US Special Ops conducting raids in Pakistan [Archive]

mph4ever

09-11-2008, 12:21 PM

Members of Al Qaeda pretty much forfeited their rights when they decided to take it upon themselves to murder innocent men, women, and children.

And tbh, if Pakistan wishes to combat terrorism they should be all for this. It means Americans are doing their dirty work for them.

it took place without pakistan's agreement. surely you are not saying that it is ok for america to strike anywhere they like, anywho they like, anyhow they like, are you?

pakistan, whilst under military rule, has long been an important ally of america. how can you now justify an operation on their soveriegn land without their agreement for america to do their dirty work?

Pakistan has been sitting on their hands for years. they've recently started action but can't do it alone. i understand they are afraid of retaliation from the terrorist groups, and that is why its GOOD we go in WITHOUT consent. or at least official consent. at least they won't lose all credibility with those in the country who might be sympathetic with some of the terrorist causes. the less Pakistan is involved in this other then some support on the ground, the better

are you suggesting that the new pakistani president might have turned a blind eye in the hope that the incursion is seen as america acting alone so pakistan will not suffer as much retaliation?

Pakistan is a friend to the US. we are not there attacking a country or its citizens. although some of its citizens may die. but America is fighting a war. we may have gotten Iraq wrong, but the war is still on. and it will stay on. and even if it were "off" it would be on again when the next big terrorist attack hits. and it will hit

pakistan was a friend for as long as the dictator puppet was in place. this incursion will cause massive further unrest there, unrest that may destabilise the country further to the point where the military may have no choice other than to impose martial law and return pakistan to the friend it had been previously. it also means that the risk of nuclear weapons falling under the control of nutbags may be averted

this is much about unfinished business. so we will try to finish it. moral to this story: don't take down TWO american skyscrapers full of innocent people or we will chase you around the world, find you (eventually) and kill you. its true. because we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves and our future and don't need permission from anyone to do so. obviously

nice speech for 911 memorial day, straight out of the dubya handbook. 7 years old now actually and what has been achieved in this tireless hunt. lets see, completed a pipeline across afghanistan, toppled the taliban, increased the levels of opium produced in the region, failed to catch yer man, toppled a leader in iraq who had nothing to do with it all, gained priceless oil contracts, failed to catch yer man, turned the american economy into an utter mess, failed to catch yer man

yeah i might get sand monkey diseases
they reckon thats exactly how aids started

JohnXDoe

09-11-2008, 02:07 PM

are you suggesting that the new pakistani president might have turned a blind eye in the hope that the incursion is seen as america acting alone so pakistan will not suffer as much retaliation?
i am suggesting it is better for the Pakistani people (among people elsewhere) to believe America is acting without the ABSOLUTE faith and open arms of the Pakistani leadership. it has been hard to get "permission" to go into Pakistan. in fact we didn't. not because they don't want to help us, but because they are afraid of what might happen if they do. which is already happening as terrorist are attacking Pakistani citizens lately. so...Pakistan is in this. too bad. the terrorist are operating out of there, disrupting Afghanistan (who welcome us there) and blowing people up. Bin Laden is probably there. so, we will go there. but not shaking hands and making smiley face with the government. i don't expect you will see that soon. although you might with the new leadership. but we can't wait for the new leadership to make up their mind. the war in Afghanistan is growing and its being funded and run out of Pakistan on the other side. the "enemy" side. to use a term you may not understand. its become a safe haven. we are at war. so off we go

we don't need to wait for approval from the "international community." sometimes its better for THEM if they stay out of it. its also better for Pakistan in this case. to some degree

pakistan was a friend for as long as the dictator puppet was in place. this incursion will cause massive further unrest there, unrest that may destabilise the country further to the point where the military may have no choice other than to impose martial law and return pakistan to the friend it had been previously. it also means that the risk of nuclear weapons falling under the control of nutbags may be averted
America isn't causing any of this. its not "hands off Pakistan" time because they can't get their shi.t together. they have nukes? so we should give them a pass and let them passively intimidate with them? they might fall into "the wrong hands." and we are responsible for that by how? chasing down terrorist who are disrupting life and civilization across multiple continents?

we are looking for some people. they have some support in some places. they blow shi.t up and kill in Africa, Europe, Russia, Israel and ALL of the Middle East. and America. and this should cause a scandal so large we become responsible for how people choose to react to our trying to locate them? WE are causing something with them? "unrest"

Pakistan is a part of this. like it or not. they can like it or not. anything else they will have to deal with on their own

WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH PAKISTAN.

others might be
nice speech for 911 memorial day, straight out of the dubya handbook. 7 years old now actually and what has been achieved in this tireless hunt. lets see, completed a pipeline across afghanistan, toppled the taliban, increased the levels of opium produced in the region, failed to catch yer man, toppled a leader in iraq who had nothing to do with it all, gained priceless oil contracts, failed to catch yer man, turned the american economy into an utter mess, failed to catch yer man
yup. and thats just the start of it :smoke:

we'll recover. we're America. we always recover.

and none of that stuff is really so bad. some old business taken care of....and as if Afghanistan didn't produce opium before we went lmao

yeah so now we are responsible for opium in Afghanistan. hell i hear we invented it!

what a joke

pipeline across Afghanistan can't be all bad. and the Taliban are still there. not in power, but there

they're rascally little devils:evil:

stevensonmat2

09-11-2008, 02:36 PM

I have no problem with Americas schemes. It how things get done these days. And it's not like its anything new. People have tricked and lied and used propaganda to justify wars meant purely for gains since wars were recorded.

mph4ever

09-11-2008, 02:51 PM

i am suggesting it is better for the Pakistani people (among people elsewhere) to believe America is acting without the ABSOLUTE faith and open arms of the Pakistani leadership. it has been hard to get "permission" to go into Pakistan. in fact we didn't. not because they don't want to help us, but because they are afraid of what might happen if they do. which is already happening as terrorist are attacking Pakistani citizens lately. so...Pakistan is in this. too bad. the terrorist are operating out of there, disrupting Afghanistan (who welcome us there) and blowing people up. Bin Laden is probably there. so, we will go there. but not shaking hands and making smiley face with the government. i don't expect you will see that soon. although you might with the new leadership. but we can't wait for the new leadership to make up their mind. the war in Afghanistan is growing and its being funded and run out of Pakistan on the other side. the "enemy" side. to use a term you may not understand. its become a safe haven. we are at war. so off we go

we don't need to wait for approval from the "international community." sometimes its better for THEM if they stay out of it. its also better for Pakistan in this case. to some degree

to some degree. i can understand how you would consider the action positive for lots of those involved. to what degree do you think it is positive for pakistan?

America isn't causing any of this.

america has had a major role to play in causing a lot of this. without its war on terror then a lot of things would be different out there today

its not "hands off Pakistan" time because they can't get their shi.t together. they have nukes? so we should give them a pass and let them passively intimidate with them?

but would it not be better to act in unison with pakistan, make sure they are supportive of the effort before taking action and if they don't support then consider them a rogue nation. or would that type of effort actually be too expensive given the result can be acheived through other means, cheaper means than an occupation or a war. or are you backing off pakistan because they have nukes and if their sovereignty was threatened they may actually use them to protect themselves.

they might fall into "the wrong hands." and we are responsible for that by how? chasing down terrorist who are disrupting life and civilization across multiple continents?

i don't think america is responsible for that. america feels it is responsible for that, they are the world police in world where some appreciate it but others feel it like a boot on the back of their neck

we are looking for some people.

who?

they have some support in some places. they blow shi.t up and kill in Africa, Europe, Russia, Israel and ALL of the Middle East. and America. and this should cause a scandal so large we become responsible for how people choose to react to our trying to locate them? WE are causing something with them? "unrest"

i was trying not to go back to the cause but when exactly do you think this all started?

Pakistan is a part of this. like it or not. they can like it or not. anything else they will have to deal with on their own

WE ARE NOT AT WAR WITH PAKISTAN.

not right now but that is because they are passively accepting your intervention. continue to abuse their sovereignty and you may find them different. the pakistani government may not have a choice

yup. and thats just the start of it :smoke:

here, let me give you a light

we'll recover. we're America. we always recover.

and none of that stuff is really so bad. some old business taken care of....and as if Afghanistan didn't produce opium before we went lmao
yeah so now we are responsible for opium in Afghanistan. hell i hear we invented it!

what a joke

that was supposed to be the positive - dope - hehehe

pipeline across Afghanistan can't be all bad. and the Taliban are still there. not in power, but there

they're rascally little devils:evil:
proving tough to smoke them out of their holes alright

btw, i love the way in the middle of all this i notice your are digging - how to dismantle an atomic bomb lol

Iscariot

09-11-2008, 02:56 PM

why?

because it's about time we took some real action against the terrorist network

pakistan has always been a problem because we know they're harboring terrorists and they claim to be doing something about it but they keep refusing to let us take any action

so now we're taking it without their permission

awesome

mph4ever

09-11-2008, 03:00 PM

because it's about time we took some real action against the terrorist network

pakistan has always been a problem because we know they're harboring terrorists and they claim to be doing something about it but they keep refusing to let us take any action

so now we're taking it without their permission

awesome

i'm happy for you, i just hope you get a result sooner rather than later

spitfirejunky

09-11-2008, 03:32 PM

At least they're telling the Pakistanis what's going on. :lol:

Det_Nosnip

09-11-2008, 05:11 PM

Pakistan has been sitting on their hands for years. they've recently started action but can't do it alone. i understand they are afraid of retaliation from the terrorist groups, and that is why its GOOD we go in WITHOUT consent. or at least official consent. at least they won't lose all credibility with those in the country who might be sympathetic with some of the terrorist causes. the less Pakistan is involved in this other then some support on the ground, the better
That's actually a good point, although actions like these also threaten Pakistan's sovereignty and may encourage dissidents to be more bold.

Pakistan is a friend to the US. we are not there attacking a country or its citizens. although some of its citizens may die. but America is fighting a war.
I guarantee that the Pakistanis won't see it that way. The problem is that these types of actions stand a very good chance of biting us in the *** by giving fuel to extremists within Pakistan, who could point to these illegal raids as proof that people need to stand up to the Great Satan.

People don't seem to get the fact that most of our "allies" in the Middle East are countries with the most radical and dangerous Islamic fundamentalist groups.

this is much about unfinished business. so we will try to finish it. moral to this story: don't take down TWO american skyscrapers full of innocent people or we will chase you around the world, find you (eventually) and kill you. its true. because we have a RIGHT to defend ourselves and our future and don't need permission from anyone to do so. obviously

Actually, the moral of the story is "don't try to police the globe and antagonize terrorist organizations." Unfortunately, we haven't quite gotten that one yet...

siva_chair

09-11-2008, 11:08 PM

it took place without pakistan's agreement. surely you are not saying that it is ok for america to strike anywhere they like, anywho they like, anyhow they like, are you?

pakistan, whilst under military rule, has long been an important ally of america. how can you now justify an operation on their soveriegn land without their agreement for america to do their dirty work?

If Pakistan isn't willing to do anything about terrorist organizations hiding in their territory then they are just standing in the way.

siva_chair

09-11-2008, 11:11 PM

That's actually a good point, although actions like these also threaten Pakistan's sovereignty and may encourage dissidents to be more bold.

Having large numbers of terrorists in your country also threatens your sovereignty.

It isn't like the US is going in to fight a government regime and usurp political power in the nation or anything. They are specifically targetting members of an organization that no country should harbor. If anything Pakistan should be glad we are routing them out if they are truely against the terrorist organization.

Iscariot

09-12-2008, 01:10 AM

the fact that pakistan has let this go unchecked for so long just shows that they can't be trusted to resolve the terrorist activity within their borders by themselves anyway

mph4ever

09-12-2008, 02:16 AM

If Pakistan isn't willing to do anything about terrorist organizations hiding in their territory then they are just standing in the way.

but thats not really addressing the violation of their sovereignty. it appears that america has given up going the traditional route of un sanctions and their own sanctions. i can only think that is probably because the un would look for evidence of the american accusations, evidence which they probably can't produce, as we have seen so many times before

siva_chair

09-12-2008, 03:26 AM

but thats not really addressing the violation of their sovereignty. it appears that america has given up going the traditional route of un sanctions and their own sanctions. i can only think that is probably because the un would look for evidence of the american accusations, evidence which they probably can't produce, as we have seen so many times before

It is pretty clear that Al Qaeda is hiding across the boarder in Pakistan.

Amit

09-12-2008, 03:28 AM

the fact that pakistan has let this go unchecked for so long just shows that they can't be trusted to resolve the terrorist activity within their borders by themselves anyway

pakistan can't be trusted with anything anyway

Iscariot

09-12-2008, 04:09 AM

true true

mph4ever

09-12-2008, 06:32 AM

It is pretty clear that Al Qaeda is hiding across the boarder in Pakistan.

pakistan can't be trusted with anything anyway

true true

so lads, let me get this straight. you think it is ok for america to enter pakistan, when pakistan have said they don't want them, and carry out military operations?

siva_chair

09-12-2008, 06:41 AM

so lads, let me get this straight. you think it is ok for america to enter pakistan, when pakistan have said they don't want them, and carry out military operations?

