Read this if you're up for a good argument...

I am fond of drawing connections between fiction and real life. Aside from justifying Star Wars to people who say it has no value, I just find it amusing. One thing I've found is this:

Ever notice how the Yuuzhan Vong act with regards to religion?

1)It's their God-given duty to convert peeps to their incredibly painful ways.
2)If peeps don't listen, it's their God-given duty to wipe said peeps out.
3)They hate the technological advances of the GFFA, at least partially because of the material greed associated with them.
4)They don't care who they shoot, as long as it's an enemy.
5)They're led by some of the sickest, most demented people in existence.
6)They have connections to groups that say they act for the common good.
7)A bunch of pansies in the GFFA support them. On a side note, Viqi Shesh is a tree-hugging hippy ****.
8)They have really crazy religious rituals.

I don't know about you, but this reminds me a lot of al-Qaeda. If you don't know what al-Qaeda is, I question your ability to turn on your computer, let alone respond to this thread. Sometimes I think of the Yuuzhan Vong, and the detestable visage of Osama bin Laden comes to mind. Any thoughts?

 

most of it sounds much more like the US to me

your perception of al qaeda's goals seems skewed. i'm sure they do care who they attack, their religious practices aren't 'crazy', they're not motivated by wholly religous means, everyone's supported by some 'pansy' or another, i'm fairly certain that our technological status itself is not a motive...

there isn't much argument there


NOTE: as many of you know, i dont advocate terrorism, but often defend that it is effective, and is done for a reason

 

Terrorism is ineffective.

"The more you tighten your grip, Tarkin, the more star systems will slip through your fingers..."

Terrorism only succeeds in pissing people off and getting them to kill each other. It's pointless, much like the entire Vong philosophy of self-mutilation.

You're right, they're not motivated entirely by religion. Osama advocates giving to Allah until you're in the poor house, while he lives it up. The Vong think you have to cut yourself up and stuff while the highest leaders don't even do it half the time. They're too busy killing each other.

Where are you from, Infiltrator? And how do you view al-Qaeda's goals?

Oh and by the way, Bush is no murderer. At least not compared to Osama. The only one's he's ordered killed are terrorist arsefaces who are a menace to the world.

Oh and by the way Kyp Rocks!

 

Like other countries aren't out for themselves, Inf.? Please

There are many similarities between that and the religions of today of which all are guilty of accosting others through either individuals who take it too far or even groups i.e. sects. Though there are religions that lend themselves more to non-violence (nearly all do, but the fact that some faiths practice more non-violent ways through its members is almost always because of the culture i.e. Buddhists in India, Taoists in China), it is human nature to be right.

That aside, terrorism is effective in spreading...duh...terror, but I would not use the word 'defend'. They attack civilian targets purposefully, not military so they could not be called a militant group, but more like murderous-thugs. It is beyond forgiveness for such actions.


Mistryl's Paramour

 

Except this stuff was in planning before the majority of the US had heard of Al-Qaueida (I don't know how you spell it, so I'll just use them all.)

 

i'm in colorado, in the bloody us of a

i'm entirely against terrorism of any sort, including the kind enacted in the american invasions of iraq and afghanistan

it is, however effective in most cases
in the case of the second attack on the NY world trade center it was ineffective in many cases, which is why i think terrorists will attack american targets again to get their message out.

it is certainly a brutal method, but who can say they didn't wonder why they did it afterwards

this in itself makes terrorism effective

in many people's cases however, pride for their blind patriotism made them ignore any messages they could see, and act as though inviting another attack


of course other countrys are out for themselves mor, i thought in relating that to the country most JCers are in would have the most direct message

and i for one would call them militant even though they dont attack military targets, i think it's their methods, not their target would determine that

 

*claps*

you said it, i'm australian and american patriotism gets up my nose so much it reaches my sinuses

BTW, there is a terrorism debate in the JC Senate if you wanna make some noise

 

Cool. I'll go there and raise more hell than Dante.

You call our invasions terrorism? Sure...yeah we intentionally killed plenty of civilians and had fun blowing up buildings....riiiight. Yeah, we had accidents. Guess what? Stuff happens.

I'm hardly a blind patriot. I recognize when someone lies to me. Of course war with Iraq had something to do with oil.

 

well then that depends on the definition of terrorism

if you'd post yours i could attack it properly

 

Of course war with Iraq had something to do with oil.

