Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

G. Adams · Oct 15, 2003, 08:47 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,)
<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
FA, you ignored my question again, would you support terrorist action against the United States if it used nuclear weapons against the middle east?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No.
I don't think the US will strike first in a nuclear exchange, and I pity any middle eastern countrys people, that has a terrorist sponsoring government stupid enough to start a nuclear attack on the US or her allies, or her interests(includes US armed forces, allies anywhere).<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Argggh, you missed it again. If, in the theoretical scenario that the US did use nuclear weapons against another state, would you then support the use of terrorism agains the US?

Fallen Angel · Oct 16, 2003, 03:47 am

No, no no, you have missed it, the US will not nuke another country unless she is attacked with nukes first, sim-ple.
If a terrorist organisation such as Al Queda launch a nuke into a heavily populated city such as New York or Chicago and it is traced back to say the Iranian government, then Iran will be hit, I support that because their is no other option anymore, the dice has been cast.

G. Adams · Oct 16, 2003, 11:12 am

But, if you all the way back now, the point I raised was based around comments made by the pentagon saying they would use 'mini-nukes' to get to underground bases, they did not say in reply to nuclear usage against them.

And moreover, my point was that in the hypothetical situation that the US DID use them, whether they will is not my question, would you then support a terrorist campaign against the US?

Fallen Angel · Oct 17, 2003, 04:53 am

G. Adams · Oct 17, 2003, 10:05 am

Ahh, so, in your opinion the US can nuke other countries, but other cannot reply? But then they are Arabs, so they don't have the right to self determination and to protect themselves like WASP's can, ey?

Fallen Angel · Oct 18, 2003, 05:02 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,)
Ahh, so, in your opinion the US can nuke other countries, but other cannot reply? But then they are Arabs, so they don't have the right to self determination and to protect themselves like WASP's can, ey?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Ahh, but thats twisting everything I've already, patiently, had to explain to you about my stance on the US defending herself with nukes, you dont go and attack a bear in his cave, I give the same advice to the Islamic terrorists, don't expect there to be a level playing field in a nuclear exchange, you don't have as many, and there not as good, so don't try unless you want to be destroyed.
Simple logic really.

G. Adams · Oct 18, 2003, 06:46 am

Its not twisting anything you said. You earlier stated that if an islamic country supported terrorists that used nuclear weapons against the US, then the US would have no option but to reply in kind. So I asked that if it was the US that initiated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a middle eastern country, would they be justified in starting a terrorist campaign against the US, to which you replied no. So the results that come out of this are

you believe the US can defend itself, while the middle east cannot defend itself.

I see a little hypocracy there.

Fallen Angel · Oct 20, 2003, 06:15 am

Dear oh dear, please buddy, your talking out of your arse.
The middle east wouldnt have to defend itself from anyone if it would stop funding terrorism against western nations around the world.

G. Adams · Oct 20, 2003, 07:38 am

THAT WAS NEVER THE QUESTION FOR FUCKS SAKE

It was a hypothetical question, not one based in current context. If you really don't mean the conclusion I gave for you, you simply can't understand the question I posed. its as if you can't seperate the abstract from reality.

Fallen Angel · Oct 20, 2003, 09:54 am

Look I dont know what your smoking, but I answered your question, I'm not talking hypotheticals either, I'm talking reality, why are you drawing on similations when its pretty obvious middle eastern countrys are striking first, then when attacked run crying to the UN and the world press, I mean honestly how dumb are you?

Section 8 · Oct 20, 2003, 10:34 am

FA, the question was, IF the US fired missles upon middle eastern countries, would you support their retaliaition?

G. Adams · Oct 20, 2003, 02:41 pm

See! Someone else understands! It can't just be me lost in my own words.

Fallen Angel · Oct 21, 2003, 01:23 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,)
FA, the question was, IF the US fired missles upon middle eastern countries, would you support their retaliaition?<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

No for the hundred reasons I have already given you, got it yet?

G. Adams · Oct 21, 2003, 12:18 pm

So you don't support somebody retaliating to a nuclear attack? Then why do you support somebody retaliating to suicide plane attack, killing 2000, as the nuclear attack surely is much worse?

RebelWithanAK · Oct 21, 2003, 12:54 pm

FA, just because you talk a lot doesn't mean you've given any worthwhile information. Don't mistake one for the other.

Fallen Angel · Oct 23, 2003, 03:59 am

<blockquote>Quote:<hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
FA, just because you talk a lot doesn't mean you've given any worthwhile information. Don't mistake one for the other.<hr size="1" /></blockquote>

Not worthwhile to you maybe RWAK, because your a total fool, I can't help that, I've tried about a dozen times to get the message through your er brain about the US having every right to retaliate with nukes if attacked first, the big word today RWAK is 'if'.
Your ridiculous idea that the US will nuke a Middle eastern nation for no reason, therefore giving those nations the right to retaliate with nukes against the US would be laughable if it wasnt so sad, a bit like you.

G. Adams · Oct 23, 2003, 07:08 am

Then you are again, like a politician, ignoring the question. It was never whether such a situation would arise, but if that situation DID arise, would the middle east be justified in retaliating?

Fallen Angel · Oct 24, 2003, 08:18 am

Are you all completely fucking stupid?
How many times do I have to give you the same answer?

G. Adams · Oct 24, 2003, 09:35 am

Are you completely fucking stupid?
How many times will you change my question to fit your answer?

Fallen Angel · Oct 25, 2003, 09:00 am

Your a twit.
Try to understand something Adams before one of us dies, I do not support a country launching a nuclear attack on the US for any reason at all.
Got it ??

