religious descriminitation

[Bolas 5]

Quote

It will get worst because the bottom line is usally resources.

Quote

In the mean time, it's defend your culture, die trying, or get overrun. It is a choice.

You know I wish we just let people do what they want as long as they leave others alone. Problems usually happen when one trys to force their view on others, or if one person wants to get someone else’s candy.

How dare we value individual human life. We should be fine with people using women and children as shields and just fire right through them as well as keeping them uneducated so they don't know how wrong it is.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

To Bolas: Just adding on to bills post.

If you decide to start a war or an operation and you know there will be collateral damage (inocent people killed) and you decide go head does that excuse the blame?

You’re simply justifying the death of inocent people to achieve a goal. The difference is nothing but perspective.

No. It's all about what the primary target is. This is why terrorists are cowards as they are unwilling to take on whom they are fighting against directly. Instead they target civilians and civilian targets, usually in their own country.

Right. so how do you feel about the use of Drones or even manned planes, when there is no chance of the oponent ever hitting back? - Clearly the operators are not 'taking on' those thay are 'fighting against' .... um double standards or what?

That's just military tactics.
Are you suggesting we go back to the old days where people stood in lines on the battlefield and took turns shooting at each other?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,925]

> As the entire world was at war, one might also say the circumstances are far different.

Agreed. But it does raise the thorny point of "it's not terrorism if it's important to us and it works." Which would suggest that the failure of more recent civilian bombings was not that they were inherently wrong - simply that they were not large enough. And that's an unsettling thought.

[shropshire 0]

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Bolas 5]

Quote

> As the entire world was at war, one might also say the circumstances are far different.

Agreed. But it does raise the thorny point of "it's not terrorism if it's important to us and it works." Which would suggest that the failure of more recent civilian bombings was not that they were inherently wrong - simply that they were not large enough. And that's an unsettling thought.

Groups will generally try to justify their violent actions by blaming others. It's up to others to decide if their justifications have merit.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,925]

>Groups will generally try to justify their violent actions by blaming
>others. It's up to others to decide if their justifications have merit.

I agree; history has demonstrated that to be true. But again, it leads to the uncomfortable conclusion that sometimes terrorism _does_ have merit, at least to the USA.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

In the mean time, it's defend your culture, die trying, or get overrun. It is a choice.

You forgot option 4: Politically Correct, tolerance, and white guilt it away.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wmw999 2,389]

Quote

Why did we start the war? If you recall there was no talibon or alqueyda there before we started. You cant just jump on in one operation and say “we are trying to take that street” Why are you trying to take that’s street? Why are you there in the first place?

Quote

By we I assume you mean the U.S. We didn't start this war, it's been going on for thousands of years.

Which war has been going on for thousands of years? The US's war with Iraq, which was what I thought Darius was referring to? Or Christianity with Islam (which is a generalization -- and going down an appallingly slippery slope if we identify a country as a target by religion). Or simply people with people?

If we're going to go to a country 7000 miles away from ours and bomb them (including the "collateral" civilians), we need to have a reason. WTF is our reason to be in Iraq?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Which war has been going on for thousands of years?

The war on Christmas. The war on the family. Do try to keep up.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

If we're going to go to a country 7000 miles away from ours and bomb them (including the "collateral" civilians), we need to have a reason. WTF is our reason to be in Iraq?

We're there because we were needed. This could easily be reversed to "Why did Saddam kill and torture his people and directly support terrorism?" which could lead to another question, and another, etc.

While it's important to understand how a bad situation got to where it is, it's equally important to end it.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wmw999 2,389]

Bullshit. There were other places that needed us worse. Iraq didn't need us to come kill their people. Yeah, they had a shitty leader. So do lots of other people. There wasn't mass famine (as there is in Korea periodically), there wasn't a genocide (as is the case in Darfur and was in Rwanda), it's not a general shithole (as is the case in Haiti and Congo). So WTF did we go there? They didn't have Al Qaeda, they didn't have the Taliban.