IMHO war with Iraq has EVERYTHING to do with oil.

 

Not everything. Two words: torture chambers. Wait a minute...I'm already in this same debate on another forum. Knowing my luck you guys are the exact same people.

I asked if the Vong and Osama sounded similar, not whether or not Bush is a jerk. Please stay fairly close to the topic from now on.

 

I don't know about you, but this reminds me a lot of al-Qaeda.

Reminds me of a few religions...

 

Yeah, probably. Which ones specifically?

 

in bush's speech last night, he adressed creating an iraqi government made up of iraqis. this just after OPEC said they wouldn't allow iraq in if they weren't governed by iraqis

seems more and more oil motivated

and about your torture chambers, 2 things
1) before the war you would have said weapons of mass destruction and
2) i suggest you look into protests about how we're treating prisoners in cuba


it doesn't seem like any religions to me
it does however, seem like the veiws of some followers of many religions

 

I'd say but I'd rather not be flamed.

But careful bashing differant people. The middle east honestly feels that the US should stay out. Sometimes you have to respect others wishes.

 

You're right. Before the war I did say WMDs. My theory: he hauled them off to Syria or one of those other countries. If he had the courage of the least of his slaves he would come out of hiding and do battle with us. Of course, he didn't get to be a dictator in the first place by being stupid. And we probably are treating prisoners bad, but they're terrorists. They've done everything to deserve it and more. Saddam's were innocent people who had done nothing. He'd make the Vong shudder at prisoner treatment. At least they sacrifice the prisoners quickly and get it over with.

Let me guess C-3PX...you were going to say Christianity.

The Crusades are over, dude. Maybe you should have paid attention in history class.

God knows I probably should.

 

i wouldn't, but there are those who argue that the iraq invasion was religiously motivated in part

if you mean me 3px, i honestly didn't mean to flame you, tell me where and i'll edit it out

 

I had never thought of the Vong in that way, but there are parallels, I suppose. You could link any number of religions to the Vong for various reasons. You could also draw similarities between the Rebel Alliance and Al Qaeda, I would say. It's a far too clouded by personal beliefs to make a legitimate theory out of.

Has anyone heard of authors taking direct inspiration from real world events when writing for SW?

The EUC isn't the place for religious/political debates, remember. Try to keep it EU-related or go the the Senate.

 

alpha, do you know bin Laden's real name BTW

it's Usama not Osama as the u-s-a in his name is bad PR for the "Homeland security" desk

 

Those who say it's religiously motivated have offered NO reasoning that I can see for their beliefs. If you honestly feel that this is even partly true, present some information about it that I can analyze. Fortunately, I'm feeling good-natured right now. If I wasn't, I'd launch into an incredible tirade about how those people are flaming idiots. That would accomplish nothing. But I can see no reasoning behind that other than as a means for people to hurt something that they don't like, regardless of the consequences. These people are incredibly hypocritical, as much as or even moreso than fundamentalist Christians or even Yuuzhan Vong. They decry the dogmatism of Christianity, and yet obstinately refuse to even consider the oppostie point of view. They're like "This is how it is, period. End of story. This point is inarguable, and I am right and you are wrong, period." I don't mean to be cruel, but...

Those people are crapfaced retards.

Okay, I lied. I did mean to be cruel. I'm extremely biased...against stupid people.

 

i'll stop debating this in a second because lex is right

i cant cite specific examples because i havn't looked into it, but i seem to recall bush saying some things, reffering to the iraq war as a 'crusade' and suchlike, that would eisily provoke that kind of beleif

my anti-US case isn't based around that, but i certainly do see the religious motivation side to the argument, and apparently i am a fullfledged 'crapfaced retard' or whatever it what that you so eloquently said

 

lex is write, lock this thread please

 

Poor choice of Bush's words. Then again, he's not known for his eloquence anyway.

"They misunderestimated me!!"

lol

That wording certainly does lend credence to an incredible fallacy such as that. Oil, I will agree with you, at least in part, on. But my attitude is, if you live here and you don't like it, get the hell out.

Yes I knew Usama's real name. Surprisingly, they usually show it on Fox News, one of the most conservative networks around.

How do I get this on the Senate? I hate to be breaking the rules and stuff. Could someone move this?

 

the EU or JC senate?

 

Whichever one's most conducive to this kind of debate. And whichever one has more people that can intelligently draw parallels from SW to real life. Which one is better?