Super Sniper Sniped

[Nemesiah]

Another video about America's war mentality sipping into society.



I have a hard time imagining people being so blasé about killing people abroad not having an impact on "stateside" violence

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Sigh... No Hytegia, I'm not going to be trolled into a debate, specially in a a debate with such an slanted title "The Morality of Modernized Warfare in contrast to it's predecessors, and it's implications on Morality" since this is trying to justify modern war as a less brutal incarnation of war and I never mada a point about that and frankly that sounds like a topic that you were force fed while in GI training ore something like that so I wouldn't be debaiting you but rather the people that came up with a lot of justifications for war.

No. You sit there and espout that your typical soldier is a bred killing machine with no moral values and equate them to a steamroller. You pivot that there's no such thing as a good soldier, and no such thing as an evil insurgent by your mere attitudes, posts, and remarks.

There is only one kind of person who looks at criticism, acts like a child, and then shouts "he's a troll!" You would know about them by their associates: Nephilimfree, ShockOfGod, Bob Enyart and his friend Tim, William Lane Craig, Banana Man, VenomFangX, and so on.
They're called irrational religious zealots. Welcome to the club.

Frankly I'm bored by this, you always do the same, you atack; then fail to man up to it and call whomever you are "arguing" the source of the attack, its pathetic. You started this time by saying that I should go shout in the shower or some other nonsense snd then said I made it personal.

No.
1) I brought up a remark that pointed toward your absurd logic.
2) You split off on an idiotic one-liner.
3) I pointed out how the idiotic one-liner had no relation to what I was actually saying and no bearing in reality.
4) You make it personal. You insulted my faith, my profession, and dragged it out like a little child who just got punished for telling lies.
5) I call you a fucking twat for making it personal, and challenge you to show evidence for your claims in a formal debate - but, seeing as you have no evidence nor even reasonable stances to hold-
6) You turn it down in favor of whining in a corner. Again.

The truth is "I DON'T CARE" If you need to win then there you go, 5 internets to you. You beat me, you have proven you are smarter, better looking, stronger and a better lover than me; fine.

I don't care about winning. I care to teach you a lesson and to show you that your stances are not only unreasonable and illogical, but that you have no evidence nor claims to back them up to any standard of what you hold them out to be.
You refuse to even do it based upon that standard - to which, I remark, shows how much value that you actually hold your views.

I can clearly show evidence, share stories, put up data, and give a through analysis from raw data, personal professional experience, and firsthand accounts - as well as historical data.
Clearly, you don't think that your own items exist - or, if you do, you do not think that they can withstand criticism on a public record scale. You realize that your opinion is just that: an opinion, nothing more and nothing less, lacking clear thought and self-sustaining on ignorance.

In the future feel free to coment on any an all post I make, the army man's point of view is always welcome but don't expect me to react to provocations, it's small children that believe that by screaming really loud they will get the attention of their betters, in the real world this is not the case.

The irony in this statement is almost self-fulfilling Facepalm.

 

[australopithecus]

Awfully close to be locked thread is awfully close to being locked.

On topic, gentlemen. Oh, and do try to be civil. That's not a request, btw.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Please provide pointed evidence to support your claim, Nemesiah. I ask nothing more from you than anyone else does to the other religiously biggoted zealots that flock this forum.

There's no substantiated evidence to support that America's involvement in Afghanistan makes it any more violent than a country who is not - the murder, death, and corruption rates are far lower than they are in Mexico (a country that has not seen a war in over a decade). If your logic cannot be shown in a uniform standard with other areas, then it is not really logic.

 

[tuxbox]

Please provide pointed evidence to support your claim, Nemesiah. I ask nothing more from you than anyone else does to the other religiously biggoted zealots that flock this forum.

There's no substantiated evidence to support that America's involvement in Afghanistan makes it any more violent than a country who is not - the murder, death, and corruption rates are far lower than they are in Mexico (a country that has not seen a war in over a decade). If your logic cannot be shown in a uniform standard with other areas, then it is not really logic.

