Recent posts by Winnabago on Kongregate

Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

There is only one definition. How do you not know what offensive means? If you knew anything about the 2006 war you wouldn’t try to claim that there was an unsuccessful Hezbollah offensive. If you stop ignoring almost everything I said, you would know why they lost the war, not only because “it didn’t work”.

It’s not that I don’t know what “offensive” means- rather, I’d like to know a definition that you would agree with. If you would rather I try to guess what definition you would like, then I am afraid I will not be willing to continue this discussion.

Your main reasoning for why Israel lost the war seems to be that their offensives didn’t work; after all, it’s certainly not that they were more sad about their casualties, for that would be absurd.

All the things you suggest I am mistaken about seem to gesture towards a definition of “attack” that I cannot comprehend, and suspect consists of a double standard. With that in mind, I again request what constitutes an offensive in your mind.

Though the border incursion actually did attack civilians, when Hezbollah launched rockets at the town of Shlomi and the farms surrounding it. A lot of the stuff you seem to think I’ve said, I’ve never actually said, though.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

At this point, I think it might be best to know your definition of offensive, and why you’ve lost a war if the don’t work.

So far, you haven’t stated any facts, you ignored all of the battles fought in the war, you showed that you don’t understand basic concepts of warfare, you demonstrated your lack of knowledge on the 2006 war or even Hezbollah, you didn’t back up any of your “arguments”.

Not only is this highly unspecific, it also didn’t address what I said. To reiterate, it appears that by your definition of military defeat, both sides lost.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Originally posted by Labayka:

Er, the thread is about whether Hezbollah is a good organization.

We went off topic very quickly.

Every offensive Hezbollah made was defeated, too.

What offensives did they make?

I mean, you do realize Hezbollah started the war, right?

No, they gave Israel a very good reason to start the war.

How is it even remotely possible to start a war, get a status quo antebellum, take more casualties than your opponent, and declare victory?

They showed to the world that Israel is a paper tiger incapable of even taking a town with 150 soldiers defending it. They defeated Israel in every battle. They achieved a military victory and a moral victory. The political gains went to Israel. As to the casualties, Israel is weak in that regard. They can’t tolerate casualties. Hezbollah, on the other hand recognizes that there are sacrifices, but that never stopped them. They mourn their dead, but they are not afraid. Those 119 casualties hurt Israel more than the 200 HE hurt Lebanon.

1. Oh. Swaggin.
2. The one that started the war, for example. It killed many civilians but did not lead to the destruction of the Zionist pig-dogs.
3. When Hezbollah attacks civilians, that’s not an offensive. However, when Israel does it, that’s an offensive?
4. That doesn’t sound like winning. It actually sounds like pretending to win until it seems like you did, because the only difference you’ve presented is PR.

As for Israel not making successful conquests, it is perhaps notable that Hezbollah did not make successful conquests either.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

@vikatae: I’ve been trying to think of why aborting a fetus and letting it fend for itself is immoral, but I can’t think of a really damning reason. I’m going to have to concede on that one.

Originally posted by YoucantbutICan:
Originally posted by Winnabago:

Er…you lost me at “how much conspiracy is going on”.


A ton of conspiracy is going on.. I don’t know whether to explain it and let a whole other topic blow up or leave it at that and give you the freedom to google it yourself. All I can say is, it’s not just about the political lies or the false hope the president gives us.

What are you asking me to google, exactly? Is every conspiracy that can be found on the internet true? Because if that’s the case, I must be missing a lot of white Jewish cispatriarchy meetings.

Also, the president not listening to you personally isn’t a conspiracy.

Much of this occurs simply on tv, when they sell a shitty product.

How is that a conspiracy?

Or in the store, where “All natural fruit” isn’t all natural fruit at all.
It’s all natural by the legal definition, which happens to differ from yours. I fail to see a conspiracy here.

America wouldn’t be all that bad if we just ate right. We’re basically fed a ton of shit, every day.

This isn’t a conspiracy, this is a complaint about Americans not doing what you want them to do. It would actually imply more of a conspiracy-filled world populated by sheeple if everyone unconditionally agreed with whatever you happened to say.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Originally posted by Labayka:
Originally posted by Winnabago:

I had no idea that “humiliating” another country made you morally superior.

