Random Insanity Alliance Forum, Mark V
Cactuar Zone => Random lnsanity => Topic started by: Mia on November 02, 2011, 09:47:29 am
-
So I may end up graduating with a BA in management by next fall... that is before my 21st birthday. I will be old enough to manage a store containing alcohol but not old enough to drink any of it. Irony?
-
Yeah, but then you have to because then and you'll get no where then.
-
I read the topic and thought this was going to be about me... then I realized that Mia started it and my hopes were dashed. But on the same premise:
So I may end up starting my MS in Operations Management next fall...that is before my 21st birthday. I will be old enough to run a factory producing alcohol but not old enough to drown in said alcohol. Irony?
-
I'll finish my BA in just over a week, and I've been old enough to drink for quite a few years now. Even ran the Liquor Department at a supermarket before I started my BA, lol.
-
Since when have laws on drinking age ever stopped anyone? Anyway, I do think 21 is a good age for the law. Kids act damn stupid when it comes to alcohol. We've all been there so I'd think that's hard to argue against.
-
unless your outside of the US, federal law prohibits you working in a store that sells alcohol as a manager.
Sorry to rain on your parade :D
-
I personally think that 18 is a good age, undiscovered. Plenty of other countries are in line with that and are doing quite well, so I've never really understood how we ended up at the age of 21 in the United States.
-
I guess, it would probably take away that edgy cool factor of doing something illegal and make it just a normal thing.
-
Exactly, though really, I'd rather it not be an age thing and instead be a you have to at least graduate from high school thing. If you didn't graduate, you're too stupid to drink. If you graduated and went to college when you were 16, get yourself a beer to celebrate doing your work while those other dipshits didn't.
Of course, that'd probably be harder to maintain, but perfect worlds are tough to control, too.
-
Wanna know whats funny about the US?
I joined the Army, Graduated Basic, Graduated the Military intelligence School, Went to war, and Came back.
Before I was old enough to drink.
-
and im sure they cared lots about your drinking habits while on tour... although, thinking about it, do i really want the people who make life and death choices for other people to be able to drink? no... i dont think i do...
-
More of, while we were stateside. Me and the others under 21 were always left out of the barracks parties. However, thats basically what led to the formation of our paintball team. And, when we came back and all turned 21 shortly after, it was barracks parties which lead to the destruction of our paintball team.
-
Wait, you were in the military and had paintball fights? C'mon man, you have a whole armory full of cool stuff and you settle on toys!?
-
Wait, you were in the military and had paintball fights? C'mon man, you have a whole armory full of cool stuff and you settle on toys!?
Maybe because Intelligence guys don't go to the front.
-
Actually, that's a common misconception. In fact, my job (in a real war) is to be behind the enemy line with a squad of 19d (Cavalry scouts). Most Tactical Intelligence Analysts are attached to cavalry units and go either to or beyond the front line until we reach a rank where we are slightly less expendable.
I mean, were not the most expendable, but we are trained to do a specific job. We capture/receive intelligence, analyze it, and send it back to command. The modern day intelligence soldier is nothing like the desk-jockeys of yester-year.
Let me walk you through one of my "cycles" while I was over:
First, wake up at abound dawn, then 3S. After that, breakfest and daily briefing in the TOC (Tactical Operations Command), we'd get the days target packets, pick priorities, and assign them out. Next, we'd bring our vehicle to whatever unit was hitting our priorities. We'd patrol with them till given the final go, then they'd strike.
They'd hit the building and secure it. I'd go in (usually giving the turret to someone else) and photograph everything quickly while we gathered evidence and detainees. We'd head back to base. The unit that went with us would goto debrief, we'd take the detainees to the med station. The medics would inspect the detainee while we checked all the evidence in (cataloging weapons and such). The medics would finish their checks on the detainees and approve/disapprove them for interrogation. If approved, we'd take them to solitary holding for the night, if disapproved, we'd arrange transportation to a detainee medical holding facility. Then, we'd return to the TOC and analyze the evidence. Find anything time sensitive and interrogate the same night if we needed, otherwise we'd do a hand-over to the night-team. THey would check anything we had to see if it matched their stuff, and then we'd goto sleep. night team did same basic thing, but at night.
Next day, we'd get breakfest and take the detainees from holding to interrogation. We'd spend the day going between interrogations and evidence analysis. When we were finished with a detainee, we'd tag his belongings with his detainee number and send him up the chain. Any weapons would be turned over for disposal. Then, we'd start prepping for the next day.
I did that for about half my time over before being promoted to PFC and assigned a different job.
I wasn't a door-kicker or anything, but I was still out there in sector. The old days of intelligence are dead. While we still have people who sit and analyze satellite footage all day, but the best intelligence we get comes from boots-on-the-ground work, experience, and analysis.
I can name very few people that were my age when I was in Intel that had jobs requiring as much professionalism as mine did.
-
Did you ever get to stack detainees? How about torture them? From what I have been told by buddies in Iraq and Afganistan that is front line intel work.
-
Also, Pterrydactylhis if you did what you said you did, yes I imagine most guys your age would not be doing such work that requires a lot of professionalism such as the one you were doing - except me :smug:
And did you ever do this?
Did you ever get to stack detainees? How about torture them? From what I have been told by buddies in Iraq and Afganistan that is front line intel work.