If he responds, I am willing to bet he is going to blame the violence in Mexico on the U.S. as well. After all, famine, diseases, natural disasters, world poverty, and all wars are the fault of the United States.

 

[australopithecus]

Please provide pointed evidence to support your claim, Nemesiah. I ask nothing more from you than anyone else does to the other religiously biggoted zealots that flock this forum.

There's no substantiated evidence to support that America's involvement in Afghanistan makes it any more violent than a country who is not - the murder, death, and corruption rates are far lower than they are in Mexico (a country that has not seen a war in over a decade). If your logic cannot be shown in a uniform standard with other areas, then it is not really logic.

If he responds, I am willing to bet he is going to blame the violence in Mexico on the U.S. as well. After all, famine, diseases, natural disasters, world poverty, and all wars are the fault of the United States.

....and you're basing this on what? Other than he apparently from Mexico.

 

[tuxbox]

....and you're basing this on what? Other than he apparently from Mexico.

Based on Nemesiah's past comments. He is clearly not a fan of the U.S., but to clarify my comment was half sincere and half sarcasm.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

....and you're basing this on what? Other than he apparently from Mexico.

Based on Nemesiah's past comments. He is clearly not a fan of the U.S., but to clarify my comment was half sincere and half sarcasm.

I caught it.

 

[Nemesiah]

I don't have much time but; being fair

Violence in the US has decreased

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Mass shootings however have increased

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130112/NEWS02/701129949

In the second article they propose the assault weapon's ban ending as the culprit and not war

To answer another couple of points, Mexico´s violece comes from a War Hytegia, the war on drugs (from 6 - 7 years ago when president Calderón anounced open war aggainst Mexico's drug cartels)

And yes the USA is involved in Mexico´s violence Tuxbox, since the USA is Mexico's main drugs consumer

http://www.avn.info.ve/contenido/onu-revela-que-estados-unidos-es-mayor-consumidor-drogas-mundo
http://www.vanguardia.com.mx/esunpr...nsumidordedrogasdelmundocalderon-1370239.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30946730/...ts-help-finance-mexican-cartels/#.URlVaaV-l20
http://www.fronterasdesk.org/news/2011/jun/15/where-does-pot-come-domestic-growers-or-mexican-ca/

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

I don't have much time but; being fair

Violence in the US has decreased

...

Mass shootings however have increased

...

In the second article they propose the assault weapon's ban ending as the culprit and not war

Mass shootings can also have a variety of other contributions - none of which are uniform enough to be to blame for aside from a declining mental health system, and a shitty health system in general. And, even with the mass shootings, there's less people being killed en masse with guns and rifles than there were in the western era or during Prohibition.

To answer another couple of points, Mexico´s violece comes from a War Hytegia, the war on drugs (from 6 - 7 years ago when president Calderón anounced open war aggainst Mexico's drug cartels)

And yes the USA is involved in Mexico´s violence Tuxbox, since the USA is Mexico's main drugs consumer

That's a metaphorical "War" - like a "War on Cancer" - in which there is no insurgency. No invasion of enemy territory. It's a statement that they are going to police and enforce a ban against drugs and their sale, consumption, and production.

Your argument is as weak as your logic in both instances. You may have, just as well, been ranting that Video games are the cause of violence in the United States based on similar data tossed around by the NRA (in the fact that it's not been uniformly shown and there's no actual corroboration of evidence, and that you're saying it rather repetitively in place of showing it).

 

[tuxbox]

And yes the USA is involved in Mexico´s violence Tuxbox, since the USA is Mexico's main drugs consumer

That I do not disagree with, however the violence is all on you guys. Americans do not force your people to murder others.

 

[Nemesiah]

It is not a theorical war Hytegia,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mexican_Drug_War

There are sides, the army is involved, there is fighting for control of teritory etc... It's a very real war

Tuxbox,

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ATF_gunwalking_scandal

When an american agency directly arms the drugdealers they are infact making mexicans shoot ech other

But we are derailing; as soon as I find more information on the topic of "Is America's war making it's citizens more violence prone?" I will post it.

