Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

Things and doing nice stuff

At 9/5/13 07:14 AM, Sheizenhammer wrote: BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAA!!!

my thoughts egg sactly

Cameron wants to ban porn from houses, but lets his staff do this at work? XDDDD

more importantly I want to know what they;re watching.. I'd watch glenda jackson debate in parliament a lot more smugly if I knew she was into midget bukkake

lolol

At 9/2/13 11:05 PM, Elitistinen wrote:

At 9/2/13 09:28 PM, Fim wrote: The Syrian Army are definitely not the good guys. They are propping up an absolute dickbag of a dictator. They are not 'your brothers'.

Sooo, the rebels are a bunch of Easter bunnies move around with candies and 'peacefully' protesting? How about Replace candies with human hearts? Threatening to launch chemical weapon, when the world believe it was Assad who did it (other source)? How about this, right from the bunny FSA of your?

Oooh, is it still a conspiracy?

I didn't say a word about arming the rebels, who are a highly diverse and fragmented bunch already, and some are even under the listing of terrorists by the US. I'm just saying OP posted some bullshit about how we should be on the side of the fucking dictator who started all this!

when the world believe it was Assad who did it (other source)?

Absolutely nothing there. I loved the line "strong, concrete suspicions but not yet incontrovertible proof," I'll admit you can never be 100% certain on anything but all the evidence strongly suggests Assad's forces were the ones using chemical weapons.

Key points - ~
Syrian Rebels don't have the access to these chemical weapons or the capability for deploying CW.
Satellite pictures show the CW coming from regime controlled areas.
Assads forces refused to let the UN inspectors onto the site where CW were used for many days, and continued shelling the shit out of the area during that time to make evidence analysis even harder.
Assad has already been accused of using CW on a smaller scale around 14 times since 2010.

A great democracy does not make it harder to vote than to buy an assault weapon

Just thought I'd throw it out.

We don't do prom kinds / queens here in the UK. Is it basically a popularity contest or a beauty contest? Do people consider winning an actual achievement ?

Sooooo we're just going to gloss over the fact that the Syrian government started all this shit by massacring the balls out of a bunch of peaceful protesters back in the Arab spring? And how the government forces have been strategically targeting hospitals and medical? plus the fact that it is 99.999999% certain that they've started to use chemical weapons?

The Syrian Army are definitely not the good guys. They are propping up an absolute dickbag of a dictator. They are not 'your brothers'.

People need to read up on the facts, and do some genuine independent research before they comment on Syria. I know its quick and easy to re-post some conspiracy bullshit to make you edgy but this is a real humanitarian atrocity, and imo it's pretty disgusting that it takes 2 and a half years and 100,000 dead for people to start giving a shit.

I'm pretty sure everything you've listed there is something that I also do as a white male..

Maybe it's just me, but I really don't see the difference between killing someone with a missle attack and killing someone with a drone, if the military operative can complete the mission from a safer location and not have to risk losing their life isn't that a good thing?

At 8/29/13 09:43 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/29/13 09:36 PM, Fim wrote: If America decides to go in than it doesn't really matter what the UK does.

Guess what?

Good gorilla dam well it looks like UK action is a mute point then, militarily the US dwarfs everyone else.

At 8/29/13 10:17 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: You know its bad when Canada and France want to do something and the UK pussies out.

Lets not stereotype now tony, I know it's fun but we are having serious talk here. The motion was only 13 votes short, in all likelihood next vote will have a different outcome.

At 8/29/13 09:31 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/29/13 05:48 PM, lapis wrote: David Cameron loses Syria vote in Commons. Put the guns back in the rack, everybody.

Wow. This is a big deal. It's unbelievable how much Bush changed the world since 2003.

To be fair they have another vote on syria in a few weeks, after the UN has had their say. The main line I got from following the debate was that they agreed that something should be done but they disagree on acting before all the evidence comes in. If America decides to go in than it doesn't really matter what the UK does.

At 8/27/13 09:06 PM, Dignatio wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tsZ0IjoMyI

This is what I have to say about Syria in a video. (Not me, but this guy has the same opinion on Syria as me, just cause I'm too lazy to type it out.)

I stopped watching when he said the phrase 'new world order'. You don't do yourself any favours listening to crackpots like that to get your information. He was just plain wrong about a couple of his key points. I'm going to start ignoring people who are calling this Iraq or WW3 because it shows they've not done any research. In the 2 minutes of that video I actually watched I noticed a few glaring errors in his argument ~

1. This wasn't premeditated by America, they are just reacting to events as they unfold. Not everything is a conspiracy.
2. It is NOT a lie that chemical weapons have been used, they have. The evidence is overwhelming. It's not even debatable
3. As someone's already posted evidence for in this thread, Russia has stated that it will not be drawn into a military conflict over Syria. I can't be bothered finding the link but its in this thread.

