|
On December 22 2008 18:25 rushz0rz wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 18:21 BlackStar wrote:On December 22 2008 17:41 Myrmidon wrote:
Karzai's got to say whatever he's got to say to appease his own people and remain in power. lol You realize how stupid this is. You got it totally backwards Who put him in power? The US or the Afghan people? We already lost the war in Afghanistan. There's not much more to do then to pull out and watch the taliban take over again and put into pratice their cruel laws again. But we tolerate them in Saudi Arabia, so I don't see the issue with that. I don't see how we lost. Whenever I watch news about the war in Afghanistan it usually tells me that every firefight Taliban fighters are dying with little or no casualties on our side. We need to really implement a strong anti-terrorist police force in Afghanistan while rebuilding their country if there is any hope there. From what I hear, the Canadian army is really helping them rebuild villages, getting the people back in there safely, and keeping good relations with the villages. There is also a good documentary coming out about the war in Afghanistan and shows footage of firefights and all the like. Check out At War. Not sure when it is coming out, but it should be soon. It even shows a couple firefights with our famous Canadian Red Devils unit.
You can´t win this war by firefights only, you have to win the hearts of the afghan population, and I fear that war is already lost. The majority of the afghan people is young, they are easily tampered with, and naturally, people of their own or similar cultures have more influence on them. They live in a totally different environment and therefore can´t understand our reasoning or assess our motives. For them our troops are invaders, simple as that, for they are outsiders that tell Afghanis what to do with their country. Those bombing raids make them feel helpless, and helplessness leads to anger. That statement of their "president" tells this.
Maybe you should also read this recent article from a journalist who visited the taliban: http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/world/asia/article5288230.ece
Maybe afterwards you don´t feel so sure about victory anymore.
|
On December 22 2008 18:01 kazokun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:22 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:20 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. That is just plain wrong. how so Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud.
the actions are neither irrational or unethical. inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that causes harm, therefore it would be unethical to not act in a situation where not acting causes more damage than acting.
if there were terrorists setting the next 9/11 in motion hiding in the village, hell yes. are you saying you wouldnt? i take back what i said, i dont see how you can claim the moral high ground in this situation.
obviously 9/11 is an extreme example, but yes if i believed allowing the terrorists to survive would cost more lives than the collateral damage of the bombing, i would.
|
On December 22 2008 18:25 rushz0rz wrote:
I don't see how we lost. Whenever I watch news about the war in Afghanistan it usually tells me that every firefight Taliban fighters are dying with little or no casualties on our side.
That's how 'we' are losing. We have been winning basically every battle for years and years but in the overall war we are further away from success than ever.
The fact that you make this comment shows the ignorance of these types of wars. Did you think the Russians lost many battles?
We need to really implement a strong anti-terrorist police force in Afghanistan
terrorists? There's just primitive tribes on the one side and primitive tribes on the other side supported by the US/NATO and the Kabul government.
...while rebuilding their country if there is any hope there.
Rebuilding what? There was never anything in most of these parts that need to be 'rebuild'. These people have lived the same way for thousands of years with little change. Just now they have some old pickup trucks instead of horses and cows and some AKs instead of spears.
From what I hear, the Canadian army is really helping them rebuild villages, getting the people back in there safely, and keeping good relations with the villages.
I'm sure they are trying hard. But it's all irrelevant. I know the Dutch are now basically lasting out the time they have left.
Every NATO partner has their own strategy. Often totally opposite. And if they couldn't all put into practice the strategies they favour their wouldn't be support to be there in the first place.
I know the Canadians were pissed off that the Dutch didn't want to risk and casualties any basically didn't do their 'job' as they saw it. I know the Dutch are pissed off just as much at the US bombing and blowing up stuffas Karzai is. And I know the people in the region that sympathise with the Taliban think the Dutch are just as bad in their excessive violence as the US.
In the mean time the 'Taliban' are just normal Afghan people. Just the more primitive type that's on the other side. Beating the Taliban basically means committing genocide at this point. And you have to do it across the border as well.
Not to mention the huge opium production issues and the contradicting strategies and views among the NATO allies.
Only way these wars are working is give people that want to fight jihad a place to go to and kill NATO soldiers. And then we NATO can kill them and claim we do stuff about 'terrorist' jihadists. The 'rather fight them abroad than in the US'-line of thought.
I guess this way both get the fight they want but at the cost of the people there.
|
Can't send in troops...
It's a known fact that developed countries drop bombs, not fight wars.
Of course... you know what I mean. Soldiers have lost their lives to gun fights but modern warfare is more like bomb droppings than gun fights.
|
On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you?
Israel doesn't have extremists hiding in kindergartens and hospitals, shooting rockets on civilians from there.