As for defeating Israel twice, the 2006 war appears to be a stalemate at best. I mean, if we’re to go with the logic that Hezbollah holding out throughout the Israeli onslaught counts as “winning”, then Israel ought to have won the 2006 war as well; it certainly held out in spite of Hezbollah’s attacks.

You are the one talking about moral superiority.

The war “appears to be a stalemate” if you ignore most of what happened. Every offensive Israel made was defeated, any goals they had failed. If you look at Hezbollah, they defeated the invading army. And what HE attacks? The IDF tried to make a new “security zone” in South Lebanon, not the other way around. Seriously, either get over it or bring some proof other than faulty logic and terrible analogies. Name some battles your precious IDF won, or explain how Hezbollah was defeated.

Er, the thread is about whether Hezbollah is a good organization.

Every offensive Hezbollah made was defeated, too. How is it even remotely possible to start a war, get a status quo antebellum, take more casualties than your opponent, and declare victory? By your logic, Xerxes won the Persian Wars!

I mean, you do realize Hezbollah started the war, right?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Winn, Late-term abortions are in general, illegal, and uncontestably so. Once the developing organism has a brain that can register and respond to changes in its environment, and is capable of feeling pain, it is generally too late to abort.

It is commonly asserted by pro-choicers that such abortions ought to be legal, and quite sensibly, if rights are to only be conferred at birth. The reason those abortions are illegal is because lots of people disagree with that notion, right?

Before the neural tube forms, or after the tube forms but before the cortex starts to develop from it, it is a very different story. There’s not even the remotest chance of a mind there, and it is about as responsive to changes in the environment as an amputated arm is.

At that point, we go with the wishes of the only mind present in that body, at least if you support the right to choose. After that point we effectively have two minds in that body and both must be taken into consideration.

I totally agree with you, and this was exactly what I thought ought to be emphasized.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

I had no idea that “humiliating” another country made you morally superior.

As for defeating Israel twice, the 2006 war appears to be a stalemate at best. I mean, if we’re to go with the logic that Hezbollah holding out throughout the Israeli onslaught counts as “winning”, then Israel ought to have won the 2006 war as well; it certainly held out in spite of Hezbollah’s attacks.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / ITT: You are the 11 year old you!

Originally posted by Boomibom:
Originally posted by KennethP30:
Originally posted by Boomibom:

Hmmm, maybe just act like this..
Just normal..
Not like a typical ‘’teenage-girl’’ who says ‘’LOLOLOLO XDDD I HAZ NO GUDZ GRAMMER, OMG I LUV 1D XOXO’’
Just act normal..

OMG I LIEK PIZZAS?

PIZZA!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!11

PIE IS GOOD CHEESE IS GOOD I’M SO CLEVER AND RANDOM

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / 600

Originally posted by vikaTae:

Punisher, you’ll note that none of those wars are currently ongoing. Their time has come and gone.

For your people however, you still glorify death and violence. The baton has passed to you.

Are you saying that punisher’s people believe death and violence to be goods in and of themselves?

EDIT: Yes, and quite reasonably so.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Okay, wait a second. Pro-choicers aren’t anti-baby, they just believe fetuses and embryos don’t count as babies and can thus acceptably be killed. We know this because pro-choices have never even considered legalizing the killing of a baby once it is born.

Pro-lifers aren’t anti-woman, they just believe that fetuses and embyros count as babies and thus cannot acceptably be killed. We know this because pro-lifers have never even considered removing a woman’s right to choose to have piercings or tattoos, for example.

What’s really in dispute here is what counts as a baby and what doesn’t. What does a newborn have that a late-term fetus doesn’t? If a newborn can’t be killed, why ought an embryo to be killable? Is there some set of brainwaves that gives a thing human rights, or is it DNA?

I just think there are better ways to talk about issues like this.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Originally posted by Labayka:
Originally posted by vikaTae:
Originally posted by Labayka:

The problem with their number is that they didn’t say where they got it from, Hezbollah leaders isn’t very specific, another problem is that Hezbollah didn’t give an official number.

They wouldn’t. It would be politically inconvenient for them if the number was higher than the number of Israelis who died. The only way to save face would be to refuse to disclose the actual amount, and use the less than stellar official death tallies as a smokescreen for that purpose.

