I doubt would be resolved that way.

Don't assume you are the only person who might know that information. If it gets out, and other posters know what you are asking for by private channel, how is Corny to know it was you? Suspicion would be cast on anyone who knows.

No, we divulge only what we choose of our private life. Divulging stuff you want kept secret, by private channel, requires a degree of personal trust which I doubt you two have. Your crusade against hypocrisy doesn't outweigh that principle of online discussion, that our real lives are our private business until we choose otherwise or egregiously break the rules, eg by admitting to a crime.

I may not agree with him, you may not agree with him, but he has the right to believe what he believes regardless of his current status as a citizen, and no one has the right to deny him that, or harrass him over it.

Rights accorded by country are not applicable on servers in a different country. Besides, as I seem to remember on these forums, the rules are quite explicit. Being on NS is a privilege, not a right.

Else we would never be able to get rid of trolls without lawsuits.

More to the point though, I wonder how you view harassment over beliefs and falsehoods to be prohibited as a natural extension of the American constitution. It's use in political discourse, legal arguments (along with credibility attacks), are abound in almost every nation.


But delving for medical information seems to me to be crossing the line from trying to catch someone out, to actively persecuting them.

The name of an affliction is hardly something someone can be persecuted with. Especially when the afflicted is nameless, faceless and without address.


Your crusade against hypocrisy doesn't outweigh that principle of online discussion, that our real lives are our private business until we choose otherwise or egregiously break the rules, eg by admitting to a crime.

Then one shouldn't make claims about their real life unless they are willing to substantiate it shouldn't they?

You are making enemies. You really should stop.

He's also making himself look like an asshole. Oh wait, nevermind. He is proving he is an asshole.

Well it seems Nas is argument is bashing someone for saying they would do something fairly selfless. If you want him to show you the records your going to have to see him in person, tit for tat you might say.

The name of an affliction is hardly something someone can be persecuted with. Especially when the afflicted is nameless, faceless and without address.



Then one shouldn't make claims about their real life unless they are willing to substantiate it shouldn't they?

But he does have an identity on here and that identity could be hurt as a result of him revealing this. He's stated that he has low blood platelets and since you seem to have no need of a name or address to insult him, it should suffice you to know what the said disbality causes.

One shouldn't make claims about someone elses real life unless they're willing to back it up.

He's also making himself look like an asshole. Oh wait, nevermind. He is proving he is an asshole.

That's a price I'm willing to pay for exposing people for the hypocrites they are.

And pot. Meet kettle.

Or do you think I've forgotten how you advocated vandalism in museums if you disagree with the displays hmm?

Well it seems Nas is argument is bashing someone for saying they would do something fairly selfless.

Hardly. I'm calling him a liar on that statement.

Then one shouldn't make claims about their real life unless they are willing to substantiate it shouldn't they?

Meh. If I hadn't been drunk I would have simply moved to another thread without posting anything.
If you have a postal address I could mail you some vomit as proof?

Meh. If I hadn't been drunk I would have simply moved to another thread without posting anything.
If you have a postal address I could mail you some vomit as proof?

You could. But your state of drunkenness has little bearing on the argument does it?

In either case, I imagine this thread is now quite dead thanks in no small part to the altercation between Corny and I. This is the last post I will make on this thread.

He is proving he is an asshole.???

What happened? are you feeling well IDF?
How come you are not using the word Anti-Semite ???

You are insulting with the word "asshole"??? thats not the IDF i know. ;)

You are making enemies. You really should stop.oh my God !!!
oh my God !!!
*cries*

plueeze.. tell me what do I have to say? what do I have to post to stop the hating??

If I say "I love il-Bushio and the Iraq war".. will you be my friend again.. plueezzze? :D

well, it really doesn't matter if Corneliu can or cannot, wants to or doesn't want to, serve in the military

I am going to assume he is an American

Thus


Regardless of his occupational aspirations (yes, the military is an occupation, they are paid for their services), he has the inherit, democratic right to either dissent or commend his government's actions both domestically and abroad.

It is irrelevant if he is in the military or not, because as a citizen of the United States, as a taxpayer, as a constituent, he has the RIGHT, not the privilege, mind you, but the RIGHT to voice his opinion and to hold fast to whatever his beliefs may be, and to express them through his casting of votes and through online forums, such as this.

I may not agree with him, you may not agree with him, but he has the right to believe what he believes regardless of his current status as a citizen, and no one has the right to deny him that, or harrass him over it.this post deserves a Thread.

BTW.. If you are wondering, I am going to have a few extra free hours this weekend.. buckle your seatbelts. ;)

???

What happened? are you feeling well IDF?
How come you are not using the word Anti-Semite ???

You are insulting with the word "asshole"??? thats not the IDF i know. ;)
I only use it on worthless racists who really are, such as yourself.

I only use it on (weekdays and weekends)you are the champion of godwhiners.. :D

I only use it on worthless racists who really are, such as yourself.

You are perhaps the living incarnation of Godwins Law.

