SUBSIM Radio Room Forums - View Single Post

Skybird · 12-09-09, 06:34 PM

And more unprecise interpretaiton of yours of what I said or meant, in your opinion. Especially the Poland thing this time is a true highlight, nevertheless totally wrong and not representative for what I said.

Steve, this has become a very complex situation, and adressing all the points one by one, and their implications and crossreferences, would cost me one or two hours or more, and that it simply is not worth it for me. I have made sure that where I said you misinterpret me or misquote me, that was for sure what I really have read in your replies. And that is why I stick to everything I answered to you - and refuse to spend half an hour to find every single paragraph, line and word number becaue you ask for the dot above the i . And honestly said: I start to lose oversight here. Not losing it earlier, but now, with your latest reply.

As my second attempt to bring this to a peaceful end now, once again what is the decisive thing for me in all this wordfighting. You may see it different, but that is not what I got from your replies, then. A case of miscommunication, then.

If you are not at war, you have not really enemies, but rivals at best. If you call them already enemies, then why do you do that if you are not at war with them, and they with you.

If you are in the situation of having enemies, you are at war, therefore, and in war it is wise to avoid getting hit by his bomb, but to bomb him before he can hit you. That is called an "active strategy", if you want. it separates the dead from the surviving. My trainer just called it: "always readiness and action: just one".

To bomb somebody who is not at war with you, just because eventually later he may launch a war of surprise against you, is not "active war strategy", but a war of aggression. Bush's preemptive war doctrine qualifies as that.

Your reference to Poland in the context you did, is invalid, because Poland never threatened germany, and thus the german attack was no active war strategy, but a war of aggression. But I was talking not in defence of wars of aggression, but the difference between acting and reacting, as you can easily see in the context. To indicate that I mean to attack a peaceful neighbouring country is an exmaple illustrating what in that context I said about acting and reacting in war, is - misleading, and unpolite, to put it that way. Germany was not threatened by Poland, and I have no reason to propagate a war against them as just a war action that can be defended, or a war that was ustified. Do you see the difference?

Now compare to Iran, a possible military strike or war against them. You maybe are tempted to think that we are at peace with them, and if we initially strike them, that would be a war of aggression. But fact is that the Iranians already are engaged in war against the West and israel and already are engaged in killing our people, by money, by assiatnce, and by their own commandos. The word to watch out for here is "terrorism" and the funding of it. the situation compares to the moral argument to why the war against afghanistan assisting Bin Laden is said to have been justified. As I see it, we already are at war with Iran, becasue they have stzarted to wage war on us longer time ago, wether we like it or not. and that is why I do not rate a sudden military strike against them as a war of aggression in the way germany attacked Poland. - If I currently think a military strike is justified or can achieve what it hopes to achieve, is something totally different, and I leave it out of the discussion, so do not refer to it. It has nothing to do with the point I am about.

and the point is, true for ancient wars, modern wars, personal fights and conflicts in general: either you are in a state of conflict, or you are not. Both are two totally different states, especially in case of war and peace, and needs to be seen by different rules, priorities and values. If you are not in a conflict, do not touch your enemy, for you have no enemy. If you have decided that you are in a state of war, strike first, strike hard, strike by suroprise, stay focussed on the enemy's killing, don't get distracted, don't allow scruples to hinder you. KILL HIM as fast as you can, with as little risk for yourself as you can, don't wave flags and don't hold speeches, don't pray and don't accept anybody cming between him and you, even accept the chance you get killed yourself (if you don't , then the war is not worth it for you) - KILL HIM.

That is all I am about. And what I say obviously is situation dependant, something that you atv least sometimes have not realised as I conclude from several comments.

the Japanese' imperial policies are one thing, and can be questioned. I did not touch them much. but the way they fought once they decided they were in a conflict that has been enforced on them by the situation around the oil, they fought - and very much like I outlined you should fight once you are in a fight.

Be hestitent to accept a state of conflict if it is not enforced upon you. Test your conscience, check your motives over and over again. Don't be easy to accept fight/war/conflict. Try to influence situations so much in advance that conflict is not needed. that is meant by saying: winning without fighting.

Now do not take something out of context again, or make assumptions on what it eventually could mean when I say this or that - just take my very word in its context, not more, not less.

And then prove me wrong, if you can.

I understand you are against war in general. So am I, but i also know that sometimes war is enforced on us, and leaves us no choice, refusing it then does greater damage then to fight it. many confloicts we find ourselves in, in politics and the ME, we have created ourselves, they are just echoes of old policies of ours. Some conflicts we cannot avoid. I see such occasions to be much rarer than politicians claim. But to quote from the Lord of the Rings: those refusing to take up a sword - still can get killed by a sword. Weakness is no virtue. Weakness is: weakness. It leaves you no choice. Choices you only have when you are strong. Be strong, therefore, and be ready - but be hesitent to use your strength if you can avoid it, do not use it for no other reason that you have it. Because being strong also means: to have the choice not to use it.

Either you agree with this fighting attitude, or you don't. Either you understand the fighting-related part of Bushido, or you don't. Fighting is part of bushido, but bushido is not only about fighting.

But to continue this insanely pinpoint-focussed communication in writing, imo is wasting time, and plenty of it. what I said about quotes of yours, is true, I said those replies carefully every time I did, becasue I really do not like to be locked in a fight with you here, with some people on this board I simply do not wish to fight. If you really are interested in finding all the examples, then analyse this thread yourself again, which already is a very time.-consuming thing. I just don't spend another hour in here.

