emprworm Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 ----- To Empr (and no I am not trying to attack you. You are just pretty uncaring and an ass because you yourself said that the 3rd world countries are ignorant of how to use nuclear weapons correctly. I dont like your opinion. so I will shoot it down as hard as I can. it is barbaric of you to have such an arrogance about western civilization.) lets see: TMA says, "I am not trying to attack you...but you are uncaring....an ass...ignorant...barbaric...arrogant...." (ect., etc)lol! :D ;Dwhatever- and I think the truth is pretty obvious. And BTW, Edric0 and Ordos45 both agreed with my opinion about the third world- not sure if that makes them barbaric or following some kind of mini-antichrist, but it was just a FYI.I have 3 words for you TMA:LET - IT - GO Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Heh, lol, even I agree with Emprworm on this. Third world countries have harsher regimes and a lot less to lose in a nuclear war and therefore are more likely to start one. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 woah. now that says something. Worm & Vigil in agreement. wow. cool. Seriously, that is really cool, not sure if I'd see the day. well heck, what do I argue over now? 8) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dunenewt Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 India would wipe the floor with Pakistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think we should take a closer look at the third world before we make generalisations. Some of their leaders are dictatorial and crazy, but some of them are good. Don't think everyone of them is stupid (and don't think everybody that leads a western society is a rocket scientist either)Note that I wouldn't trust some western politicians with nukes either. The fact that Chiraq (France) has nukes is a pretty scary thought to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 yea, but the problem with your argument, Earthnuker is that France isn't tossing around threats of nuclear war willy nilly like pakistan is. Pakistan already threatened a non-conventional war just for troops crossing the border. They threaten to retaliate with nukes just because SOldier First Class Ahmed Rajni took one too many steps north by north east. Nuclear war for conventional war. Wow, what a bargain! Can you name me one other country with nukes that is tossing around nuclear war threats as if he were a politician running for office? If France scares you more than Pakistan with nukes, then your fears seem misplaced to me. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aox0m0xoa Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 third world countries are inferior to us, if they werent, they wouldnt be called THIRD WORLD COUNTRIES and for humanity who do you feel safer having nukes the US or pakistan Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 since the lessons learned at Hiroshima, the united states has never threatened nuclear attack in retalliation for conventional warfare. Pakistan, however, does this. That is incredibly naieve and makes it clear to me that Pakistan obviously does not have any true idea what they are dealing with. nukes are just a big toy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Or maybe they just don't care as much about dying, because of their Islamic beliefs. They do not have as much to lose either. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 Or maybe they just don't care as much about dying, because of their Islamic beliefsthis is a fascinating theory. one that I had not considered. the concept of martyrdom is an extremely compelling force in Islam- not just in the "extremist" sections, but throughout. Perhaps Vigil is on to something here. A nuclear armed middle east could pose a much larger threat then I had first realized. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Both sides know what nuclear war means. Even if it wouldn't enrage Russia, it would destroy both countries, and Kasmir would be a dead area. So any war will be still conventional. I see more problems with Koreas. If Kim has nuke... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 The concept of martyrdom is an extremely compelling force in Islam- not just in the "extremist" sections, but throughout. "Onto jihad to destroy the disbelievers with our holy nukes (prolly something like "The punishing hand of Allah"!"An example of islamic thought - this of course is the extremist version, but still not other religion (with the exception of perhaps judaeism) promotes this kind of intolerance toward people of other religions. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Or maybe they just don't care as much about dying, because of their Islamic beliefsthis is a fascinating theory. one that I had not considered. the concept of martyrdom is an extremely compelling force in Islam- not just in the "extremist" sections, but throughout. Perhaps Vigil is on to something here. A nuclear armed middle east could pose a much larger threat then I had first realized.But launching a nuke is equal to suicide. The Quran doesn't approve of that, does it?EDIT: btw, Al Quada uses promises of heaven and the 70 virgins to lure muslims to them. I read somewhere that "70 virgins" is a flawed translation, and that it should be "70 grapes". Perhaps somebody should tell them :D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Lol, what about the suicide bombers then?? ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Yeah, I wondered about them too. I know the bible doesn't allow suicide though.But hey, you're the expert on the Quran here ::) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 I think it is probably something like this - Quran is against suicide unless it is in a jihad and one sacrifices his life to kill disbelievers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 The Quran doesn't approve of that, does it?yes it does."I will instill terror into the hearts of the unbelievers: smite ye above their necks and smite all their finger-tips of them this because they contended against Allah and His Messenger: If any contend against Allah and His Messenger. Allah is strict in punishment (Surat Al-Anfal 8:12). ""Jihad is ordained for you and you dislike it, and it may be that you dislike a thing which is good for you and that you like a thing which is bad for you. Allah knows but you do not know. " Surah 2:216 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
emprworm Posted December 31, 2002 Author Share Posted December 31, 2002 Allah's Messenger said, "If anyone meets Allah with no mark of jihad, he will meet Allah with a flaw in him." Hadith - Al-Tirmidhi #3835 That you believe in All Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Djihad is by Shi'ite teachings primarily try of self-improving, against seduces and other bad influences. As warfare, Djihad can be only to defend sacred place, and I don't think Mecca or Al-Aksa lays in Pakistan. Also war between these is only for a one rich place, without religious sense, so it isn't and can't be called a Djihad. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 As we have seen, it can be interpreted very differently by extremists and therefore is dangerous. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Caid Ivik Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 So...it might be disused. Terrorism is like an "active defense" against western influence. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edric O Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 These people are already impoverished. They live in a barren, waterless land...Sounds familiar? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 LMAO, incredibly familiar ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Anathema Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 These people are already impoverished. They live in a barren, waterless land...Sounds familiar?*Looks around himself*Not quite... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
VigilVirus Posted December 31, 2002 Share Posted December 31, 2002 Ummm...Shall we say... Fremen? ;D Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.