Coordinated Mass sexual assaults in Cologne

[fredtoast]

(01-10-2016, 07:48 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Look at the definition of coward provided and tell me that an able-bodied man that flees his country in time of a civil war doesn't fit the description

Having "courage" means being smart and strong enough to take the correct action in the face of danger.  Dying for something you do not believe in is not the correct action.  

Dying for something you do not believe in is not "courageous" it is "stupid".

If Muslims take over the UNited States and start a civil war which side are you fighting for?  Sunni or Shia?

[*bfine32*]

(01-10-2016, 10:00 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Having "courage" means being smart and strong enough to take the correct action in the face of danger.  Dying for something you do not believe in is not the correct action.  

Dying for something you do not believe in is not "courageous" it is "stupid".

Actually courage means: the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty,danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.


Knocking women and children out of the way to get a spot on a lifeboat on the Titanic was smart; it was also cowardly. But hell the ship is going down. 

[StLucieBengal]

http://m.france24.com/en/20160110-new-year-violence-cases-516-cologne-police

Up to 516 cases of violence now. Over 40% sexual assaults.

[StLucieBengal]

Germany has been concerned about protecting the democracy in Poland. At a recent volleyball match the Polish people has a message for Germany.

[fredtoast]

(01-10-2016, 10:05 PM)bfine32 Wrote: Actually courage means: the quality of mind or spirit that enables a person to face difficulty,danger, pain, etc., without fear; bravery.


Knocking women and children out of the way to get a spot on a lifeboat on the Titanic was smart; it was also cowardly. But hell the ship is going down. 

Funny that I am the one saying that it is possible to be both courageous and smart at the same time, while you are the one claiming that they are mutually exclusive.  


BTW you didn't answer my question....Sunni or Shia?  which side are you fighting for?

[*bfine32*]

(01-11-2016, 12:02 AM)fredtoast Wrote: Funny that I am the one saying that it is possible to be both courageous and smart at the same time, while you are the one claiming that they are mutually exclusive.  


BTW you didn't answer my question....Sunni or Shia?  which side are you fighting for?

Perhaps I didn't answer the question because you added it after I responded. But to answer the question I might go with that unheard of third side. I might not go with either and provide aid/comfort to those that cannot fight or flee. Chances of me joining Fred on the runaway boat are slim.

Where the hell did I say one cannot be smart and courageous? (Is that one of those straw thingys) I simply said fleeing your country during Civil War is not an example of courage,   

[fredtoast]

(01-11-2016, 02:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Where the hell did I say one cannot be smart and courageous?

I thought you were saying that it may be smart to flee, but not courageous.

[fredtoast]

(01-11-2016, 02:54 AM)bfine32 Wrote: Perhaps I didn't answer the question because you added it after I responded. But to answer the question I might go with that unheard of third side.

There is no third side.

Guess you are just too "brave" to understand this.

[Sovereign Nation]

(01-11-2016, 10:14 AM)fredtoast Wrote: There is no third side.

Guess you are just too "brave" to understand this.

Actually there is.

In the question you posed, if Muslims took over America, which side would I be on, Sunni or Shia?

The 3rd option is neither or as Brewster would put in "None of the Above".

The option of not fighting for either side is there, and I could still fight to protect myself and my family from both sides if either one decided to target me.

This is where a guy like Bfine is good to have around, because he gets it.  In a scenario like you have described, he would be the type of person I would want to be in contact with and others like him.  Likewise, I would be a good candidate for him as well.  This way we mutually work together to defend ourselves, land, peoples, culture ect...  

We understand that we don't have to "pick a side" we just have to have an understanding of what is right and what is wrong.  

It is wrong to force other people to fight for causes they don't believe in.  With the amount of military age men that are "fleeing" Syria, they could stand together united against any Sunni or Shia trying to force others to stand with them against the other.  When the extremist come to their villages to commit violent acts that they know to be wrong, they stand together to kick those extremist out.

[fredtoast]

(01-14-2016, 08:41 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Actually there is.

In the question you posed, if Muslims took over America, which side would I be on, Sunni or Shia?

The 3rd option is neither or as Brewster would put in "None of the Above".

The option of not fighting for either side is there, and I could still fight to protect myself and my family from both sides if either one decided to target me.

This is where a guy like Bfine is good to have around, because he gets it.  In a scenario like you have described, he would be the type of person I would want to be in contact with and others like him.  Likewise, I would be a good candidate for him as well.  This way we mutually work together to defend ourselves, land, peoples, culture ect...  

We understand that we don't have to "pick a side" we just have to have an understanding of what is right and what is wrong.  

It is wrong to force other people to fight for causes they don't believe in.  With the amount of military age men that are "fleeing" Syria, they could stand together united against any Sunni or Shia trying to force others to stand with them against the other.  When the extremist come to their villages to commit violent acts that they know to be wrong, they stand together to kick those extremist out.

Only problem with the position you are taking is that it has been proven wrong by pretty much every civil war type conflict in history.  If you live in a country that in the middle of a civil war then each side will demand your support or else consider you as an enemy.  If you are not "with them" then you are "against them". 

Learn some history. 