The Israeli number of 700 is ridiculous. And it doesn’t matter184 or 250, both numbers are insignificant and didn’t harm Hezbollahs ability to wage war. Why don’t you focus on the actual battles instead of the casualties? I have stated many times that the IDF lost many battles and performed poorly in general.

It is quite clear that Israel’s ability to wage war is perfectly intact as well.

But let’s say you’re right, and Hezbollah provoked an Israeli invasion that failed so disastrously that Israel was actually weakened. How does this make Hezbollah a righteous organization?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Er…you lost me at “how much conspiracy is going on”.

Being a president really doesn’t pay that well (400k per year), for a job that means you’ll be under intense public scrutiny, stress, and assassination attempts for the rest of your life. Other high-ranking leaders in business and investing make much more: our country is designed so that being president isn’t the best office in the land.

This means that the people in it actually are pretty likely to be in it as a public service, which was the intention. Anyone seeking to maximize income wouldn’t be president in the first place.

The leadership has always been stupid, government power has always screwed us over, and I am interested in your charts measuring conspiracy rates in a purely ironic way. When your critiques are this superficial and close to home, it’s honestly pretty likely you’re talking about problems humans have all faced since we invented politics in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Should medical crystal meth be legalized?

Originally posted by YoucantbutICan:

Absolutely not. Crystal meth isn’t just a drug. It’s fucking evil, like, seriously. Fucking evil. It doesn’t benefit you with weight loss, it destroys you with weight loss. Losing weight with Crystal Meth is suicide. You could literally die from it.

Since when did meth cure cancer and AIDS. Are you high? ..Are you?

Are you saying that crystal meth, by definition, cannot be used responsibly? How do you know that?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Originally posted by Labayka:

The International whatever is not Hezbollah, so you can’t call it the official Hezbollah source.

I’m not. I’m calling it a reference to official Hezbollah sources.

If you’re implying the Tribune fabricated these numbers, and then attributed them to Hezbollah, it is probably important to note than any organization, no matter how reputable, can do that.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

Originally posted by Labayka:

According to Hezbollah (who are probably more than willing to lie about topics like these) they took 250 casualties, more than double the losses that the Israeli Defense Forces took, in a war Hezbollah instigated. The United Nations estimates 500 dead Hezbollah fighters.

The Wikipedia source is an online newspaper article, not Hezbollah. Wikipedia is the worst source on the 2006.
bq. The count includes 250 Hezbollah fighters that the group’s leaders now say died during Israel’s intense air, ground and sea bombardments in Lebanon. Israel has estimated its forces have killed 600 Hezbollah fighters.

And the “group’s leaders” (which ones?) never stated an exact number.

The International Herald Tribune seems to disagree.

…I’m not sure about your definition for what’s a reputable source.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Off-topic / OFFICIAL 1 word to describe the user above.

Brock-like

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Hezbollah: Resistance movement or terrorists?

According to Hezbollah (who are probably more than willing to lie about topics like these) they took 250 casualties, more than double the losses that the Israeli Defense Forces took, in a war Hezbollah instigated. The United Nations estimates 500 dead Hezbollah fighters.

This means Hezbollah had all the time in the world to prepare for an Israeli attack, and still lost.

Combine this with the fact that Israel unquestionably could have won if it had been more ruthless (Hezbollah was apparently fond of hanging out in urban areas where bystanders tend to get killed, meaning a Western country like Israel had to be careful). Meanwhile, Hezbollah seemed to be doing its best to kill as many Israel civilians as possible, but did not have the means. The bad guy in such a conflict is tough to dispute.

Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2006_Lebanon_War#Beginning_of_conflict

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Originally posted by urine420:

youve figured out why im not an anarchist, and tbf, youre describing one form of anarchism, whereas the actual political belief is far more nuanced. Anarcho syndicalism is far more attainable than pure anarchism, anarcho collectivism is far more socially concious than others & and anarcho capitalism is for dumb retard babies. I am a Marxist-Leninist, by and large, with some trotskyist elements; because i believe some centralization is neccesary for a non-primative society to adequately provide goods to all citizens. anarchism is a bit too pie in the sky for me, but i am willing to have them as allies

Sorry, the way you described anarchism, I assumed you were supportive.

I still have one more question, though.