Bedtime x

At 8/27/13 08:57 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/27/13 08:34 PM, Fim wrote: I know right. Have stopped arguing with him because it makes my life slightly worse each time.

love you too!

You nemesis

At 8/27/13 07:59 PM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/27/13 07:55 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: yes fim lets talk abut it while people are still continuously dying.

Considering this is exactly what you want, you should love the UN.

I know right. Have stopped arguing with him because it makes my life slightly worse each time.

At 8/27/13 06:01 PM, lapis wrote:

Let me get this right, you've just said diplomacy won't work but then seriously suggested that we go slicing up countries and segregating people according to their religious beliefs? That is absolutely fucking ludicrous, and has 0% chance of ever happening. And you even pointed to Irael and Palestine as evidence that segregation works Ha. Diplomacy is messy and complicated but nothing on the scale of what you're suggesting.

What's often ignored in foreign diplomacy is what do the people actually want, and here the Syrian people have been pretty clear. It's a question of do we want to continue to let the situation spiral even further out of control, or do the humane thing and help, by doing so create ties with a country that could be an ally in a part of the world.

At 8/27/13 02:05 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote: why waste my tax money on Syrian peasants?

This is why I don't waste my time arguing with you.

At 8/27/13 05:01 PM, Profanity wrote: Your tax dollars aren't even coming into consideration. The Pentagon is so overstocked with military expenditures that they need small military exercises like this one just to clean out the warehouse space.

Ideally there won't be a full scale military operation. Universally backed diplomacy should be allowed a chance first.

At 8/26/13 10:09 PM, Earfetish wrote: At 8/26/13 09:41 PM, Fim wrote
Yet still nobody suggests that the US and UK should get involved, but oppose Assad's use of force against opposing civilians.

A broader international consensus is what's needed, like I said before they should fully explore all non military action first.

Of course they care about Syria (and Iran) because they've been sabre-rattling for years. They do not sabre-rattle against countries unless they have a good reason to do so, and ethical considerations are not considered by 'them' as a good reason. It's because of international diplomacy reasons (Russia) that sabre-rattling hasn't become something more, but it's good for the UK and US.

Isn't realistically the reason this is generating some 'sabre rattling' is because its a violent civil war? Probably the biggest ongoing and bloody conflict on the planet right now? I don't think getting involved is good for the US or the UK whatsoever but they've been put in a tight spot now chemical weapons have been used.

Isn't it funny that loads of the West seems to have become pretty alright with Russia but the US and UK still seem to still hate them. I think this proxy-sabre-rattling is at play in the Syrian crisis.

Despite all the rhetoric and the snowden incident, relations with Russia aren't too bad, the only reason Russia have been reluctant to join the effort against Assad is because they were making a lot of money selling weapons to the Syrian government.

At 8/26/13 08:58 PM, Earfetish wrote: I agree Mr Tony, for once in my life I agree with you

The only purpose of the UN is for the global superpowers to throw their weight around; there is very little reason to believe the UN would approve of the intervention of the superpowers for reasons other than the benefit of the superpowers

Yeh, the UN are a bit naff, that wasn't really the central thrust of my argument, I'm just saying that if you've got a shred of empathy and compassion for other people than you should want to help the Syrians out. We might disagree on the methods and the scale of that help but doing nothing as a long term strategy is embarrassing.

seriously I know this isn't the most persuasive argument, but more people and more states in the world would say that the US and UK shouldn't get involved than would say we should;

Besides Iran, Iraq and Russia the international response has been pretty universal in condemning and opposing the Assad regime ~

we should wait until the Swiss get involved in a war before we get involved, in any war. Honestly, don't believe that politicians care about Syria but don't care about the Congo for ethical reasons, this is all horrible bullshit perpetrated by powerful psychopaths.

Clearly the politicians don't care about Syria because they've left it 2 and a half years of them tearing each other to pieces without really doing anything. It's only when the issue becomes unavoidable that they begrudgingly start to do something.

At 8/26/13 06:49 PM, Tony-DarkGrave wrote:

At 8/26/13 06:48 PM, Fim wrote:

I'm sorry I can hardly believe that anyone can say that with a straight face.

Great argument again tony

At 8/26/13 09:59 AM, Earfetish wrote: Just saw this petitiion

https://step-back.org/

At 8/26/13 09:59 AM, Earfetish wrote: Just saw this petitiion

https://step-back.org/

Interesting link, and although I disagree I gave it a read. Funnily enough they seem to exaggerate their opponents as much as they claim their opponents exaggerate the facts, and they seem to be pretty loose with what the term 'propaganda '. A lot of what they're calling 'causes for war' I call reporting the news. Nobody wants to repeat Iraq, but this is a completely different situation and should really be treated separately without the Iraq stigma.

