By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - General - Oh my god, the selective service system sent me a registration letter

pizzahut451 on 23 January 2011
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:

@voty2000:

And no, the men who died in WWI did not die with honor. It was a pointless war. Political leaders playing games on the expense of the idiots who they governed. There were no "good guys" and "bad guys" in that war. EVERYONE was a "bad guy" then. But when it was all over the winners (allies) decided to take the frustration caused by their own stupidity by blaming it all on the losers (the Central powers, most fo all Germany), and with things like the Versailles Treaty created the climate in Germany that helped Hitler and the Nazis come to power.


Actually, Austro-Hungarians were the bad guys. They started the war when they attacked Serbia, who tried everything to prevent the war

That's if you ignore the political climate at the time, and the fact that everybody wanted a big war to start, and they were just waiting for a pretext. As I said, there were no bad guys in that war.

Doesnt chnage the fact they were the bad guys in Austrian-Serbian conflict.

Well they were as bad as the US is in their war on terror. After all, Austria-Hungary attacked Serbia after a Serbian terrorist killed the heir to the throne and his wife. Plus, the conflict would've escalated anyway, due to the tension between the 2 countries. They were all waiting for a pretext to start fighting.


1st.he wasn't a terrorist. He was an assasin from ''Black Hand'' a group of Bosnian Serbs (Bosnia had majority of serbian people back than) who wanted to seperate from Austor-Hungarian Bosnia and join to Serbia.

2.Serbia had absolutely nothing to do with the assasination. They even warned Archduke Franz Ferdinand of possible assasination attempts.

3.When Austria gave Serbia an ultimatum, Serbia accepted evrry single condition except one, which would allow Austrian soldeirs to be in charge of Serbia, to do whatever they want in another contry,without any consequences. That condidion was equal to invasion, and no country could have ever accepted it. Most of leaders in Vienna even said that ''great diplomatic succsess was achived and there is no need for war'' But Austrial decleard war anyway, mostly because of pressure coming from Germany but also because of  their desire to destroy Kingdom of Serbia and influence of Serbs in Bosnia.

While i agree that WW1 was led mostly due to nationalisam, imperialisam, militarism,in-tolerance and alliances, Austrian-Serbian conflict isnt the case.



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 23 January 2011
pizzahut451 said:


1st.he wasn't a terrorist. He was an assasin from ''Black Hand'' a group of Bosnian Serbs (Bosnia had majority of serbian people back than) who wanted to seperate from Austor-Hungarian Bosnia and join to Serbia.

2.Serbia had absolutely nothing to do with the assasination. They even warned Archduke Franz Ferdinand of possible assasination attempts.

3.When Austria gave Serbia an ultimatum, Serbia accepted evrry single condition except one, which would allow Austrian soldeirs to be in charge of Serbia, to do whatever they want in another contry,without any consequences. That condidion was equal to invasion, and no country could have ever accepted it. Most of leaders in Vienna even said that ''great diplomatic succsess was achived and there is no need for war'' But Austrial decleard war anyway, mostly because of pressure coming from Germany but also because of  their desire to destroy Kingdom of Serbia and influence of Serbs in Bosnia.

While i agree that WW1 was led mostly due to nationalisam, imperialisam, militarism,in-tolerance and alliances, Austrian-Serbian conflict isnt the case.

1. That's the exact definition of a terrorist. Separatist groups are terrorists.

2. Iraq also had nothing to do with september 11, but that didn't stop the US from invading, did it?

3. I agree with that argument, but that whole situation was used as a pretext to start a World War.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

pizzahut451 on 23 January 2011
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:


1st.he wasn't a terrorist. He was an assasin from ''Black Hand'' a group of Bosnian Serbs (Bosnia had majority of serbian people back than) who wanted to seperate from Austor-Hungarian Bosnia and join to Serbia.

2.Serbia had absolutely nothing to do with the assasination. They even warned Archduke Franz Ferdinand of possible assasination attempts.

3.When Austria gave Serbia an ultimatum, Serbia accepted evrry single condition except one, which would allow Austrian soldeirs to be in charge of Serbia, to do whatever they want in another contry,without any consequences. That condidion was equal to invasion, and no country could have ever accepted it. Most of leaders in Vienna even said that ''great diplomatic succsess was achived and there is no need for war'' But Austrial decleard war anyway, mostly because of pressure coming from Germany but also because of  their desire to destroy Kingdom of Serbia and influence of Serbs in Bosnia.