-
HR, can you define professionalism without googling it for me?
-
It is how you suck my dick.
-
It is how you suck my dick.
I have been told I give great oral. You pass this round.
-
Did you ever get to stack detainees? How about torture them? From what I have been told by buddies in Iraq and Afganistan that is front line intel work.
Your either trolling, or your buddy from Iraq is an idiot.
Anyone who actually did anything besides believe the spoon-fed drool that Fox was shoveling would know that it was Army Reserve Military police from maryland that were behind the torture and detainee abuse.
They were not active duty (what I was), basically, many Reservist MPs are pretty much rejected police officers that couldn't get jobs in corrections. So, they do their regular job during the week and one weekend a month they get to pretend their are real police. IMHO, most reservists have no business deploying overseas.
And to answer your question: No, I did not torture any detainees or force any sort of bodily harm or abuse onto them at all.
See, people don't understand, torture is fucking useless, except for enjoyment of the psycho doing the torturing. The information is almost never reliable, and when it is reliable, it's easily obtainable without torturing. I mean, if I'm breaking your fingers or hitting you, your going to tell me what I want to hear, not what I need to know. Not to mention, it makes it harder for me to form a connection or bond with you later, which is very important for long-term interrogation, You need to be able to trust me with whatever secret you have that I want.
I mean, Can you extract information with torture? Yes. Is it reliable? Generally no.
Torture is a tool for amateurs, or to be thrown in movies to make it look good. It's no use to someone who actually needs real information.
-
Well said. I don't believe Hollywood, but I sure as hell don't believe the press over a vet telling me first-hand stories, either. The press was made to minimise the stories and make it seem like it was a few people who got out of hand, but bear in mind this happened in both US and British detainment facilities.
One of my buddies is a twice-decorated USMC from the first Gulf War. He went to Iraq regularly during the second, as a private citizen for commercial purposes in connection to the military. He brought back some pretty gruesome stories of what was going on (with photos) - he described it as frontline intel gathering. I worked directly with him when I was based in the ME during the Afgan & Iraq wars, and heard a lot of other stories from military personnel from the US, Canadian, and UK forces. Also from 2 Iraqi colleagues who had family detained by US forces - their comment was that the US beatings were gentler than the Iraqi ones... So, all of my information is second hand, but I worked with these people for between 3 and 7 years and vouch for them. Feel free to call it an urban legend.
I am not trolling - it was a simple question, and I don't pass any value judgement on torture. In war you do what you have to to get the job done quickly and establish a better peace. No one was innocent in Iraq - they let an asshole like Saddam stand for 30 years without sticking their necks out for their own freedom.
-
So...I'm guessing that you never got to go to the School of the Americas, then?
-
Grilled, prior to 2004 when the intelligence corps was restructured and rebuilt from the ground up is what we call "old intel". Those were the people trained to interrogate enemy soldiers. We were trained to interrogate soldiers and civilians and the different methods that have proven useful.
-
The old methods are the best methods. And by the way these stories kept coming through long after 2004. Torture will always be around, and I can only hope that we apply the same science to the task as we do to other disciplines - otherwise it is just, as you said, for the amusement of the captor. If it was as unreliable as you say, people would have given up the practice a long time ago - it has its uses, and a nation should apply all of its resources to getting the job done, whether it offends their own sensibilities or not. To withhold yourself from any method at your disposal, because it is unpopular back home, means prolonging a conflict and leaving the people whose country you occupy in harm's way longer than they need to be. Good thing I am not doing that job - I would be all sweet like you say to get the information, then every so often torture the hell out of one of my informants to calibrate my information and methods. Preferably to the death so he could not rat me out.
On the subject I read an interesting Harvard Business Review article on the subject - basically negotiation methods used in Iraq, and how to apply it to business. It seemed practical if I also had the option to shoot my customers, otherwise it was a little academic - it all comes down to establishing your own walk away point, and knowing the other guy's...
-
torturing informants would accomplish nothing except losing them as informants, and the information they are giving is usually much more valuable. Informants, are almost always people who are giving you the information at their own risk (though, usually for monetary reward). If you don't torture them and just get their information and pay based on reliability, it's much better in the long-run. Then, if he starts giving you inaccurate info, you stop paying him and maybe if it gets really bad, you let slip what he's doing to a detainee just before release.
Yes, torture will always be around, but it's just an unreliable way to get any information. Not to mention, against the Geneva convention. Even if we wanted to use torture for information, we legally can't.
-
Since when did the Geneva Convention stop people (esp many US Army guys, as shown in the Abu Ghraib pics)?
-
Again HR as I said before, those were army reserve MPs. Reserve are pretty much the stupid rednecks of the army, and the reserve MPs are usually people who couldn't make it as police or corrections officers. Plese don't take the actions of a small group of these failfags as standard for the entire army. That would be like me saying because 1 teenager shot up a school, I should expect all of them too.
Every single person on earth is different. Just because some stupid Fucks do that, doesnt mean that all of us will.
In fact, what's closer to the truth is that for every stupid Fuck like the ones in those pics, there are over a hundred who hand out supplies to schoolchildren. But, what sort of bothers me, is that everyone remembers abu gharib, but noone remembers how we brought computers to Iraqi schools when most of schoolchildren who had never even seen one before.
