This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
News Articles
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
The problem with that analogy is that every "side" is killing children.
Oh boy. Peace out.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Peace.
Post by
MyTie
Another terribly lethal bird flu.
Post by
Gone
There has never been a war where both sides haven't killed innocent people. Ever. That's why war is so ugly, and why it should always be a last resort. Nobody is ever going to shed any tears over killing terrorists. If they were the only ones being killed, there would be a lot less people that have a problem with the war in the mid east.
According to Falk, what happened in Boston was a mere “blowback.” Not only that, it will get “worse” if America does not fundamentally alter its “relations with the Islamic world.”
When I hear things like this it does make me want to "fundamentally alter our relations with the Islamic world"...only not in a good way.
If they want to inflict "blowback", I say we give them a reason to blow. If they want accuse the US of "world domination"...then lets go dominate. There isn't a single Islamic country that we could not conquer. Hell, I am pretty sure if we really were the evil, world dominating, Islam hating, juggernaut that they want to portray us to be, we could have, and would have, invaded and converted the entire Middle East by now.
But, go ahead...keep blowing up your little bombs in our cities, and killing innocent children and women...you are not going to have Obama, and his limp wristed foreign policy, or G.W. Bush's ignorant Rules of Engagement policies in the White House forever. At some point, you are going to piss the US off, and we are going to have the right leader in place...and we are going to "blowback" on you. And its not going to be with pressure cookers filled with BB's and nails.
You can only poke a dog with a stick so many times before he bites you....keep poking, and you are going to bleed.
The only problem here is that terrorists hide behind innocent people. If the entire country of Afghanistan was responsible for 9/11, we would have bombed them all to !@#$ and not lost a nights sleep over it. The problem is that the people who are responsible represent a very small minority.
That would be like a US citizen going over to Russia or China, killing a bunch of people, then having the country in question declare war on all the US.
Post by
MyTie
That would be like a US citizen going over to Russia or China, killing a bunch of people, then having the country in question declare war on all the US.
When was the last time a US citizen went over and blew up some Russian children?
Post by
Gone
That would be like a US citizen going over to Russia or China, killing a bunch of people, then having the country in question declare war on all the US.
When was the last time a US citizen went over and blew up some Russian children?
Idk, but here's an article about a group of US citizens who decided to start killing Afghan children for kicks.
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-kill-team-20110327
Explain to me how this is any different than the terrorists that come over here and kill innocent people.
Post by
MyTie
I'd like to point out that those people weren't just citizens, they were soldiers. They didn't go out of their way to travel to someplace, set up a plot, and blow up kids. I agree that their actions are EQUALLY ABHORRENT, and I think that the harshest justice should be done, but these guys strike me as a bunch of callous
idiots
, not plotting
terrorists
. Anyway, when our soldiers do something like that, they should be kicked out of the military immediately, and promptly handed over to the people of the offended country, in this case, Afghanistan. I imagine they would be beheaded.
Now, do you see how I don't justify their actions? Do you see how I don't say, "well, Afghanistan harbors terrorists, so you can see how people would kill their kids", or some such malarkey? It isn't the action we are discussing, but the justification.
Post by
Gone
The fact that they were soldiers only makes it worse than if they were terrorists. A terrorist wouldn't be there as a representative of their government, a US soldier is. This whole thing was mostly directed at Magician since he was the one who was saying we should just invade the whole Middle East. But I'll ask you too, if a terrorist attack is enough to warrant an invasion, then wouldn't the actions of these US soldiers only warrant it more so, given that they are actually representatives of the United States military?
Post by
MyTie
A terrorist attack alone isn't enough to warrant an invasion. There needs to be governmental support of that terrorist attack, along with the attack. Not just the fact that the soldiers of that government went
rogue
, and did something that their government disapproves of. Invading a country really necessitates the knowledge, support, and/or participation from that government in the terrorist attack. That's why I suggest that those military members be handed over to the people of Afghanistan, to show that we don't support them. I realize it was worse that they were military members. I always remember how when I was in the military, one bad member's actions would lead to me being condemned by association. I don't support killing children. I don't justify it. That's why, when someone insinuates justification for killing children, I ask them to be clear, and condemn the actions, or support them. That's what I did with HsR, who then just feigned ignorance:Huh? I don't follow. And then went on to equate rogue US military actions to the US as a whole. He knows better, that's not an honest debate. So, that's why we are were we are here.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The rhetoric when talking about terrorism has always been fascinating to me. "Soldiers", "terrorists", "citizens", "idiots", "the enemy", "them", "us"... rhetoric that has become such a crutch that it impossible to talk have a discussion without falling back on it. I wonder what this forum would look like in Palestine right now. A group of people, trying to live out their lives, maybe enjoy playing a few video games. Some of them would be religious, others not. Most hate seeing news about people dying, especially children. Not unlike us. I wonder what rhetoric they use when discussing this topic. Who does each of them call terrorists? Who does each of them hate? Who does each of them empathize with?
