|
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. |
On June 11 2016 10:17 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +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. On June 11 2016 10:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:49 BallinWitStalin wrote:On June 11 2016 09:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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. 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.
but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it?
|
On June 11 2016 08:54 Mohdoo wrote:
What? We're able to search a thread?
Of course...
1. Change the page layout to All instead of Normal (so each page is 2000 posts instead of 20, giving you 41 pages).
2. Ctrl+F = Find (search) bar
3. Type in retarded (or any other word) for a specific page.
I'm not sure if the Normal -> All is TL+ only, but you can certainly Ctrl+F through any pages you want 
|
On June 11 2016 10:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:17 SolaR- wrote: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. On June 11 2016 10:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:49 BallinWitStalin wrote:On June 11 2016 09:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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. 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.
Oh. I didn't know you were in the field dealing with terrorist interrogations. The bottom line still matters. American lives are more valuable to us, and if you can save more American lives at the cost of terrorist families it is worth it.
To say that those situations have never happened with absolute certainty is more ridiculous than my hypothetical. It is impossible for you to know that. So please stop with you ad hominem attacks, inferring that my perspective is purely based around the entertainment industry.
I am not impressed by your elitist attitude. You are trying to convince me and yourself that you're an intellectual.
People only respond to power.
|
On June 11 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:17 SolaR- wrote: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. On June 11 2016 10:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:49 BallinWitStalin wrote:On June 11 2016 09:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it?
It has worked very well historically.
|
On June 11 2016 10:31 SolaR- wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 11 2016 10:17 SolaR- wrote: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. On June 11 2016 10:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:49 BallinWitStalin wrote:On June 11 2016 09:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. Oh. I didn't know you were in the field dealing with terrorist interrogations. The bottom line still matters. American lives are more valuable to us, and if you can save more American lives at the cost of terrorist families it is worth it. To say that those situations have never happened with absolute certainty is more ridiculous than my hypothetical. It is impossible for you to know that. So please stop with you ad hominem attacks, inferring that my perspective is purely based around the entertainment industry. I am not impressed by your elitist attitude. You are trying to convince me and yourself that you're an intellectual. People only respond to power.
Your assumption is based on pure fantasy.
Here's a few facts for you. Torture doesn't work and targeting family members will make more terrorists not less. We've got 2 nonstarters right there.
|
On June 11 2016 10:31 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:
but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it? It has worked very well historically.
...What?
Give me an example. I don't mean of a conventional war like WW2 where countries were in conflict, I mean where indiscriminate killing helped to defeat an organisation along the lines of ISIS.
EDIT: For an example in the other direction (in the context of a war I am more familiar with than the various adventures in the Middle East over the past few decades), destroying a bunch of villages where the Viet Cong hid in the Vietnam War was profoundly unhelpful.
|
On June 11 2016 10:36 OuchyDathurts wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:31 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 10:20 OuchyDathurts wrote:On June 11 2016 10:17 SolaR- wrote: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. On June 11 2016 10:01 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:49 BallinWitStalin wrote:On June 11 2016 09:45 SolaR- wrote:On June 11 2016 09:43 zlefin wrote: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. 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. 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. 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. Oh. I didn't know you were in the field dealing with terrorist interrogations. The bottom line still matters. American lives are more valuable to us, and if you can save more American lives at the cost of terrorist families it is worth it. To say that those situations have never happened with absolute certainty is more ridiculous than my hypothetical. It is impossible for you to know that. So please stop with you ad hominem attacks, inferring that my perspective is purely based around the entertainment industry. I am not impressed by your elitist attitude. You are trying to convince me and yourself that you're an intellectual. Show me the data on those facts. Your words have no value. It is pure rhetoric and you sound like a hypocrite. People only respond to power. Your assumption is based on pure fantasy. Here's a few facts for you. Torture doesn't work and targeting family members will make more terrorists not less. We've got 2 nonstarters right there.
Show me the data on those so called facts. Wait you have none, your words are empty and filled with your own rhetoric.
If you look at any history, as xDaunt mentioned, you will see many examples of torture and the use of power as a powerful tool.
|
If targetting terrorist families helped, sign me up. If it doesn't, don't do it. This should be verifiable and knowable so I don't understand how it is something debated.
|
On June 11 2016 10:42 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:
but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it? It has worked very well historically. ...What? Give me an example. I don't mean of a conventional war like WW2 where countries were in conflict, I mean where indiscriminate killing helped to defeat an organisation along the lines of ISIS.
Every great empire from antiquity onwards slaughtered civilians when necessary to pacify occupied lands.
|
There is no morality in war. The only morality is whether you achieve your means in the most effective way possible. This is not advocating for killing innocent people or families. But we do know that the vast majority of people to die in Iraq and Syria were not combatants. The majority were civilians or innocents. Even though America took great pains throughout the war to limit these. They cannot stop car bombs in market squares etc. And the #'s of people killed range from 200,000 to over 1,000,000+ and I actually don't know which source to trust or which source is the most accurate on this figure.
http://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2016/06/07/horror-19-women-burned-alive-after-they-refused-to-sleep-with-isis-militants-n2174813
https://www.thereligionofpeace.com/ there are almost always 1000-2000+ deaths per month on "the jihad report" and it clearly cannot account for all attacks or honor killings.