It pissed me off that the pictures that cunt took will be remembered, but the pictures of us giving kids soccer balls or the "teddy bear bomber"(a soldier whose parents owned a bear factory. He would tie parachutes to them and launch them to playgrounds out the side od his helicopter) will be forgotten. And why? Because most people believe the bullshit that most of the media spoonfeeds them.
People claim freedom of the press, but I think journalists should be licensed and forced to have integrity. I could go on about how soany journalists lack integrity and give examples, but I'm typing this on my phone and I'm tires of autocorrect fucking with the words.
-
Also, by many I assume you mean less than 10 out of the hundreds of thousand that didn't.
-
Journalists aren't all wrong because one guy reported something that doesn't jive with your personal experience, either.
I am willing to bet anything that there is a stack of prisoners somewhere right now getting a car battery current run through their nipples. All that Abu Ghuraib did was make the US army careful about cameras when conducting torture. Sorry if it is cynical, but at least it's not naive.
-
Also, by many I assume you mean less than 10 out of the hundreds of thousand that didn't.
There weren't even 10 hijackers involved on 9-11, and our countries went to war with the nations of millions of inhabitants over it, killing more then 100,000. Not that I was against it.
-
GS, why are you such an arsehole? Interesting that you think the actions of a few justify generalisation and revenge killings. Can you blame the extremists on the other side if they think like you?
Pterrydactyl, you are right that evil is remembered more than good. But again, some of those people whom you gave candies and computers may not be grateful because a US bomb killed their dads or know people tortured in Abu Ghraib.
I am glad in the end Obama pulled out from Iraq. Best US president ever, after Bill Clinton and Woodrow Wilson :P
-
While I do think that it was time for us to pull out of Iraq, I do think that we needed to go in, just not for as long as we were there.
Heres the thing, Saddam needed to be removed from power. Bush SR. should have done in 20 years ago during the first gulf war. Saddam gassed tens of thousands of his kurds and committed many other atrocities. And, we knew that he had WMDs, we just didn't know where. I'm still positive that he had them buried in the desert somewhere. I mean, when I was overseas, we took picture of people sitting in the SCUDs where the canisters of various types of gas had been removed .
Now, while I support us going in and taking him out, I think we should have gone a different route with out "occupation". Once we had removed him and established an interim government, we should have tried to get a democracy setup as quickly as possible, then turned over control to them much sooner. I mean, I was there still close enough to the beginning where most of the people fighting us were Saddam Loyalists, Ba'ath party members, and a few people who were generally displeased with everything. But, as I was leaving in Jan 2006 (after he had been executed and democracy had been established), the people fighting began to turn from loyalists to people who were upset with the US, people who were being paid by Iranians (I don't even remember how many Iranians we caught smuggling weapons), and finally, Al Queda in Iraq. Now, when I was there in early 2005, al Queda in Iraq was small, but they grew quickly as they smuggled people in from neighboring countries. In fact, near the end of 2005, maybe only about 10% of the people we were fighting were Iraqis.
Now, I do think that Iraq went on too long, Had we began to pull out in 2007 and left a small force under Iraqi government control (to assist the Iraqi Military that was still re-establishing at that time), I think it would not have gotten as bad as it was at some points. The problem, was that intelligence would get "skewed" on the way up to the top. Imagine, a giant game of telephone.
Here is exactly how our intelligence reporting worked:
Our Squadron (we called it Squadron, cause we were cav, but it is the same setup as a Battalion), would send a report to our Brigade. The report would be like, 5 pages. Now, there were 6 other Battalions that would dot he same thing. They'd then take the 30 pages, and filter it down to about 8 pages with the highlights. Next, those 8 pages would be sent to division. Division would receive reports from 4 brigades. Then would take that and filter it down again pulling out the highlights. They would send this to MNF-I command. Now, they would get reports from usually 5 divisions and shrink it again. It would get sent to General Shoomaker, and he would then simplify it to the most important information and that was what Bush would get. This happened every day, so you can imagine how much information was lost or not sent further once it reached where it was necessary the most. In fact, most of what Bush got, was reports of casualities, successful combat operations, and critical information from detainees.
So, basically, our of the hundreds of pages of intelligence reported, only the most critical information was passed on, and that was after it was rewarded half a dozen times. Personally, I had 2 reports that I wrote go all the way to Bush, and when they came back to me each time they were nothing like what I originally wrote. They had taken a page or so of information and shrunk it down to 2 or 3 sentences. For example, the one report I wrote was about how we had secured airport road so that noone had died on it for 6 months. It was about a page and a half and was simplified down to: "6-8 Cav has secured Airport Road, no enemy action for 6 months". Which was not completely true. We had plenty of enemy action, but we had thwarted all of it. However, just the fact that we were able to secure airport road (before we took control, it was the most dangerous road in the entire world), got us a presidential unit citation.
At least now, we can concentrate on Afghanistan, which needs much more help than Iraq does.
Also, I will forever hold a grudge against Obama for cutting NASA funding. But I did like Clinton (who, some of you might not be old enough to remember, played Saxophone on Leno while he was in office, A first). Also, Gore wasn't bad for Clinton's VP (I mean, he was on Futurama as himself while he was in Office, another first).