In the case of chemical weapons, true, we can't be 100% certain that Assad forces used them, but all the evidence suggests that. Syrian forces were advancing into the area when they were used, and they took a very long time to let UN inspectors into the scene which is pretty suspicious if you've got nothing to hide.

Using nuclear weapons is completely in line with what we already know about Assad, mainly that he is a massive dick and was guilty of numerous human rights abuses even before the Arab spring. He's violated the right to life, right to protest, freedom of speech and freedom not to have your grandmother shot in the face and your house blown to pieces.

In my opinion I think it's pretty sad that it takes something like this for the international community to react meaningfully beyond rhetoric considering how long this has gone on for. The whole point of having a UN and an internationally linked community of nations is to discuss and deal with atrocities like this.

As for what to do now, I don't think there is a simple answer. But getting involved can't be worse than letting things go on as they are, and now chemical weapons have been used I don't think you can just turn a blind eye any longer. First and foremost, I think they should send aid to those millions of refuges who've fled to Turkey, Jordan and Lebanon.

Chomsky seems to think it would be worth trying to negotiate with Assad supporters to create a transitional government with limited powers, paving the way for his departure. Or if that doesn't work, encouraging Israel to position it's troops along the northern border which would compel the government forces to withdraw its forces from a number of key positions and relieve pressure on the opposition.

At 8/26/13 04:48 AM, Feoric wrote:

At 8/26/13 03:23 AM, Ceratisa wrote: But go on keep going "ALL HIS FAULT ALL HIS FAULT ALL HIS FAULT."

Yeah, my bad. It's not Assad's fault he ordered the military and the police to shoot at his own people, eventually resulting in this fucking quagmire of a civil war. What is wrong with you?

It's easier to appear worldly and condescending then actually bothering to look at the facts.

At 8/25/13 06:57 PM, Fim wrote: The situation in Syria is nothing like the situation in Iraq pre invasion.

The only difference is that Saddam was more.. But don't pretend like this situation is so much different in the sense that Assad has committed crimes.

So when a dictator uses chemical weapons and kills over 100,000 people, displaces 3 million and destroys towns, cities and world heritage sites what do you suggest the international community does? Nothing? Because the current attitude to Syria has basically been to ignore it and hope it goes away, and it keeps getting worse.

And if you really think those 2 conflicts are similar than you really don't know anything about a) the invasion of Iraq or b) the civil war in Syria.

At 8/25/13 06:35 PM, Profanity wrote:

At 8/25/13 06:27 PM, Kel-chan wrote: Does anybody realize that the US has been backing the rebels (AKA ALQUEDA) for the past 2 yrs??? The only reason this has continued is because the US has been continually arming these mercs

There are a dozen different groups in the Syrian Opposition. Some of them have ties to Al Qaeda. Some of them are ex-Assad. Mostly, they're just local Syrians.

This. There's a bunch of different groups involved, some of which are more dodgy than others, but if you were in there position you'd take help anyway you could too. The west's response has been incredibly underwelming up till now.

At 8/25/13 06:36 PM, lapis wrote: I find this so funny. I was here eight years ago when Bush was president and the Iraq war had just started and back then, you could draw a line between liberals and conservatives and you'd know that all the liberals were against the war and the conservatives all supported it. Now, Obama is president and i seems like the reverse is taking place: the liberals all want the West to enforce regime change and the conservatives all have

The situation in Syria is nothing like the situation in Iraq pre invasion. Why are you talking about this conflict only in terms of how it affects American politics?

So after 100,000 people have been killed, 2.5 - 3 million refuges displaced, and over 2 years after this all started they decide to stop twiddling their thumbs and actually do something. I'm tempted to say about time, but ill wait to see what they actually do before I weigh in on this.

People also need to understand that this is not like Iraq, or Aphganistan, or WW2. Try and understand this conflict on its own history and merits, this is a atrocious situation where the Syrian government has been tearing the shit out of its own people, targeted children, hospitals & doctors and now using chemical weapons. I really don't think this can be ignored any longer despite how much people think that's a viable attitude to foreign policy, brown people have feelings too guys!

I don't think you should ever use the death penalty for the simple reason that the jury might get it wrong, simple as.

At 8/24/13 07:16 PM, RacistBassist wrote:

At 8/24/13 06:41 PM, Fim wrote: How terrible of me trying to shove good intentions down people's throats haha, how dare I try and get you to think about a real problem that costs people their lives. This is not an isolated incident, it is symptomatic of a broken system in the US that keeps producing stories like this. When tens of thousands die every year you think the best solution is to do nothing?

