| Forum Index > Closed |
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please. In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
Besides many of these so called families harbor terrorists, and even some degree support their ideology. All Trump is saying is that you have to fight fire with fire. You can't fight with your arms tied behind your back while you have terrorists directly targeting civilians and us deliberately not attacking known terrorists because we are scared to kill some of their family members. | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 11 2016 09:40 SolaR- wrote: I really liked when Trump said to target families of terrorists. I won't deny or pretend to act like it's wrong. The end justifies the means, and this is war not a fucking safe space. Sorry.. Besides many of these so called families harbor terrorists, and even some degree support their ideology. All Trump is saying is that you have to fight fire with fire. You can't fight with your arms tied behind your back while you have terrorists directly targeting civilians and us deliberately not attacking known terrorists because we are scared to kill some of their family members. uh, we don't " deliberately not attacking known terrorists because we are scared to kill some of their family members." you're factually wrong there. We readily accept collateral damage, both of family, and non-family members, while killing terrorists. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 11 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote: uh, we don't " deliberately not attacking known terrorists because we are scared to kill some of their family members." you're factually wrong there. We readily accept collateral damage, both of family, and non-family members, while killing terrorists. Okay, well you get the point. If we can gain an advantage by specifically targeting their family members, we should take it. | ||
|
iPlaY.NettleS
Australia4366 Posts
On June 10 2016 22:09 Plansix wrote: But I want Warren in the senate and not the VP spot. She has way more power to regulate and deal with banks in the Senate. So Bill Clinton deregulated the banks by scrapping Glass-Stegal while president and you think things will be any different under his wifes administration? It's going to be business as usual for the big banks and wall street! | ||
|
zlefin
United States7689 Posts
On June 11 2016 09:45 SolaR- wrote: Okay, well you get the point. If we can gain an advantage by specifically targeting their family members, we should take it. no, we shouldn't. That you oppose the geneva conventions on warfare is quite troubling. It's quite feasible to win without resorting to such tactics, and we're far better off in the long run for not using such reprehensible methods. Also, part of my point is that you're not well-versed on the topic. | ||
|
BallinWitStalin
1177 Posts
On June 11 2016 09:45 SolaR- wrote: Okay, well you get the point. If we can gain an advantage by specifically targeting their family members, we should take it. This is evil, man. Like, actual literal evil. Targeting innocent individuals because of a connection to an enemy is morally wrong, and people advocating for it are evil. Terrorists who engage in that (i.e. suicide bombers who blow themselves up around kids, civilians, etc.) are rightly considered evil by broader society. The amount of cognitive dissonance necessary to categorize their actions as evil while advocating doing *the exact same thing* is astounding. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
| ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 11 2016 09:45 iPlaY.NettleS wrote: So Bill Clinton deregulated the banks by scrapping Glass-Stegal while president and you think things will be any different under his wifes administration? It's going to be business as usual for the big banks and wall street! actually read her platform please | ||
|
oneofthem
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On June 11 2016 09:40 SolaR- wrote: I really liked when Trump said to target families of terrorists. I won't deny or pretend to act like it's wrong. The end justifies the means, and this is war not a fucking safe space. Sorry.. Besides many of these so called families harbor terrorists, and even some degree support their ideology. All Trump is saying is that you have to fight fire with fire. You can't fight with your arms tied behind your back while you have terrorists directly targeting civilians and us deliberately not attacking known terrorists because we are scared to kill some of their family members. why listen to actual on the ground military and intelligence experts when it feels right. this trump stuff is recruiting terrorists as we speak | ||
|
SK.Testie
Canada11084 Posts
On June 11 2016 09:49 BallinWitStalin wrote:This is evil, man. Like, actual literal evil. Targeting innocent individuals because of a connection to an enemy is morally wrong, and people advocating for it are evil Time for this question again: Would you have dropped the bomb on Japan? No pussying out. Which answer is better. Which answer saved more lives. Poll: Drop the nuke on Japan in WW2? Yes (11) No (6) 17 total votes Your vote: Drop the nuke on Japan in WW2? Really depends on which method is going to cause less suffering and less deaths overall over there. Will terrorists be less likely to go to Jihad if they know their family is a target? Geneva conventions? What country is currently following those other than the USA which is trying to desperately. iirc China recently roasted some Muslim jihadis like marshmallows with flamethrowers. Talking to forces in Iraq they say they went to extreme lengths to not harm the general populace. We know the "Train and equip" type programs are utterly expensive failures. The drone strikes often don't kill their intended target and almost always have collateral damage. 