-
HR - I don't believe in revenge killings. You're the arse for trying to apply morality to war.
Saddam needed to be taken out because he was a menace who attacked all of his neighbours. People in Bahrain still remember the scud that came down just off shore, and I bet Israelis don't easily forget the rain of scud terror he sent them. He attacked Iran, and 1 million were killed. Border skirmishes and incursions with Turkey, and dogfights with Saudi Arabia. And I haven't even mentioned what he did to his own people - I had a colleague whose brother was shot and killed by one of his Immortals for stepping on the lawn of a presidential palace. His own people didn't have the balls to correct the situation themselves, and let him prosper - they got caught in the crossfire due to their own inaction and selsea kittenness.
As for Afganistan, their government was also a menace to all, and was not in control of their own territory - to the point that Bin Laden was able to train, prepare, and launch an attack from their soil that killed thousands, all the way across the world. They beat and killed their own in a twisted perversion of faith. I don't know what is worse, supporting an act of war from your own territory, or claiming not to know about it. It is the same reason that Lebanon is a mess - until the Lebanese government can exercise their sovereignty, they are responsible for Hezbollah's actions - unless they cast the south off and admit defeat to their Palestinian invaders.
Atonichis, you are obviously a very sensible guy who has seen worse than I have, but your argument about the phone game only supports my point that much can go on and not be reported.
Obama is good because he is trying to engage his people, but am pissed at him about NASA too. NASA programs are the guiding light of science in the world today. As for cancelling the space shuttle, though, have you seen this?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boeing_X-37)
Think for a minute just what such a vehicle means...
My favourite US president was George Bush Sr., followed by Nixon, then Ronald Reagan. I guess that would make me a republican.
-
It wasn't exactly the shuttle I was bothered about, it was the replacement for the shuttle, and the fact that he pulled money away from it.
NASA and our space advances were the one thing that noone could really dispute or talk bad about. I mean, even a country that hates us like, like france, can't deny our contributions to the world from our space technology, and for him to just cut funding is unforgivable. It was one of the few things our government was still doing right, and one of our biggest hopes for the future.
And the X-37 is under DARPA now, which means it will either become weaponized, turned into spy equipment, or the project will be classified and locked up forever. But, hopefully DARPA won't turn it into a space-based version of Metal Gear.
-
It's a drone in space. That can land. Presumably with a payload. The only reason to build such a thing is to be able to bring something back - there are easier and cheaper ways to get something into space and leave it there.
What could you want to bring back? The only things I can think of are temporarily deployed nukes stationed on the ultimate high ground, or other nations' satellites (ie if a nation denied having something in space, it could be taken and noone could publicly object...)
-
GS, just go watch Star Trek already.
-
What could you want to bring back?
People?
-
Wait, no-one can hear me in this vacuum? D:
Snake? SNAKE? SNAAAAAAAKE!!!!
-
GS, just go watch Star Trek already.
Dont you have a Dear Abby column to ghost-write?
-
Don't you have my dick to suck?
-
Not sure I can reach it from back here.
-
America sucks, in germany you are allowed to drink from age 16 .
-
Germany sucks, in China you are allowed to drink from the day you are born.
-
China sucks. In Belgium, you can drink before your mom even knows you have been conceived.
-
Belgium sucks, in America you can drink before your mother is even born.
-
America sucks. In Babylonia, you can drink before alcohol is even invented.
-
Babylona sucks. In they invented alcohol in Ireland.
-
Ireland sucks. In Heaven you can drink before creation.
-
In Soviet Russia, Alcohol drinks you!
-
Soviet Russia sucks. In modern Russia, alcohol drinks alcohol.
-
Russia sucks, in Libya dead people drink alcohol (think Qaddafi).
-
Libya sucks. In Canada, people are dead drunk.
-
Canada sucks, in Ethiopia you get a woman when you buy a bottle of liquor.
-
Ethiopia sucks. In Saudi Arabia you get a beating if you buy alcohol (assuming you're into that sort of thing).
-
Saudi Arabia sucks, in Iran you get a free beating and alcohol once a year (Ashura - google it, Im not kidding).
-
Iran sucks. In northern Pakistan, you die for a drink. Then it's an open bar, with pussy to boot.
-
Pakistan sucks, in Aussie Alcohol = pussy.
-
Australia sucks. In Dubai you can drink at 800M above sea level.
-
Dubai sucks. Outside Cairo, you can drink alcohol 300 Metres under sea level!
-
Cairo sucks. In northern Canada you can drink in a forest and no one will hear you fall down.
-
Canada sucks, in Mexico you can get boiled in a vat of liquor and the authorities won't do a thing about it.
-
Mexico sucks. In church you can drink and they'll tell you it's some dude's blood.
-
Mexico sucks. In church you can drink and they'll tell you it's some dude's blood.
WE HAVE A WINNER
-
Not done. Church sucks. In Thailand you can drink in the streets, waist-high in water.
-
Mexico sucks. In church you can drink and they'll tell you it's some dude's blood.
WE HAVE A WINNER
-
Thailand sucks. In China you can drink water, but in reality it is all the toxic shit you can imagine.
-
China sucks, in Japan the water is radioactive.