While i agree that WW1 was led mostly due to nationalisam, imperialisam, militarism,in-tolerance and alliances, Austrian-Serbian conflict isnt the case.

1. That's the exact definition of a terrorist. Separatist groups are terrorists.

2. Iraq also had nothing to do with september 11, but that didn't stop the US from invading, did it?

3. I agree with that argument, but that whole situation was used as a pretext to start a World War.

1.You woud call anyone who kills someone from royalty a terrorist? Black Hand didnt go around and kill people who didnt share their nationality, religion, beliefs which is what terrorists and separatist groups usually do... they were a group of serbian nationalists who didnt want to be under Austrian rule and wanted to be part of Serbia.They had some simillarities with terorists (seeing as how they didnt care what their actions might do their own people) but i wouldnt call them actuall terorists.

2.Doesnt chnage the fact that Iraq was innocent, just like Serbia back than

3.It was used, yes, but one side tried everything to pervent the war...



sapphi_snake on 23 January 2011
pizzahut451 said:

1.You woud call anyone who kills someone from royalty a terrorist? Black Hand didnt go around and kill people who didnt share their nationality, religion, beliefs which is what terrorists and separatist groups usually do... they were a group of serbian nationalists who didnt want to be under Austrian rule and wanted to be part of Serbia.They had some simillarities with terorists (seeing as how they didnt care what their actions might do their own people) but i wouldnt call them actuall terorists.

2.Doesnt chnage the fact that Iraq was innocent, just like Serbia back than

3.It was used, yes, but one side tried everything to pervent the war...

1. A separatist group who kills others in order to achieve it's goals is a terrorist organisation.

2. There were strong nationalistic sentiments in Serbia, which caused them to separate from Austria-Hungary in the first place, even though that wasn't the best course of action. These sentiments were shared and probably encouraged amongst that terrorist group.

3. In terms of sides, all sides wanted the conflict to take place (i mean in this case Austria-Hungary and it's allies, but also all the countries who jumped in to help Serbia).



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

pizzahut451 on 23 January 2011
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:

1.You woud call anyone who kills someone from royalty a terrorist? Black Hand didnt go around and kill people who didnt share their nationality, religion, beliefs which is what terrorists and separatist groups usually do... they were a group of serbian nationalists who didnt want to be under Austrian rule and wanted to be part of Serbia.They had some simillarities with terorists (seeing as how they didnt care what their actions might do their own people) but i wouldnt call them actuall terorists.

2.Doesnt chnage the fact that Iraq was innocent, just like Serbia back than

3.It was used, yes, but one side tried everything to pervent the war...

1. A separatist group who kills others in order to achieve it's goals is a terrorist organisation.

2. There were strong nationalistic sentiments in Serbia, which caused them to separate from Austria-Hungary in the first place, even though that wasn't the best course of action. These sentiments were shared and probably encouraged amongst that terrorist group.

3. In terms of sides, all sides wanted the conflict to take place (i mean in this case Austria-Hungary and it's allies, but also all the countries who jumped in to help Serbia).

1.Black Hand didnt kill ''others'', it killed Franz Ferdinand

2.Seperated from Austria-Hungary? Serbia was never part of Austria Hungary. Serbs got their independece by fighting Ottoman Empire in the beginning of 19th century

3.Serbia didnt wanted conflict to take place, just its allies



Around the Network
sapphi_snake on 24 January 2011
pizzahut451 said:

1.Black Hand didnt kill ''others'', it killed Franz Ferdinand

2.Seperated from Austria-Hungary? Serbia was never part of Austria Hungary. Serbs got their independece by fighting Ottoman Empire in the beginning of 19th century

3.Serbia didnt wanted conflict to take place, just its allies

1. They killed a human being (actually 2 of them) to incite fear and obtain what they wanted. That's called terrorism

Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

2. Sorry, got that one mixed up.

3. No comment.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

Baalzamon on 24 January 2011
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:

1.You woud call anyone who kills someone from royalty a terrorist? Black Hand didnt go around and kill people who didnt share their nationality, religion, beliefs which is what terrorists and separatist groups usually do... they were a group of serbian nationalists who didnt want to be under Austrian rule and wanted to be part of Serbia.They had some simillarities with terorists (seeing as how they didnt care what their actions might do their own people) but i wouldnt call them actuall terorists.