Oct 15, 2003, 08:47 am	#41 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Fallen Angel,) </span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) FA, you ignored my question again, would you support terrorist action against the United States if it used nuclear weapons against the middle east?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No. I don't think the US will strike first in a nuclear exchange, and I pity any middle eastern countrys people, that has a terrorist sponsoring government stupid enough to start a nuclear attack on the US or her allies, or her interests(includes US armed forces, allies anywhere).<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Argggh, you missed it again. If, in the theoretical scenario that the US did use nuclear weapons against another state, would you then support the use of terrorism agains the US? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 16, 2003, 11:12 am	#43 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	But, if you all the way back now, the point I raised was based around comments made by the pentagon saying they would use 'mini-nukes' to get to underground bases, they did not say in reply to nuclear usage against them. And moreover, my point was that in the hypothetical situation that the US DID use them, whether they will is not my question, would you then support a terrorist campaign against the US? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 17, 2003, 10:05 am	#45 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Ahh, so, in your opinion the US can nuke other countries, but other cannot reply? But then they are Arabs, so they don't have the right to self determination and to protect themselves like WASP's can, ey? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 18, 2003, 05:02 am	#46 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (G. Adams,) Ahh, so, in your opinion the US can nuke other countries, but other cannot reply? But then they are Arabs, so they don't have the right to self determination and to protect themselves like WASP's can, ey?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Ahh, but thats twisting everything I've already, patiently, had to explain to you about my stance on the US defending herself with nukes, you dont go and attack a bear in his cave, I give the same advice to the Islamic terrorists, don't expect there to be a level playing field in a nuclear exchange, you don't have as many, and there not as good, so don't try unless you want to be destroyed. Simple logic really.

Oct 18, 2003, 06:46 am	#47 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Its not twisting anything you said. You earlier stated that if an islamic country supported terrorists that used nuclear weapons against the US, then the US would have no option but to reply in kind. So I asked that if it was the US that initiated a pre-emptive nuclear strike against a middle eastern country, would they be justified in starting a terrorist campaign against the US, to which you replied no. So the results that come out of this are you believe the US can defend itself, while the middle east cannot defend itself. I see a little hypocracy there. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 16, 2003, 03:47 am	#42 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	No, no no, you have missed it, the US will not nuke another country unless she is attacked with nukes first, sim-ple. If a terrorist organisation such as Al Queda launch a nuke into a heavily populated city such as New York or Chicago and it is traced back to say the Iranian government, then Iran will be hit, I support that because their is no other option anymore, the dice has been cast.

Oct 17, 2003, 04:53 am	#44 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	No.

Oct 20, 2003, 06:15 am	#48 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Dear oh dear, please buddy, your talking out of your arse. The middle east wouldnt have to defend itself from anyone if it would stop funding terrorism against western nations around the world.

Oct 20, 2003, 07:38 am	#49 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	THAT WAS NEVER THE QUESTION FOR FUCKS SAKE It was a hypothetical question, not one based in current context. If you really don't mean the conclusion I gave for you, you simply can't understand the question I posed. its as if you can't seperate the abstract from reality. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 20, 2003, 09:54 am	#50 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Look I dont know what your smoking, but I answered your question, I'm not talking hypotheticals either, I'm talking reality, why are you drawing on similations when its pretty obvious middle eastern countrys are striking first, then when attacked run crying to the UN and the world press, I mean honestly how dumb are you?

Oct 20, 2003, 10:34 am	#51 (permalink) (top)
Section 8 Hot Lava Location: Spokane, WA Posts: 782	FA, the question was, IF the US fired missles upon middle eastern countries, would you support their retaliaition?

Oct 20, 2003, 02:41 pm	#52 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	See! Someone else understands! It can't just be me lost in my own words. Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 21, 2003, 01:23 am	#53 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (Section 8,) FA, the question was, IF the US fired missles upon middle eastern countries, would you support their retaliaition?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> No for the hundred reasons I have already given you, got it yet?

Oct 21, 2003, 12:18 pm	#54 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	So you don't support somebody retaliating to a nuclear attack? Then why do you support somebody retaliating to suicide plane attack, killing 2000, as the nuclear attack surely is much worse? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 21, 2003, 12:54 pm	#55 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	FA, just because you talk a lot doesn't mean you've given any worthwhile information. Don't mistake one for the other. . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Oct 23, 2003, 03:59 am	#56 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) FA, just because you talk a lot doesn't mean you've given any worthwhile information. Don't mistake one for the other.<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Not worthwhile to you maybe RWAK, because your a total fool, I can't help that, I've tried about a dozen times to get the message through your er brain about the US having every right to retaliate with nukes if attacked first, the big word today RWAK is 'if'. Your ridiculous idea that the US will nuke a Middle eastern nation for no reason, therefore giving those nations the right to retaliate with nukes against the US would be laughable if it wasnt so sad, a bit like you.

Oct 23, 2003, 07:08 am	#57 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Then you are again, like a politician, ignoring the question. It was never whether such a situation would arise, but if that situation DID arise, would the middle east be justified in retaliating? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 24, 2003, 08:18 am	#58 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Are you all completely fucking stupid? How many times do I have to give you the same answer?

Oct 24, 2003, 09:35 am	#59 (permalink) (top)
G. Adams Fyrdman Location: Middlesbrough UK Posts: 4,152	Are you completely fucking stupid? How many times will you change my question to fit your answer? Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy, its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery. Winston Churchill

Oct 25, 2003, 09:00 am	#60 (permalink) (top)
Fallen Angel Igneous Magma Location: Sydney,Australia. Posts: 333	Your a twit. Try to understand something Adams before one of us dies, I do not support a country launching a nuclear attack on the US for any reason at all. Got it ??