|
| Thread: Arms sales. |  This thread is pages long: 1 2 · NEXT» |
|
Lucifer01
Tavern Dweller
|
posted June 04, 2015 03:27 AM |
|
Edited by Corribus at 03:59, 04 Jun 2015.
|
Arms sales.
One of the greatest thing about this forum really is that it allows political discussions.
There was the Ukraine thread, there was the thread about muslims, religion etc etc.
I want you to watch this video of ViceNews on Youtube.
It shows why the international climate of the 21st century, forced peace or true peace is impossible. Arms sales. I was unaware my entire life that arms are advertised in arms expos.
Like someone wrote in the comment sectioon of the video "They are selling arms likes smartphones"
Warming, its NSFW and be aware that one section of the video contains people/children getting shot.
MOD EDIT: Link Removed
Still think the US, Russia, or other arms sellers are not to blame?
Still think Islamization and terrorism is not financed,indirectly of course, by your own goverments?
Here is something to write home about:
This link is link of what Mr. David Cameron had to say about
finance in London.
Its from 2013
[url]http://www.bbc.com/news/business-24722440[/url]
Quotes:
"I don't just want London to be a great capital of Islamic finance in the Western world, I want London to stand alongside Dubai as one of the great capitals of Islamic finance anywhere in the world," he told delegates of the WIEF.
"There are some countries which naturally look inwards, pull up the drawbridge and refuse to recognise that the way the world is changing affects their future success. But Britain will not make that mistake," he added.
There are three problems with this:
1. Islamic finance is like saying Christian or Jewish finance. Nothing good can come out if you want people from a specific religion to come and do business with you. Capital or not, especially if you specifically target them.
2. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Like the other abrahamic religions, it sends missionaries and needs to expand. Furthermore,
it is the primary source of terrorism today.
3. Even if the first two were not a problem, Islamic countries are largely at war, or have terrorism problems.
You do not want to do business with people who are actively engaged in human rights issues, wars and genocide.
International "law".
And dont forget, this guy is supposed to be a Right Wing conservative.
Thoughts?
MOD EDIT: Not safe for work means not appropriate for HC. This is a family board. Please keep that in mind when framing your posts.
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 05:47 AM |
|
|
Quote:
2. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Like the other abrahamic religions,
This is a very dubious misconsception on the nature of Islam that has spread in the West like wild-fire, but it is an utter fallacy.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Trogdor
Legendary Hero
Words in a custom title
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 03:10 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
Quote:
2. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Like the other abrahamic religions,
This is a very dubious misconsception on the nature of Islam that has spread in the West like wild-fire, but it is an utter fallacy.
Islam is full of misconceptions. There's always that group of people who believe that all terrorists are Muslim, when we all know that isn't true.
____________
"Through the power of the dollar you can communicate with the dead." - Artu
|
|
husham123
Famous Hero
Yes
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 03:20 PM |
|
|
Well, I am muslim (you'd know this if you read some of my older sentences), and I fear this comes to an end. Terrorists are NOT muslims. They are crazy, insane, stupid peoples, who claim they're muslim, and fight ''for the religion''. The truth is that in the Quiran, in the Bible or in Tora, there's NOTHING telling you to kill for your religion. I mean, even those peoples who made drawings of Mohammed had they're wrong. I know they are pagans, but really, how would you feel if someone would make LOTS of drawings with Jesus with a big dick, or something.
Wouldn't you feel offended ?
How would you like if you would have mother, and you love her, and someone makes fun of her ?
Really, it isn't nice. All religions (all basic ones, like christian, jewish, muslim) are following GOD, and we all have different stories, holy peoples, lots of things going on, so we have communal prefferences. We would help each others on combating all the terrorism, but to combat the peoples who indirectly, by making draws of personalityes from the religions that offend us.
P.S:Terrorist are crazy peoples, but the peoples who made the drawings were insane too. Think twice before you speak, or you can hurt feelings, or offend peoples. Peoples only see the bad side of the other peoples.
Why don't you start by not making fun of anything, and then something good may happen.
____________
What the darn-diddily-doodily did you just say about me, you little witcharooney? I’ll have you know I graduated top of my class at Springfield Bible College, and I’ve been involved in numerous secret
|
|
blizzardboy
Honorable
Undefeatable Hero
Nerf Herder
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 04:19 PM |
|
|
Tsar-Ivor said:
Quote:
2. Islam is not a peaceful religion. Like the other abrahamic religions,
This is a very dubious misconsception on the nature of Islam that has spread in the West like wild-fire, but it is an utter fallacy.