Sure why not.

The area is hardly very much under Pakistani control anyway. It is part of a tribally governed territory.

mph4ever

09-12-2008, 07:09 AM

Sure why not.

The area is hardly very much under Pakistani control anyway. It is part of a tribally governed territory.

but the point is part of the sovereign state of pakistan.

surely you do not agree with military forces entering a sovereign state and taking out civilians (collateral) and enemies alike. surely that is not something you support. pakistan had not given their consent and are wholly against this activity yet america chooses to ignore them and justs goes ahead anyway

siva_chair

09-12-2008, 08:20 AM

but the point is part of the sovereign state of pakistan.

surely you do not agree with military forces entering a sovereign state and taking out civilians (collateral) and enemies alike. surely that is not something you support. pakistan had not given their consent and are wholly against this activity yet america chooses to ignore them and justs goes ahead anyway

They are entering a part of Pakistan that the Pakistani authority either A) doesn't have much control over or B) purposely doesn't do anything about dangerous militant terrorists groups freely inhabiting the unstable area.

Also, by Special Ops actually going in there, civilian casualties will be far far less than if we were to continue to launch airstrikes there.

And I don't really think the Pakistani authority deserves much respect if they willingly harbor terrorists or obstruct bringing them to justice, tbh.

Light Fantastic

09-12-2008, 08:28 AM

by your definition of terrorists of course

siva_chair

09-12-2008, 08:42 AM

by your definition of terrorists of course

And the international community's of course.

mph4ever

09-12-2008, 08:54 AM

They are entering a part of Pakistan that the Pakistani authority either A) doesn't have much control over or B) purposely doesn't do anything about dangerous militant terrorists groups freely inhabiting the unstable area.

but its is still a part of pakistan and they went in without their agreement. do you think this is ok?

Also, by Special Ops actually going in there, civilian casualties will be far far less than if we were to continue to launch airstrikes there.

two wrongs don't make a right. special ops will inevitably kill civilians, wrongly. they don't deserve to die just because you decide to ignore international conventions and the will of the pakistani government, do they?

And I don't really think the Pakistani authority deserves much respect if they willingly harbor terrorists or obstruct bringing them to justice, tbh.
oh, just like the iraqi government didn't deserve respect, or the libyan government, or granada, or afghanistan didn't deserve respect. there are many, many, more. too many to mention who didn't deserve respect.

Light Fantastic

09-12-2008, 08:55 AM

And the international community's of course.
well

they dont class all opposition of american invasion as terrorist

and even if they did it wouldnt necessarily be apt just because the international community said so

i wonder if you are so supportive of violations of national sovereignty when it doesnt involve the us going after things that fall within their own widely defined terms of enemy combatants, i mean you probably love russia for it right

siva_chair

09-12-2008, 09:07 AM

but its is still a part of pakistan and they went in without their agreement. do you think this is ok?

I think it is justified for the US to go after high ranking members of Al Qaeda if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to do it.

two wrongs don't make a right. special ops will inevitably kill civilians, wrongly. they don't deserve to die just because you decide to ignore international conventions and the will of the pakistani government, do they?

You do not know that they will "inevitably" kill civilians.

And no, innocents don't ever deserve to die, but terrorists don't deserve refuge where they can plot and execute further terrorist activities from, either.

oh, just like the iraqi government didn't deserve respect, or the libyan government, or granada, or afghanistan didn't deserve respect. there are many, many, more. too many to mention who didn't deserve respect.

No I don't respect tyrants and their governments. Do you?

well

they dont class all opposition of american invasion as terrorist

No of course not who said they did?

They do, however, class Al Qaeda as a terrorist organization, which is who is being pursued here.

and even if they did it wouldnt necessarily be apt just because the international community said so

No kidding. They are classified as that because they intentionally target innocent civilians with violence to intimidate and coerce for a political agenda.

i wonder if you are so supportive of violations of national sovereignty when it doesnt involve the us going after things that fall within their own widely defined terms of enemy combatants, i mean you probably love russia for it right

What does Russia have to do with any of this?

Light Fantastic

09-12-2008, 09:18 AM

what makes these specific people hiding out in the pakistani border terrorists then, simply their allegiance to al-qaeda? i mean, most of them have only opposed the american invasion of their own country which isnt realy a terroristic act in itself, so what makes them terrorists other than they have killed american military personnel? do you think they have somehow killed citizens of the free world while hiding out in their isolated mountain caves

What does Russia have to do with any of this?well it goes something like

the usa violates sovereignty and nobody cares

russia does it and you collectively wet yourselves over it

siva_chair

09-12-2008, 09:22 AM

what makes these specific people hiding out in the pakistani border terrorists then, simply their allegiance to al-qaeda? i mean, most of them have only opposed the american invasion of their own country which isnt realy a terroristic act in itself, so what makes them terrorists other than they have killed american military personnel? do you think they have somehow killed american citizens while hiding out in their caves

If you join a terrorist organization, that makes you a terrorist.

If I join the Republican party, that makes me a Republican. See how this works?

well it goes something like

the usa violates sovereignty and nobody cares

russia does it and you collectively wet yourselves over it

When did I wet myself over this?

Light Fantastic

09-12-2008, 09:32 AM

If you join a terrorist organization, that makes you a terrorist.

If I join the Republican party, that makes me a Republican. See how this works?
not really if you joined the republican party that makes you a member of the republican party you are still free to vote democrat or hold beliefs that arent republican in nature

joining a resistance force to protect your homeland because its being invaded doesnt mean you automatically take up all the ideals that said organization had or has besides the one you signed up for

ignoring, of course, that the republican party defines itself as republican and labeling al-qaeda in afghanistan as terroristic is debatable in the first place
When did I wet myself over this?well i dont know, did you support the assassination of alexander litvinenko for example

because he was a 'threat' to russia and the uk government wasnt doing anything about it so obviously the russians were completely justified in taking him out on british soil

or is that not cool with you because it was those sneaky russians up to no good

siva_chair

09-12-2008, 10:35 AM

not really if you joined the republican party that makes you a member of the republican party you are still free to vote democrat or hold beliefs that arent republican in nature

joining a resistance force to protect your homeland because its being invaded doesnt mean you automatically take up all the ideals that said organization had or has besides the one you signed up for

If you join a known terrorist group, you shouldn't be suprised when people think you are a terrorist unless you are a complete idiot. For one, joining them is showing you are sympathetic to, and identify with, said organization.

If I joined Fred Phelp's hate church, I shouldn't be suprised when people label me a religious nutjob that hates queers.

ignoring, of course, that the republican party defines itself as republican and labeling al-qaeda in afghanistan as terroristic is debatable in the first place

Yeah I guess you could say that if you sympathize with Islamo-fascist groups that target innocent civilians.

well i dont know, did you support the assassination of alexander litvinenko for example

because he was a 'threat' to russia and the uk government wasnt doing anything about it so obviously the russians were completely justified in taking him out on british soil

or is that not cool with you because it was those sneaky russians up to no good

Yeah because he was totally a terrorist that orchestrated murders of innocents or belonged to a group that did that. Completely parallel analogy you got there. :rolleyes:

Amit

09-12-2008, 10:45 AM

the analogy is astonishingly parallel actually

siva_chair

09-12-2008, 10:48 AM

the analogy is astonishingly parallel actually

How?

One is an example of the Russian government assassinating an outspoken critic to aviod public political embarassment and the other is a military force pursuing members of an international terrorist organization that has commited various murders against civilians in several countries.

mph4ever

09-12-2008, 11:48 AM

How?

One is an example of the Russian government assassinating an outspoken critic to aviod public political embarassment and the other is a military force pursuing members of an international terrorist organization that has commited various murders against civilians in several countries.

the parallel is that both america and russia carried out their operations without the consent of the pakistani or british governments

mph4ever

09-12-2008, 12:06 PM

I think it is justified for the US to go after high ranking members of Al Qaeda if Pakistan is unwilling or unable to do it.

answer yes or no, do you think it is ok to enter a sovereign state without their permission and carry out military operations?

You do not know that they will "inevitably" kill civilians.

wrong word, "possibly" then. this risk is still to great

And no, innocents don't ever deserve to die, but terrorists don't deserve refuge where they can plot and execute further terrorist activities from, either.

should have just left that at "innocents don't ever deserve to die".

No I don't respect tyrants and their governments. Do you?

not at all. i hate tyrants. there is one about to leave office in your neck of the woods soon and another one and his female sidekick about to assume office, but thats a whole different discusson.

i would not have said that granada or libya were run by tyrants. by western standards, afghanistan was much more a fundamentalist islamic state, not to everyones liking but, hey, its a free world, not really a reason to go in there. and we all know that saddam was unfinished business, going back to '72 when he nationalised the oil industry and p!ssed off the oil companies, so he may well have been a tyrant but that was not the reason he was taken out.

Smokey D

09-13-2008, 03:21 AM

hate tyrants. there is one about to leave office in your neck of the woods soon and another one and his female sidekick about to assume office, but thats a whole different discusson.

I wish you wouldn't cheapen the meaning of tyrant.

It's plenty easy to hate the republicans without resorting to thought terminating cliches about the 'tyranny of the Bush administration'.

i would not have said that granada or libya were run by tyrants.

Libya is.

Ngh, it disgusts me that you can call an elected official firmly constrained by constitutional law a tyrant but then be an apologist for people like Gadaffi.

afghanistan was much more a fundamentalist islamic state, not to everyones liking but, hey, its a free world,

But it's not a free world if you let people like the Taliban run countries. People are entitled to be free. They shouldn't be obliged to accept whatever concept of culture is imposed on them by the people that have the biggest guns. That applies equally to America as it does to the Taliban, but given the considerable support for the post-Taliban government, there is no democratic dilemma to trouble our consciences when it comes to justifying that particular invasion.

mph4ever

09-13-2008, 03:46 AM

I wish you wouldn't cheapen the meaning of tyrant.

It's plenty easy to hate the republicans without resorting to thought terminating cliches about the 'tyranny of the Bush administration'.

i know, just thought i would get this weeks one out of the way early :lol:

Libya is.

Ngh, it disgusts me that you can call an elected official firmly constrained by constitutional law a tyrant but then be an apologist for people like Gadaffi.

sorry for disgusting you. have to stop me so sensitive. i didn't apologise for him. i just see him as someone who actually used his countries resources for the benefit of the people. thats all. they have a forestation program, they have healthcare, they have education, all due to the fact that he took control and actually used the profits from oil properly. of course, reagan and co didn't see it this way, they just thought of him as someone who was dropping out of the system they ran and so bombed fu'ck out of innocent civilians. just making sure that no one else comptemplates using oil for the good of all the people instead of the very few disgustingly rich as we see in other oil producing nations

But it's not a free world if you let people like the Taliban run countries. People are entitled to be free. They shouldn't be obliged to accept whatever concept of culture is imposed on them by the people that have the biggest guns. That applies equally to America as it does to the Taliban, but given the considerable support for the post-Taliban government, there is no democratic dilemma to trouble our consciences when it comes to justifying that particular invasion.

sure the result is a very positive one but they had no right to enter a country the way they did. if america has of stuck to its plan, saved afghanistan from the taliban and put an end to them forever then the world would be a better place. the fact that they then took a positive thing such as this and used it as a launch pad to fu'ck up iraq too was wrong. its all paying dividends now with a real and protracted war in afghanistan. lets hope they have more bottle than the russians

siva_chair

09-13-2008, 03:48 AM

the parallel is that both america and russia carried out their operations without the consent of the pakistani or british governments

Except that parallel is essentially meaningless because they are completely different circumstances.

answer yes or no, do you think it is ok to enter a sovereign state without their permission and carry out military operations?

It depends entirely on the circumstance.

wrong word, "possibly" then. this risk is still to great

No, the risk is too great that Al Qaeda will reorganize and come back to murder more innocent civilians if they aren't eliminated. You cut the head off the snake when you have a chance, you don't wait for it to reorganized and regroup. That was our mistake in the first Gulf War.

should have just left that at "innocents don't ever deserve to die".

Or not. Why are you supporting the enablement of a murderous Islamo-fascist group?

not at all. i hate tyrants. there is one about to leave office in your neck of the woods soon and another one and his female sidekick about to assume office, but thats a whole different discusson.

You are an idiot.

If you hate tyrants, why do you support something that provides refuge to a group that has explicitely stated that it feels justified in killing innocents that don't believe in the exact same thing they do to pursue a holy war?

i would not have said that granada or libya were run by tyrants.

Libya: Yeah because a regime that Freedom house gives a rank of 7 in is surely not tyrannical. :rolleyes:

Grenada: Bishop suspended the constitution, banned all other political parties, held no elections, and quickly aligned itself with Soviet Russia and Communist Cuba. Hmmm.....

by western standards, afghanistan was much more a fundamentalist islamic state, not to everyones liking but, hey, its a free world, not really a reason to go in there.

The reason to go there was that it was directly hostile to the US, was a theocratic regime run by fundamentalist Muslims who had no interests in extending human rights to it's people, and was believed to be housing many many terrorists.

And it is hardly a free world if fundamentalist theocrats are running countries.

and we all know that saddam was unfinished business, going back to '72 when he nationalised the oil industry and p!ssed off the oil companies, so he may well have been a tyrant but that was not the reason he was taken out.