You are perhaps the living incarnation of Godwins Law.

Funny...I do not see any references to Hitler. You need that for Goodwins Law.

You are perhaps the living incarnation of Godwins Law.

Go read this. I challenged you here and you were too much of a wuss to answer my question so go ahead and answer it. I'll infact repost right here what is on the other side of the link. Either answer the question or STFU.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=12995541&postcount=32

IMO can Zionist supporter is a legitimate target for helping such an ethnic-ultranationalist demagogy in it's terrible deeds.

http://forums3.jolt.co.uk/showpost.p...&postcount=116

Let's take this single quote from your pathetic rants.

It is easy to interpret that you support the mass killing of 85-90% of the Jewish population and are thus anti-semitic.

I'm going to go a different route though.

I"m going to ask you a question

What is a Zionist?

(anyone who supports the idea of Israel's existance is the answer. Any person who supports a 2 state solution even one giving up Jerusalem to the Arabs is by definition a Zionist whether they realize it or not) my answer and the generally accepted dictionary def

Now I want to know your answer to the question.

If you answer differently, then you are simply uneducated and thus your opinions on this matter are invalid due to your poor knowledge of simple concepts that are clear in any dictionary or encyclopedia.

If your answer is the same as mine and in line with the accepted definition, then you are a genocide supporting anti-semite and your views are invalid because you would be a racist on the level of a moron like UB.

you are the champion of godwhiners.. :D
And you're a psychotic poster who posts that the Jews have conspired to take over the French government, Hollywood, and the world media so I can call you whatever the hell I want.

I would never negotiate with terrorists.
I doubt the terrorists would even entertain the thought of negotiating with you. :p

???

What happened? are you feeling well IDF?
How come you are not using the word Anti-Semite ???

You are insulting with the word "asshole"??? thats not the IDF i know. ;)
Jesus fucking christ, go jump on another bandwagon Od cause inciting the zionist thing is pretty damn old.

You are perhaps the living incarnation of Godwins Law.

Go live in a Cambodian killing field since you seem to support them so much.

You are perhaps the living incarnation of Godwins Law.

honestly says the guy that says civil liberties are just a ploy by captilism.

IDF is perhaps the living incarnation of Godwins Law.YEAH... all you need to do is search the words "Holocaust" "Anti-Semite" "Nazi" "Hitler"... then take a look at the poster -chances are- it is going to be IDF. :D

and even if he creates a puppet.. we will know its him because he uses these words the minute he feels the debate is lost. (quite often) :cool:

I can call you whatever the hell I want.the question is: Do I care?

;)

YEAH... all you need to do is search the words "Holocaust" "Anti-Semite" "Nazi" "Hitler"... then take a look at the poster -chances are- it is going to be IDF. :D

and even if he creates a puppet.. we will know its him because he uses these words the minute he feels he is losing the debate. (quite often) :cool:

Lol, says the guy doesn't refute him on his description of yourself.

Lol, says the guy doesn't refute him on his description of yourself.I have refuted it once.

I am not going to keep refuting the constant repetitive Godwhinning of my fans (## haters).. because if I do.. I am going to waste all my NSG time refuting this retarded IDF guy..

the question is: Do I care?

;)

The real question is: why do you have to use colors to define your text?

The real question is: why do you have to use colors to define your text?I will answer the real questions.

everyone of them. ;)

Jews have conspired to take over the French government, Hollywood, and the world media so I can call you whatever the hell I want.

See this is the part that bothers me, I mean it would be simple enough for him to call you anti-semite jew hater but he's gone to great lengths to describe your hatred which leads me to believe that at least some of this is true.

I will answer the real questions.

everyone of them. ;)

Well then you'd better get to it, you're already one behind.:D

See this is the part that bothers me, I mean it would be simple enough for him to call you anti-semite jew hater but he's gone to great lengths to describe your hatred which leads me to believe that at least some of this is true.Like I said.. I will answer your real question once.
What is your Question?
Do you want to know If I hate the Jews?

common ask away.. be brave. spell-it-out..
Just Do it -NIKE©- dont be a puss.

Like I said.. I will answer your real questions once.
What is your Question?
Do you want to know If I hate the Jews?

common ask away.. be brave. spell-it-out..
Just Do it -NIKE- dont be a puss.

Do you believe that the jews and the zionists are in a conspiracy to control some of the world's governments?

Do you believe that the jews and the zionists are in a conspiracy to control some of the world's governments?No.

They control the Jewish state (Israel) and that cannot be called "a conspiracy to control a state"

Your question has been answered.. There will be no appeals and there will be no refunds. -- The Oracle--

No.

They control the Jewish state (Israel) and that cannot be called "a conspiracy to control a state"

Your question has been answered.. There will be no appeals and there will be no refunds. -- The Oracle--

Well he does give a rather detailed description of what areas of the world you believe the zionists and jews have control over but I'll wait until he comes back on and see if he has some proof.