-
Japan sucks. In Brazil, football is radioactive.
-
Brazil sucks, in Argentina it's called futbol.
-
Argentina sucks. In the Incan Empire, the football was someone's head.
-
The Incan Empire sucks. In Chile, the indigenous people successfully repelled Incan expansion into their territory.
-
Chile sucks, in Somalia the indigenous people have repelled invasions for thousands of years
-
Somalia sucks, the America, we fought ourselves and won.
-
America sucks. In the Ottoman empire they fought one another and became about 20 European and Middle Eastern nations.
-
The Ottoman Empire sucks. In Iran they think they can build nukes without my permission (and it is looking like I will have to get Israel or the US to grease their reactor).
-
[russian accent]Israel or the US sucks. In New Soviet Russia we are first country to be located entirely on moon and will threaten to crash our homeland into earth at slightest provocation by illiterate western pigdogs, taking concept of mutually assured destruction to glorious new kheightz. In the several decades it will take for our primitive solar powered ion thruster technology to push orbiting body into homeplanet, do not foolishly attempt to predict point of impact and dig miles deep kholes on opposite side of globe, but rather end with dignified pursuits such as reading of classic russian literature. Might I recommend Tolstoy or Dostoevsky?[/russian accent]
-
[russian accent]Израиль или США сосут. В Новой советской России мы - первая страна, которая будет расположена полностью на луне и будем угрожать потерпеть крушение наша родина в землю в малейшей провокации неграмотным западом pigdogs, беря понятие взаимно гарантированного уничтожения к великолепному новому kheightz. За эти несколько десятилетий будет требоваться для нашей примитивной солнечной включенной технологии охотника иона, чтобы выдвинуть орбитальное тело в homeplanet, по-дурацки не попытайтесь предсказать точку падения ракеты и вырыть мили глубоко kholes на противоположной стороне земного шара, а скорее конца с достойным преследованием, типа показания классической российской литературы. Я мог бы рекомендовать Толстому или Достоевскому?[/russian accent]
Fixxed.
-
New Soviet Russia sucks. On Mars, they have transcended, but remember that the moon is a harsh mistress.
-
Mars sucks.On earth we have thousands of warheads held by mentally unstable politicians high on hate.
-
Earth sucks. It is full of Holy Rulers who don't get my erudite references to Robert A. Heinlein.
-
Earth sucks. It is full of Holy Rulers who don't get my erudite references to Robert A. Heinlein.
Heinlein sucks. I write real-life scientific war books.
-
Real-life scientific war books suck. There's not enough boobies in them, and besides, Sun Tzu pretty much nailed that subject down 2600 years ago. Contemporize, man...
-
Sun Tzu sucks. No body gets closer to their enemies these days.
-
Bah, that's just fashion. It is the old challenge of the bow vs the spear, skirmish vs shock. Hammer and anvil tactics still rule, and wars still cannot be won without closing with the enemy on the ground. Obfuscate modern sensors and communnications, and we are back to wielding clubs and cburritos jaws.
And Sun Tzu still applies even if you don't close with the enemy, proving that art trumps science. Especially poignant today, and in this thread, is the last chapter...
-
Bah, that's just fashion. It is the old challenge of the bow vs the spear, skirmish vs shock. Hammer and anvil tactics still rule, and wars still cannot be won without closing with the enemy on the ground. Obfuscate modern sensors and communnications, and we are back to wielding clubs and cburritos jaws.
And Sun Tzu still applies even if you don't close with the enemy, proving that art trumps science. Especially poignant today, and in this thread, is the last chapter...
-
Sun Tzu is required reading at the Us Army Intelligence School/Academy. I know. I graduated from there.
Also, I'm intrested in your real-life scientific war books. What are the exactly? Fiction or non-fiction? Guides, Biographies? Where do they classify? How do you get research?
-
Yeah - I would be interested in knowing too. My favourite military author/analyst is JFC Fuller. Who is yours?
-
Mine is Karl Popper (ok, I know he wasn't into military shit, but whatever).
Also my real life war books are not scientific per se, but they deal with guerilla groups in a certain country and how they rose to power (kinda).
-
An interesting subject. Revolutionary method - based on successful revolutions like the Christian, Mohamedian, American, French, and Russian have a lot in common:
- started by a few intellectuals (or God, Allah...etc)
- create a clear manifesto, bible, koran (ie dogma)
- Get the buy-in of key economic interests
- Get the Army on your side
- Wage a successful war
- propagandize like hell
- fight the inevitable counter-revolutionaries once they get organized
- design nice uniforms
It is a process and a formula that is quite repetitive in history. The more difficult challenge is how to beat an insurrection, whether by intra- or trans-state actors...
Have you published?
-
*reads first post*
K.
*reads last post*
rite...
-
Don't have to be old enough to drink to revolt...or write books about it.
-
Somehow I keep going back to wanting to write my book in modern military intelligence. But, I know that I'd probably end up in a secret CIA prison in Alaska...
-
My grandfather was in intel at the end of WW2, and helped plan the Canadian D-Day landing. He stayed around after the war for 2 years to use his intel skills to put families back together (think about the scale of destruction and displacement...). I asked why he stayed and didn't come back to see family & friends, and he said he had some things to atone for. It's the only thing he ever said about the war, to anyone since he returned. Today he is in an old-vets home with advanced Alzheimer's, and the only people he remembers in the whole world, including his children, are the names of his first anti-tank gun crew. I wish he'd written something down - I can only imagine the knowledge and experience he had and has now lost.