Why do you try to justify tyrants clinging to power?

The fact that Saddam was a tyrant justifies his removal, regardless of whether or not that was the primary aim.

If I kill a serial killer in self defense I still do the world a favor by ridding it of said serial killer, even if my actions were not specifically for ridding the world of him.

Amit

09-13-2008, 03:57 AM

siva_chair

09-13-2008, 04:18 AM

how come we don't remove more tyrants then

especially ones far worse than saddam

and probably won't have the substantial islamic fundamentalist backlash of removing someone in a geopolitically significant place like iraq

Because there are obvious benefits to be had by removing certain ones.

This doesn't mean removing Saddam was wrong.

You have to face the reality that the US simply doesn't have the resources to rid the world of all dictators and tyrants, so they go after the ones that directly benefit them the most. I don't see how this is hard to understand.

mph4ever

09-13-2008, 04:34 AM

Except that parallel is essentially meaningless because they are completely different circumstances.

the act of killing someone in another country without that countries agreement is present in both. reasons may differ, lack of respect for a countries sovereignty is the same

It depends entirely on the circumstance.

i won't ask again, it obvious that you have no respect for anyone else's sovereignty. by your standards, bin laden and the boys were justified in attacking americans on american soil without the american governments approval

No, the risk is too great that Al Qaeda will reorganize and come back to murder more innocent civilians if they aren't eliminated. You cut the head off the snake when you have a chance, you don't wait for it to reorganized and regroup. That was our mistake in the first Gulf War.

your mistake in the first gulf war was to tell saddam that it was ok to reclaim kuwait as part of iraq

Or not. Why are you supporting the enablement of a murderous Islamo-fascist group?

i'm not supporting them, just that they ran their country a particular way, their way, there is no need to enter a country just because you don't like the regime. you need to isolate them, sanction them, wrok with the international commmunity to improve. you don't ride in a like a bunch of fu'cking cowboys, ignoring humans rights, and decide whats best

You are an idiot.

hahaha, thats good coming from you

If you hate tyrants, why do you support something that provides refuge to a group that has explicitely stated that it feels justified in killing innocents that don't believe in the exact same thing they do to pursue a holy war?

i don't support them, i support the country within which the operations took place without their agreement.

Libya: Yeah because a regime that Freedom house gives a rank of 7 in is surely not tyrannical. :rolleyes:

sure it does, thats because they don't like what he did. libyans i know tell me that they are happy with what happened, sure they would change lots of things but will take small steps

Grenada: Bishop suspended the constitution, banned all other political parties, held no elections, and quickly aligned itself with Soviet Russia and Communist Cuba. Hmmm.....

he overthrew gairy whose time in office was terrible for the people, he built an airstrip that reagan claimed was for soviet and cuban transports. it was designed and underwritten by the british as far back as 1954. it was being built with help from canada and mexico by a british construction company. everybody cried foul when the invasion w took place. the americans had no right to go in there the way they did. grenada decide to sell its nutmeg outside of the regional trade agreements, america decided to send a message to other countries in the region that they cannot opt out of these agreements and that if you do then you will get what grenada got.

The reason to go there was that it was directly hostile to the US, was a theocratic regime run by fundamentalist Muslims who had no interests in extending human rights to it's people, and was believed to be housing many many terrorists.

And it is hardly a free world if fundamentalist theocrats are running countries.

the reason to go there was to finish the pipeline, bomb a few caves, freedom was merely a consequence

Why do you try to justify tyrants clinging to power?

The fact that Saddam was a tyrant justifies his removal, regardless of whether or not that was the primary aim.

i'm not justifying them, i just don't think that international law should be ignored. also, it does not justify the 100,000s of civilian deaths even if it was the primary aim, nevermind it being way down the list of priorities. go and free the chinese or the palestinians if thats the way you feel. stop picking and choosing wars that suit you and your cronies and go and fight for freedom, if that what it is all about

If I kill a serial killer in self defense I still do the world a favor by ridding it of said serial killer, even if my actions were not specifically for ridding the world of him.
i'm not even getting into this one with you

siva_chair

09-13-2008, 05:17 AM

the act of killing someone in another country without that countries agreement is present in both. reasons may differ, lack of respect for a countries sovereignty is the same

Yeah because reasons don't matter at all right what is important is national sovereignty right?

I guess the allies had no right to enter into Germany to stop the facist war machine. What was I thinking?

i won't ask again, it obvious that you have no respect for anyone else's sovereignty. by your standards, bin laden and the boys were justified in attacking americans on american soil without the american governments approval

I don't see much of a reason why sovereignty should be respected when the sovereign entity is either unable or unwilling to deal with terrorist organizations using their boarders as refuge.

your mistake in the first gulf war was to tell saddam that it was ok to reclaim kuwait as part of iraq

Maybe you missed it but we didn't tell Saddam that was ok. In fact, we said that was NOT ok.

i'm not supporting them, just that they ran their country a particular way, their way, there is no need to enter a country just because you don't like the regime. you need to isolate them, sanction them, wrok with the international commmunity to improve. you don't ride in a like a bunch of fu'cking cowboys, ignoring humans rights, and decide whats best

You are supporting them by saying they have a right to rule their people under the yoke of tyranny without anyone intervening. You are implying it is ok for them to exist as long as they stay within their particular boarders. You act as though a force entering into a region is inherently more evil than tyrants subjecting their people to tyranny.

And these bunch of fu'cking cowboys enabled these nations to have a voice through a vote. Something they weren't allowed before under the previous reign of douchebaggary.

hahaha, thats good coming from you

Well of course it is because I am not an idiot.

i don't support them, i support the country within which the operations took place without their agreement.

And if that country is unwilling or unable to do anything about said group they are enabling them. Vicariously, you are supporting the refuge of that group.

sure it does, thats because they don't like what he did. libyans i know tell me that they are happy with what happened, sure they would change lots of things but will take small steps

Libyans do not have the right to change their government. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion are restricted.

How is this not tyrannical?

he overthrew gairy whose time in office was terrible for the people, he built an airstrip that reagan claimed was for soviet and cuban transports. it was designed and underwritten by the british as far back as 1954. it was being built with help from canada and mexico by a british construction company. everybody cried foul when the invasion w took place. the americans had no right to go in there the way they did. grenada decide to sell its nutmeg outside of the regional trade agreements, america decided to send a message to other countries in the region that they cannot opt out of these agreements and that if you do then you will get what grenada got.

HE BANNED ANY POLITICAL OPPOSITION.

HE SUSPENDED THE CONSTITUTION.

HE SUSPENDED ANY ELECTIONS.

HE ALLIED HIMSELF INTERNATIONALLY WITH THE SOVIET UNION AND CUBA.

HE TORTURED POLITICAL PRISONERS AND DETAINED THEM WITHOUT TRIAL.

HE SIMPLY ISSUED LAWS BY DECREE.

What part of this makes him not a dictator again? I'm sorry but overthrowing an unpopular government doesn't give you free reign to be a dickhead to the people. That is like saying that Castro was justified in his HR abuses because Batista was a bad dude....

the reason to go there was to finish the pipeline, bomb a few caves,

Prove the intentions of the US, please.

freedom was merely a consequence

One that you seem to be complaining about.

i'm not justifying them, i just don't think that international law should be ignored. also, it does not justify the 100,000s of civilian deaths even if it was the primary aim, nevermind it being way down the list of priorities.

You think International law should be upheld even if that means tyrants and dictators get to continue their reign of douchebaggary? If so, International Law has become something that said asshats can merely hide behind and really mocks the idea of actual justice. Go go tyrant enablement!

Also "way down the list of priorities" is stupid. It is an appeal to your particular opinion on the issue, as you can't really prove that it was below most any other priorities concerning the issue.

go and free the chinese or the palestinians if thats the way you feel. stop picking and choosing wars that suit you and your cronies and go and fight for freedom, if that what it is all about

Perhaps you missed the bit about how the US simply doesn't have the resources to go after every dickheaded regime in the world. It has to balance it's own self interests with everything else, and it shouldn't be expect to do otherwise.

Light Fantastic

09-13-2008, 10:03 AM

Except that parallel is essentially meaningless because they are completely different circumstances.

you are missing the point

why is what the usa deems a threat any more valid than what russia deems one

the only reason you are calling them terrorists is because they are part of al-qaeda, which is logically unsound and rhetorical nonsense

Reaganista

09-13-2008, 10:18 AM

because the us is of greater moral economic and social value to humanity than any other country therefore our interests rightly supercede anyone else's

iliketoplaydrums10111

09-13-2008, 10:22 AM

yea god is on americas side

Reaganista

09-13-2008, 10:23 AM

god doesn't exist america is better for objectively quantifiable reasons

mph4ever

09-13-2008, 11:38 AM

Yeah because reasons don't matter at all right what is important is national sovereignty right?

I guess the allies had no right to enter into Germany to stop the facist war machine. What was I thinking?

you weren't thinking. idiot

I don't see much of a reason why sovereignty should be respected when the sovereign entity is either unable or unwilling to deal with terrorist organizations using their boarders as refuge.

that is your opinion and it goes against all international law. thank fu'ck you are not running the most powerful country on earth. although you do seemed to be horned up about it

Maybe you missed it but we didn't tell Saddam that was ok. In fact, we said that was NOT ok.

nothing like a bit of ignorant bliss

You are supporting them by saying they have a right to rule their people under the yoke of tyranny without anyone intervening. You are implying it is ok for them to exist as long as they stay within their particular boarders. You act as though a force entering into a region is inherently more evil than tyrants subjecting their people to tyranny.

sovereign states? of course i support them

And these bunch of fu'cking cowboys enabled these nations to have a voice through a vote. Something they weren't allowed before under the previous reign of douchebaggary.

you will have to point out where it has worked to date, where it has made a difference to the people of these nations.

Well of course it is because I am not an idiot.

trust me, you are an idiot

And if that country is unwilling or unable to do anything about said group they are enabling them. Vicariously, you are supporting the refuge of that group.

back to the point. you have no right to enter, no right to carry out any action in that state. you must to show respect.

Libyans do not have the right to change their government. Freedom of speech, press, assembly, association, and religion are restricted.

How is this not tyrannical?

small steps. it is very difficult to create instant nirvana. the libyans are happy with their progress. its not up to you decide that they are not.

HE BANNED ANY POLITICAL OPPOSITION.

HE SUSPENDED THE CONSTITUTION.

HE SUSPENDED ANY ELECTIONS.

HE ALLIED HIMSELF INTERNATIONALLY WITH THE SOVIET UNION AND CUBA.

HE TORTURED POLITICAL PRISONERS AND DETAINED THEM WITHOUT TRIAL.

HE SIMPLY ISSUED LAWS BY DECREE.

What part of this makes him not a dictator again? I'm sorry but overthrowing an unpopular government doesn't give you free reign to be a dickhead to the people. That is like saying that Castro was justified in his HR abuses because Batista was a bad dude....

societies have to evolve, sometimes it takes revolution and leadership. your soltution of instant democracy doesn't work, never has worked.

Prove the intentions of the US, please.

why you think america attacked afganhistan and iraq?

You think International law should be upheld even if that means tyrants and dictators get to continue their reign of douchebaggary? If so, International Law has become something that said asshats can merely hide behind and really mocks the idea of actual justice. Go go tyrant enablement!

Also "way down the list of priorities" is stupid. It is an appeal to your particular opinion on the issue, as you can't really prove that it was below most any other priorities concerning the issue.

you seem like an intelligent bloke. wake up and smell the coffee. you have admitted elsewhere that you believe that america has chosen certain wars to suit their interests. is it too far a stretch to suggest that they prioritise things based on the governments and corporations interests? surely not

Perhaps you missed the bit about how the US simply doesn't have the resources to go after every dickheaded regime in the world. It has to balance it's own self interests with everything else, and it shouldn't be expect to do otherwise.
enough said, america decides who dickheads are. fool

Reaganista

09-13-2008, 04:12 PM

sovereignty is out mode and fading out of use as a concept which is a good thing anyway

mph4ever

09-13-2008, 06:39 PM

sovereignty is out mode and fading out of use as a concept which is a good thing anyway

needs to be phased out, can't be got rid of just because some other country wants it that way

Iscariot

09-14-2008, 02:29 AM

by your definition of terrorists of course

there's really only one definition of terrorists

those who use massive terror attacks and senseless civilian casualties to motivate their own political purposes

you're probably one of those idiots who calls every act of war a terrorist attack though so i don't know why i'm even bothering with this post

Light Fantastic

09-14-2008, 03:58 AM

explain how this collection of resistance fighters hiding away in mountain caves have used 'massive terror attacks and senseless civilian casualties' then

oh wait they havent most of them are just defending against an invasion by joining the dominant force of resistance in the area which happens to be al-qaeda

notably not all groups that call themselves al-qaeda are directly related to bin laden or said attacks

Iscariot

09-14-2008, 04:43 AM

if this is how they defend against an invasion that they deserve

http://www.thewe.cc/thewei/&/&/images5/2006_war_photos_february_1/r1754444166.jpe

then they need a new method

Light Fantastic

09-14-2008, 05:08 AM

wait so your argument is a picture of some random injured child

lol

stevensonmat2

09-14-2008, 06:44 PM

Boo hoo for the children. Targeting civilians is a valid strategy.