Because we're there doesn't justify it. We, as a country, are capable of making mistakes (beyond electing liberals, that is ). And, after trumpeting our freedom of religion, using it as part of our emotional rationale for attacking another country is bullshit.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Bolas 5]

Just because they didn't have AQ or the Taliban does not mean they did not have state sponsored terrorism.

Yes there is alot of shitty things happening in various countries of the world but we as the self appointed world police can't save everyone. There has to be some hope or potential for that country to be able to succeed.

Haiti, Darfur, Rwanda, and the Congo are sadly mostly lost causes.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[wmw999 2,389]

Quote

Just because they didn't have AQ or the Taliban does not mean they did not have state sponsored terrorism.

What state-sponsored terrorism did they have that impacted us?

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[Andy9o8 2]

Quote

Quote

Just because they [IraQ] didn't have AQ or the Taliban does not mean they did not have state sponsored terrorism.

What state-sponsored terrorism did they [IraQ]have that impacted us?

In the first place: none. THus, I second your calling Bullshit.

In the second place, by Bolas's rationale we should have attacked IraN looong ago, and hard, because state-sponsored terrorism, traceable ultimately to IraN, has resulted in the kidnappings, murders and assaults of MANY American citizens over the past 30 years.

[pirana 0]

Quote

Just because they didn't have AQ or the Taliban does not mean they did not have state sponsored terrorism.

Yes there is alot of shitty things happening in various countries of the world but we as the self appointed world police can't save everyone. There has to be some hope or potential for that country to be able to succeed.

Haiti, Darfur, Rwanda, and the Congo are sadly mostly lost causes.

They are or were considered lost causes because the benefit was not seen as worth the cost. If Rwanda or Sudan had significant oil reserves they would have been handled very differently.

Take away the oil and we would have handled it like we handle most other local despots and skirmishes - which is to say it would be largely ignored. Our interest in the ME is driven by oil for the most part, and that thorny Israeli/Palestinian situation as a distant second concern.

To think we intervened because a leader was mistreating the citizenry and violating our sensibilities about human rights is extremely naive.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[pirana 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Just because they [IraQ] didn't have AQ or the Taliban does not mean they did not have state sponsored terrorism.

What state-sponsored terrorism did they [IraQ]have that impacted us?

In the first place: none. THus, I second your calling Bullshit.

In the second place, by Bolas's rationale we should have attacked IraN looong ago, and hard, because state-sponsored terrorism, traceable ultimately to IraN, has resulted in the kidnappings, murders and assaults of MANY American citizens over the past 30 years.

Iraq was a convenient target, the setup was perfect with the already ongoing WMD issues and their previous invasions. Throw in some unscrupulous leaders on our side, the sting of 911, and it was easy to whip up public frenzy for an attack. (Under the guise of saving the populace, or the world, or some BS like that).

I remember being totally amazed at how the sheeple bought into it at the time; and how those of us that questioned it got labeled as unpatriotic. Our leaders played public emotion like a fiddle. Truly pathetic that the best that gets offerred up at election time are a small cadre of greedy manipulative lying bastards from the GOBC.

" . . . the lust for power can be just as completely satisfied by suggesting people into loving their servitude as by flogging them and kicking them into obedience." -- Aldous Huxley

[Andy9o8 2]

We're in Iraq because armchair chickenhawks took advantage of a naive puppet's Oedipus issues.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

They are or were considered lost causes because the benefit was not seen as worth the cost. If Rwanda or Sudan had significant oil reserves they would have been handled very differently.

True. A country that has nothing known to offer the world is a far less likely candidate for aid as there is no return.

I'm sure if 10's of trillions of dollars were pumped into a place like Haiti in the form of aid and military support, it might be able to become a tourist destination, but there's no way that will offer a return on the investment.

Now that Afghanistan has had the mineral deposits discovered, we'll likely see more focus on them as well.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

They are or were considered lost causes because the benefit was not seen as worth the cost. If Rwanda or Sudan had significant oil reserves they would have been handled very differently.

True. A country that has nothing known to offer the world is a far less likely candidate for aid as there is no return.

I'm sure if 10's of trillions of dollars were pumped into a place like Haiti in the form of aid and military support, it might be able to become a tourist destination, but there's no way that will offer a return on the investment.

