military action is at the account of a government. saying somebody died from traumactic heart failure is much easier than saying that "we made a foolish move to go in there guns-a-blazin'" additionally they could avoid PR for not finding a better way to save the civilians. but its quite obvious from the evidence of what they did. they tried to get away with something they couldnt, and their PR dodge failed. well, obviously it worked on some shorter minded people... but not anyone with half a stare into the situation. and besides, a less potent aerosol would have done the job just as well, probably would have inhibited any normal thought process and loosened the aim of the guards

Alright, let me take some time to take this monster and disprove it piece by piece.

First, no military would ever say, "Whoops, we went in 'guns-a-blazin'' ha, we sure won't do that again." Why? Because no military would ever try to solve a hostage situation with guns a blazin'.

Second, the death of civilians during a military-supervised hostage crisis would look much worse than the death of military operatives trying to solve the situation. Why? Because the civilian deaths make it look like they occured in the midst of a military that was too slow to make a move and ultimately failed in its purpose of protecting the people. At least if some soldiers die, it looks like Russia tried its best. But in the way it actually played out, it made the military look clueless and helpless as they ultimately screwed up and got half the people they were supposed to save killed. This looks much worse for Russia's international appearance than the heroic deaths of twenty soldiers trying to save the innocent civilians from the *nasty* terrorists. (Asterik emphasizes sarcasm)

Third, let me go back to an earlier point of yours.

THEY RELEASED BIG AMOUNTS OF GAS MUCH LARGER AMOUNTS THAN NEEDED TO PUT THE PEOPLE TO SLEEP THE GAS WAS IN VERY ALPHA TESTING STAGES THEY KNEW IT WAS TOXIC THEY KNEW THE KILL RATE WOULD BE HIGHER WITH THE GAS THEY RELEASED IT ANYWAY THEY COVERED UP THE DEATHS

This is why they pay people who have gone to college and have three PhDs in the area to analyze this stuff and offer their opinions on the situation. This is why we trust their opinions over the generalized observations of a sixteen year old. As with before, chances are you are missing something here. Don't want to put the effort into looking something up to show you, so go ahead and do it yourself. Before you form radical opinions, research the alternatives.

Fourth, there are some nice examples that prove otherwise that are right in the hedlines. Specifically, the Khankala attack that occured a few months ago. You can google it and find many articles on it, you'll probably even be able to find it on your trusy wikipdia. In this particular incident, guerrillas used AA missiles to shoot down a Russian army Mi-26 HALO chopper that was grossly overloaded with troops. A big military embarassment. How long did it stay in the headlines for? A couple hours, maybe a day. I don't even remember seeing a television report on the incident, just a single online story on cnn.com. How long did the theatre and school shootouts stay in the headlines for? Days. The fact is that the public is going to pay a lot more attention to civilians dying, because we can sympathize with them more than a soldier in the line of duty. Why? Because we ARE civilians.

hey, dont go bashing on atheists. I have a really good friend who is one. actually atheists are very down to earth people. I like them a lot

WHOA. Didn't think it would be taken like that. As a militant atheist myself, I agree with you. We are nice people. What I was trying to do was bring attention to a stereotype among many faithful religious people that we are selfish, godless pagans who are doomed to die in dark, alliterative loneliness. I was just bringing this up as a random example, along with the metal music thing, a type of music which I myself cannot stand but don't think is bad because I know ten more who love it.

Also, let me just jut in here. Schem, your last reply (Post #145) is a perfect example of what I'm taking issue with here. Look how long my post was that you were responding to. Then, look at how much of it you quoted. Half at most. Next, look at how much time you spent on each taken-out-of-context point. A sentence or two, and sometimes you won't even grace your response with a period. If you're going to show to us that you have nothing to say on a point because you are incorrect, then say so, because it makes you look better and makes the discussion progress more smoothly and much faster.

Again, its just the Internet, ligthen up!