Reaganista

09-14-2008, 07:29 PM

needs to be phased out, can't be got rid of just because some other country wants it that way

of course it can

in fact fiat by some hegemon is the the only conceivable way i can think of it to be fully phased out

Iscariot

09-14-2008, 09:27 PM

Boo hoo for the children. Targeting civilians is a valid strategy.

yeah driving a car into a restaurant with no military personnel inside just to kill a few dozen innocent people is a valid strategy

you need to play less video games

oh and by the way that random injured girl is a victim of a mindless car bombing nice humanitarian approach though with the laughter and all that was classy chad

stevensonmat2

09-14-2008, 09:53 PM

yeah driving a car into a restaurant with no military personnel inside just to kill a few dozen innocent people is a valid strategy

you need to play less video games

oh and by the way that random injured girl is a victim of a mindless car bombing nice humanitarian approach though with the laughter and all that was classy chad

Way to completely fail at understanding terrorism's role in warfare. Maybe you need to read more books.

Reaganista

09-14-2008, 09:56 PM

no one has a right to warfare even if someone is waging war against you if theyre right and youre wrong you have no right to resist

Mr. Ron

09-14-2008, 10:02 PM

I'm...pretty sure they do. :I

Reaganista

09-14-2008, 10:04 PM

no fighting for something that's wrong is wrong by extension

free_thinkers_are_dangerous

09-14-2008, 10:19 PM

I can't wait for a country to disagree with someone hiding in the States. I somehow think some of you will think sovereignty is a lot more important when China has attack helicopters flying around Seattle shooting at Falun Gong practitioners.

stevensonmat2

09-14-2008, 10:19 PM

No offense, but that is a very uninformed and naive view of war, reag

Mr. Ron

09-14-2008, 10:53 PM

no fighting for something that's wrong is wrong by extension

If someone is trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself, though.

Reaganista

09-14-2008, 11:06 PM

If someone is trying to kill you, you have the right to defend yourself, though.
not if you could instead make them stop trying to kill you by surrendering and conforming to basic standards of human decency
which is what the nation of north korea for example would be morally obligated to do in the event of war with the US or south korea or japan
No offense, but that is a very uninformed and naive view of war, reag
no it isn't it's the necessary conclusion resulting from any reasoned consideration of ethics
I can't wait for a country to disagree with someone hiding in the States. I somehow think some of you will think sovereignty is a lot more important when China has attack helicopters flying around Seattle shooting at Falun Gong practitioners.
well the interests of the US are manifestly and objectively more important than any other nation's and falun gong practictioners have not and are not actually doing anything wrong just by virtue of their being falun gong practictioners pakistani terrorists engaging in war with the US however are immoral by definition

StreetlightRock

09-14-2008, 11:17 PM

But that sort of thinking has got no place is the reality of war and conflict. As an aggressor, I don't give a damn about your normative ethical evaluations - 'guilt trip' isn't an effective political/military strategy.

Reaganista

09-14-2008, 11:25 PM

no but it provides an ethical justification for us to kill them while condemning their killing of us

also it doesn't matter who the aggressor is if we're right and they're wrong they're wrong even to resist our aggression

that calls up the question of when can aggression ever be right i would answer that it's right when it's against people standing in the way of human progress

StreetlightRock

09-14-2008, 11:30 PM

Sure, but to which audience? And I think most people can see through that transparent reasoning anyway. Not that it matters - but thats the point.

Reaganista

09-14-2008, 11:34 PM

it's not designed to pursuade terrorists and hippy peace activists to change their minds it's just a statement of why it's ok to force people who try to make us worse as a species to stop

StreetlightRock

09-14-2008, 11:45 PM

OK, but it just strikes me as trivial, thats all.

free_thinkers_are_dangerous

09-14-2008, 11:49 PM

well the interests of the US are manifestly and objectively more important than any other nation's
wtf why

and falun gong practictioners have not and are not actually doing anything wrong just by virtue of their being falun gong practictioners
The point isn't whether they're absolutely right or wrong, it's that there's another country that considers them an enemy, and that the country they're in would not support getting rid of them. You could make the same case for a country where pornography is illegal bombing the smut districts of LA for beaming porn into their country.

pakistani terrorists engaging in war with the US however are immoral by definition
Sure. But sending troops into a sovereign nation is an act of war.

Now, I know you're going to spin this as my somehow supporting terrorism. I think people who actually plan attacks on the US should be brought to justice, but I don't think the US has a divine right to flout international law as it sees fit, and I think doing so might pay off temporarily but will eventually bite the US in the arse.

Reaganista

09-14-2008, 11:55 PM

wtf why

because the us is the most powerful and influencial country in the world things that negatively effect us negatively effect everyone

The point isn't whether they're absolutely right or wrong,
yes it is

it's that there's another country that considers them an enemy, and that the country they're in would not support getting rid of them. You could make the same case for a country where animal photographsography is illegal bombing the smut districts of LA for beaming animal photographs into their country.

no you couldn't there's nothing wrong with porn people who make it illegal are the kinds of people who are holding humanity back they are of no value

Sure. But sending troops into a sovereign nation is an act of war.

just war

Now, I know you're going to spin this as my somehow supporting terrorism. I think people who actually plan attacks on the US should be brought to justice, but I don't think the US has a divine right to flout international law as it sees fit, and I think doing so might pay off temporarily but will eventually bite the US in the arse.
i dont have to spin it so as to regard it as supporting terrorism i regard supporting the sovereignty of enemy nations as just as morally culpable and ive already passed judgment on you in my own mind

also it doesnt really matter if consequences are later visited on the us as a result of all this somehow by the time that happens sovreign nations will just be another bad idea that europeans had and we will have moved on to something better

free_thinkers_are_dangerous

09-15-2008, 12:08 AM

because the us is the most powerful and influencial country in the world things that negatively effect us negatively effect everyone

No. Russia doesn't give a f*ck. China doesn't give a f*ck. India doesn't give a f*ck. Japan sorta gives a f*ck. Indonesia doesn't give a f*ck. Africa doesn't give a f*ck. That's gotta be half the world right there. If you say the interests of that half of the world are less important than the interests of this half on any other basis than that you put your own interests above theres you're a moron.

no you couldn't there's nothing wrong with animal photographs people who make it illegal are the kinds of people who are holding humanity back they are of no value
Uh huh. Your culture is superior to others.

i dont have to spin it so as to regard it as supporting terrorism i regard supporting the sovereignty of enemy nations as just as morally culpable and ive already passed judgment on you in my own mind
Pakistan isn't an enemy nation. It is a semi-ally that teeters on the edge between supporting the US and pissing off its radicals. There are things that Pakistan is unable to do for the US because it would throw the country into chaos.

also it doesnt really matter if consequences are later visited on the us as a result of all this somehow by the time that happens sovreign nations will just be another bad idea that europeans had and we will have moved on to something better.

The consequences are already happening. Your country has done a lot more damage to itself since 9/11 than any other country has done to it since WWII. You've lost more troops in idiotic wars than civilians in terrorist attacks, you've spent more money on bombs than the attacks cost, and you managed to piss away the most goodwill towards the country that has ever existed. The future isn't some weird anarchist's fantasy in 200 years, it's tomorrow.

Reaganista

09-15-2008, 12:14 AM

No. Russia doesn't give a f*ck. China doesn't give a f*ck. India doesn't give a f*ck. Japan sorta gives a f*ck. Indonesia doesn't give a f*ck. Africa doesn't give a f*ck. That's gotta be half the world right there. If you say the interests of that half of the world are less important than the interests of this half on any other basis than that you put your own interests above theres you're a moron.

it doesnt matter if they care or i should say it doesnt matter if you say they dont care
the point is every human derives and will continue to derive termendous benefits from the existance of the united states
unless they do something stupid like try to stand in the way of us and thereby stand in the way of the future of humanity

Uh huh. Your culture is superior to others.

Yes, it is.

Pakistan isn't an enemy nation. It is a semi-ally that teeters on the edge between supporting the US and pissing off its radicals. There are things that Pakistan is unable to do for the US because it would throw the country into chaos.

i wasnt talking about pakistan specifically as much as all enemies of the us but it is true enough that on those issues where the pakistan opposes the interests of the US pakistan has no right to sovereignty

The consequences are already happening. Your country has done a lot more damage to itself since 9/11 than any other country has done to it since WWII. You've lost more troops in idiotic wars than civilians in terrorist attacks, you've spent more money on bombs than the attacks cost, and you managed to piss away the most goodwill towards the country that has ever existed. The future isn't some weird anarchist's fantasy in 200 years, it's tomorrow.
tomorrow america will still be the richest most powerful and most influencial country in the world and be so by a greater margin than any country has ever been

free_thinkers_are_dangerous

09-15-2008, 12:24 AM

it doesnt matter if they care or i should say it doesnt matter if you say they dont care
the point is every human derives and will continue to derive termendous benefits from the existance of the united states
unless they do something stupid like try to stand in the way of us and thereby stand in the way of the future of humanity
rofl

Yes, it is.

rofl

i wasnt talking about pakistan specifically as much as all enemies of the us but it is true enough that on those issues where the pakistan opposes the interests of the US pakistan has no right to sovereignty
again, there's no sense arguing about this point until you realize your country is not the shining gem of planet earth.

tomorrow america will still be the richest most powerful and most influencial country in the world and be so by a greater margin than any country has ever been

Funny that you still think your country is invincible when your debt is about to hit 10 trillion dollars, your army is tired and overworked, the economy is down the crapper, and every other country hates your guts.

Rome was the biggest empire in the world until it was so rotten from the inside that it got taken down by a bunch of Germanic tribes who refused to let themselves be conquered.

I'm not saying the US will collapse. I'm saying that being the biggest doesn't mean it will always be the strongest, and that people need to realize how far they can fall.

Smokey D

09-15-2008, 01:05 AM

rofl

No he's right.

rofl

Maybe not about that one.

again, there's no sense arguing about this point until you realize your country is not the shining gem of planet earth.

Okay but you have to realise that his argument still applies even if the US isn't clearly the most righteous and greatest country in the world.

Funny that you still think your country is invincible when your debt is about to hit 10 trillion dollars, your army is tired and overworked, the economy is down the crapper, and every other country hates your guts.

You greatly overstate the vincibility of the US. The US won't be top dog forever but it's pretty much got it down pat for the next 50 years.

No. Russia doesn't give a f*ck. China doesn't give a f*ck. India doesn't give a f*ck. Japan sorta gives a f*ck. Indonesia doesn't give a f*ck. Africa doesn't give a f*ck. That's gotta be half the world right there. If you say the interests of that half of the world are less important than the interests of this half on any other basis than that you put your own interests above theres you're a moron.

No it's true that all of those countries derive great benefit from the US, that a world without the US (or more precisely a world where US influence was removed) would be detrimental and that all of those countries make consideration for the US when making decisions.

Pakistan isn't an enemy nation. It is a semi-ally that teeters on the edge between supporting the US and pissing off its radicals. There are things that Pakistan is unable to do for the US because it would throw the country into chaos.

It's not really clear how much Pakistan is actively participating against Islamic radicalism or even of how much control the Pakistani government really has over key areas. The Taliban and such receive great support from elements in the army and the ISI.

Iscariot

09-15-2008, 01:10 AM

Way to completely fail at understanding terrorism's role in warfare. Maybe you need to read more books.

way to side with terrorists maybe you should move to pakistan and strap on a suicide vest after all it's perfectly logical resistance so why not participate

Smokey D

09-15-2008, 01:16 AM

You're an idiot.

And also, The distinction between terrorism and other modes of war is pretty arbitrary.

Iscariot

09-15-2008, 01:18 AM

You're an idiot.

good to see that college education is paying off

And also, The distinction between terrorism and other modes of war is pretty arbitrary.

i beg to differ

Smokey D

09-15-2008, 01:21 AM

good to see that college education is paying off

Okay so how does it follow from 'terrorism has a role in warfare' to 'i should become a terrorism'.

i beg to differ

I see no moral difference between terrorism and firebombing a city except maybe the latter is more efficient at killing people.

Iscariot

09-15-2008, 01:27 AM

Okay so how does it follow from 'terrorism has a role in warfare' to 'i should become a terrorism'.

tbh i'm tired and my trolling isn't up to par i wasn't expecting smokey the politics buff to jump in and disarm me

I see no moral difference between terrorism and firebombing a city except maybe the latter is more efficient at killing people.

well the biggest difference between an act of terror and a strategic military action is that in a military strike we aim to kill as many of the enemy as possible while only incurring a necessary amount of civilian casualties

in a terror attack no enemy needs to present as long as a comparable number of people die and cause everyone to live in fear of the next strike knowing that there don't need to be specific targets involved there could just be a tremendous loss of innocent lives for the sole purpose of inciting terror

Smokey D

09-15-2008, 01:36 AM

well the biggest difference between an act of terror and a strategic military action is that in a military strike we aim to kill as many of the enemy as possible while only incurring a necessary amount of civilian casualties

I'm not sure you can separate civilian and strategic targets so cleanly. If the most effective way for a government or organisation to coerce the enemy into submitting to its strategic demands is by killing civilians, then civilians are a strategic target.

in a terror attack no enemy needs to present as long as a comparable number of people die and cause everyone to live in fear of the next strike knowing that there don't need to be specific targets involved there could just be a tremendous loss of innocent lives for the sole purpose of inciting terror

I think it's naieve to think terrorists do what they do solely for the purpose of evil or inciting terror.