In a society with some centralization (enforced by a state, which is funded by taxes, levied from workers, leaving each worker with some amount with which he can support himself) what distinguishes the hierarchy between state and worker from the hierarchy between worker and mighty capitalist? Even if they are seen to be distinct, aren’t they both equally extortionist and oppressive, by Marxist standards?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why american soldiers should not be allowed in ukraine?

Originally posted by JohnnyBeGood:
Whats the difference between Puerto Rico and any single landowner just claiming independence and making his own country on his land?
Its the reason why larger communities above the family level were created in the first place. Numbers provide security and prosperity.

Numbers provide security and prosperity? What a lovely reason for any given landowner to stay part of the good old USA.

In fact, the ties and mutual dependencies that come from being part of a larger whole create compelling reasons for many places (such as Scotland, Quebec, and Puerto Rico) to remain ruled by their their sovereigns. Even though these places are large, culturally vibrant, and have clear pseudo-national identity, giving them clear advantages as potential nations over our independently-minded hypothetical landowner, they still find themselves better off by living under foreign dominion.

However, they might not find themselves better off after all, and that is, in my opinion, sufficient reason to let them go off on their own.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Originally posted by urine420:
Originally posted by Kasic:

Out of curiosity urine, what would you consider radically left? Pure anarchy (no government whatsoever)?

Anarchism, basically. the rest of the people here seem to view the status quo of capitalism as being centrist, which is a notion i fundamentally disagree with. At best, social democracy is at best centrist, as it doesn’t do away with bosses, but rebalances the power relationship somewhat. Until the means of production are owned by workers, the viewpoint cannot be leftist, levels of governmental involvement determine how radically leftist it is.

Two questions:
1. How is an anarchist society supposed to do away with bosses? It has no laws (or even non-voluntarist customs) with which to do away with anything.
2. How is an anarchist society supposed to enforce property rights, to keep the means of production in workers’ hands?
I mean, after observing a plan like this one, all I can say is that at least fascism is observably plausible.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why american soldiers should not be allowed in ukraine?

Originally posted by RollerCROWster:

I agree, they VOTED to be annexed!

Its like how Texas became an independent country after they VOTED to leave the US!

discuss

Are you referring to when Texas left the United States to join the CSA? Because the war against the CSA was only justified in the sense that slavery was an institution that violated human rights. What other reason besides slavery makes CSA secession seem morally wrong, if we are to assume that people have a right to self-determination?

A better comparison: Puerto Rico has a significant pro-independence movement today. If they wished to leave the USA and form their own constitutional democracy, shouldn’t they be allowed to?

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Originally posted by Kasic:

Out of curiosity urine, what would you consider radically left? Pure anarchy (no government whatsoever)?

Probably some kind of revolutionary socialism that’s so impractical as to rarely exist.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Quick political question

Okay, the thing is, Democrat advocacy for tighter gun restrictions and looser immigration restrictions (for example) doesn’t stem from random chance, but pre-existing societal forces. For whatever reason, a party that advocates those perspectives on those two issues (as opposed to, say, tighter gun restrictions AND tighter immigration restrictions) can get half the public on its side, while other combinations of views would hardly be popular at all.

Radical leftists just represent the most extreme results of the social forces that created the left in the first place.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Why american soldiers should not be allowed in ukraine?

Originally posted by beauval:

dd, Crimea is roughly 60% ethnic Russians, and there are bound to be pro-Russians in other groups too. They shouldn’t need too many persuaders to win the vote.

However, there were many Russian speakers protesting on the Maidan, I think.

Just because someone’s a Russian speaker doesn’t mean they’ll support Russian rule, especially with how aggressive Russia’s getting. Also, don’t forget that when the vote happens, Crimean Tatars will turn out in droves to vote for Ukraine, when Russian speakers might be more likely to not care too much either way.

 
Flag Post

Topic: Serious Discussion / Pop Culture Trending Topics - What do they mean for us?

Originally posted by Jantonaitis:

I’m pretty much in agreement with the idea of steampunk being the white boy’s fantasy…it answers alot of niggling questions about the genre. Not so sure about Bioshock; it seems a lot more ironic than most steampunk I’ve seen.

A white boy’s fantasy? I personally know quite a few girls who like steampunk, though the emphasis is (as one might expect) more on the fashions and dashing Byronic heroes than the steam-cyborgs and mega wars. Race isn’t much of an obstacle either.

It might be more accurate to deem it a fantasy of disillusioned Western youth.