Quote:
Originally Posted by Crumpy-Gunt
Great comparison. Terrorists and police. BRILLIANT. Nothing at all is lost when comparing North Korea vs Americas right to nukes, and the police and terrorists rights to weapons. Wow. You must be a Harvard grad.
We are the police, they are the terrorists. I can feel my chakras lining up and my mind expanding just by speaking with you fellows. This is enlightening. Nik- believes he knows exactly what reality is, who is living in reality and who isn't. (Quite the ability.)
Wimbledon believes western world doesn't include Canada.
And you are here comparing terrorists and policemen...to wether or not nations should be allowed to have something that we have, and we are not showing any interest in getting rid of.
If I had my own country crumpystan, I wouldn't be trying to get nukes, I'd be advocating for disarmament. However if I noticed nobody was taking disarmament seriously, not least the nations with the nukes already - I would say OK well the dudes who have the nukes are perfectly content keeping them with no interest in destroying their weapons. Also who chooses which nation is terrorist or police? Their background, race, religion? the UN. Haha.
So why have a double standard. Who gave you the moral high ground to decide who is police and who is terrorist in the world of politics.. OK so you believe Iran and NK are terrorist and shouldn't have WMD. So who should? Please answer that. Give me a list of 10 nations who should have nukes, or the police for the sake of your analogy.
There is only one country that has used an atomic bomb on people. Hint: It's not Pakistan.
You are so pro establishment and so indoctrinated you wouldn't know a terrorist unless he was screaming Allahu Akbar.
Terrorism is the use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims.
So can you think of any nations that do that? Or is it just bearded idiots running about in the Middle East.
It's funny I read a newspaper in France describe anders brevik the Norway killer as someone who used terrorist like tactics. ???? The man was a terrorist he killed 77 Norwegian kids on an island because he hated Islam. How is it that we label one person a terrorist and not the other. As if terrorist means one specific very small thing.
Hiroshima Nagasaki is literally the best example of terrorism in the history of the world.
I pray for your brains.
|
Wut.
Nik is clearly saying:
Nukes suck, some countries have them and that sucks, they also won't disarm them and we can't do anything about it, which also sucks, but in the mean time lets try to prevent other countries from acquiring nukes and doing the exact same sucky things that the other sucky countries that already have them are doing.
It would be fantastic if every country would put their toys away, but they won't. So now do you think every country should get a toy too because everyone else has one?
And Fozzie is saying:
The countries who already have weapons = The "police". They already have access to weapons, and we have a good idea what they will probably do with said weapons, same with the real police
The countries who don't have weapons = The "terrorists". They don't have access to weapons, and we don't have a slight idea what they will do with said weapons, same with real terrorists.
The police have enough weapons, lets not let them have any more, and the terrorists don't, so lets continue to keep them away from them.
He's not saying that the United States are the actual police of the world, nor that North Korea are the terrorists of the world. It was just an analogy.
A country like North Korea is more likely to rashly fire a nuke at a country for ####s and giggles than the United States. Yes the US used them on another country, but it was a strategic, calculated move that ended the War and potentially saved millions upon millions of lives. They didn't just nuke Japan because they were bored