I guess what I mean is that you can't say terrorism will always be bad and that conventional military action will always be good. It is a question of fact and degree in both situations. As a matter of practice, it might be that terrorism is usually bad (ie directed at illegitimate targets or whatever) but equally it might be said that conventional military action when directed wrongly is far more effective at doing harm.

JohnXDoe

09-15-2008, 04:02 AM

to some degree. i can understand how you would consider the action positive for lots of those involved. to what degree do you think it is positive for pakistan?

well, Pakistan is a largely Islamic nation with its share of fundamentalist. i'm not sure how "positive" it is for Pakistan not to...shall we say, formally welcome us to carry out missions on their soil....but i think it gives the government a sort of plausible excuse for those who might resent them allowing it. its as is they're saying "we know the americans are here. but don't blame us." so the fact we have no official invite and this wasn't decided by the "international community" leaves us to act alone and harder for terrorist groups to blame and hurt others while gaining public sympathy / support. we will shoulder the responsibility the best we can

and who said the international community (as it stands) can tell us what to do and not to do? its not like we're marching all over the middle east like we're the nazi's. the Iraq war may have been a mistake (or at least the way it was fought) but once its on...its on. and we have two new candidates from THIS country who would like to help fix our sins of the past few years. thats not all bad. sad as it might be for some

america has had a major role to play in causing a lot of this. without its war on terror then a lot of things would be different out there today
well i believe Americas war on terror will continue. its a real war....and we aren't the only ones in it. sure...terrorism happens all the time. trains get blown up, cafes, weddings. churches, malls, its endless and tragic. but the world needs a leader to combat this. a country with the resources, the will and the might to lead on the matter. we have done this with our military primarily. with new leadership hopefully we'll also do it with out hearts and minds. but if bombs fall on us or planes take down two sky scrapers, crash into our national defense building, and kill thousands of American civilians....yeah...we are going to drop some bombs

we just have to pick our targets more precisely next time

and yes...without the war on terror things would be different today. but it doesn't mean they'd be better. and it doesn't mean war wasn't coming sooner or later

would it not be better to act in unison with pakistan, make sure they are supportive of the effort before taking action and if they don't support then consider them a rogue nation. or would that type of effort actually be too expensive given the result can be acheived through other means, cheaper means than an occupation or a war. or are you backing off pakistan because they have nukes and if their sovereignty was threatened they may actually use them to protect themselves.
i'm backing off Pakistan because i don't want our action to cause more harm to their people. i don't want terrorist organizations not just blaming them for us being there (although i'm sure they do) but gaining sympathy in the country among the more....radical or desperate. i think its important that Pakistan remain somewhat quiet on the matter and let us go about our business. the Iraq war may have been a mistake, but this action is necessary. and i believe our intentions in this case are more direct and more importantly, correct

i don't think america is responsible for that. america feels it is responsible for that, they are the world police in world where some appreciate it but others feel it like a boot on the back of their neck
well, they like to call us the "world's police." but that is sort of what has been expected of us since we helped save the jews/ Europe in WWII. not so long ago in the course of history, but we really didn't get involved too much in military matters overseas before that. we had many wars fought right here building the nation. but that war was fought, Europe was divided up at the end, and we started watching others as they started watching us. remember we didn't go to war until we were attacked by Japan. we were going to stay out of it. that was a "European problem." we have been roundly criticized for that. and now we are criticized for acting too soon, or at all.

damned if we do...damned if we don't. but now we do. if we just sat on our hands what would the world think of us then? taking action is not something we get to pick and choose sometimes. sometimes it chooses us

who?
Bin Laden and his people. others who conspire with him. the usual suspects....

i was trying not to go back to the cause but when exactly do you think this all started?
when god first uttered "let there be light"

not right now but that is because they are passively accepting your intervention. continue to abuse their sovereignty and you may find them different. the pakistani government may not have a choice
we aren't there to threaten there sovereignty. thats already threatened by their own political turmoil and enemies of their own. and perhaps enemies of ours who are now enemies of theirs because they are "allowing" us to take this action. i don't think Pakistan wants a war with the US. i doubt anyone really does. and we don't want one with them. things are shaky atm. they'll calm down if we can do the job right and get some support. time to move on from Iraq. other things are just down the road

here, let me give you a light
blazin' high :smoke:

that was supposed to be the positive - dope - hehehe
oic ic =]

btw, i love the way in the middle of all this i notice your are digging - how to dismantle an atomic bomb lol
yeah...an old dig, 'tho. although i do believe one day we will live without them. its an old idea, the bomb. old way. war may not leave us, but the idea that having big bombs prevents war or keeps us safer is soooo 1952....or thereabouts

Iscariot

09-15-2008, 04:08 AM

as retarded and patriotic as most of this last post is, i have to agree that our action in pakistan is necessary for the betterment of everyone

the ones who shun us for our action and determination are the ones who are doing nothing to lessen terrorism around the globe

they have no room to speak

none what so ever

Light Fantastic

09-15-2008, 04:34 AM

oh and by the way that random injured girl is a victim of a mindless car bombing nice humanitarian approach though with the laughter and all that was classy chadum who cares i can find a thousand pics of children injured by coalition forces and start shouting about how they are evil child killers or whatever retarded tact you are trying to take now

Iscariot

09-15-2008, 04:36 AM

yeah but i don't care

stevensonmat2

09-15-2008, 11:31 AM

And also, The distinction between terrorism and other modes of war is pretty arbitrary.

What do you mean by this?

Smokey D

09-15-2008, 09:15 PM

I mean they both kill people and civilians are usually involved either way.

I guess what I mean is that you can't say terrorism will always be bad and that conventional military action will always be good. It is a question of fact and degree in both situations. As a matter of practice, it might be that terrorism is usually bad (ie directed at illegitimate targets or whatever) but equally it might be said that conventional military action when directed wrongly is far more effective at doing harm.

stevensonmat2

09-15-2008, 09:16 PM

I see. I wasn't sure who it directed towards.

ringworm

09-16-2008, 01:01 PM

so lads, let me get this straight. you think it is ok for america to enter pakistan, when pakistan have said they don't want them, and carry out military operations?

well, iraq is producing less and less terrorists these days, i guess bush wants to make sure his war against terrorism has plenty of fresh terrorist to battle :)

but my answer to your question is no

Rounder

09-17-2008, 02:17 AM

My initial reaction was to say **** Pakistan, but bush has really made the U.S. look bad to so many countries, as evidenced in this forum, and he waited so farking long to chase these bastards down, i think the long term repercussions may not help the U.S. in improving relations with the rest of the world. However if Pakistan doesn't have control over its own border areas, I guess it would be worth it, at least to America, for many reasons, as long they actually got Bin Laden.

mph4ever

09-17-2008, 10:10 AM

well, Pakistan is a largely Islamic nation with its share of fundamentalist. i'm not sure how "positive" it is for Pakistan not to...shall we say, formally welcome us to carry out missions on their soil....but i think it gives the government a sort of plausible excuse for those who might resent them allowing it. its as is they're saying "we know the americans are here. but don't blame us." so the fact we have no official invite and this wasn't decided by the "international community" leaves us to act alone and harder for terrorist groups to blame and hurt others while gaining public sympathy / support. we will shoulder the responsibility the best we can

and who said the international community (as it stands) can tell us what to do and not to do? its not like we're marching all over the middle east like we're the nazi's. the Iraq war may have been a mistake (or at least the way it was fought) but once its on...its on. and we have two new candidates from THIS country who would like to help fix our sins of the past few years. thats not all bad. sad as it might be for some

iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, saudi arabia, kuwait, israel, turkey - i know its not marching all over the middle east but is a fair chunk of it. also, it is much more important to bring the international community with you than it is to ignore their opinion. they may very well have reservations or different approaches to solving the same problem but america tends to ignore these and just bulldoze away. that just causes resentment, most especially when it is also very obvious that a lot of the activities are centred around americas needs, americas goals, "americas interests" as that slimebag condi rice put it

well i believe Americas war on terror will continue. its a real war....and we aren't the only ones in it. sure...terrorism happens all the time. trains get blown up, cafes, weddings. churches, malls, its endless and tragic. but the world needs a leader to combat this. a country with the resources, the will and the might to lead on the matter. we have done this with our military primarily. with new leadership hopefully we'll also do it with out hearts and minds. but if bombs fall on us or planes take down two sky scrapers, crash into our national defense building, and kill thousands of American civilians....yeah...we are going to drop some bombs

but surely you see that the attacks on america are being provoked by america. what you are saying that regardless of the cause of the attacks on americas interests, instead of considering why this is happening, it is ok to go bomb first and never solve the fundemental issue

we just have to pick our targets more precisely next time

that scares me. its really never been an issue. collateral is of no consideration once you get your primary target

and yes...without the war on terror things would be different today. but it doesn't mean they'd be better. and it doesn't mean war wasn't coming sooner or later

the war on terror is a war without a defined enemy. there is no military, there is no nation, no leader, that you can say "heres who we are after, and when we smoke him out then the war on terror is over". its a perpetual war, the perfect perpetual war. america needs perpetual war, keeps the people in line, keep the news interesting

i'm backing off Pakistan because i don't want our action to cause more harm to their people. i don't want terrorist organizations not just blaming them for us being there (although i'm sure they do) but gaining sympathy in the country among the more....radical or desperate. i think its important that Pakistan remain somewhat quiet on the matter and let us go about our business. the Iraq war may have been a mistake, but this action is necessary. and i believe our intentions in this case are more direct and more importantly, correct

if it remains at its current level then this is a good way to look at it. however, if things escalate in afghanistan and more and more blame is heaped on people in pakistan then the efforts in pakistan might have to be ramped up. this could lead to another iraq or the like

well, they like to call us the "world's police." but that is sort of what has been expected of us since we helped save the jews/ Europe in WWII. not so long ago in the course of history, but we really didn't get involved too much in military matters overseas before that. we had many wars fought right here building the nation. but that war was fought, Europe was divided up at the end, and we started watching others as they started watching us. remember we didn't go to war until we were attacked by Japan. we were going to stay out of it. that was a "European problem." we have been roundly criticized for that. and now we are criticized for acting too soon, or at all.

what about american isolationism. why can't america just go back into its shell now? whats stopping it?

damned if we do...damned if we don't. but now we do. if we just sat on our hands what would the world think of us then? taking action is not something we get to pick and choose sometimes. sometimes it chooses us

yeah, i can see the odd time you a dragged in to help out with situations. i can't really think of one where the help was genuinely in the interests of the ally and its people. lots of time its in the interests of america and perhaps the corrupt people they choose to keep in power

when god first uttered "let there be light"

invention of the combustion engine

Bin Laden and his people. others who conspire with him. the usual suspects....

we aren't there to threaten there sovereignty. thats already threatened by their own political turmoil and enemies of their own. and perhaps enemies of ours who are now enemies of theirs because they are "allowing" us to take this action. i don't think Pakistan wants a war with the US. i doubt anyone really does. and we don't want one with them. things are shaky atm. they'll calm down if we can do the job right and get some support. time to move on from Iraq. other things are just down the road

see, thats just it. where does it all stop? where else will you be called upon to solve problems and realise that it is in your interests to do so. in some ways america is being exploited, its money, it kids, it peace, are all being abused to solve a problem in, for example, israel or iraq. the money spent there would go a long way to fixing the problems in the american economy. then again, we are a mere generation, in a couple of years from now it will be all forgotten, africa will be on the up and a whole new set of challenges will be waiting to distract people from saying how wrong things were at the turn of the century

yeah...an old dig, 'tho. although i do believe one day we will live without them. its an old idea, the bomb. old way. war may not leave us, but the idea that having big bombs prevents war or keeps us safer is soooo 1952....or thereabouts
it would be nice but it is going to be hard to get people to hand it over.

as retarded and patriotic as most of this last post is, i have to agree that our action in pakistan is necessary for the betterment of everyone

the ones who shun us for our action and determination are the ones who are doing nothing to lessen terrorism around the globe

they have no room to speak

none what so ever

you could lessen terrorism by ceasing the outright support you have shown to both the zionist and house of saud governments and the abuse they dish out to 2nd class citizens in their countries because of race or blood. that would be just a start, but a good one

Smokey D

09-18-2008, 12:27 AM

what about american isolationism. why can't america just go back into its shell now? whats stopping it?

Because everytime America did that the world got crappier than the when it takes an active role, no matter how bad its meddling may sometimes be.

Removing the hegemon from a system based on the influence of that hegemon would be catastrophic.