Ha, I'm perfectly light! Can't possibly see how you could think otherwise. I've been calmly articulating what I think the entire time. I'm not the one calling people assholes and saying "fuck" and "shit" frequently. Guess who is, though?

Now, if sarcasm will stop being so "your ignorant schem", and start using better arguements this thread might still have a chance.

Actually, my arguments are quite good, if you put forth the effort to read them. Also, Schem's ignorance is an argument in itself, and an effective one. He thinks he knows everything, yet he has seen very little and all of his opinions and points are based off of wikipedia articles. This is the same kid who felt comfortable enough to say you can take over Africa with three pistols. Even if he was joking, it is an obvious showing of his true dismissive nature. You know that old Freudian belief that jokes aren't really jokes, because you wouldn't have thought to make the joke in the first place if you didn't believe in what you were saying to some degree. What I'm saying is there are many blatant generalizations, assumptions, and convenient fact-choosing going around with Schem, and it is impossible to talk in a thread without mentioning it multiple times. Each post he makes gives me many new examples, so why stop? Good stuff!

As for Psychology versus Sociology, yes they are two different things of course. But sociology starts out with psychology. You cannot understand the mass unless you understand the individual. And Mob Psychology IS a part of mainstream psychology, so don't try to differentiate the two. Yes, Mob might be different from the form of psychology we all think of when we hear the word, but it is still part of the overall field.

To finish up, let me just put one thing out in the open that seems to make you all crazy. You need an introduction to my argument style. I have a reason for putting so much sarcasm and absurdity in them. What I do is I use simple logic to poke holes in your theory, and then use those holes to suggest completely absurd and unjustified examples that are made possible through your flawed logic. I know that Galileo wasn't a suicidal masochist, as do we all, but by showing you that your logic makes such an absurd suggestion possible, I'm hoping you can admit you're wrong and move on. If your logic allows for the non sequitur to be in sequence, then you have a problem that is completely on your end, and you cannot fix it by bringing up new points. Logic is a proof in itself, that's why I don't need any links, though it can be hard to follow if you only read half of what’s there.

Also, if you pay close attention and read, you'll see that at no point am I rambling. I write a lot, because I like to take each point and utterly destroy it to the point that it is impossible to continue to logically support it. This is something I have done quite a bit here, but it seems as if you either can't see it, or just come up with new stuff on the spot.

you, conveniently, refuse to show any sources OR respond to my valid points

That's because you have very few valid points, which isn't my problem. I have done quite well with responding to the invalid ones, though, and have conceded to the good ones. Don't try to take my main criticism of you and turn it around on me, because it just doesn't work. Also, I have not shown sources, and you have not shown credible sources. Sorry, I don't take wikipedia articles as proof. Gimme something solid, like I said above. I base my arguments on logic and common sense, two things that are sources in themselves.

If i missed something then do tell, there's a lot to address and I don't want to spend two hours typing this.

Why? Because no military would ever try to solve a hostage situation with guns a blazin'.

no, they did that here. they just gassed everyone first.
they made a really stupid move that ended in lots of peoples deaths. this was about the simplest way to stop a hostage crisis period.

military-supervised hostage crisis would look much worse than the death of military operatives trying to solve the situation

did I not just spell this out to you.
government is far more credible then a few crying families, they sound desperate. government doesnt
government pressures people into saying things for risk of being persecuted.
exactly russias moves here. they covered things up, fast.

At least if some soldiers die, it looks like Russia tried its best

aha, point proven
if russia's best is a lot of soldiers dead (which would have been the case, but the overall casualties would have been lower) then that seems pathetic for a full grown nation vs. terrorists
now, no casualties and civilian deaths which can easily be pinned on terrorists or lack of food and water is easy to cover up and keep from international media.