Sky

12-09-09, 06:34 PM	#57
Skybird Soaring Join Date: Sep 2001 Location: the mental asylum named Germany Posts: 42,836 Downloads: 10 Uploads: 0	And more unprecise interpretaiton of yours of what I said or meant, in your opinion. Especially the Poland thing this time is a true highlight, nevertheless totally wrong and not representative for what I said. Steve, this has become a very complex situation, and adressing all the points one by one, and their implications and crossreferences, would cost me one or two hours or more, and that it simply is not worth it for me. I have made sure that where I said you misinterpret me or misquote me, that was for sure what I really have read in your replies. And that is why I stick to everything I answered to you - and refuse to spend half an hour to find every single paragraph, line and word number becaue you ask for the dot above the i . And honestly said: I start to lose oversight here. Not losing it earlier, but now, with your latest reply. As my second attempt to bring this to a peaceful end now, once again what is the decisive thing for me in all this wordfighting. You may see it different, but that is not what I got from your replies, then. A case of miscommunication, then. If you are not at war, you have not really enemies, but rivals at best. If you call them already enemies, then why do you do that if you are not at war with them, and they with you. If you are in the situation of having enemies, you are at war, therefore, and in war it is wise to avoid getting hit by his bomb, but to bomb him before he can hit you. That is called an "active strategy", if you want. it separates the dead from the surviving. My trainer just called it: "always readiness and action: just one". To bomb somebody who is not at war with you, just because eventually later he may launch a war of surprise against you, is not "active war strategy", but a war of aggression. Bush's preemptive war doctrine qualifies as that. Your reference to Poland in the context you did, is invalid, because Poland never threatened germany, and thus the german attack was no active war strategy, but a war of aggression. But I was talking not in defence of wars of aggression, but the difference between acting and reacting, as you can easily see in the context. To indicate that I mean to attack a peaceful neighbouring country is an exmaple illustrating what in that context I said about acting and reacting in war, is - misleading, and unpolite, to put it that way. Germany was not threatened by Poland, and I have no reason to propagate a war against them as just a war action that can be defended, or a war that was ustified. Do you see the difference? Now compare to Iran, a possible military strike or war against them. You maybe are tempted to think that we are at peace with them, and if we initially strike them, that would be a war of aggression. But fact is that the Iranians already are engaged in war against the West and israel and already are engaged in killing our people, by money, by assiatnce, and by their own commandos. The word to watch out for here is "terrorism" and the funding of it. the situation compares to the moral argument to why the war against afghanistan assisting Bin Laden is said to have been justified. As I see it, we already are at war with Iran, becasue they have stzarted to wage war on us longer time ago, wether we like it or not. and that is why I do not rate a sudden military strike against them as a war of aggression in the way germany attacked Poland. - If I currently think a military strike is justified or can achieve what it hopes to achieve, is something totally different, and I leave it out of the discussion, so do not refer to it. It has nothing to do with the point I am about. and the point is, true for ancient wars, modern wars, personal fights and conflicts in general: either you are in a state of conflict, or you are not. Both are two totally different states, especially in case of war and peace, and needs to be seen by different rules, priorities and values. If you are not in a conflict, do not touch your enemy, for you have no enemy. If you have decided that you are in a state of war, strike first, strike hard, strike by suroprise, stay focussed on the enemy's killing, don't get distracted, don't allow scruples to hinder you. KILL HIM as fast as you can, with as little risk for yourself as you can, don't wave flags and don't hold speeches, don't pray and don't accept anybody cming between him and you, even accept the chance you get killed yourself (if you don't , then the war is not worth it for you) - KILL HIM. That is all I am about. And what I say obviously is situation dependant, something that you atv least sometimes have not realised as I conclude from several comments. the Japanese' imperial policies are one thing, and can be questioned. I did not touch them much. but the way they fought once they decided they were in a conflict that has been enforced on them by the situation around the oil, they fought - and very much like I outlined you should fight once you are in a fight. Be hestitent to accept a state of conflict if it is not enforced upon you. Test your conscience, check your motives over and over again. Don't be easy to accept fight/war/conflict. Try to influence situations so much in advance that conflict is not needed. that is meant by saying: winning without fighting. Now do not take something out of context again, or make assumptions on what it eventually could mean when I say this or that - just take my very word in its context, not more, not less. And then prove me wrong, if you can. I understand you are against war in general. So am I, but i also know that sometimes war is enforced on us, and leaves us no choice, refusing it then does greater damage then to fight it. many confloicts we find ourselves in, in politics and the ME, we have created ourselves, they are just echoes of old policies of ours. Some conflicts we cannot avoid. I see such occasions to be much rarer than politicians claim. But to quote from the Lord of the Rings: those refusing to take up a sword - still can get killed by a sword. Weakness is no virtue. Weakness is: weakness. It leaves you no choice. Choices you only have when you are strong. Be strong, therefore, and be ready - but be hesitent to use your strength if you can avoid it, do not use it for no other reason that you have it. Because being strong also means: to have the choice not to use it. Either you agree with this fighting attitude, or you don't. Either you understand the fighting-related part of Bushido, or you don't. Fighting is part of bushido, but bushido is not only about fighting. But to continue this insanely pinpoint-focussed communication in writing, imo is wasting time, and plenty of it. what I said about quotes of yours, is true, I said those replies carefully every time I did, becasue I really do not like to be locked in a fight with you here, with some people on this board I simply do not wish to fight. If you really are interested in finding all the examples, then analyse this thread yourself again, which already is a very time.-consuming thing. I just don't spend another hour in here. Sky __________________ If you feel nuts, consult an expert.