Aaron

09-18-2008, 12:30 AM

...like a body without bones.

mph4ever

09-19-2008, 04:08 PM

Because everytime America did that the world got crappier than the when it takes an active role, no matter how bad its meddling may sometimes be.

i am sure in a lot of westernised countires the support of america is truly appreciated. but there a lot of people that find it disgusting. the second world war was the last time intervention actually had a positive impact and that was against europeans! americas lack of respect for cultures and religions and its greed for the assets of other countries to prop up its own economy, its total avarice nature, contributes to the problems that exist today. they should go back into their shell and allow the rest of the world to get on without the greed of their corporations trying to exploit something that is not theirs

Removing the hegemon from a system based on the influence of that hegemon would be catastrophic.
we don't know that since it has never been removed. and if it was removed in a situation where it hadn't actually caused the mess in the first place then things would be a lot more acceptable to all
...like a body without bones.
spineless perhaps

Iscariot

09-19-2008, 04:13 PM

mph americans are the only people in the world that seem to actually enjoy the taste of guinness if we crawled back into our shell the irish economy would collapse you don't want that do you

mph4ever

09-19-2008, 04:41 PM

but diageo is not an irish company, and nigerian guiness is a much better beverage anyways

and our economy has all but collapsed due to american dicking around

Iscariot

09-19-2008, 04:44 PM

lol your economic problems are the result of the UK and your own sub prime lending problems that have been going to hell over the past few years

hismajestythepope

09-19-2008, 04:47 PM

hahaha pwnt

on a side note, irish folk acting like america has anything to do with them sucking is the funniest thing ive ever read

mph4ever

09-19-2008, 05:16 PM

lol your economic problems are the result of the UK and your own sub prime lending problems that have been going to hell over the past few years
thats so wide of the mark. look again

hahaha pwnt

what?

on a side note, irish folk acting like america has anything to do with them sucking is the funniest thing ive ever read
why? why would you think that?

hismajestythepope

09-19-2008, 05:21 PM

probably because that's the stupidest thing anybody has said on this board

mph4ever

09-19-2008, 05:32 PM

probably because that's the stupidest thing anybody has said on this board

no its not, i've seen lots more stupid than that

hismajestythepope

09-19-2008, 05:33 PM

you're blaming the economic issues of a nation rampant with political turmoil on a nation overseas, stfu you ignorant ****

mph4ever

09-19-2008, 05:35 PM

you're blaming the economic issues of a nation rampant with political turmoil on a nation overseas, stfu you ignorant ****

hahahaha

where is the political turmoil in a nation that has had the same government for yonks?

Iscariot

09-19-2008, 05:38 PM

it's embodied in the hatred between the catholics and protestants and the constant presence of the IRA tbh

hismajestythepope

09-19-2008, 05:38 PM

lol no dude theres no turmoil in ireland everything is the us's fault

Light Fantastic

09-19-2008, 05:42 PM

its funny because

ireland is 5 places ahead of the usa in ppp per capita
ireland is 1 place behind the usa in gdp per capita
and 7 places ahead of the usa on hdi

neither of you know anything about ireland apparently

mph4ever

09-20-2008, 09:42 AM

it's embodied in the hatred between the catholics and protestants and the constant presence of the IRA tbh

you're way out of date

lol no dude theres no turmoil in ireland everything is the us's fault

it is. the yanks came here, colonised, and are leaving, that and americas interference in the middle east and the decline of the american economy are all issues that massively impact the irish economy

hismajestythepope

09-20-2008, 02:08 PM

lol no. stop being wrong and get back on topic, gg terrorists etc.

McP3000

09-20-2008, 02:16 PM

mph4ever

09-20-2008, 02:22 PM

well, they are reaping the rewards of taking out the terrorists in pakistan now. 40 dead, dozens wounded, truck bomb at city centre hotel. its only just begun

http://www.rte.ie/news/2008/0920/pakistan.html

hismajestythepope

09-20-2008, 02:57 PM

yeah **** you america

if they didnt do that those things would happen outside of pakistan in places less deserving because they dont harbor those people but yeah

**** YOU AMERICA U RUINED IRLNAD

mph4ever

09-20-2008, 04:58 PM

yeah **** you america

if they didnt do that those things would happen outside of pakistan in places less deserving because they dont harbor those people but yeah

**** YOU AMERICA U RUINED IRLNAD

keep ireland out of it, its nothing to do with ireland, ireland is just a victim, it is not a victimiser

*EDIT - mad coincidence, i posted this at the same time as the post count was 1916, hahahahahahaha

hismajestythepope

09-20-2008, 05:02 PM

ireland is victim of their own alcoholic idiocy

mph4ever

09-20-2008, 05:07 PM

ireland is victim of their own alcoholic idiocy

thats a gross generalisation, true, but still a gross generalisation :chug::chug::chug::chug:

Reaganista

09-20-2008, 05:18 PM

ireland being mad about anything the us has done to their economy is like the ppl who complained that they couldnt afford the taxes on the free car oprah gave them

mph4ever

09-20-2008, 05:33 PM

irelands not mad about it, its just a fact of life

Reaganista

09-20-2008, 05:36 PM

it's called looking a gift horse in the mouth

McP3000

09-20-2008, 08:04 PM

why would you do that, what if he thought you were a carrot

mph4ever

09-21-2008, 01:40 PM

i reckon they are getting ready to go in to pakistan, in a big way

they are blaming al-qaida and the pakistani taliban on the marriott bombing

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26803768/

free_thinkers_are_dangerous

09-21-2008, 02:12 PM

i reckon they are getting ready to go in to pakistan, in a big way

i hope they're just beating the war drum so insecure americans vote republican. there's no way they could be that stupid again, is there?

mph4ever

09-21-2008, 02:45 PM

i hope they're just beating the war drum so insecure americans vote republican. there's no way they could be that stupid again, is there?

i have no doubt that they would make the situation a lot worse if they thought obama had a chance. they are just testing sentiment before they ramp it up. i am sure iran will be back on the radar, as will israel, in the next six weeks. maybe florida too!

Jude

09-21-2008, 04:52 PM

i hope they're just beating the war drum so insecure americans vote republican. there's no way they could be that stupid again, is there?

Um it's pretty obvious McCain wants to attack Iran so yes, they could

JohnXDoe

09-23-2008, 12:44 AM

:wave:

JohnXDoe

09-23-2008, 12:57 AM

iraq, afghanistan, pakistan, saudi arabia, kuwait, israel, turkey - i know its not marching all over the middle east but is a fair chunk of it. also, it is much more important to bring the international community with you than it is to ignore their opinion. they may very well have reservations or different approaches to solving the same problem but america tends to ignore these and just bulldoze away. that just causes resentment, most especially when it is also very obvious that a lot of the activities are centred around americas needs, americas goals, "americas interests" as that slimebag condi rice put it
who are the "international community." i think we know our options. nothing anyone can tell us or suggest hasn't already been thought of. i doubt countries are going to try to broker deals for us or "help" us unless it serves their interest, too. and then we have the other side to deal with. how do you negotiate with men who want an Islamic world. because thats what they are fighting for. Osama Bin Laden is a rich man. or he could be. but he thinks god talks to him, he is special. and his followers. and many share this pov with him in that region of the world. he wants to give demands...he wants justice for the Palestinians, he wants muslims to be for muslims as he see's fit

he is obviously crazy. maybe, just maybe what he wants are just sour grapes? he and some like him are in a war with EVERYONE. a war they are losing and cannot win. maybe THEY should back down. maybe at one point in history they had the upper hand and they lost it? and now they say "hey guys just kidding. we really didn't want to oppress and kill you. give us what we want now that we have lost."

what?

you can't deal with these people. the international community can't deal with these people.

so far as Pakistan i saw on the news today how we are very unpopular there with the public, and the government won't let the FBI in to HELP with the investigation into the recent bombing. Bin Laden's organization was born there, has returned there, and is run from there. and they are carrying out bombings there against citizens in the name of the one "true Islam"

yet we are the unpopular ones? heck, we have nothing to lose going there. they don't like us, a terrorist who wants to destroy us is hiding there, and they are dying in the streets for Islam. so why not go? do you really think we're to blame for their unrest? do you see people in the United States blowing each other up in a systematic way for JESUS. no, you don't

the international community cannot help here. it really does look like "bulldoze" is necessary for now

but surely you see that the attacks on america are being provoked by america. what you are saying that regardless of the cause of the attacks on americas interests, instead of considering why this is happening, it is ok to go bomb first and never solve the fundemental issue
america isn't causing this. we are not provoking it. so far as i can see the people who are attacking us are alive and well. they have food, water, money, families, shelter. they love god. these battles, these "holy wars" are centuries old. one side it seems is losing. some of the more radical of the Islam faith don't believe Israel has a right to exist. the jews in particular. we support Israel, so they say WE stand in there way of "justice." although Israel can defend itself, so that argument holds no water

so far as Palestine, etc...well, Israel won the "six day war" fair and square. they have force, they live by force. because that is what they are threatened by everyday. some say "do what we want and we will not threaten."

and thats just the oldest ploy in the book

America has not caused or provoked this. America is just spinning within it. yes, we have "our interests" in the region. and thankfully those interest are also shared by many others in the same region. terroists and their sympathizers not withstanding

that scares me. its really never been an issue. collateral is of no consideration once you get your primary target
Collateral is an issue. but their is a "guide," yes. if you are 100% certain a "high value" target could be killed civilian life can be taken. but not by the hundreds or thousands. and the target must be certain

so you sacrifice a few to potentially save many. if Bin Laden had been killed and 30 other innocents died with him, well, they're religious so in a better place, right. i'm not religious i'm just trying to get with their pov. its all for "god." so, its all good

in my feeble mind better for Bin Laden to be dead b4 9/11 and a few innocents die then him be alive to kill 3000 innocent Americans who went to work that day

that fuker doesn't even have a job. lazy loafer and with ALL that family money he could have done some real good in the world

yeah, "GOD IS GREAT"

the war on terror is a war without a defined enemy. there is no military, there is no nation, no leader, that you can say "heres who we are after, and when we smoke him out then the war on terror is over". its a perpetual war, the perfect perpetual war. america needs perpetual war, keeps the people in line, keep the news interesting
nah. we have a long and bloody past. we don't need war for anything. it doesn't "keep people in line." i feel pretty free here. i'm a fairly happy camper. and i would like to be defended by my military. we have a big organized one...others aren't so fortunate

its like they say "no fair we want to fight and win but we can't because YOU GUYS are

its a silly argument. if we wanted perpetual war we'd have mexico, all of south america, and cuba and canada by now

and yeah the war on terror is a war without borders. because we are chasing criminals and oitsiders. they have no country, they reject all. but they LOVE GOD so are right and that makes us wrong

meh

what about american isolationism. why can't america just go back into its shell now? whats stopping it?
the world sometimes calls on us. we used to ignore it, but now we listen. we can't go everywhere and do everything...but we do what we can. and sometimes what we shouldn't. but when our interests are at stake, or yes, the interest of the jews. we stand up

so why the jews? funny with American history, but we are pretty happy abput what we did in WWII. i think most are. a lot of Americans died, and while we didn't enter before WE were provoked, we helped save a people.

so in a way we'll be damned if we don't stand up for them in the face of Arabs, who surround them, and hate them. some, at least.

its the least we can do. lots of American died in that silly Europe war. and the jews somehow became part of our purpose

The Saudi's asked us to help with Kuwait. Kuwait asked us. we could have taken Iraq then easier, too. we had the international community involved for years. sanctions, agreement violations. Saddam was doing things which under the agreement could have him removed from power

HE started a war. it continued even when the fighting stopped. 15 years later, WE ended the war

we didn't "provoke" that

yeah, i can see the odd time you a dragged in to help out with situations. i can't really think of one where the help was genuinely in the interests of the ally and its people. lots of time its in the interests of america and perhaps the corrupt people they choose to keep in power
we don't keep anyone in power. nations pick and choose their own leaders. when we leave Iraq that county will be free to pick and choose and prosper under their own system. and the fighring will continue. because its not really our fight

so we were asked to go there. we went for OUR interests, yes. and the interest of many in the region. corrupt leaders or not

see, thats just it. where does it all stop? where else will you be called upon to solve problems and realise that it is in your interests to do so. in some ways america is being exploited, its money, it kids, it peace, are all being abused to solve a problem in, for example, israel or iraq. the money spent there would go a long way to fixing the problems in the american economy. then again, we are a mere generation, in a couple of years from now it will be all forgotten, africa will be on the up and a whole new set of challenges will be waiting to distract people from saying how wrong things were at the turn of the century
yeah, you're right. it doesn't stop. it never stops. it keeps going, its how we live

every generation....well not generation, but every person, if they live long enough, we see a great war, famine, or struggle. we get small periods of peace that give us hope along the way. peace is a noble idea. but its not sustainable. and won't be until...proven otherwise

reality is a mofo :(

but yeah i believe we can spend money on wars and fix up our country, too. we can do it all. we just have to be willing

you could lessen terrorism by ceasing the outright support you have shown to both the zionist and house of saud governments and the abuse they dish out to 2nd class citizens in their countries because of race or blood. that would be just a start, but a good one
or they can just stop dishing out the abuse on the "2nd class" citizens. some of which are crazy with religion and hate and would not "turn the other cheek" given the opportunity

and on and on it goes.....