Before you form radical opinions

a radical opinion would be saying that killing civiians is a good move by a government, and defensible.

the fact is that the public is going to pay a lot more attention to civilians dying, because we can sympathize with them more than a soldier in the line of duty. Why? Because we ARE civilians.

thats only relevant if you can prove the civilian deaths were their fault
which they vigerously denied.
you cannot as easily cover up military deaths, but they provide much more of an embarrisment. and btw
that example with the helocopter would explain my reasoning, many deaths in a span of a month isnt good for PR

at most. Next, look at how much time you spent on each taken-out-of-context point

I dont take out of context points, I take the meat and potatoes of the arguement and then pick it out of other irrelevant facts.
I do that rather than take a big chunk of an irrelevant and easily denied arguement and go on a long, sarcastic rant about it.

If you're going to show to us that you have nothing to say on a point because you are incorrect,

I cant believe your saying this. almost half of all your posts are about how I'm evading points. your the one doing that
but your quite tactful at that, I'll have to admit.
and who gives a shit about periods? they just mean you have nothing else to say. I always have more to say

As a militant atheist myself

well there are admitably some god-hating athiests
I'm partly agnostic, its much more helpful to avoid putting god in for reasons all the time.
and what do you mean militant athiest?

Ha, I'm perfectly light! Can't possibly see how you could think otherwise. I've been calmly articulating what I think the entire time. I'm not the one calling people assholes and saying "fuck" and "shit" frequently. Guess who is, though?

oh my god. that was a full page ago. just get back to an actual arguement rather than your sad attempts at discrediting me.
its not working anymore, as emp said. it ruins an arguement, makes you sound like nothing else comes to your mind. which may or may not be true, all things considered.

Actually, my arguments are quite good

what you think is true hardly is a good testament
its not that your ideas are flawed, but you present them poorly and dont support them.

ignorance is an argument in itself, and an effective one. He thinks he knows everything, yet he has seen very little and all of his opinions and points are based off of wikipedia articles

you know, I'm placing a new paradox into history right now
the "I know your an idoit paradox"
it goes like this:
a man knows another guy is an idiot. he is certain it must be true. it has to be true, he knows it! the other guy is an idiot because he thinks that he knows everything, and everything he knows is true. but what that man knows is obviously flawed because the first man knows that he himself must be completely right!
sort this one out, if you dont get it: I'm saying you think you obviously must know everything, otherwise how would you know that I dont know everything

and besides, I know that we are at least equal in terms of ignorance.

You need an introduction to my argument style. I have a reason for putting so much sarcasm and absurdity in them

or perhaps you should adjust your arguement so that you dont sound sarcastic and broadly assuming. we aren't going to go through a course just to learn how to listen to the secret messages and hidden references to sources taht are obviously hidden in some special code in your writting.

you'll see that at no point am I rambling. I write a lot, because I like to take each point and utterly destroy it to the point that it is impossible to continue to logically support it.

but that would only not be rambling if you could prove it
which you havent done
so its rambling.

This is something I have done quite a bit here, but it seems as if you either can't see it, or just come up with new stuff on the spot.

so you obviously must be right in all points, and we, both of us, are obviously too stupid to work on your level of thinking.
right.

That's because you have very few valid points, which isn't my problem. I have done quite well with responding to the invalid ones, though, and have conceded to the good ones

I'm confident to let other people be the judges. anyone who would like to post on this, go right on ahead
except you ticks, your way too biased, sorry but that much I've learned  

Logic is a proof in itself, that's why I don't need any links, though it can be hard to follow if you only read half of what’s there.

logic follows commonly believed or proven facts. thats the point of postulates and theorems
you have not provided any of these. ergo your logic hasnt started anywhere, ergo it doesnt exist.