The Palestinians do. Extremely hypothetically if there were terrorists around here and my house was used as a hiding place for terrorists I would face the danger of being hurt as well.
|
|
|
That's a pretty outrageous statement right there. I don't see this whole Afghanistan escapade ending any time soon and my brother is due to ship there in Nov 2009.
|
On December 22 2008 20:54 Locke. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Israel doesn't have extremists hiding in kindergartens and hospitals, shooting rockets on civilians from there. The Palestinians do. Extremely hypothetically if there were terrorists around here and my house was used as a hiding place for terrorists I would face the danger of being hurt as well.
http://www.lindasog.com/public/terrorvictims.htm
I think this should be reason enough to go nuke yourself. K thx.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 22 2008 17:20 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 15:51 rushz0rz wrote:On December 22 2008 15:16 EmeraldSparks wrote:
Using air strikes to fight insurgents in occupied areas is retarded. How else do you expect them to fight a bunch of guerillas? Send in troops and have them die? I think we should just pull out of Afghanistan at this point. The Taliban was actually being defeated and had no operating HQ until the USA invaded Iraq and made the insurgency grow. pull out and let the taliban regain complete control?
It's already a failed state, it's always been a failed state and it's not a winnable situation. Iraq has the potential to turn out 1000000000x better than Afghanistan does.
It's a shitdump of a country with a massive porous border which is simply impossible to control. We're relying on a prop government in Pakistan to do it, which will probably collapse sometime soon (that'll be a fun race to the nukes) and the ISI is still in bed with the Taliban.
All we've done is occupy big cities, exactly like the Soviets did, and we've completely failed to secure the country side which is where all the problems are occurring and where resupplying has to come through. Just recently, two supply missions got ambushed and there's little we can do about it. If there is a chance to save it, it'll be with bottom-up efforts which means the bombing campaign is counter productive.
EDIT: There's obviously a major humanitarian problem if you pull out but wars usually don't get fought over that. For realism and the rest of the IR stuff, it's pretty senseless, and our troop strength would be more valuable elsewhere or simply resting until Pakistan or Somalia really get out of hand. Our intelligence in the country has been shored up a great deal and we've still got hunter killer teams deployed to take out leaders and such. The 30,000 troops aren't accomplishing much.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 22 2008 19:14 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 18:01 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:22 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:20 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. That is just plain wrong. how so Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud. the actions are neither irrational or unethical. inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that causes harm, therefore it would be unethical to not act in a situation where not acting causes more damage than acting. if there were terrorists setting the next 9/11 in motion hiding in the village, hell yes. are you saying you wouldnt? i take back what i said, i dont see how you can claim the moral high ground in this situation. obviously 9/11 is an extreme example, but yes if i believed allowing the terrorists to survive would cost more lives than the collateral damage of the bombing, i would. This utilitarian calculation is a load of garbage, for every way that utilitarianism always is when it comes to war.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 22 2008 20:54 Locke. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Israel doesn't have extremists hiding in kindergartens and hospitals, shooting rockets on civilians from there. The Palestinians do. Extremely hypothetically if there were terrorists around here and my house was used as a hiding place for terrorists I would face the danger of being hurt as well.
If you were one of the fucking idiots moving to settlements there might be. Honestly, how hard is it to stop making new settlements?
|
see them planes are so effin' leet that you need fairy magic to shoot 'em down.
|
On December 22 2008 19:14 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 18:01 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:22 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:20 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. That is just plain wrong. how so Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud. the actions are neither irrational or unethical. inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that causes harm, therefore it would be unethical to not act in a situation where not acting causes more damage than acting. if there were terrorists setting the next 9/11 in motion hiding in the village, hell yes. are you saying you wouldnt? i take back what i said, i dont see how you can claim the moral high ground in this situation. obviously 9/11 is an extreme example, but yes if i believed allowing the terrorists to survive would cost more lives than the collateral damage of the bombing, i would.
So you're saying I'm immoral for not supporting the death of innocents? How can you support actions that fuel the motives of the terrorists more? Come dusk, the Afghans know that the bombs dropped on their village were American. To whom are they to put the blame? How will you be able to tell them that their deaths were for their own benefit? These people see the United States as a threat, not an ally. Why are we allowed to impose on their lives when they cannot do the same to us?
For every village that the government bombs there is going to be at least one child who looks at the burning pile of rubble and body parts, forever compelled to go to any lengths to destroy the entity who destroyed his or her home.
Each bomb plants the seeds for dissent. The bigger the bomb, the more helpless they will feel and the more drastic measures they will take to retaliate.
Why support violence when it only breeds more violence? Even from a Utilitarian point of view, this course of action seems rash and improvised. The true Utilitarian would not advocate these useless forms of violence, so it is assumed that those who support the American style of diplomacy are themselves rash.