35 out of 200 targets in the last report I linked were the intended targets. So 165 innocents. And frankly, they kill far too few considering the #'s ISIS has and the support it often has. Is drawing a conflict out over decades and decades the ideal situation? Is that the aim or goal? To just always live with, "Hey they beheaded some more people. Drowned em. Lit em on fire. Dipped them in acid." etc? Just.. decades of that? Do you trust the USA / CIA's estimate on the # of ISIS fighters? They claim about 20-25,000 atm. Kurds say 200k, Russia says 70k. etc. Because they control a lot of territory (even if it has shrunk in iraq/syria) yet gained in others. (Libya / Yemen) etc. While still minor there it's sprung up. Then you have Al-Nusra and other groups as well. It's quite the lovely cluster fuck. I don't think Obama's approach to radical Islam is good. It's capitulation and weak. Too afraid to even say radical Islam and even actively censors it yet we have so much damning poll data and evidence and terrorist attacks that it's insane for 'oh a plane went down, let's not jump to conclusions.. aaaaaaaaand it's radical Islam'. I don't think a single person (ok we know there's some somewhere) that relishes in the idea of murdering terrorists families or holding them accountable for their radical sons crimes (mostly sons, sometimes daughters but we'd assume 99% sons). | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 11 2016 09:49 BallinWitStalin wrote: This is evil, man. Like, actual literal evil. Targeting innocent individuals because of a connection to an enemy is morally wrong, and people advocating for it are evil. Terrorists who engage in that (i.e. suicide bombers who blow themselves up around kids, civilians, etc.) are rightly considered evil by broader society. The amount of cognitive dissonance necessary to categorize their actions as evil while advocating doing *the exact same thing* is astounding. What if torturing a terrorist's family saved the lives of a million innocent civilians. Is it evil then? Evil is relative, and most of the time the end justifies the means. | ||
|
Djabanete
United States2786 Posts
Currently we carry out drone assassinations of suspected terrorists with only partial regard for innocent lives taken. The upside of drone assassination, in principle, is that terrorists are killed. The downside is that this act of violence generates more hatred against the US, especially when innocent lives are taken. Again, we've been doing this for years and will certainly continue to do it in a Clinton administration. Trump's "idea" is simply to remove the upside. In addition to being a war crime, it's plain stupid. Edit: If Trump has ideas on how to reduce corruption in unstable regimes, cut off funding sources of terrorist groups, or get women educated in backwards countries, I'd listen. If we could do these things we would reduce terrorism. But of course he doesn't have any useful ideas because there is scarcely a subject under the sun in which he has any expertise or even common sense. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
If you think you can shoot terrorism to death it shows you have zero understanding of how any of this actually works. If you think killing family members is going to help you destroy terrorism I'm afraid you've missed the boat entirely. It's almost as if you're actively trying to create more terrorism. On June 11 2016 10:01 SolaR- wrote: What if torturing a terrorist's family saved the lives of a million innocent civilians. Is it evil then? Evil is relative, and most of the time the end justifies the means. You've watched way too much 24. | ||
|
farvacola
United States18840 Posts
 | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
Completely putting aside the moral implications, it's not a winning strategy. (Unless you are in fact willing to commit genocide.) EDIT: The winning strategy is to neutralise the support among "civilians" for terrorists by a means which doesn't just piss more people off. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On June 11 2016 10:10 Aquanim wrote: What are you going to do, kill every Muslim in the Middle East? Until you get to that point, for each random family member of a terrorist you shoot you're just generating a dozen more terrorists. Completely putting aside the moral implications, it's not a winning strategy. (Unless you are in fact willing to commit genocide.) This is exactly what you'd end up having to do. Commit literal genocide and even then that wouldn't stop it. What if some random dude in Thailand who is totally disconnected from the situation sees the US committing genocide. You don't think you could plant the seed of terrorism in a guy totally unrelated to the situation because he sees atrocities being committed? You've just spread it across the planet at an exponential rate. | ||
|
SolaR-
United States2685 Posts
On June 11 2016 10:06 OuchyDathurts wrote: I'm pretty sure deliberately targeting family members of terrorists violates some sort of international law for starters. If you think you can shoot terrorism to death it shows you have zero understanding of how any of this actually works. If you think killing family members is going to help you destroy terrorism I'm afraid you've missed the boat entirely. It's almost as if you're actively trying to create more terrorism. You've watched way too much 24. You watch too much 24, if that is your frame of reference to real world examples. Situations like that happen everyday, a lot of them we probably don't even hear about. Killing a few to save the lives of more is always the best option. If killing families is the easiest and quickest way to exterminate ISIS it is totally worth it. Good or Evil doesn't matter. Power is the only currency of humanity. | ||
|
kwizach
3658 Posts
On June 11 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote: It is pretty funny. Like how Kwiz links an article about how "honest" she is but it doesn't even mention Bosnia which was the clear and blatant fabrication that I used as reference. The articles I linked assess her overall honesty, which is what the discussion is about. She's not the dishonest person you try to paint her as, she's as honest as anyone else in the Democratic party, and she's not less honest than Sanders. With regards to Bosnia, while her description of what happened was factually false, cognitive psychology tells us there are perfectly legitimate reasons as to why she may have honestly remembered the event the way she did. She may not have been lying at all, if you consider it necessary to have an intent to deceive for one to be lying. She may simply have reconstructed the memory in a way that had her convinced what she said truly happened. And there are plenty of clues as to why that might be the case. See the following two testimonies from her speechwriter and from ambassador Hill, who were both with