-
unfortunately, because of what I did, most of what I would write is classified and I don't feel like getting charged with treason.
-
An interesting subject. Revolutionary method - based on successful revolutions like the Christian, Mohamedian, American, French, and Russian have a lot in common:
- started by a few intellectuals (or God, Allah...etc)
- create a clear manifesto, bible, koran (ie dogma)
- Get the buy-in of key economic interests
- Get the Army on your side
- Wage a successful war
- propagandize like hell
- fight the inevitable counter-revolutionaries once they get organized
- design nice uniforms
It is a process and a formula that is quite repetitive in history. The more difficult challenge is how to beat an insurrection, whether by intra- or trans-state actors...
Have you published?
Mohammedan is an insult, please don't call Muslims that again.
Also, I am published, but not the book itself. Do you subscribe to IHS Jane's?
-
No, Jane's is too expansive and my interests are as up to date.
Why is Mohammedan an insult? I lived in the middle east for 7 years, and thought I knew the difference between that and Muslim.
-
I've heard of it being "insulting" before. It was one of the terms we were told not to use when interacting with the population.
-
Calling a Muslim Mohammedan is like calling a Christian "Cross Worshiper" - unless you personally don't mind. It also implies that Islam is a religion founded by the Prophet Mohammed, when in reality what we believe is that Islam is a continuous religion, and that the Prophet was the last messenger with the last book. We also believe in Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc.
Also, GS, I wouldn't know how expensive Jane's is because I have a Gratis subscription to a couple of its publications :) (WIT and Sentinel)
-
Actually, I think it may be a bit closer to "bible thumper".
-
Calling a Muslim Mohammedan is like calling a Christian "Cross Worshiper" - unless you personally don't mind. It also implies that Islam is a religion founded by the Prophet Mohammed, when in reality what we believe is that Islam is a continuous religion, and that the Prophet was the last messenger with the last book. We also believe in Jesus, Moses, Abraham, etc.
Also, GS, I wouldn't know how expensive Jane's is because I have a Gratis subscription to a couple of its publications :) (WIT and Sentinel)
That's about right but not quite - the comparison I would make is not 'cross worshipper', but 'papist'. I am raised Catholic, but am not catholic in any way because I don't feel any closer to God when I am in a church, and don't give a hoot for the pope. It's an apt comparison because the Pope is supposed to be God's representative on earth, and most of them end up as saints to be worshipped. I can't get past the contrast of Jesus' words of peace, and its practical implementation by his followers, especially following the Nicean Creed (in I think 330-340AD, forced by Constantine to adopt Christianity as the Roman empire's official religion and stave of Aphthartodocetism and other movement disputing the nature of Christ as man or god or both). The Protestant-Catholic wars for 250 years are just inexcusable, and frankly, bad-mannered. In my books, Christ was a man committed to the end to his beliefs, who lived by example and whose apostles spruced up the story.
By the same token, I would distinguish Muslims from Mohammedans in that a Muslim holds Allah above all in his heart, and a Mohammedan holds his religion (as in the earthly organisation of people, structures, politics, and economic interests) at the centre of his beliefs. A Muslim submits to Allah, and a Mohammedan is obsessed with emulating Mohammed, who as a person on earth was a conqueror who spilt a lot of blood to establish a religion whose name is supposed to be synonymous with peace. I have never had any trouble finding common ground with Muslims, but a great deal in getting along with Mohammedans. A Mohammedan uses the cover of the Koran to cover a book of his own writing - Osama Bin Laden was a Mohammedan, his actions quite contrary to the faith he said he held. The Druze of Lebanon are another (though different) example of Mohammedans, in that their core beliefs are actually in direct contradiction with Islam, but they call themselves Muslim by treaty.
I have met a lot of true Muslims, and found that one of the best ways to identify them is that when I ask what their denomination is, they don't say Shiite or Sunni, but re-affirm Muslim - they are inevitably good people, with a strong moral center, very difficult to provoke, and of inexhaustible patience. I have a great deal of respect for that, and hold Christians, Jews, Hindus, and Bhuddists to the same standard. It is amazing that no matter what the religion is, those that 'get it' inevitably stand on common ground with their peers of other religions, and are outnumbered by idiots to call their own.
-
So, by your definition, bad christians are papists and bad muslims are Mohammedans?
Just so you know, no Muslim will ever appreciate your distinction between them and the Prophet, whom we all hold dearly.
Also, I will not lecture you in your religion, so don't lecture me in mine. And, don't tell me what to call my religion.
You can be an asshole all you want, but to personally attack me and my whole Nation from behind a computer screen is just way beyond the line.
-
It's not like I am drawing cartoons of Mohammed you know. I didn't say Mohammedans are bad, simply the Machiavellian, earthly, cynical manifestation of the faith.
Are you saying that everyone who calls themselves Muslim is so? Everyone who owns a copy of the Koran and prays 5 times a day is beyond reproach? Is a bruise on the forehead for the man or for others to see? Is a Muslim who drinks or eats pork neccessarily bad?