 

[tuxbox]

Tuxbox,

But we are derailing; as soon as I find more information on the topic of "Is America's war making it's citizens more violence prone?" I will post it.

Fair enough...

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

It is not a theorical war Hytegia,

There are sides, the army is involved, there is fighting for control of teritory etc... It's a very real war

This is also, by definition, a non-metaphorical war.

Mexico is policing itself, and America is policing itself, and the two countries are working together to bring criminals to justice. It's not a "War" in any sense of the word as much as growing up in the Old West was a "War" for all of the crimes that were committed there.

And, once again, you failed to rebuke anything I actually said - the United States has a much lower crime rate than at different times in it's past, and there are countries with equally atrocious crime rates that are not actively involved in any wars. Your logic is moot.

 

[Nemesiah]

As I said, there is an internal armed canflict with sides fighting for teritorry,

From Wikkipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states or other types of parties wishing to form or control states or other types of territories. It is characterised by extreme aggression, economic disintegration and irrationality, social disruption, and usually high mortality.[1][2] War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence or intervention.[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war is usually called peace.

Also, I already said that the data I have found says that violence as a whole has declined but that there have been more mass shootings; so feel free to declare yourself the winner; 5 Internets to you young man, go have a glass of milk.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

As I said, there is an internal armed canflict with sides fighting for teritorry,

From Wikkipedia

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/War

War is an organized and often prolonged conflict that is carried out by states<i></i> or other types of parties wishing to form or control states or other types of territories. It is characterised by extreme aggression, economic disintegration and irrationality, social disruption, and usually high mortality.[1][2] War should be understood as an actual, intentional and widespread armed conflict between political communities, and therefore is defined as a form of political violence or intervention.[1][3] The set of techniques used by a group to carry out war is known as warfare. An absence of war is usually called peace.

Also, I already said that the data I have found says that violence as a whole has declined but that there have been more mass shootings; *Childish Snip*

I added emphasis.

By your sheer logic then, anything in which hosts a criminal enterprise of any kind and gets in an armed conflict with a country's officials is a war. This makes all police "soldiers" and all criminals as well. This makes Al Capone a General.

A traditional "War" is fought between two or more defined factions for territories with legitimate goals and objectives for victory. In fact, that's what the definition clearly shows, since it's giving contrast between states, and those wishing to form states or other forms of territories (meaning they wish statehood of their own).
You're attempting a semantic argument for the sake of a short-drawn, grasping-at-straws sense of victory in the face of having no basis for your actual rantings. I can see why a debate is beyond you - you're jumbling your fallacies and not even into the second page of the discussion.

 

[Nemesiah]

Your coutinious hostility bores me Hytegia.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

Your coutinious hostility bores me Hytegia.

Your continuous passive lying and hiding behind fallacies in order to avoid actually having to address any criticism brought against your illogical, fanatical stances (hostile, passive, indifferent, or otherwise) puzzles me to no end; Namely because a man whom hosts himself as reasonable and logical, and whom bashes religious fanatics is using the exact same fallacies, non sequitors, and bad logic as them.

I request you once more for a debate, peer review, and set rules in which you have all the time to actually present your evidence - but the abundance of non-answers is totally and fashionably in style with one whom knows that he's got nothing holstered on his hip aside from bias and wishes.

I don't shoot unarmed men - I just want to see that you have something to show for all of your claims and criticisms, your whining and moaning, your bellyaching and crying, and your endless posts that are reminiscent of a man facing a stark fear of the fact that you have no evidence, no facts, and no reasonable stance from which you make and bake your accusations against billions of people.

The topic you decided that this thread should have is:

"Is America's war making it's citizens more violence prone?"

All is false until proven otherwise with sound evidence, reasonable discussion, and concrete foundation for the idea other than overly-blatant personal biases.

 

[Nemesiah]

No Hytegia there can be no debate, as I have said before I don't have the proof for my hypothesis "war has made america more internally violent", In fact the data I have found seems to contradict said hypothesis. I continue to believe this may be the case but finding the data (gathering it maybe since most of the data I have found stops at 2010 or earleier) would take too much of my time and even if I find it, while I'm no stranger to statistics, I may not be able to proces it since I'm not a statician, anthropologist, etc...