2.Doesnt chnage the fact that Iraq was innocent, just like Serbia back than

3.It was used, yes, but one side tried everything to pervent the war...

1. A separatist group who kills others in order to achieve it's goals is a terrorist organisation.

2. There were strong nationalistic sentiments in Serbia, which caused them to separate from Austria-Hungary in the first place, even though that wasn't the best course of action. These sentiments were shared and probably encouraged amongst that terrorist group.

3. In terms of sides, all sides wanted the conflict to take place (i mean in this case Austria-Hungary and it's allies, but also all the countries who jumped in to help Serbia).

1.Black Hand didnt kill ''others'', it killed Franz Ferdinand

2.Seperated from Austria-Hungary? Serbia was never part of Austria Hungary. Serbs got their independece by fighting Ottoman Empire in the beginning of 19th century

3.Serbia didnt wanted conflict to take place, just its allies

1.) giggity

2.) lol

3.) muwahaha

...let's make this a little more exciting and start arguing about how these 3 points are the reason why the world is so pretty instead of dragging on about a conflict that really has nothing to do with the original post in any way whatsoever...



Money can't buy happiness. Just video games, which make me happy.

pizzahut451 on 24 January 2011
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:

1.Black Hand didnt kill ''others'', it killed Franz Ferdinand

2.Seperated from Austria-Hungary? Serbia was never part of Austria Hungary. Serbs got their independece by fighting Ottoman Empire in the beginning of 19th century

3.Serbia didnt wanted conflict to take place, just its allies

1. They killed a human being (actually 2 of them) to incite fear and obtain what they wanted. That's called terrorism

Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

2. Sorry, got that one mixed up.

3. No comment.


Fear wasnt their goal nor method.Compare Al Qaeda and Black Hand, and tell me thier diffrences.



sapphi_snake on 24 January 2011
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:

1.Black Hand didnt kill ''others'', it killed Franz Ferdinand

2.Seperated from Austria-Hungary? Serbia was never part of Austria Hungary. Serbs got their independece by fighting Ottoman Empire in the beginning of 19th century

3.Serbia didnt wanted conflict to take place, just its allies

1. They killed a human being (actually 2 of them) to incite fear and obtain what they wanted. That's called terrorism

Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

2. Sorry, got that one mixed up.

3. No comment.


Fear wasnt their goal nor method.Compare Al Qaeda and Black Hand, and tell me thier diffrences.

Both are terrorist organisations. I've googled Black Hand, and every site (including Wikipedia) say that it was a terrorist organisation, though I didn't need to do that 'cause any extremist separatist organisation which plots assassionations in order to strike terror and have their demands met is a terrorist organisation.



"I don't understand how someone could like Tolstoy and Dostoyevsky, but not like Twilight!!!"

"Last book I read was Brokeback Mountain, I just don't have the patience for them unless it's softcore porn."

                                                                               (The Voice of a Generation and Seece)

"If you cant stand the sound of your own voice than dont become a singer !!!!!"

                                                                               (pizzahut451)

pizzahut451 on 25 January 2011
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:
sapphi_snake said:
pizzahut451 said:

1.Black Hand didnt kill ''others'', it killed Franz Ferdinand

2.Seperated from Austria-Hungary? Serbia was never part of Austria Hungary. Serbs got their independece by fighting Ottoman Empire in the beginning of 19th century

3.Serbia didnt wanted conflict to take place, just its allies

1. They killed a human being (actually 2 of them) to incite fear and obtain what they wanted. That's called terrorism

Link: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/terrorism

2. Sorry, got that one mixed up.

3. No comment.


Fear wasnt their goal nor method.Compare Al Qaeda and Black Hand, and tell me thier diffrences.

Both are terrorist organisations. I've googled Black Hand, and every site (including Wikipedia) say that it was a terrorist organisation, though I didn't need to do that 'cause any extremist separatist organisation which plots assassionations in order to strike terror and have their demands met is a terrorist organisation.

Except that they werent neither separatist group(becaue they didnt discriminate any other race, nation,or religion) or exremist (they didnt go around planting bombs, killing hunderds of civilians and anyoone who doesnt agree with them). Like I sad, they have some similarities with terrorists, but they werent that extreme and dangerous.  How many times in history did a man from Roaylity  got killed by an assasin??? Tell me exactly, what make one group a terrorist group? Killing a man? NO