The other thing I learned in living in the Middle East is how unbelievably easy it is to give offence on any subject (and BTW I rarely discussed religion there). A seriously touchy bunch. Yet the people I call true Muslims seem to never take offence - my thought on this is that this is because their theology and the daily practice are aligned, so they are not confused or contradicted.
Frankly I don't care if I am giving you offence - it is much easier to hide behind defensive calls of having been offended than to engage in a meaningful, though small scale, dialogue that can only create more understanding in the world. That is what an anonymous online forum is for.
And not all Muslims hold the Prophet dearly - the Druze curse him privately as a conquered people, and my grandfather was Muslim and converted to Christianity - I guess that makes me Haram and you can get back on your high horse and ride off instead of taking the opportunity to clarify where I am wrong.
-
You seem to talk for me, so it would not even make a difference if I replied to you or not. You seem to be reading whatever you like into this. I have no obligation to "clarify" anything for you.
I don't care if your grandfather was a Muslim and he later became a pussy worshiper for all I care. But I will not come to you and tell you that this is the way your grandpa should have worshiped pussy, or that he wasn't a true pussy worshiper, and go ahead and lecture you on who the fuck a "true" pussy worshiper is.
What I was simply saying was that you can't tell me who is a true Muslim and who isn't. It is a discussion for Muslims. Perhaps if your grandpa hadn't left Islam... :P
And, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. Make up your mind on the Druze: are they non-Muslims who have a treaty with the Muslims or are they Muslims who "hate" the prophet, as you claim? Weren't you just telling us that Druze were "Mohammedans" - the people who are "the bad Muslims".
Also, fuck you :smug:
-
I am not talking for you, just sharing my views.
As for the Druze, I think they belive in reincarnation among other things. They took the name of Islam after being conquered by either the Arabs or the Turks, but I met a few in my journeys and they told me they stand apart from the Muslim peoples of Lebanon, as evidenced in the conduct of the civil war there. So for that reason I would call them Mohammedans, ie. operating within the world of secular Islam but disconnected from the faith.
If you can muster counters to my comments I'll listen and probably debate some more. And I can share some commenrs on true pussy worship too - you're in luck because fat chicks need loving too.
-
You have already made up your mind; I don't think anything I say can make you see things as I do.
You are free to believe what you want, and I am free to believe what I want.
Also, whatever way you worship pussy is wrong. Mia does it better. And, apologies to her for GS's hijacking of her thread.
-
*reads first post*
K.
*reads last post*
rite...
-
I don't worship pussy. I stopped posting on RIA for this exact reason. I only post on IRON's embassy right now and rarely visit. I am sick of people believing that I actually want this attention. You all have your head stuck up your asses if you honestly believe every girl wants to be hit on or slobbered over. Maybe all we want is to be just treated like human beings and our gender doesn't matter. Yet people's behavior online is "female, must drool!"
Instead of blaming females for this or claiming it is them, maybe look at yourselves for once.
/rant over with
-
I don't worship pussy. I stopped posting on RIA for this exact reason. I only post on IRON's embassy right now and rarely visit. I am sick of people believing that I actually want this attention. You all have your head stuck up your asses if you honestly believe every girl wants to be hit on or slobbered over. Maybe all we want is to be just treated like human beings and our gender doesn't matter. Yet people's behavior online is "female, must drool!"
Instead of blaming females for this or claiming it is them, maybe look at yourselves for once.
/rant over with
So....
you haven't made my sammich yet, I presume?
-
You can be an asshole all you want, but to personally attack me and my whole Nation from behind a computer screen is just way beyond the line.
where did he do this? what country are you from?
You seem to talk for me, so it would not even make a difference if I replied to you or not. You seem to be reading whatever you like into this. I have no obligation to "clarify" anything for you.
GS is a troll and I get how making judgements about who is a 'true' muslim is offensive, but it seems he has a point when he says middle easterners are too easily offended. even if you can't change his mind, others could learn a lot more about your religion if you defended it patiently.
Instead of blaming females for this or claiming it is them, maybe look at yourselves for once.
/rant over with
So....
you haven't made my sammich yet, I presume?
really man, you should give it a rest. no one trolls anyone else this much and regardless of the motivations it clearly has something to do with her being a woman. ergo you are treating her differently based on her gender; ergo whether it is positive or negative attention it will eventually be considered insincere and obnoxious.
-
Why can't everyone be so cool like llamavore? I don't think GS really wants to see Islam the way Muslims do; he has his own false conclusions that he is trying to put it down my throat.
Also, sorry Mia. Now go back to your embassy.
-
really man, you should give it a rest. no one trolls anyone else this much and regardless of the motivations it clearly has something to do with her being a woman. ergo you are treating her differently based on her gender; ergo whether it is positive or negative attention it will eventually be considered insincere and obnoxious.
Of course the trolling has something to do with her being a woman, in much the same way that my trolling of you has something to do with animal-fucking and that my trolling of Delta has to do with my hate of pink frosted cupcakes.
-
*reads first post*
K.
*reads last post*
rite...
*reads new last post*
So typical RIA. So typical.
-
*reads first post*
K.
*reads last post*
rite...
*reads new last post*
So typical RIA. So typical.
-
im cunfuzzled. how is this thread...