Overcoming rhetoric and empathizing with people is, I believe, the first step to overcoming adversity.
And then went on to equate rogue US military actions to the US as a whole. He knows better, that's not an honest debate. So, that's why we are were we are here.
I think you might have me confused with Ryjacork. He linked that article, not me.
Post by
MyTie
And diluting the discussion, and not talking about certain issues, under the guise of tolerance and culture, is just another step in the wrong direction.I think you might have me confused with Ryjacork.
Nope.
Post by
Gone
And then went on to equate rogue US military actions to the US as a whole. He knows better, that's not an honest debate. So, that's why we are were we are here.
Actually I said that, and I said it in response to you implying that no US citizen has ever acted in accordance with terrorists actions.
Post by
MyTie
The problem with that analogy is that every "side" is killing children. Americans are killing children.
No, Ryja. THIS was the part I was having an issue with. Since there are some rogue Americans doing this, it is "our side" doing it. Notice it as HSR's screen name in the quote box. He said it. Then he has the chutzpah to to talk about "us vs them rhetoric". lol
Post by
Gone
The problem with that analogy is that every "side" is killing children. Americans are killing children.
No, Ryja. THIS was the part I was having an issue with. Since there are some rogue Americans doing this, it is "our side" doing it. Notice it as HSR's screen name in the quote box. He said it. Then he has the chutzpah to to talk about "us vs them rhetoric". lol
Well two things. First off, it's not just rogue soldiers killing children. Innocent civilians and children get killed during bombings all the time, it gets chalked up to collateral damage. If it turned into a full scale invasion of the mid east, as Magician suggested, then the collateral damage would be a lot higher than it is now, just rooting out terrorists.
Second, terrorists in many cases, are just like rogue US soldiers. They don't represent the interests or the intent of their mother nation.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Look, MyTie. You know me. You know I like a good discussion as well as the next guy. But I can't work with this whole passive-aggressiveness. If you have a point to make against me, make it to me. Please don't tell me "peace out" and then bring me up in a reply to someone else.
Please understand that I'm walking a very fine line here. I have very few qualms about rolling up the sleeves and getting into a good old-school Randomness scuffle. They always were a lot of fun. However, I've made promises and I don't want to give anyone any reasons to think that letting me back was a bad decision. So if you could please be a bit more congenial, I'd feel much better participating. Where this currently going, however, I pretty much have to step out.
I'm sorry.
Post by
Monday
I'd just like to point out that US drone strikes have been reported to kill many civilians, including children, who were unaffiliated with terror organizations in any way.
Post by
MyTie
Well two things. First off, it's not just rogue soldiers killing children. Innocent civilians and children get killed during bombings all the time, it gets chalked up to collateral damage. If it turned into a full scale invasion of the mid east, as Magician suggested, then the collateral damage would be a lot higher than it is now, just rooting out terrorists.
Second, terrorists in many cases, are just like rogue US soldiers. They don't represent the interests or the intent of their mother nation.
The problem here is intent. Is it justifiable to go to war with a country, knowing innocent people will be killed? It brings to mind a great number of moral dilemmas, which we could discuss for pages. ON A COMPLETELY DIFFERENT TOPIC, we have people intentionally targeting civilians. You can't treat these as the same topic. You can't say "we are doing it and they are too".
I don't approve of how you were going about addressing the topic. I don't think it was an honest debate. Obviously, we disagree. As to where we are, I also don't feel it is going anywhere productive. We are both reasonable, so let's just move along now. What do you say? A mutual cup of coffee and a fresh restart? Agreeable?
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
Sure.
Post by
MyTie
Splendid. Then perhaps you could give your viewpoint on
this article
, which is about the US sec of state's response to Bengazi.
Post by
Hyperspacerebel
The fact that this is one more thing that has become a partisan issue is painfully depressing. I would call for an non-partisan, independent body to be given access to the files and provide a report based on their own findings before I draw my own conclusions.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.