|
On July 26 2010 11:58 Elegy wrote:edit: addressed to kzn about collateral damage... To quote from another thread: Show nested quote +Let's use an example. Let's say we've got a woman, Jane, and she was wronged by her husband, Mark. And she's going to kill him. Mark is a bad guy, Mark cheated on her, Mark killed her daughter, and Mark just...well, he's dangerous and needs to be stopped. Jane finds out that Mark is going to see a movie on Friday night. Jane says, "I'm going to kill Mark before he hurts someone else in my family. I'm going to run him over with my SUV whilst he stands in line".
And Jane does it! Jane kills Mark, and many other people as well. So Jane killed the man she needed to, but in the process killed many innocent bystanders. She did performed this action KNOWING full well that in the achievement of her objectives, innocent people would die. She regrets it, but does that really matter? They're dead.
So the question becomes, "Is there a discernible moral difference between purposefully killing an innocent civilian to achieve a particular objective (in other words, killing the "Jew") and performing an action that you KNOW will INEVITABLY result in the deaths of innocent people to achieve your objective (killing the "terrorist")?
Certainly there is! And now that we've established that, we must ask ourselves...does it really matter? It doesn't matter to the innocent people killed in the street outside the movie theater, it doesn't matter to Jane, who will be brought up on charges regardless, and it doesn't matter to Mark, who lies face down in a heap of broken bodies. So while the moral difference is there, it is, in the end result, completely and utterly irrelevant to the outcome.
Let's take another example.
In wartime, an American warship spots an enemy destroyer, heading to the warzone. The American warship opens fire and sinks the ship (it was clearly carrying weapons and ammunition and would have sunk the American ship if it could). But upon inspection, the enemy warship had a thousand innocent civilians in the cargo bay, seeking refuge. THAT is collateral damage. Those deaths were accidental.
When Jane killed all of those people in the cinema to get Mark, that wasn't collateral damage. That was Jane acting to kill those people, knowing full well that her actions would result in the deaths of those innocents going to the movie. She knowingly, deliberately, and purposefully killed those people to get Mark. It wasn't an accident.
You are correct at one thing, though. Israel doesn't want to kill civilians, only a fool or a bigot would believe that they do. But they know full well what they are going to do when they send an airplane over a marketplace to destroy that team hiding in a fruit stand.
Don't confuse collateral damage with deliberate collateral damage. In other words, the term "collateral damage" only applies when you accidentally and unknowingly kill civilians/unwanted people due to the execution of a particular action (the warship example). Knowing that you will inevitably kill X number of civilians along with whoever else isn't accidental or unintended (as per your own definition in the post above). It was deliberate and completely intended
That is not a definition of collateral damage I agree with, nor is it the one found on Wikipedia (or in the dictionaries I've checked).
[edit] Incidental is not the same as Accidental
|
Seems like wikileaks is being responsable, and withholding anything that would put the lives of troops at risk. So thats a good job by them, but none of this information seems to be that big of a bomb shell. Like others have already said. Its war, we know mistakes happens already.
|
On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o
1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain.
2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of?
3. Same.
The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it.
|
wikileaks.org doesn't work for me
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it.
1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN.
2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you.
|
Wow. Just, wow. Everyone needs to take a deep breath, and cool it with the hyperbole.
I am in the military. I was in Iraq, unless one of you all can say that you were there, and you witnessed any of this stuff, anything you say is already secondhand, unreliable, and based off of some type of slanted journalism.
I am sorry to say, there is no objective journalism in the world anymore. Everyone wants to sell papers/get hits/please investors.
I am not bashing anyone's beliefs. I don't really care to argue on a forum, it never gets anywhere. I just want to let you all know that some of the points you are making are far from intelligent, and just make you sound ridiculous.
Also, some of you need to reevaluate your level of expertise on foreign law and policy. Yes it is legal for Iraqi's to carry AK47's, but no more than one per household, and RPG's are illegal, to the level of carrying a few pounds of plastic explosives in your bag in the airport. You are assumed to be hostile if you have one. The RoE in most MNF's over there justify that along the lines that an RPG costs approximately 400 dollars to make, and a Blackhawk Helicopter, which can be shot down and deadlined by a RPG, costs 15 million.
|
On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you.
The invasion was approved based on incorrect information.
This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country.
|
On July 26 2010 12:00 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 11:58 Elegy wrote:edit: addressed to kzn about collateral damage... To quote from another thread: Let's use an example. Let's say we've got a woman, Jane, and she was wronged by her husband, Mark. And she's going to kill him. Mark is a bad guy, Mark cheated on her, Mark killed her daughter, and Mark just...well, he's dangerous and needs to be stopped. Jane finds out that Mark is going to see a movie on Friday night. Jane says, "I'm going to kill Mark before he hurts someone else in my family. I'm going to run him over with my SUV whilst he stands in line".