A) 6 pages long.
and B) about religion...
it started out with mia making an announcement about how she is under 21 but old enough to have a collage degree....
-
Why can't everyone be so cool like llamavore? I don't think GS really wants to see Islam the way Muslims do; he has his own false conclusions that he is trying to put it down my throat.
Saying I am wrong without explaining yourself just leaves the impression that you know there is at least some truth in my comments, and you don't want to clarify what's wrong because it will highlight what's right.
I do see the Islam the way Muslims do - some of my very best friends since childhood are Muslim, and though I am not Muslim, we agree on a few fundamentals:
- one God (Allah, the Universe, whatever you want to call him or her, if we agree there is only one then we are obviously talking about the same thing). Even a pure secularist like myself must conclude that there is one origin for everthing that willed itself into exostence, else you are not logical
- heaven and hell exist just as much on earth as they do in whatever afterlife you believe in
- Osama bin Laden was a murderer, responsible for many more deaths than 911
- Islam, like Christianity, owes its success in practice to its inconsistencies in principle
- and we can chalk those inconsistencies up to not understanding the mind of God
- oh and a recent addendum - God is fickle and needs to take a communication skills class. First it's "the Jews are my peeps", then he delegates to his son who apparently didn't get His message across right and was too much of a hippie, so he he send Mo with the latest edition "forget all the peace stuff, kill anyone who doesn't agree that this latest memo supercedes everything else I said. And freak out at cartoons of Mo."
As for the rest, we don't get hung up on the details. I would agree that my opinions are formed, but not set in stone, so if you can reasonably elucidate, I will listen. Let's see if you can muster more than a female body part.
-
If you are serious about this I can start a new thread. But if you want to just Troll a religion of billions of people, I don't have time for that (and it says a lot about you as a person to be doing that).
So, are you serious, and will you reply like a civilised person?
-
HR, just make a new thread, if it gets super trolly or whatever, let one of the admin's know and we can lock/purge it
-
Please do.
Also. He's not really trolling a religion. And this isn't a "The first rule of Islam is you don't talk about Islam" moment.
-
Please do.
Also. He's not really trolling a religion. And this isn't a "The first rule of Islam is you don't talk about Islam" moment.
Correct - I am glad someone understands that this sub-discussion is about defining the difference between Mohammedan and Muslim. And just because someone gets all up in arms about a topic, it doesn't automatically make the one holding their goat a troll.
I will participate in a new thread if all the posts related to this topic so far are copied into it - otherwise it will just be a confusing re-start... Also, since I don't think this phenomenon is unique to Islam, maybe this should just be the starting point in a discussion about the difference between religion and true faith regardless of creed. Finally, no holds barred, but no cartoons. Deal?
-
I believe one of the mod team can split the topic. idk how to though...
-
Someone can just make a topic in the cockpony area. But theres no reason to split this. It's an accurate representation of how the RIA can start on one topic and derail itself into a hundred others.
-
Wow, I spent so much time avoiding this topic like a salad bar because I presumed it was girls gotta girl the girls some girl attention girls
And it looks like it turned a fun topic.
theres no reason to split this.
-
just quote all the posts you want and copy/paste them into the new thread
-
Wow, I spent so much time avoiding this topic like a salad bar because I presumed it was girls gotta girl the girls some girl attention girls
And it looks like it turned a fun topic.
theres no reason to split this.
Agreed - lots of threads move around like this. I was just trying to accomodate. So HR, the ball's in your court.
Why can't everyone be so cool like llamavore? I don't think GS really wants to see Islam the way Muslims do; he has his own false conclusions that he is trying to put it down my throat.
Saying I am wrong without explaining yourself just burritos the impression that you know there is at least some truth in my comments, and you don't want to clarify what's wrong because it will highlight what's right.
I do see the Islam the way Muslims do - some of my very best friends since childhood are Muslim, and though I am not Muslim, we agree on a few fundamentals:
- one God (Allah, the Universe, whatever you want to call him or her, if we agree there is only one then we are obviously talking about the same thing). Even a pure secularist like myself must conclude that there is one origin for everthing that willed itself into exostence, else you are not logical
- heaven and hell exist just as much on earth as they do in whatever afterlife you believe in
- Osama bin Laden was a murderer, responsible for many more deaths than 911
- Islam, like Christianity, owes its success in practice to its inconsistencies in principle
- and we can chalk those inconsistencies up to not understanding the mind of God
- oh and a recent addendum - God is fickle and needs to take a communication skills class. First it's "the Jews are my peeps", then he delegates to his son who apparently didn't get His message across right and was too much of a hippie, so he he send Mo with the latest edition "forget all the peace stuff, kill anyone who doesn't agree that this latest memo supercedes everything else I said. And freak out at cartoons of Mo."
As for the rest, we don't get hung up on the details. I would agree that my opinions are formed, but not set in stone, so if you can reasonably elucidate, I will listen. Let's see if you can muster more than a female body part.
-
You guys in america are opressed its18 to drink here in Scotland I guess we are the most free nation on earth :spot:
-
You guys in america are opressed its18 to drink here in Scotland I guess we are the most free nation on earth :spot:
-
Yeah, in Scotland men are free to wear skirts, chase hagis up the hill, and call London their capital.