[fredtoast]

(01-14-2016, 08:41 AM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: With the amount of military age men that are "fleeing" Syria, they could stand together united against any Sunni or Shia trying to force others to stand with them against the other.  When the extremist come to their villages to commit violent acts that they know to be wrong, they stand together to kick those extremist out.

This is a complete fantasy with no basis in reality.

Assad has strong military forces that can easily wipe out civilian forces.  And the anti-Assad forces are organized and supported by outside forces.  

[BmorePat87]

(01-14-2016, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: nd the anti-Assad forces are organized and supported by outside forces.  

And also made up for defected military officers and soldiers with equipment from the Syrian army. 


Nah, some dude with maybe a hand gun can take em on.

[fredtoast]

(01-14-2016, 12:23 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: And also made up for defected military officers and soldiers with equipment from the Syrian army. 


Nah, some dude with maybe a hand gun can take em on.

These sound like the same guys who think if they have an automatic weapon they will be able to fight off the US military when they try to impose martial law.

Delusional.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-14-2016, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: These sound like the same guys who think if they have an automatic weapon they will be able to fight off the US military when they try to impose martial law.

Delusional.

Where are these "automatic" weapons you talk about .... Or are you referring to semi automatic?

[fredtoast]

(01-14-2016, 12:47 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: Where are these "automatic" weapons you talk about ....   Or are you referring to semi automatic?

One of the main arguments for legalizing full auto is "the government has them".

And many have converted semi-auto to full auto.

[StLucieBengal]

(01-14-2016, 12:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: One of the main arguments for legalizing full auto is "the government has them".

And many have converted semi-auto to full auto.

We don't need automatic weapons. Semi automatics are fine.

[fredtoast]

(01-14-2016, 12:55 PM)StLucieBengal Wrote: We don't need automatic weapons.     Semi automatics are fine.

If that is what you believe then I was not talking about you.

[Sovereign Nation]

(01-14-2016, 12:09 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Only problem with the position you are taking is that it has been proven wrong by pretty much every civil war type conflict in history.  If you live in a country that in the middle of a civil war then each side will demand your support or else consider you as an enemy.  If you are not "with them" then you are "against them". 

Learn some history. 

Maybe you should learn some military history.

Many of our own American heroes joined us due to the ruthless nature and tactics of British officers.  They didn't want to fight and wanted to remain neutral only to pick a "side" in the war when they were mistreated by British officers.

They would give aid to both sides and only chose the Colonialist after having their homes destroyed by the "with us or against us" attitude displayed by men that think just like you.

So if I am a Syrian male, who believed in Islam, which side would I choose?  How about the side that isn't trying to force my hand in joining them, by attacking and harming them in an effort to intimidate or bully?

Just like I would be with the Colonialist during the Revolutionary War. 

Now I know how you will take this, however I would be standing with the Confederates during the Civil War.  Based off of my own research, I have found that the North was very aggressive toward the South and they had committed acts similar to what the British did.  Since the North won some aspects are glossed over such as small farms being targeted by Union troops as well as the people, not the Military, as a way to put pressure on those that were "not taking a side" to choose the Union.

Yes, you do "take a side" but only when your hand is forced, men like myself would choose to stand against the bully, even if it means we would lose.  Men like you would stand with the bully, because you think it is the "smart" thing to do. 

Now the 3rd option is another one that you support, that is "running away" to a place not quite so war torn and do everything you can to bring negative aspects of your country with you, such as raping women.  I have seen you post earlier in this thread that Cologne is a "bad place", if you educate yourself on all of the things going on in Europe, there have been multiple attacks similar all across Europe.  Cologne is just where the majority took place. 

[Sovereign Nation]

(01-14-2016, 12:33 PM)fredtoast Wrote: These sound like the same guys who think if they have an automatic weapon they will be able to fight off the US military when they try to impose martial law.

Delusional.

Considering that in Vietnam some of our forces were beaten back by farmers with pitch forks and rocks.

Same thing in Iraq and even Afghanistan. 

Just because you have the superior firepower and technology, doesn't make you invincible.  No I am not talking about John Rambo taking out an up armored helicopter with just a bow and arrow, but with a will and drive to fight back and not being afraid of dying for a cause.

The reason these same guys think that if they have automatic weapons they will be able to fight off the US military is because what they are banking on are men that will say "No, Sir, I will not obey that order".  There are more men in the military that would refuse firing on their own country men, which leaves only a smaller amount of men that would.  The ones that refused and witnessed the any acts against their own country men would then decide to stand with their country men against the US Military Orders (notice not the actual men, but the orders that those men are being asked to carry out).

However, I am done talking to you.  You resort to typical tactics where you attempt shaming people to side with you.

If a person doesn't side with you they are - uneducated, delusional.  They are probably fearful, racist, misogynist, homophobic, xenophobic, islamophobic, ignorant, backwards bigots.

Until you learn a new tactic, you just aren't worth the time.

[fredtoast]

(01-14-2016, 02:58 PM)Sovereign Nation Wrote: Considering that in Vietnam some of our forces were beaten back by farmers with pitch forks and rocks.

I'm calling BS on this.