As I have said before you won, 5 intenets to you, I CAN´T BACK MY HYPOTHESIS WITH HARD DATA, so there is no point in having a debate when I have already said (earlier posts) that the data just isn't there.

Now, IF you read my original post I'm asking questions, not making an assertions, I say "I think, I believe, do you think, etc..."

The only part in which you could say I made an unfunded argument is this

Do they not see the relationship between invading a country to steal its natural resources and having horrific violence at home?

Here I'm talking about a relationship that I see, as you have pointed out there may not be said relationship, I take that point back and would change it to

Do they not see that there could be a relationship between invading a country to steal its natural resources and having horrific violence at home?

I provide the original post

First we look a the hero of the mases for killing 255 people from far away.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...Ventura-bad-mouthed-troops.html#axzz2K2gpHILW

And then we see it was all for naught since one of his pals kills him while at the shooting range. (Irony anyone?)

http://www.smh.com.au/world/america...d-at-texas-shooting-range-20130204-2dt13.html

The guns control thread is elsewere so that is not what I want to discus (although it makes the point that even combat hardened veterans are not safe from some loon with an itchy finger)

What I want to discuss here is this:

Is America creating such an atmosphere of death and violence worship that it is creating in it's own citizens the same thing they claim to be fighting abroad?

I understand that it seems that this "super sniper" was gunned down by some derranged fellow (probably from post war stress dissorder or whatever it is called) and not a terrorist o some other phantom conjured up by the media in the states, but is it possible that by engaging in so much war (more that a decade straight this time) the american society is becoming so ill that shootings are becoming somewhat commonplace?

Are americans not worried about this?
Do they not see the relationship between invading a country to steal its natural resources and having horrific violence at home?

This interests me since my own country is descending into a violence spiral that I believe is roting our society so that violence is becoming commonplace; but we can't aviod it drug cartels are a part of our society (never mind taht americans want thier mariguana and won't do jack shit to stop the violence over here) butt in america I believe society could be healed easily just by stoping the invasions and interventions and drone murderings etc... and yet, they'd rather have cheap oil.

This fellow died the way he killed so many others in the name of peace in his country, he leaves a widow and orphans, did society failed him? Did america do it's part in keeping him safe once he came back from murdering all those people in the name of peace, good and democracy?

Is America becoming so wrapped by the violence it commits on others that it's society is beggining to destroy itself because of said violence?

What do you think?

You say you don't shoot unarmed men (I believe you are talking figuratively here) but that is exactly what you are doing; in this post I already said the data showed you had won and yet you continue to demand a debate you know by my own admision I can't win.

I don't have much time but; being fair

Violence in the US has decreased

http://bjs.ojp.usdoj.gov/content/pub/pdf/htus8008.pdf

Mass shootings however have increased

http://www.heraldnet.com/article/20130112/NEWS02/701129949

In the second article they propose the assault weapon's ban ending as the culprit and not war

To answer another couple of points, Mexico´s violece comes from a War Hytegia, the war on drugs (from 6 - 7 years ago when president Calderón anounced open war aggainst Mexico's drug cartels)

And yes the USA is involved in Mexico´s violence Tuxbox, since the USA is Mexico's main drugs consumer

http://www.avn.info.ve/contenido/onu-revela-que-estados-unidos-es-mayor-consumidor-drogas-mundo
http://www.vanguardia.com.mx/esunpr...nsumidordedrogasdelmundocalderon-1370239.html
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/30946730/...ts-help-finance-mexican-cartels/#.URlVaaV-l20
http://www.fronterasdesk.org/news/2011/jun/15/where-does-pot-come-domestic-growers-or-mexican-ca/

So, Again, kudos to you sir, you won a huge victory here, have your 5 internets and be sure to have a very nice life.

 

[)O( Hytegia )O(]

No evidence. Case closed.

Exit to Noir.