Not really. Military, political, and economic conquest of non-Mohammedan nations is traditional orthodoxy, although it should be noted that this includes certain protections towards the conquered nation. You can't take married women as sex slaves. You can't slaughter people indiscriminately, especially children. You cannot force them to convert. Islamic conquest is about uniformity, not malevolence. Islamic terrorists do not fit the mold of Islam, but they're not as far off base as you might think.
Yes, similar to Christianity, you will have Muslims that go through intellectual acrobatics in order to pretend to themselves that certain texts don't state the obvious, and instead come up with other, rather desperately irrational interpretations, but orthodox Islam is indeed at its core a religion of martial conquest. The entire history of the Ottoman Empire (among others) was fueled by Mohammedan doctrine. There wasn't an Eastern or Central European with an IQ above 50 prior to the year 1918 that would have believed otherwise.
There are plenty of good Muslims, but these good Muslims make poor Muslims.
____________
"Folks, I don't trust children. They're here to replace us."
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 10:26 PM |
|
|
Blizz is on the spot. Basically, just before Islam, you have Romans assimilating Christianity and wiping away its pacifist nature by combining it with their militarism in a very pragmatic manner. Like anything else they faced (the Greek culture, Egyptian Empire etc), the Romans turned Christianity "Roman" and molded it into something else with their own synthesis. This was, of course, once spread around, a very attractive idea: An army of true-believers, an unstoppable force of conquest with great motivation, morale and self-justification. Islam is in a way, the execution of this idea once again but this time directly through holy text and the prophet itself.
You may also not that the Ottoman Empire was structurally a very Roman empire and it considered itself the continuation of that tradition.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 11:13 PM |
|
|
But Islam has nothing to do with that, I understand what you are trying to get at, but what Islamic states have deformed into has very little (if anything) to do with following of the Qu'ran. The Sharia law that is receieving to much criticism started at as a basic form of contract law to prevent the caliph's (or ruler's) abuse of power. Islam at the heart is a religion where the follower profits himself, his family and his community materially (with money), Muhammad himself was a merchant, and followed a religion that promoted investment and profiteering. It has absolutely nothing to do with armed conquest, that is merely a human addition, much akin to Urban II and Gregory VII using St Augustine to justify violence (Even Christianity is not inherently violent). That whole bit about uniformity is utter rubbish, the only reason the first, fourth and to an extent the seventh crusade succeeded was because of the severe internal fragmantation within the muslim world. The Seljuk turks and then their descendants the Ottomans united much of the Islamic world through violence and conquest, and not any notion of kinship owed to their shared faith.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 11:20 PM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 23:22, 04 Jun 2015.
|
Professional roman armies existed long before Christianity and they didn't needed the motivational help of "an army of true believers" philosophy to be efficient. That's nonsense. Christianity was viewed as a jewish sect that preached salvation through Jesus Christ, peace, mercy, forgiveness and love for thy neighbor, even for enemies. For trained killers to uphold these values it was naturally a ludicrous idea.
Yet no doubt that the assimilation of Christian theology happened, especially after Constantine, eventually ending up as a religious mess (mixed with paganism) and also becoming a politico-military tool in the hands of rulers and the catholic church. But it didn't had a shred of Biblical support, and it also happened later on, mainly when crusades and jihads became a thing.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 11:22 PM |
|
|
Omg can we see stop discussing what the true, objective Islam is and just accept that there's everything from moderate to crazy ISIL intepretations of it?
Back to arms. I generally oppose it since it always, atleast in the Middle East, seems to fall into the wrong hands. But I do support armin the Peshmerga since they are basically the ground forces against ISIL.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 11:31 PM |
|
Edited by artu at 23:37, 04 Jun 2015.
|
@Tsar
No. Neither Blizz or I are referring to historical transformation. The Quran itself has verses about military conquest, how to and how not to treat the conquered non-believers (it matters a lot if you are a pagan or a follower of the other Abrahamic religions). Muhammed was a merchant before he declared himself as the messenger of God but afterwards, and especially after he had enough followers, he was also a military commander, it was personally him who took back the city of Mecca, the city he had to leave in the early days of his prophecy, it was directly him who gave the execution order of the leaders of opposition.
Jihad has many theological aspects if you go into semantics but one of those aspects is without any doubt plain warfare to spread the word of Allah. This can evolve into something else in the future, theologians may work their "acrobatics" in wonderful ways since it is very clear that through out whole history social change transformed religions much more drastically than religions transformed social change. But the orthodox faith, the original Islam itself, and the obvious interpretations of its holy book, directly involved military conquest. It does not support what ISIS does today or El Kaide but conquest is intrinsically Islamic.