And Jane does it! Jane kills Mark, and many other people as well. So Jane killed the man she needed to, but in the process killed many innocent bystanders. She did performed this action KNOWING full well that in the achievement of her objectives, innocent people would die. She regrets it, but does that really matter? They're dead.
So the question becomes, "Is there a discernible moral difference between purposefully killing an innocent civilian to achieve a particular objective (in other words, killing the "Jew") and performing an action that you KNOW will INEVITABLY result in the deaths of innocent people to achieve your objective (killing the "terrorist")?
Certainly there is! And now that we've established that, we must ask ourselves...does it really matter? It doesn't matter to the innocent people killed in the street outside the movie theater, it doesn't matter to Jane, who will be brought up on charges regardless, and it doesn't matter to Mark, who lies face down in a heap of broken bodies. So while the moral difference is there, it is, in the end result, completely and utterly irrelevant to the outcome.
Let's take another example.
In wartime, an American warship spots an enemy destroyer, heading to the warzone. The American warship opens fire and sinks the ship (it was clearly carrying weapons and ammunition and would have sunk the American ship if it could). But upon inspection, the enemy warship had a thousand innocent civilians in the cargo bay, seeking refuge. THAT is collateral damage. Those deaths were accidental.
When Jane killed all of those people in the cinema to get Mark, that wasn't collateral damage. That was Jane acting to kill those people, knowing full well that her actions would result in the deaths of those innocents going to the movie. She knowingly, deliberately, and purposefully killed those people to get Mark. It wasn't an accident.
You are correct at one thing, though. Israel doesn't want to kill civilians, only a fool or a bigot would believe that they do. But they know full well what they are going to do when they send an airplane over a marketplace to destroy that team hiding in a fruit stand.
Don't confuse collateral damage with deliberate collateral damage. In other words, the term "collateral damage" only applies when you accidentally and unknowingly kill civilians/unwanted people due to the execution of a particular action (the warship example). Knowing that you will inevitably kill X number of civilians along with whoever else isn't accidental or unintended (as per your own definition in the post above). It was deliberate and completely intended That is not a definition of collateral damage I agree with, nor is it the one found on Wikipedia (or in the dictionaries I've checked). [edit] Incidental is not the same as Accidental
True. Incidental is not the same as accidental, but in this case, it is.
You may not like the idea of killing innocent civilians (in the case of our wacked out psycho Jane), but she fully intends to kill them. She probably doesn't want to, she doesn't relish the opportunity to end lives, but, sure as the day is long, she fully intends to end their lives through her actions because she knows, regardless of anything else she does, that in order to kill Mark, she MUST kill those civilians that stand in the way. So no, incidental isn't the same as accidental, but she recognizes fully that she intends to kill them to achieve her goal.
Let's take another example.
Say its becomes clear that Iran has a nuclear weapon and that they intend to use it on Israel (this is just an example scenario). So Israel says, "hey, we're going to blow it up". Fair enough, threat to their existence and all that. But on the day Israel knows they have to strike, they discover that a bus full of Iranian schoolchildren is visiting the reactor/military base/funhouse where the bomb is and they decide to go ahead and level the place. Are those deaths regrettable? Sure. Did the Israelis want to kill the innocent kids? Not a chance. But they most definitely intended to, because to destroy that bomb meant the destruction of those lives.
In the execution of their action, the Israelis fully intended to end the lives of those children, the staff at the bomb's facility, and to destroy the bomb itself. Likewise, Jane COMPLETELY INTENDS to kill those people at the movie theater because they have to die for her to complete her critical objective.
There are two types of collateral damage. There is collateral damage (real collateral damage) such as the warship example, in which, through the execution of a particular action, unintended and accidental deaths occurred (sinking a warship in wartime that, unbeknownst to the attacker, carried a thousand civilians). Then we have deliberate collateral damage, akin to murder, in which the deaths of innocent people were completely and utterly intended because they were necessary in the fulfillment of a particular objective. Regretful deaths, deaths no one wished had to occur, but deaths that were wholly intended from the beginning due to the desire to achieve that objective. They (the attackers) may not like what they are doing, they may not agree with the sacrifice of those people, but they will proceed regardless and fully intend to kill them. Whether the deliberate killing of innocents is justified is another issue altogether.
|
On July 26 2010 12:26 Elegy wrote:
You may not like the idea of killing innocent civilians (in the case of our wacked out psycho Jane), but she fully intends to kill them. She probably doesn't want to, she doesn't relish the opportunity to end lives, but, sure as the day is long, she fully intends to end their lives through her actions because she knows, regardless of anything else she does, that in order to kill Mark, she MUST kill those civilians that stand in the way. So no, incidental isn't the same as accidental, but she recognizes fully that she intends to kill them to achieve her goal.
Intent doesn't preclude something from being incidental, strictly.
Its semantics, but thats what we're arguing anyway.
|
United States5162 Posts
On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country.