her during the trip: I was on the plane with then First Lady Hillary Clinton for the trip from Germany into Bosnia in 1996. We were put on a C-17 — a plane capable of steep ascents and descents — precisely because we were flying into what was considered a combat zone. We were issued flak jackets for the final leg because of possible sniper fire near Tuzla. As an additional precaution, the First Lady and Chelsea were moved to the armored cockpit for the descent into Tuzla. We were told that a welcoming ceremony on the tarmac might be canceled because of sniper fire in the hills surrounding the air strip. From Tuzla, Hillary flew to two outposts in Bosnia with gunships escorting her helicopter. [During the landing at Tuzla], I ventured over to listen to a member of the security detail briefing the first lady and her team on the situation we would likely encounter on the ground. As she did for every briefing she received, she listened attentively, glancing at her reading material as he talked and talked. I found myself almost rolling my eyes as the briefer went on and on about the possibility of snipers and what the plan of action would be (essentially, making a beeline to the armored vehicles parked nearby). As the briefing continued for what seemed like half an hour, one of the journalists, a little worried, asked me if it was going to be that dangerous. I explained I was not going to contradict the briefer, but, whispering, I told him I seriously doubted we would encounter any such threat. For heaven’s sake, I explained, it was a U.S. military base with thousands of troops, where there had not been a single such incident in the three months they had set up camp. He was relieved, but those more attentively listening to the briefer were not, as they contemplated that soon they could be running for their lives across an open tarmac a la “sniper alley” in Sarajevo. There were of course no snipers, and as the nervous passengers exited from the rear of the aircraft off an enormous steel ramp that could handle tanks and other tactical vehicles, we were greeted by a group of Bosnian children in colorful native dress. Hope none of them is a sniper, I thought. They presented Mrs. Clinton with bright bouquets of spring flowers that were quickly gathered up by aides while the first lady patted the children on the head … The visit seemed over before it began by the time we made our way back to the airstrip and boarded the C-17 for the flight to Germany. But the threat of snipers seemed to be all most people could remember. It may seem like a bit step to go from "there is a threat of sniper fire" to "we were actually under sniper fire", but as I said cognitive psychology has shown it is not unusual at all for our memories to be distorted in such a way, especially regarding stressful situations. That's a very possible explanation of why she recollected the event that way. She may simply have remembered it wrong, and she truly thought she was being honest. But of course, you will read this and it won't have the slightest impact on your opinion of her or of her statements, because you have already decided that she's the worse person in politics, and that everything negative you hear about her must be true. You don't have even the slightest hint of objectivity when discussing her, and you're not even interested in being objective. On June 11 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote: As for her apologies, they are textbook BS apologies. She either doesn't say she's sorry/ I apologize or she does crap like this: "I am sorry that this has been confusing to people and has raised a lot of questions, but there are answers to all these questions,” She's not apologizing for what she did, she's apologizing that people don't understand why her decisions were acceptable. False. You cherry-picked one quote, while she's apologized sincerely in the past for mistakes that she had made. But again, you're not interested in telling the truth, and at looking at her in a nuanced way (which would not prevent one from pointing out her flaws -- I certainly don't deny their existence and she's far from my ideal candidate). You're only interested in pushing a narrative, namely that she's dishonest. On June 11 2016 07:10 GreenHorizons wrote: I mean Trump supporters are jumping through their fair share of hoops to make him seem like a reasonable candidate, but from a right leaning perspective, it's easy for me to see how in a "lesser of two evils" contest, he beats her. It depends on what you mean by right-leaning perspective. If you mean people who are ignorant and delusional about reality, policy, and the candidates, then sure. When it comes to defending progressive values and causes, being competent and knowledgeable, being experienced, and yes, being honest, she beats him handily. | ||
|
Aquanim
Australia2849 Posts
On June 11 2016 10:17 SolaR- wrote:...If killing families is the easiest and quickest way to exterminate ISIS it is totally worth it. If killing families were the easiest and quickest way (whatever easiest means) to "exterminate" ISIS, then maybe we could have a talk about whether it's morally justified. Since it's not even a solution to the problem, I don't see the point in having that conversation. | ||
|
OuchyDathurts
United States4588 Posts
On June 11 2016 10:17 SolaR- wrote: You watch too much 24, if that is your frame of reference to real world examples. Situations like that happen everyday, a lot of them we probably don't even hear about. Killing a few to save the lives of more is always the best option. If killing families is the easiest and quickest way to exterminate ISIS it is totally worth it. Good or Evil doesn't matter. Power is the only currency of humanity. Situations like torturing a terrorist's family and saving millions of lives have never happened in the real world. Your hypothetical situation means literally ZERO. Your delusions of grandeur from Bond movies and espionage television hold no basis here. That's kids table stuff. | ||
| ||
StarCraft 2 StarCraft: Brood War League of Legends Counter-Strike Super Smash Bros Other Games |
|
Wardi Open
StarCraft2.fi
Replay Cast
The PondCast
OSC
Demi vs Mixu
Nicoract vs TBD
Babymarine vs MindelVK
ForJumy vs TBD
Shameless vs Percival
Replay Cast
Korean StarCraft League
CranKy Ducklings
SC Evo League
BSL 21
Sziky vs OyAji
Gypsy vs eOnzErG
[ Show More ] |
|
|
EPT