The road to hell is paved with good intentions. Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. Some other quotes.

Excuse me for getting a little deep here, but I'm coming around to the notion that the whole cause of friction in the gun comtrol debate boils down to the different fundamental ideas of a perfect future between people on both sides of this debate. It sounds like the people on the pro gun side want a future where everybody is allowed whatever they want regardless of how it effects things like crime and gun homicides (correct me if that's not what you think), whereas people on the pro control side want a future where nobody is allowed guns besides perhaps gun clubs, police or military. And both are trying to take gradual steps towards realising that ideal future, which is why no compromises can be made. The sad thing is is that from my perspective the guys on the pro gun side have made the decision that even if their policies risk inevitable loss of life they are willing to accept that as long as they get what they want, whereas the pro control guys think that it's not a fair trade off, and that it is inevitable that even if 99% of people are responsible gun owners that 1% cause tragic things like a hook, or a columbine.

I might just do a topic outlining my points / arguments for gun control and save myself writing out massive shpeels like this every time there's a gun related topic lol.

At 8/24/13 06:51 PM, GeorgeZimmerman wrote: Make sure to buy the official ones. The knockoffs don't get me any money.

You went to the the trouble of making an alt for this thread? Wow...

At 8/23/13 05:19 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 8/23/13 01:47 PM, Fim wrote: I really hope Americans are getting sick of reading shit like this every fucking week and can rally up enough public support to crush the NRA morons who keep stalling a sensible debate on gun control laws.

You just don't get it, do you? Most NRA members want some sort of gun control, but the problem is that most of the anti-gun lobbyists want far more than what is considered acceptable. The NRA has millions of members and allies who have a lot of influnce on lawmakers, and they are pretty dead-set on keeping the laws where they are, which really isn't a bad thing.

How many more people need to die? It makes the whole country look terrible.

Because of an isolated incident that most people will forget about it in a week, tops. There are other countries that have higher rates of violent crime that doesn't include guns, and you don't bitch about that. Quit trying to shove your good intentions down people's throats, which is what these gun control nuts do.

How terrible of me trying to shove good intentions down people's throats haha, how dare I try and get you to think about a real problem that costs people their lives. This is not an isolated incident, it is symptomatic of a broken system in the US that keeps producing stories like this. When tens of thousands die every year you think the best solution is to do nothing?

Again, why did they throw out legislation that would impose mandatory background checks? It's hardly imposing on anyone's second ammendment rights, and the vast majority of people supported it.

At 8/23/13 03:20 PM, Korriken wrote:

At 8/23/13 01:47 PM, Fim wrote: I really hope Americans are getting sick of reading shit like this...

banning guns won't fix stupid.

I didn't say anything about banning them

At 8/20/13 10:20 PM, orangebomb wrote:

At 8/20/13 08:27 PM, Fim wrote: I have literally said all I need to say on gun culture in the US countless times on the bbs.

And all that time, you're wrong.

Honey America has a huge problem with gun violence, denial isn't the way forward.

Another heartbreaking story for the pro gun assholes who stall all reasonable gun control debate to brush off and ignore.

So, in other words, you just conveniently forget about all of the FBI statistics about gun violence, and carried on with your diatribe. Nice to see your priorities are in order, and I'll keep it at that.

The statistics show the US has a uniquely fatal and deep rooted problem with gun violence, you're isolated in the modern world for the amount of your own population you shoot.

What I don't understand is why the Australian government is trying to boycott America because of one random shooting by a group of thugs. Kind of ironic that in Australia, just about everything there, from the wildlife to even the ground they walk on is a potential deathtrap in itself, and they don't seem to care, and yet when it comes to firearm crime in a stable, sovereign country such as America, their panties are all bunched up over it. That pot is looking mighty black now, isn't it?

First off, learn how to use the world irony. Secondly,'they don't care about wildlife or the ground they walk on'? Have you got a shred of evidence for that since it sounds like complete bullshit.
Actually I think it's a pretty fucking big deal if one of your citizens is killed in another country for no reason whatsoever, flip it round and imagine of someone from America was killed on the streets of another country 'for fun', Australia is absolutely right to take this seriously.

At 8/20/13 10:55 PM, IdiLogicSavant wrote:

At 8/20/13 08:27 PM, Fim wrote: I have literally said all I need to say on gun culture in the US countless times on the bbs. Another heartbreaking story for the pro gun assholes who stall all reasonable gun control debate to brush off and ignore.

"pro gun assholes" do nothing but debate about gun control.

If you call debating gun control nose bombing legislation to introduce mandatory background checks, which 90% of America are I'm favour of.