Well he does give a rather detailed description of what areas of the world you believe the zionists and jews have control over but I'll wait until he comes back on and see if he has some proof.my post history is public.. I have nothing to hide.

In fact.. NSG most veterans know how to easily list all my threads first.
I stand by everything I posted.

No.

They control the Jewish state (Israel) and that cannot be called "a conspiracy to control a state"

Your question has been answered.. There will be no appeals and there will be no refunds. -- The Oracle--

I call bullshit.

because the Jewish lobby Pwns the US media.

thats why.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9065937&postcount=43

Oh and who can forget your whole thread on the J00z taking over Disney and the French government?

Do you believe that the jews and the zionists are in a conspiracy to control some of the world's governments?No.

They control the Jewish state (Israel) and that cannot be called "a conspiracy to control a state"

Your question has been answered.. There will be no appeals and there will be no refunds. -- The Oracle--I call bullshit.sure you do. :p

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=9065937&postcount=43
LOL, you think that proves that "the Jews are in a conspiracy to control some of the world's governments??" or that "Controlling US media is equivalent to controlling the world???" No it does not
:rolleyes:

Oh and who can forget your whole thread on the J00z taking over Disney and the French government?post the links, my popcorn is ready :D

my post history is public.. I have nothing to hide.

In fact.. NSG most veterans know how to easily list all my threads first.
I stand by everything I posted.

really huh? I guess you wish we wouldn't find this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

post the links, my popcorn is ready :D

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

Be careful what you wish for. Especially if you're a racist hick.

LOL, you think that proves that "the Jews are in a conspiracy to control some of the world's governments??" or that "Controlling US media is equivalent to controlling the world???" No it does not
:rolleyes:



You can't be as dumb as you sound.

Your own posts claim that the Jews are manipulating governments and people through worldwide media control.

Anti-Semitic scum such as yourself have been making this claim for centuries. You are making the exact same claims seen in "The International Jew" and "Mein Kempf."

really huh? I guess you wish we wouldn't find this one.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949
http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showthread.php?t=498949

Be careful what you wish for. Especially if you're a racist hick.you are still speaking of Media ownership..
but keep talking, you are entertaining me. ;)

You can't be as dumb as you sound.

Your own posts claim that the Jews are manipulating governments and people through worldwide media control.at least use the quote function to prove your point.. and please try to use different quotes.. using he same quote 100 times is so... boring :fluffle:

Anti-Semitic..hahaha... thats the IDF i know. :D
..(IDF) uses these words the minute he feels the debate is lost. :cool:

at least use the quote function to prove your point.. and please try to use different quotes.. using he same quote 100 times is so... boring :fluffle:
I posted links. Click on them.



hahaha... thats the IDF i know. :D
I posted links now go click on them lazy.

I posted links. Click on them.


I posted links now go click on them lazy.I did, several times over the last few years.. as you keep posting these 2 quotes.. you seem to think they are somehow ultimate proof of antisemitism.. but that is your opinion.
I stand by my posts.

BTW feel free to bring back those 2 thread to life.. and we will take it from there.. just do it.. I have nothing to hide.

Bring them back.. I am here and ready.
BTW#2 , feel free to start a poll, asking NSG if this quotes proves anyone is anti-semite.
just do it.

I did, several times over the last few years.. as you keep posting these 2 quotes.. you seem to think they are somehow ultimate proof of antisemitism.. but that is your opinion.
I stand by my posts.

BTW feel free to bring back those 2 thread to life.. and we will take it from there.. just do it.. I have nothing to hide.

Bring them back.. I am here and ready.
BTW#2 , feel free to start a poll, asking NSG if this quotes proves anyone is anti-semite.
just do it.I can't bring the threads to life because that would be gravedigging. It's against the forum rules.

Why don't you defend your points now?

I posted the links and you can defend them here. You made very racist and anti-Semitic accusations which countless anti-Semites from Henry Ford, Hitler, and the author of Protocols have each repeated and used as excuses to harm or kill Jews.

You backed yourself into a hole now dig yourself out of it or shut the fuck up.

Why don't you defend your points now?I did.. multiple times.. and I repeat: My point is "that quote does not prove that the Jews are conspiring to control the world" because that quote is about media ownership.
.
...anti-Semitic...LOL, you cant help yourself, can you?
.
I can't bring the threads to life because that would be gravedigging. It's against the forum rules.I can ask permission @ moderation for you if you want, If I do.. will you bring it?

I can ask permission @ moderation for you if you want, If I do.. will you bring it?its 1h15 am.
I am going AFK in 15.. if you are going to bring it on.. let me know ASAP.

sure you do. :p


LOL, you think that proves that "the Jews are in a conspiracy to control some of the world's governments??" or that "Controlling US media is equivalent to controlling the world???" No it does not
:rolleyes:


That is still a rather anti-semitic and bullshit idea.

That is still a rather anti-semitic and bullshit idea.

And now we have a nice 3rd party opinion on OD.

Keep weaseling around it OD.