They were harboring the people who were behind the world trade center attacks. If you're really going to say that everything the UN and NATO reviewed was false then there's no point in discussing this with you.
|
On July 26 2010 10:57 lightrise wrote:
Im really confused here. I have actually gotten to the site and downloaded each of the file types, csv, sql and kml. Which is the best format to read through it like a document or is there not. The csv is a cluster in excel, and i have no programs that open the other two. im just curious if anyone found a good way to view these documents. Thanks
Grab the month-to-month KML file and Google Earth. Open files in Google Earth. Bada-bing.
|
On July 26 2010 12:32 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. They were harboring the people who were behind the world trade center attacks. If you're really going to say that everything the UN and NATO reviewed was false then there's no point in discussing this with you. Preach it, brother! Lets hope some Italian Mafia don't blow up a building. Sure as hell don't want a bunch of Cold War era insurgency plans to go into effect against us when we invade Italy.
|
On July 26 2010 12:32 Myles wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. They were harboring the people who were behind the world trade center attacks. If you're really going to say that everything the UN and NATO reviewed was false then there's no point in discussing this with you.
Who is "they"? An entire population?
|
On July 26 2010 12:36 alexpnd wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:32 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. They were harboring the people who were behind the world trade center attacks. If you're really going to say that everything the UN and NATO reviewed was false then there's no point in discussing this with you. Who is "they"? An entire population?
The government in question.
|
On July 26 2010 12:37 kzn wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:36 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 12:32 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. They were harboring the people who were behind the world trade center attacks. If you're really going to say that everything the UN and NATO reviewed was false then there's no point in discussing this with you. Who is "they"? An entire population? The government in question.
Doesn't it make more sense for a country to secure within it's own borders than to invade other countries in an attempt to get rid of security risks there?
It seems obvious to me that such security risks are infinite in number, and that invading a country only creates more of them.
|
On July 26 2010 12:41 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:37 kzn wrote:On July 26 2010 12:36 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 12:32 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. They were harboring the people who were behind the world trade center attacks. If you're really going to say that everything the UN and NATO reviewed was false then there's no point in discussing this with you. Who is "they"? An entire population? The government in question. Doesn't it make more sense for a country to secure within it's own borders than to invade other countries in an attempt to get rid of security risks there?
Not with the advent of non-state entities.
There's no way to secure a country completely - if someone wants to penetrate your security, especially if they're willing to die to do it, they can do it.
I think its fairly agreed among counterterrorism people that the best way of combating terrorism is to attack their ability to operate, which means attacking countries that allow them to operate within their borders.
Of course this means we should invade Saudi Arabia too, so I'm not claiming everything has been done perfectly.
|
On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country.
Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d
Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11.
Iraq on the other hand......
|
On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand......
I've got a problem with both *crosses arms*
|
On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms*
After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything 
Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix
|
On July 26 2010 12:48 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On July 26 2010 12:46 Romantic wrote:On July 26 2010 12:43 Sadist wrote:On July 26 2010 12:25 javy925 wrote:On July 26 2010 12:15 Myles wrote:On July 26 2010 12:04 alexpnd wrote:On July 26 2010 08:57 Jibba wrote:On July 26 2010 08:49 dethrawr wrote:
Massive respect to wikileaks for having the balls to post stuff like this. America will probably have a lot of explaining to do once everything has been analysed. 1. The USA had legitimate reason to enter Afghanistan to pursue the Taliban and AQ 2. War is messy and mistakes happen 3. Things got messy and mistakes happened :o 1. There is much doubt in my mind as to the Taliban's ability and potency on American soil, this "reason" of yours could very well be a lie, and if it is all the lives lost and money spent is in vain. 2. Nice way of sugar coating murder for the sake of? 3. Same. The bottom line is that there is no coverage of the war. No real analysis. You are blindly trusting. I am guilty of the same here but I'm trying to do something about it. 1. The Tabilban was harboring Al Qaeda and was pretty much a terrorist government. The invasion was even approved by NATO and the UN. 2. There's no sugar coating. People die and war sucks because of it. Unfortunately being pacifists only gets you invaded unless you have a big bad neighbor to protect you. The invasion was approved based on incorrect information. This "preemptive strike" nonsense really needs to stop. America will get invaded unless we attack? LOL, by who? We don't need anyone to protect us and we don't need to protect anybody else. You've been fooled into thinking that we need to attack them before we get attacked. All this has accomplished is the needless loss of thousands of soldiers and hundreds of thousands of civilian causalities. These civilians who lost family members because "people die and war sucks" will, in turn, channel their rage and anger towards Americans because of their presence in their country. Afghanistan wasnt invaded on incorrect information. That was Iraq ;d Nobody really had a problem at all with the US going into Afghanistan after 9/11. Iraq on the other hand...... I've got a problem with both *crosses arms* After the fact ya, basically Iraq seemed to have fucked everything Still doesnt change the fact that Afghanistan was completely legitimate and Iraq was the troll in the mix
Yeah, like I said, lets hope the Italian mafia don't blow up a building.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