Now that Afghanistan has had the mineral deposits discovered, we'll likely see more focus on them as well.

Now if onlythe pesky people would simply go away

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[Bolas 5]

Quote

Quote

Quote

They are or were considered lost causes because the benefit was not seen as worth the cost. If Rwanda or Sudan had significant oil reserves they would have been handled very differently.

True. A country that has nothing known to offer the world is a far less likely candidate for aid as there is no return.

I'm sure if 10's of trillions of dollars were pumped into a place like Haiti in the form of aid and military support, it might be able to become a tourist destination, but there's no way that will offer a return on the investment.

Now that Afghanistan has had the mineral deposits discovered, we'll likely see more focus on them as well.

Now if onlythe pesky people would simply go away

Nah. They're useful for labor and running the local mining/drilling operations.

It's generally the leaders of the countries that have been screwing their people over for decades that are the biggest resistors to the outside influence as they know as the people actually start to get money and independence they'll see what a shitbag they really are.

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[nigel99 417]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Quote

To Bolas: Just adding on to bills post.

If you decide to start a war or an operation and you know there will be collateral damage (inocent people killed) and you decide go head does that excuse the blame?

You’re simply justifying the death of inocent people to achieve a goal. The difference is nothing but perspective.

No. It's all about what the primary target is. This is why terrorists are cowards as they are unwilling to take on whom they are fighting against directly. Instead they target civilians and civilian targets, usually in their own country.

Right. so how do you feel about the use of Drones or even manned planes, when there is no chance of the oponent ever hitting back? - Clearly the operators are not 'taking on' those thay are 'fighting against' .... um double standards or what?

That's just military tactics.
Are you suggesting we go back to the old days where people stood in lines on the battlefield and took turns shooting at each other?

If the objective of war is to "win" and ultimately get your own way - then I believe that the "terrorist tactics" being used against the west are simply "military tactics".

BTW - what is the difference between a terrorist and a freedom fighter?



After the dust has settled if the side has won they were "freedom fighters" otherwise they are terrorists

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

If the objective of war is to "win" and ultimately get your own way - then I believe that the "terrorist tactics" being used against the west are simply "military tactics".

Are you suggesting that the US should use the same methods? According to you they're just different "military tactics."

I can see it now:

"The US government is looking for a few good people to be human bombs and fly planes into buildings."

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[nigel99 417]

Quote

Quote

If the objective of war is to "win" and ultimately get your own way - then I believe that the "terrorist tactics" being used against the west are simply "military tactics".

Are you suggesting that the US should use the same methods? According to you they're just different "military tactics."

I can see it now:

"The US government is looking for a few good people to be human bombs and fly planes into buildings."

No but I do think that we "see" things through the prism of what we are brought up to believe is right and wrong. After all using smart bombs, armed drones and fighter planes against people in buildings who enemies KNOWING that they have family and friends present is something that we accept as a necessary aspect of war. If a group of Afghanistan locals object to us being in their country they most likely see themselves as legitimate "freedom fighters". They are not in a position to go and spend x billions on weapons and so they use what they have to hit us where it hurts.

The enemy has found where we are weakest and that is our absolute reluctance to lose life and limb, and this includes the way that we try to minimise casualties amongst civilians. So long as that remains our weakest point they will continue to exploit it. Money and smarter weapons won't fix that.

Experienced jumper - someone who has made mistakes more often than I have and lived.

[Bolas 5]

Quote

The enemy has found where we are weakest and that is our absolute reluctance to lose life and limb, and this includes the way that we try to minimise casualties amongst civilians. So long as that remains our weakest point they will continue to exploit it. Money and smarter weapons won't fix that.

So what do you propose is the solution to this?

Stupidity if left untreated is self-correcting
If ya can't be good, look good, if that fails, make 'em laugh.

[billvon 2,925]

>I can see it now:

>"The US government is looking for a few good people to be human bombs
>and fly planes into buildings."

Used to good effect by the Japanese during World War II.

And in the (rare) case that happens in the US, we give the person all sorts of medals posthumously - so we clearly think it's a very noble thing to do.