I have not shown sources, and you have not shown credible sources. Sorry, I don't take wikipedia articles as proof. Gimme something solid, like I said above.

what? so sciam isnt reliable proof?
want to know why each article in sciam is written differently? because only the small excerpts in the beginning are by the same people with majors in writing. the rest of it is by leading researches in actualy fields.
this is where it differs from say, popular science. sciam caters to the global scientist, not the semi-intrigued reader.

you see, I'd be more open minded if
1) I didnt see "facts" and "testamonies" miraculously appearing out of thin air.
the last one I remember is the article about the stem cells in the back of a kid. which was, I remind you, sarcasms first post.
and 2) if sarcasm could keep the sarcasm down. I really dont care how you were conditioned to write, I was conditioned not to listen to people who are overly obnoxious about things. especially insulting people.

Immature smilies!!!
  

Seems the conflict has settled, but one note. Even a fact can be insulting, wheter or not its true, even though you might think him immature he might think otherwise and therefore will find it insulting.

Hopefully Sarcasm comes back he was the only one that still had an arguement or two to debate..

Oh and being a citizen of the UK, it makes me a little worried that history seems to be repeating itself, we all know what happened last time.

I'm just worried that (as sarcasm said, regarding sociocultural beliefs) that this sort of supressive belief will spread and turn into an oppressive one. it did last time
now, so long as you dont let Germany take over half the continent before you retaliate, than I believe we'll be fine.

now, so long as you dont let Germany take over half the continent before you retaliate, than I believe we'll be fine.

Yup, we dropped the ball there, and we may just do it again, our government has no spine. We'd be happy to get mired in Iraq and Afghanistan, but if a country were to take over half of Europe again we would be like "Hmm, yes their taking over the world, but we've seen no evidence of Weapons of Mass Destruction"

Germans are Germans for a reason and they will NEVER EVER change. Period.

Okay, so i like where this thread is going now, at least most of us are on good terms now. Now i really like point 2 from Sarcasm, it made me very very happy, my talking finally got through to someone YEA!!!    I must argue one point Schem made, steel fisted world leader? Russia? NO WAY!! Lol um we havent been that in a while, sure we still pour a lot of money into defense but its nothing like it was. Our millitary isnt half of what it used to be, most of it is going towards new research that the Mafia end up selling anyway. Its quite deppresing, but when i went to the Northern most part of Russia(European side), to this one old millitary base thing(on a tour), there were dozens of ships just siting rusting their. Sure, we still pose a threat to the world and our borders are well defended(draft anyone?), but its not that hard for terrorist to strike at us, we are connected by land to many questionable countries, and we have to much of a border to fense it all off. So in the end they sneak a cross and boom bombing, more people dead, media goes crazy. In the end more soldier die thoug, from rode side bombs and such, if you get drafted its almost like a death sentance.

Now as for working into the EU, Russia is getting clever. They have sent request to a lot of former Soviet Union countries to start thinking about more unified trade agreements. Already they are working with Belarus to get them to sign an agreement to unify the currency to allow freer trade. Now, currently the Russia rubel is worth more, but its less stable and its more soft currency than hard(like here). Belarus' currency on the other hand is even softer so when the too balance out those too by unifying Belarus will become almost an economic slave to our Rubel. They will have to keep it stable or risk ruining their own economy. Other countries are also thinking of benifits that this would bring though, Russia is a huge marker now that its citizens have money, and the Eastern European countries not part of the EU will want this market. So you can see where this could be going, dont you?

As for ieatplanets, can you be anymore judgemental about a nation you know little about. Why would you even say something like that?  

You fail to see the grander picture. What other reason might Russia have besides economic expansion, by making the countries in Eastern Europe rely on it so heavily once again?

No, not assimilating with the EU, though we plan, theres not much hope. The EU has developed quite a prejudice against Eastern Europe(and the Soviet Union). But whos to say there wont be an EEU or maybe an even stronger reform.

Well, those regions will be better off that way. I mean with all those resources being shared everything should prosper. Hopefully the politicians arent stupid enough to mess it up by competing over land and such. This will probably eventually happen because already the strong nationalism in many parts of the world are receeding soon enough people will ally within a region for the benifit of everyone(and because cultural diffrences will be smaller). Then who knows maybe well become a confederation or something.