It's more about finding the most effective method. I think Obama's method is a failure because for every drone strike that goes off, you have a lot of angry innocent people pissed that their family member was killed. Especially when it's, "Whoops that was a hospital. Whoops that was a wedding." In this case, you are not only not targeting families of the terrorists, you're also just obliterating innocent people and shattering lives.
Also, why are we still pretending geneva conventions are relevant after the Iraq war, Abu Ghraib and Guantanamo? Let alone drone strikes? Is there a single country on this earth other than the USA that follows them? (Serious question, is there?)
Then again, perhaps we should discuss what we think the USA's goal is in the ME. This may bring out tinfoil in some or ruthless pragmatism in others.. or .. idealism in some but I don't think many here think USA had great intentions getting into Iraq. ;p
On June 11 2016 10:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:42 Aquanim wrote:On June 11 2016 10:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:
but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it? It has worked very well historically. ...What? Give me an example. I don't mean of a conventional war like WW2 where countries were in conflict, I mean where indiscriminate killing helped to defeat an organisation along the lines of ISIS. Every great empire from antiquity onwards slaughtered civilians when necessary to pacify occupied lands.
And this has been the successful strategy in all previous wars. "KILL THE MEN, TAKE THE WOMEN!" Granted, if we killed all the men and took all the women, we'd at least treat them far better without the forced rape of the past. So, that'd be our great improvement over past wars.
|
On June 11 2016 10:43 Mohdoo wrote:
If targetting terrorist families helped, sign me up. If it doesn't, don't do it. This should be verifiable and knowable so I don't understand how it is something debated.
And this is really the issue: are we willing to do what is necessary to win? If not, then we should GTFO.
|
On June 11 2016 10:43 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:42 Aquanim wrote:On June 11 2016 10:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:
but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it? It has worked very well historically. ...What? Give me an example. I don't mean of a conventional war like WW2 where countries were in conflict, I mean where indiscriminate killing helped to defeat an organisation along the lines of ISIS. Every great empire from antiquity onwards slaughtered civilians when necessary to pacify occupied lands.
If the United States were intending to forge an empire and "occupy" ISIS lands then you might have a point.
Since (as far as I know) the goal is for the people in the Middle East to govern themselves in such a way that they do not act against United States interests, an entirely different strategy is called for.
Did the US learn nothing from Vietnam?
|
Well, at least when Trump becomes President, we have the tacit approval of Americans to wipe the USA off the map to solve the problem.
|
Define "win"? Because you kill families, the fighting will never end. There will always be someone looking to attack the US for revenge because you killed their neighbors, friends, lover.
There is no military victory against an enemy that can't surrender.
|
re: testie and Geneva compliance
yes, there are many. As with many things degree of compliance varies. Also, your citing of guantanamo shows a lack of understanding of the conventions, please read up more on them.
Pretty much all of europe, also canada and japan, have very high complicance levels (probably better than the US on average).
Russia and China have iirc high compliance levels.
I don't have citations handy, nor do I see any easy sources on google.
|
On June 11 2016 10:47 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On June 11 2016 10:43 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2016 10:42 Aquanim wrote:On June 11 2016 10:31 xDaunt wrote:On June 11 2016 10:27 zlefin wrote:
but it's not; it won't work, let alone work easily. do you concede that point, or are you contesting it? It has worked very well historically. ...What? Give me an example. I don't mean of a conventional war like WW2 where countries were in conflict, I mean where indiscriminate killing helped to defeat an organisation along the lines of ISIS. Every great empire from antiquity onwards slaughtered civilians when necessary to pacify occupied lands. If the United States were intending to forge an empire and "occupy" ISIS lands then you might have a point. Since (as far as I know) the goal is for the people in the Middle East to govern themselves in such a way that they do not act against United States interests, an entirely different strategy is called for. Did the US learn nothing from Vietnam?
The US hasn't fought to win since WW2. The lesson of Vietnam is don't bother half-assing wars.
|
On June 11 2016 10:50 Plansix wrote:
Define "win"? Because you kill families, the fighting will never end. There will always be someone looking to attack the US for revenge because you killed their neighbors, friends, lover.
There is no military victory against an enemy that can't surrender.
No, but you can punish them into submission where any threat that they could ever pose to you is futile.
|
On June 11 2016 10:50 zlefin wrote:
re: testie and Geneva compliance
yes, there are many. As with many things degree of compliance varies. Also, your citing of guantanamo shows a lack of understanding of the conventions, please read up more on them.
I'll look up on it, thanks.
But I would have assumed that 'no torturing people' would have been among them.
|
Vaguely pointing to history as justification for torture and the punishment of innocents is not exactly compelling
|
On June 11 2016 10:54 farvacola wrote:
Vaguely pointing to history as justification for torture and the punishment of innocents is not exactly compelling.
Morality has nothing to do with it.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