@Stevie
To be able to conclude that I implied professional Roman armies did not exist before Rome turned Christian, you really need some extra talent.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 04, 2015 11:35 PM |
|
Edited by xerox at 23:36, 04 Jun 2015.
|
It doesn't matter what the Quran says, 90% of Muslims I know don't use it as a jusitification to wage war no matter what it says. You should know that people's interpretations of things are not grounded in an objective reality, for there is no such thing, atleast not when it comes to the social sciences.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2015 12:00 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 00:02, 05 Jun 2015.
|
artu said:
@Stevie
To be able to conclude that I implied professional Roman armies did not exist before Rome turned Christian, you really need some extra talent.
What I was trying to say is that a professional and already successful army to be enhanced by a theology of "an unstoppable army of true believers", when the gospels preached anything but that, is total bogus. The Roman empire assimilated Christianity as state religion under socio-political pressure, not because of its beneficial military applications as you implied.
____________
Guide to a Great Heroes Game
The Young Traveler
|
|
xerox
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2015 12:13 AM |
|
|
He said the military aspects of the Roman Empire were incorporated into Christianity, not that the Roman Empire incorporated those aspects from Christianity.
____________
Over himself, over his own
body and
mind, the individual is
sovereign.
- John Stuart Mill
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 05, 2015 12:19 AM |
|
|
Yes, they mainly did it out of socio-political pressure, and I already stated that they turned its pacifist nature into something else by their own synthesis. It's really very easy to conclude that I am not claiming the teachings of Jesus himself was militarist, or is it not?
What I say is pretty simple, before Rome turned Christian, you have legions fighting for the glory of Rome, loot, the emperor... After the conversion, you have a massive military machine united under a faith and a self-justification to spread that "one true faith" on a monotheistic high horse and their insurance of martyrdom and eternal heaven. The second part was a new concept, it worked efficiently and it caught on. Birth of Islam and its immediate success at expansion is the execution of that very same idea:
|
|
Stevie
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted June 05, 2015 12:50 AM |
|
Edited by Stevie at 01:11, 05 Jun 2015.
|
|
markkur
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Once upon a time
|
|
posted June 05, 2015 04:21 AM |
|
|
The discussion is arms. And I could use another.
Seriously, this is a major problem in the world today.
Selling Arms is big business in every country that has something worth selling.
Large parts of National budgets around the world go to making weapons to kill, while people are hungry, families struggle, kids can't read and write and on and on. This world lives and breathes WAR.
____________
"Do your own research"
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 05, 2015 09:57 AM |
|
|
|
Selling arms is a profitable business ever since the ancient times, the only thing which has changed throughout the centuries is the amount of the production and the size of the market - and these two are related. I don't see a reason to blame the "modern man" of any extra bloodthirstiness compared to his predecessors, the human psychology is fairly static in that regard.
|
|
artu
Promising
Undefeatable Hero
My BS sensor is tingling again
|
|
posted June 06, 2015 12:27 AM |
|
|
Zenofex said:
Selling arms is a profitable business ever since the ancient times, the only thing which has changed throughout the centuries is the amount of the production and the size of the market - and these two are related. I don't see a reason to blame the "modern man" of any extra bloodthirstiness compared to his predecessors, the human psychology is fairly static in that regard.
Well, the biggest difference would be the gap between nations regarding their level of technology. In pre-industrial times, you still have kingdoms or empires with better equipment, metal, catapults, horse-training, tactics etc, but all of these have a limit when it comes to affecting the outcome. And you don't have "impartial" kingdoms constantly selling bronze armor to tribal hunters etc.
____________
Are you pretty? This is my occasion. - Ghost
|
|
Tsar-Ivor
Promising
Legendary Hero
Scourge of God
|
|
posted June 06, 2015 12:47 AM |
|
|
It is not just the selling of the arms that's a controversial issue, it's also the instigating of the conflict by nations that sell arms (1st world countries) that then produces a demand for arms.
____________
"No laughs were had. There is only shame and sadness." Jenny
|
|
Zenofex
Responsible
Legendary Hero
Kreegan-atheist
|
|
posted June 06, 2015 08:40 AM |
|
Edited by Zenofex at 08:41, 06 Jun 2015.
|
artu said:
Well, the biggest difference would be the gap between nations regarding their level of technology. In pre-industrial times, you still have kingdoms or empires with better equipment, metal, catapults, horse-training, tactics etc, but all of these have a limit when it comes to affecting the outcome. And you don't have "impartial" kingdoms constantly selling bronze armor to tribal hunters etc.
Yes, but technology in general has limited impact on the outcome except if the aim is total annihilation. All the troublemakers in the Middle East are vastly inferior to, say, the US army technologically but they are very good in waging war of attrition (high technology comes very expensive to produce and maintain while the life of a brainwashed jihadist is very cheap in many regards even to him/herself). As for the weapon trade - each nation/state still keeps the best technological achievements for itself and exports lower-end weaponry to allies and "organizations that it has nothing to do with", not much has changed here.
|
| |
|
|