StreetlightRock

09-23-2008, 02:01 AM

Hey, mind if I chime in on a couple of points? I think John (and even to an extent mph), unknowingly perhaps, you're pandering to alot of myths about the 'Islamic threat'. You sound very much the pragmatist, which is fair enough, but alot of your assumptions are not quite right.

LONG POST/HISTORY AHEAD.

Bin Laden seems to be, in your argument anyway, a sort of symbol of radical Islamic violence, connecting movements from across the Middle East and the Islamic world. In a way he is, but at the same time, if you take him, and others like him, at face value, simply ascribing him as 'crazy' is to paint a caricature of his motivations and beliefs, with no nuances, that leads to policies that can be completely counter-productive and negative to America.

The Internationalization/Anti-Americanism of the Jihadist movement is not and has never been a unfragmented, holistic phenomena. It is only one part of an entire plethora of radical Islamist strategy. It emerged only in the in the 80s, as a result of explicit circumstances and historical processes, competing with 'local' Islamist radicals who wanted to restrict their scope of violence to the local/national level, and not to take it beyond borders.

You're right in saying that they are losing a war, or even that they've lost it. Throughout the Muslim world, Muslims are oppressed at the hands of authoritarian regimes, suffer from poor economic and social ills, and are just all round in a s'hitty state of affairs. Freedom movements have been stamped out and brutally repressed. Worse, the so-called Islamic nature of these oppressive regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan), meant that Muslims couldn't even turn towards attack their rulers on the basis of religion, because the state carried out their rule on the basis of a (perverted) "Islam" .

With nowhere to turn within their own countries, some (And some is key) Islamists sought for a arena where they could fight 'properly', where an enemy could be sought out and defined and fought. Where better than the West? America and the West fit the mold - they supported many of the regimes that oppressed them, they were right behind the creation and support of Israel, and perhaps best of all, they could be fought. America was very much, in their eyes, to blame - to say that America today has no responsibility for whats going on is to ignore history.

The Soviet War in Afganistan was perhaps the key battle ground. It's where Bin Laden and Zawahiri formed their alliance, a place where the soviet defeat emboldened and relit the dying Islamist movement, and was perhaps for the first time the place where Muslims from all around the world, thanks to modernity, would come together form all around the world to take part in Jihad. Even America helped.

And it was from the spark of Afghanistan that Bin Laden sought to Internationalize Jihad. Before that, it had always been local, always been national, never International. What Laden and Zawahiri proposed, with the creation of Al-Queda, went against everything that many of the old Islamists fought for. Why fight against America, when the fight was at home? And good history of Al-Queda will show you they were and have always been a movement that at the beginning were a minority. An International Islamist movement made no sense to the older radicals.

But it never stopped them. USS Cole, 9/11 all still happened. At the same time, the local Islamist camps were fighting their own battles at home, Iran had it's own Islamic revolution and Palestinains still battled against a creeping Israel with terror. At best, the Bin Laden and the older radicals were amicable. At worst, they despised each other.

Yet no such differentiation has been made to American policy. Local and National Islamist terror groups have been lumped in together with equally radical Internationalists. American retaliation to Internationalist violence has been nondiscriminatory, and as a result both camps have reacted in exactly the same way - with more terror. America's policy has reinforced Muslim internationalist thinking and turned local fights towards a new enemy that seems to be helping local enemies they fought for decades.

America is perhaps will justified in it's retaliation. Perhaps Afghanistan and Iraq strategically justified wars. But wider American policy - labeling all radicals as Anti-Western, supporting the regimes that have for so long been the ire of local Islamist movements, 'fighting the good fight' (and yes, even justified fight), with a 'black and white enemy' - that is the tragedy of American policy. It's only spawning more and more violence, more and more hatred. America is very much to blame, even if their response has been directed at violent, disgusting actions of others.

mph4ever

09-23-2008, 05:56 AM

who are the "international community." how do you negotiate with men who want an Islamic world. because thats what they are fighting for.

for me, the international community is all countries. something like the united nations.

the vast majority want to go about their business and religion and to co-exist. sure there are some high profile fundamentalists and images of them are used to taint the entire islamic world. thats like saying that all americans are evil christians interested in world domination, suckled from the breast of big business just because we have had clinton and bush in power for the last 16 years. its unfair, too much of a generalisation and doesn't allow you to appreciate the real people on the ground who just want to go to work, enjoy their family, have a nice retirement and die peacefully.

Osama Bin Laden is a rich man. or he could be. but he thinks god talks to him, he is special. and his followers. and many share this pov with him in that region of the world. he wants to give demands...he wants justice for the Palestinians, he wants muslims to be for muslims as he see's fit

he is obviously crazy. maybe, just maybe what he wants are just sour grapes? he and some like him are in a war with EVERYONE. a war they are losing and cannot win. maybe THEY should back down. maybe at one point in history they had the upper hand and they lost it? and now they say "hey guys just kidding. we really didn't want to oppress and kill you. give us what we want now that we have lost."

bin laden grew up in saudi under the rule of the house of saud, a dictatorship for the very few at the expense of the very many. what he saw as he grew up actually caused him to think about what is right and what is wrong. his country, its resources and its people were being exploited for the benefit of the ruling family and their international friends.

what?
you can't deal with these people. the international community can't deal with these people.

never really tried. you see its not in your interests to deal with these people since their objective use of their resources doesn't really tie in with americas. if they actually used some of the profits to help their own people with healthcare, education, sanitation, employment, food. fu'ck, american corporations don't care about that at home, why would they bother on the other side of the world?

so far as Pakistan i saw on the news today how we are very unpopular there with the public, and the government won't let the FBI in to HELP with the investigation into the recent bombing. Bin Laden's organization was born there, has returned there, and is run from there. and they are carrying out bombings there against citizens in the name of the one "true Islam"

the birth of bin ladens organisation started when he saw what the ruling family in saudi arabia were doing to his people there and what the zionists were doing to the palestinians, he found afghanistan to be a place where he could actually do something about it. similarly sudan. of course, after that he went on to carry out some of the most disgusting attacks ever, attacks he was provoked into doing by the presence of americas boot on the back of his and his people's necks

yet we are the unpopular ones? heck, we have nothing to lose going there. they don't like us, a terrorist who wants to destroy us is hiding there, and they are dying in the streets for Islam. so why not go? do you really think we're to blame for their unrest? do you see people in the United States blowing each other up in a systematic way for JESUS. no, you don't

sure you are unpopular. you are looking after your interests in their countries. whether it is keeping the house of saud in power or propping up the zionists, invading iraq or bombing libya.

the international community cannot help here. it really dose look like "bulldoze" is necessary for now

bulldozer diplomacy :lol:

america isn't causing this. we are not provoking it. so far as i can see the people who are attacking us are alive and well. they have food, water, money, families, shelter. they love god. these battles, these "holy wars" are centuries old. one side it seems is losing. some of the more radical of the Islam faith don't believe Israel has a right to exist. the jews in particular. we support Israel, so they say WE stand in there way of "justice." although Israel can defend itself, so that argument holds no water

so far as Palestine, etc...well, Israel won the "six day war" fair and square. they have force, they live by force. because that is what they are threatened by everyday. some say "do what we want and we will not threaten."

and thats just the oldest ploy in the book

America has not caused or provoked this. America is just spinning within it. yes, we have "our interests" in the region. and thankfully those interest are also shared by many others in the same region. terroists and their sympathizers not withstanding

if entering afghanistan, iraq and now pakistan without their permission is not causing this then i don't know what is. you have no right to interfere

Collateral is an issue. but their is a "guide," yes. if you are 100% certain a "high value" target could be killed civilian life can be taken. but not by the hundreds or thousands. and the target must be certain

so you sacrifice a few to potentially save many. if Bin Laden had been killed and 30 other innocents died with him, well, they're religious so in a better place, right. i'm not religious i'm just trying to get with their pov. its all for "god." so, its all good

in my feeble mind better for Bin Laden to be dead b4 9/11 and a few innocents die then him be alive to kill 3000 innocent Americans who went to work that day

that fuker doesn't even have a job. lazy loafer and with ALL that family money he could have done some real good in the world

yeah, "GOD IS GREAT"

yeah god is great, at least it keeps the baords interesting from time to time

but think about the 100,000s of innocent iraqis. do they not count?

nah. we have a long and bloody past. we don't need war for anything. it doesn't "keep people in line." i feel pretty free here. i'm a fairly happy camper. and i would like to be defended by my military. we have a big organized one...others aren't so fortunate

its like they say "no fair we want to fight and win but we can't because YOU GUYS are

its a silly argument. if we wanted perpetual war we'd have mexico, all of south america, and cuba and canada by now

and yeah the war on terror is a war without borders. because we are chasing criminals and oitsiders. they have no country, they reject all. but they LOVE GOD so are right and that makes us wrong

meh

perpetual war is what you got but its far enough away that it seldom threatens the homeland. why would you go fight meixco, they have little, apart from generic pill factories, that would be of any benefit to you. same with most of south america, they are all christians and european, just like you, just like your neighbour.

islam is the perfect foe because it has radicals that allow you to generalise against entire regions. most of the islamic nations have backed down for fear of being treated like libya or afghanistan or iraq, so now you have a war on terror, an enemy that could pop up anywhere, anytime, gonna getcha, better be on guard all the time, lets have a black out and frighten everyone to death, keep them in line, in fear, towel heads are coming to get you hahahahaha - i'm only joking of course. like the bombing in pakistan the other day, has all the hallmarks of al qaeda and the pakistan taliban. wtf?

but you can chase a nationless enemy, one without a homeland for as long as you like without catching him, can't you?

yeah, you're right. it doesn't stop. it never stops. it keeps going, its how we live

every generation....well not generation, but every person, if they live long enough, we see a great war, famine, or struggle. we get small periods of peace that give us hope along the way. peace is a noble idea. but its not sustainable. and won't be until...proven otherwise

reality is a mofo :(

but yeah i believe we can spend money on wars and fix up our country, too. we can do it all. we just have to be willing

or they can just stop dishing out the abuse on the "2nd class" citizens. some of which are crazy with religion and hate and would not "turn the other cheek" given the opportunity

and on and on it goes.....
you aint given me much hope there, no light at the end of the tunnel, there are no solutions, only problems

JohnXDoe

09-24-2008, 05:06 AM

for me, the international community is all countries. something like the united nations.

the vast majority want to go about their business and religion and to co-exist. sure there are some high profile fundamentalists and images of them are used to taint the entire islamic world. thats like saying that all americans are evil christians interested in world domination, suckled from the breast of big business just because we have had clinton and bush in power for the last 16 years. its unfair, too much of a generalisation and doesn't allow you to appreciate the real people on the ground who just want to go to work, enjoy their family, have a nice retirement and die peacefully.
but me not being religious i can't help but see the insanity of the few. and it is based on their interpretation of Islam. do i think its a ture interpretation? no, i don't. not anymore then the way some bigots interpret the Christian bible. or racists or hate mongers.

but you see in this country i believe we had a problem with that in our south at one time. it was instilled in government. but through law and order and not blowing people up WE changed things. if the world wants to know how to live peacefully together they can look at America and see. everyone comes here. and for a very good reason. we're not perfect, but we do pretty good in that regard. slavery, poverty, civil rights, wars fought, lost, and won. and now a new "Change"

no bombs or religious nuts welcome. sure we have the wacky, and some share those views. but i bet not many are willing to kill their neighbors for them

maybe they're just "weak" and "ungodly"

when it comes to religion i'm an equal opportunity put downer. but in countries where they are taught in schools to hate the west, children are forced to pray for hours a day, and all other kinds of historic BS, well, i'm sorry but you're gonna get some bad apples. and unfortunately many of that faith not only agree and sympathize with the bad apples as some do here with our own, but approve of their methods

because its ALL there in the book

so again i don't mean to run down the everyday muslim who goes to work and is caught in the middle of all this. i have muslim aqaintences i see a couple times a year. they are from Syria, very nice people, and they have no intention of ever going back.

i don't know much about Islam. i do know this: Bin Laden is a dangerous religious fanatic who is his own worst enemy. he has set his "cause" back further then he has advanced it, and most within his own organzation didn't want the bombing on America because they knew....this would happen. it would weaken them but more so, their cause. which is now lost. because the world will not listen now. if their was a little chance before, all chance is now gone.

and no, WE didn't do that. they did.

for whatever reason, "in the name of God"

bin laden grew up in saudi under the rule of the house of saud, a dictatorship for the very few at the expense of the very many. what he saw as he grew up actually caused him to think about what is right and what is wrong. his country, its resources and its people were being exploited for the benefit of the ruling family and their international friends.
and this is a reason for...killing innocent people? that some have more then others? that he lives in a country where they have a royal family? and citizens who are "exploited" by free education, cheap gasoline, and a country rich in oil? all this is evil and his cause is just because....some have more then others?

i know nothing about Saudi rule or government....but i know WE aren't responsible for that, either. we buy oil. i don't think its our role to try to overthrow legitimate governments while we do business with them. or to try to tell them how they should run their country.

so Bin Laden is some rich kid fighting for the people in a just Holy War. well good for him. he is losing. and the Saudi people are fine. no one is starving so far as i can see. and yeah their government is just as wacky as others....but do you want us to invade them, too?

at this point i'm not sure where you think we should stand and why? except to say to "stay out of it." which is not realistic

the birth of bin ladens organisation started when he saw what the ruling family in saudi arabia were doing to his people there and what the zionists were doing to the palestinians, he found afghanistan to be a place where he could actually do something about it. similarly sudan. of course, after that he went on to carry out some of the most disgusting attacks ever, attacks he was provoked into doing by the presence of americas boot on the back of his and his people's necks
thats just kind of silly. really. Bin Laden is no "freedom fighter." he has set his people and his cause and the good word of Islam back 1000 years. listen, Americans had little guys fighting big guys way back when, too. we are no stranger in our history. we happened to win. and win and win. and fight and fight and fight and die and die and die. against total bastards. if Bin Laden is just...he and his cause will win. they will fight and fight and fight and die and die and die. just as others have. but they fight and die like corwards and their cause is lost. because they lost it.

Bin Laden could have changed a lot peacefully with his families influence and money. but he chose to take up arms, he chose to go to war for Islam. he fights for no one but his ego and the voices in his head. if he or anyone else thinks otherwise they are sadly mistaken

"the people" don't need his help. he is the the last thing they need

basically he is an opportunist. his mark will be small on history

sure you are unpopular. you are looking after your interests in their countries. whether it is keeping the house of saud in power or propping up the zionists, invading iraq or bombing libya.

yup, we have our friends and allies, some have their own. now it seems you understand. you say things that sometimes make me think all you want is what is fair. but it becomes clearer you actually do oppose something.

/Zionist

/House Of Saud

as for myself, i don't oppose anything. things are the way they are. people live how they live. i like how in America we can have that attitude. it seems you want us to stay out of things, but be passive aggressive in policy because...why? we are doing business for America. some don't like our business, so they kill us. fine, we will kill back :)

if entering afghanistan, iraq and now pakistan without their permission is not causing this then i don't know what is. you have no right to interfere
the Afghan government does not oppose our presence. the President of Afghanistan met with Sarah Palin today. Iraq....we have been there. we "won" the first war after they threatened Kuwait and Saudi Arabia. we spared them complete invasion under agreement and sanctions. Saddam violated that agreement and the sanctions. our only mistake was thinking we had to convince the public and the world of WMD to go in and finish the job. we could have done that regardless and with a bigger force.

hell, Saddam caused great suffering among his people and ripped them off for BILLIONS. his entire family did. and one of his sons was a serial killer and rapist, preying on young Iraqi women. i would think, given your views on the Saudis, you would praise our liberating efforts

but i guess not :'(

yeah god is great, at least it keeps the baords interesting from time to time

but think about the 100,000s of innocent iraqis. do they not count?
sure they count. and this won't be forgotten. we didn't win many friends among the populace. people don't forgive you for occupying their country. if another country did that to ours i wouldn't be too fond of them

so....where does that leave us. we have winners, losers, and those caught in the middle. once again history will teach us nothing, Bin Laden is still there, jews, Saudis, Iran...hell even Iraq is still there

what this has taught me is yes....this is only just the beginning. more to come. stay tuned

JohnXDoe

09-24-2008, 05:06 AM

perpetual war is what you got but its far enough away that it seldom threatens the homeland. why would you go fight meixco, they have little, apart from generic pill factories, that would be of any benefit to you. same with most of south america, they are all christians and european, just like you, just like your neighbour.

islam is the perfect foe because it has radicals that allow you to generalise against entire regions. most of the islamic nations have backed down for fear of being treated like libya or afghanistan or iraq, so now you have a war on terror, an enemy that could pop up anywhere, anytime, gonna getcha, better be on guard all the time, lets have a black out and frighten everyone to death, keep them in line, in fear, towel heads are coming to get you hahahahaha - i'm only joking of course. like the bombing in pakistan the other day, has all the hallmarks of al qaeda and the pakistan taliban. wtf?

but you can chase a nationless enemy, one without a homeland for as long as you like without catching him, can't you?
well sure we can. but we won't forever. if we could catch him we would. and we will. we have no interest in not. America doesn't need an "excuse' to do what we do. we're not trying to control anything. those countries, and those people, are beyond our control. but this was a long time coming, lets not forget. America, and Americans, knew of the worlds problems before 9/11. we knew our role in the world, and we had been attacked in '92 at the WTC. in the basement. and the USS Cole. but more so the first WTC bombing. and we didn't invade a country to go "look" for Bin Laden. however we made some arrests :p

but he took down the towers. so now, 15 years later, we are looking for him. America and it allies are no stranger to terrorism or terrorist attacks. for years, decades even, we thought 'small fries." but it seems the terrorist wanted more attention. no one was paying attention to them. now someone is. congrats on that, dudes

you aint given me much hope there, no light at the end of the tunnel, there are no solutions, only problems
well all i can say is you mention Libya a few times in your posts. a nation we have had great political struggle with. but w/e you think of Libya, its leader, and its past with us....the fact of the matter is they chose to be part of the world community and OUR secretary of state was just there last week shaking hands with Gaddafi. oh wait...but i guess he's just a "puppet" of the west now

pfft

he attacked and killed many. we dropped bombs on his family. killed them, i think. and now.....here is some "light" for you

http://i37.tinypic.com/2mhiujk.jpg

Saddam, or anyone, could have and can do the same. if they can stand the stench of us "infidels"

JohnXDoe

09-24-2008, 07:22 AM

LONG POST/HISTORY AHEAD.

Bin Laden seems to be, in your argument anyway, a sort of symbol of radical Islamic violence, connecting movements from across the Middle East and the Islamic world. In a way he is, but at the same time, if you take him, and others like him, at face value, simply ascribing him as 'crazy' is to paint a caricature of his motivations and beliefs, with no nuances, that leads to policies that can be completely counter-productive and negative to America.
i don't mean to trivialize or marginalize Bin Laden's motives or principles. but his actions, and the actions of others who think like him, are also counter productive to his "movement"

it is kind of crazy. i saw a video of the guy who blew himself up before the blast went off in Pakistan the other day. just blew himself up for the reason murdering others. why? are they starving? is their situation so dire they need to kill others and themselves in such a manner to get what they want? do they not have families, hope, and love in their hearts? where is their faith?

God for them is apparently a bullet and a bomb. if god wanted them to have what they want, would he not give it to them? guess they never thought of that :/

the fight...is for nothing. i don't mean they have no legit grievance. but the actual battle they are in...wins nothing. not hearts, minds, nothing. just more tears

The Internationalization/Anti-Americanism of the Jihadist movement is not and has never been a unfragmented, holistic phenomena. It is only one part of an entire plethora of radical Islamist strategy. It emerged only in the in the 80s, as a result of explicit circumstances and historical processes, competing with 'local' Islamist radicals who wanted to restrict their scope of violence to the local/national level, and not to take it beyond borders.

You're right in saying that they are losing a war, or even that they've lost it. Throughout the Muslim world, Muslims are oppressed at the hands of authoritarian regimes, suffer from poor economic and social ills, and are just all round in a s'hitty state of affairs. Freedom movements have been stamped out and brutally repressed. Worse, the so-called Islamic nature of these oppressive regimes (Egypt, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Afghanistan), meant that Muslims couldn't even turn towards attack their rulers on the basis of religion, because the state carried out their rule on the basis of a (perverted) "Islam"
well it makes me wonder does anyone think beyond their religion? why do they use it like this? people have been oppressed for centuries for what they believe. and they're still doing it! yet those who claim to be "oppressed" have a doctrine that is just as oppressive and in some cases worse. it seems they are just pissed off because they would like to do the oppressing.

you ever see how the Taliban treat women? these people are "the oppressed?"

pfft

whatever happened to going to your room and praying to God and getting up and going to work everyday? i know it must be hard, but violence...this kind of violence, is far from the answer

With nowhere to turn within their own countries, some (And some is key) Islamists sought for a arena where they could fight 'properly', where an enemy could be sought out and defined and fought. Where better than the West? America and the West fit the mold - they supported many of the regimes that oppressed them, they were right behind the creation and support of Israel, and perhaps best of all, they could be fought. America was very much, in their eyes, to blame - to say that America today has no responsibility for whats going on is to ignore history.
responsibility, blame, accountability. i suppose we have claim of a little of all. however, we can't just ignore it when the leader of a NATION says they want to blow Israel off the map in front of the United Nations. sure we have some responsibility....but we should not have to shoulder the blame for how these people live and think and believe. they have been fighting centuries. America has been here for 200 years :/

i can see how they might be pissed. everyone at one point thinks the world is small and their book is true and all the rules are in there. and then whoops...."wtf is this over here? The United States? wait, they aren't in the book? they aren't written? who are they? if it wasn't for them our book would be true and the jews and all our oppressors would be brought to justice or worse. but America is standing in the way"

maybe we are or maybe we're just standing with others for the sake of others and ourselves. if the shoes were on the other foot, so to speak, do you really think they'd be any better? do Bin Laden and his ilk seem like nice, fair people to you?

me neither :(

The Soviet War in Afganistan was perhaps the key battle ground. It's where Bin Laden and Zawahiri formed their alliance, a place where the soviet defeat emboldened and relit the dying Islamist movement, and was perhaps for the first time the place where Muslims from all around the world, thanks to modernity, would come together form all around the world to take part in Jihad. Even America helped.

And it was from the spark of Afghanistan that Bin Laden sought to Internationalize Jihad. Before that, it had always been local, always been national, never International. What Laden and Zawahiri proposed, with the creation of Al-Queda, went against everything that many of the old Islamists fought for. Why fight against America, when the fight was at home? And good history of Al-Queda will show you they were and have always been a movement that at the beginning were a minority. An International Islamist movement made no sense to the older radicals.
The older radicals were smart, then. these young punks suck

America is perhaps will justified in it's retaliation. Perhaps Afghanistan and Iraq strategically justified wars. But wider American policy - labeling all radicals as Anti-Western, supporting the regimes that have for so long been the ire of local Islamist movements, 'fighting the good fight' (and yes, even justified fight), with a 'black and white enemy' - that is the tragedy of American policy. It's only spawning more and more violence, more and more hatred. America is very much to blame, even if their response has been directed at violent, disgusting actions of others.
the only thing I have a problem with is we're to "blame." how can we be blamed for defending ourselves and OUR way of life? isn't that what Bin Laden says he is doing? "defending" Islam and his way of believing? yet he is perceived as fighting for the "oppressed" and violated. so he is not to blame

we do something, others don't like it, they want to kill us and the jews

and we are to blame? we are a part of it...but no one on either side has clean hands.

StreetlightRock

09-24-2008, 11:24 AM

and we are to blame? we are a part of it...but no one on either side has clean hands

Nono please don't get me wrong, the "blame" is far from solely on the West. The actions of men like Bin Laden are despicable and disgusting, and should be responded to in the harshest terms. But to act like the innocent damsel caught in an unexpected blaze of headlights is to act a lie.

America funded the Mujahadeen, it supports the Saudi regime and supplies them with massive shipments of arms, It counts the oppressive Pakistani military rulers among its circle of good friends, it supports Israel and supplies them with massive shipments of arms (which pretty much invoked the ire of the entire Middle-East, consider: Israel's been attacked by Egypt, Jordan, Iran and Syria), it's invaded two Muslim countries (justified or not, and Iraq twice), in Indonesia it turned a blind eye to the atrocities of the Suharto regime...

...and now, now perhaps worst of all the colorblind policy of the 'War on Terror', which, by the way, pretty much affects any country with ANY internal violence, not just Muslim nations, is only making things worse.

Does ANY of this justify violence? No. Not at all. In fact, some of these may be justifiable and GOOD policies, but the catch is in the way they're carried out and the way they're perceived.

So what am I saying? To watch where we step. When we act, act well and with authority, not recklessly like we’re doing now. Don’t go prancing with special ops operations illegally into other countries, don’t draw the harsh diving line between ‘us’ and ‘them’. Bush’s lovely "You’re either with us or against us" is possibly the most reckless foreign policy announcement made in the last decade, worse even than Ahmenejad’s call to wipe Israel off the map – why? Because Bush has acted on his words, Ahmenejad hasn’t. It's not just idiocy, it's policy, and that freaks me the fcuk out.

Act with the responsibility of the hegemon, don’t flout power around like a child with a toy. Power can be effective, or it can be destructive, it the way it’s wielded that matters, not the power itself. And right now, f’uck me, ‘The War on Terror’ as it is practiced is the worst thing you could ask for for your own security. Defend yourself, but for your OWN sake, defend yourself RIGHT. THAT is my point.

To argue that ‘if the shoe was on the other shoe they’d do it too!’ is no argument, standards are set by those who have the power to act, and the bar right now is disturbingly low.

do they not have families, hope, and love in their hearts? where is their faith?

+

yet those who claim to be "oppressed" have a doctrine that is just as oppressive and in some cases worse.

I can’t argue for men like Bin Laden or regimes like the Taliban, and I won’t attempt to, but I can point out where WE can fix ourselves.

I can’t tell you why they blow themselves up. But I refuse to believe it’s simply because they’re crazy. That so many would go to such lengths… There’s something more than craziness there, that much I know.