Then we must assume that the American course of action was not born out of calculated necessity but out of the anger and frustration stemming from the tragic loss of life on September 11th. It is out of this blind rage that nearly a decade of disastrous foreign policy was enacted. We have treaded onto an immense minefield that we now don't see ourselves getting safetly out of. We have done this to ourselves because we could not think beyond the cold hard statistics of "getting even". We have traded our morality for the insanity of attrition. "All is well as long as they're dead and we're not," one would say. "Kill them all."
It's wrong, unjustifiable, and heinous.
|
On December 22 2008 23:18 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 20:54 Locke. wrote:On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Israel doesn't have extremists hiding in kindergartens and hospitals, shooting rockets on civilians from there. The Palestinians do. Extremely hypothetically if there were terrorists around here and my house was used as a hiding place for terrorists I would face the danger of being hurt as well. If you were one of the fucking idiots moving to settlements there might be. Honestly, how hard is it to stop making new settlements?
Why do you care so much if they are building houses and living there? How can you honestly believe that the Arab violence will stop just because some Jews won't build their houses.
Why should we stop building "settlments" in the land of our ancestors? Judea and Samaria are as much Israel as Tel Aviv is. Jerusalem (Israel's capitol) is IN Judea and a part of it was taken back in the 1967, it doesn't give Jordan any claim on it.
Do you know who we "occupied" those territories from? It wasn't the Palestinian people it was Jordan, Syria and Egypt. The "Palestinian" people didn't fight them for independence they fought us. Their "liberation front" was formed 4 years before 1967 in order to free Tel Aviv, Haifa and Jerusalem (equivalent of New York, Los Angeles and Washington), meaning the destruction of Israel.
BTW Hebron is considered a "settlment". The jewish population in there had land and houses legally bought going back to the 1600s (not to mention earlier). They where violently thrown away in the brutal 1929 massacre. Many current Arab houses in Hebron belonged to victims of that massacre. Shouldn't they return their occupied territory?
|
On December 22 2008 22:19 dinmsab wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 20:54 Locke. wrote:On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Israel doesn't have extremists hiding in kindergartens and hospitals, shooting rockets on civilians from there. The Palestinians do. Extremely hypothetically if there were terrorists around here and my house was used as a hiding place for terrorists I would face the danger of being hurt as well. http://www.lindasog.com/public/terrorvictims.htmI think this should be reason enough to go nuke yourself. K thx.
Amazing list. Thank you.
I see no reason to nuke myself.. But yea Israel should be way more harsher against Arab terrorism. Unfortunately our government is letting the Hamas and Hizbollah gather a huge amount of weapons and the future of Israel is in danger.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 23 2008 01:49 Locke. wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 23:18 Jibba wrote:On December 22 2008 20:54 Locke. wrote:On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Israel doesn't have extremists hiding in kindergartens and hospitals, shooting rockets on civilians from there. The Palestinians do. Extremely hypothetically if there were terrorists around here and my house was used as a hiding place for terrorists I would face the danger of being hurt as well. If you were one of the fucking idiots moving to settlements there might be. Honestly, how hard is it to stop making new settlements? Why should we stop building "settlments" in the land of our ancestors? Judea and Samaria are as much Israel as Tel Aviv is. Jerusalem (Israel's capitol) is IN Judea and a part of it was taken back in the 1967, it doesn't give Jordan any claim on it. This is just fucking absurd. Because there's a few supposed scraps of animal skin from a contract Abraham signed, Israelis have a right to the land? Absolute bullshit.
There was no inherent right to the land. They could've just as well taken a chunk out of South America and almost did. Ben Gurion and Co. admitted they were simply taking land from another group of people and he said they were essentially terrorists at the time (which the British wholly believe); that the Palestinian anger was justified. The only right Israel has tot he land is that it's already there and it's impossible to move it.
All the crap you're talking about is the same stuff repeated for years from From Time Immemorial, basically a piece of academic fraud. I suggest you start reading some Finkelstein for a better take on the history.
|
On December 22 2008 23:51 kazokun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 22 2008 19:14 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 18:01 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:53 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:48 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:22 IdrA wrote:On December 22 2008 17:20 kazokun wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. That is just plain wrong. how so Look, there's two pov's that you can take. There's the utilitarian pov, and the argument for that basically boils down to the US having to bomb Afghanistan because killing terrorists (even with some civilian casualties resulting from it) means less deaths in the future. This meets the utilitarian view of the least harm for the least amount of people. Then, there's the Kantian pov, and the argument for that is that the actions, not the consequences that result from those actions, are what is most important. In the mind of a deontologist/kantian-ethicist it does not matter that you are potentially saving lives by killing terrorists (and harming civies in the process), what matters is that you are nixing your morality and have decided to kill people. Once again, the end result is not important to a deontologist, only the means by which it is reached. I hold the second point of view, of the deontologist. I believe it is just plain wrong to kill, and that it must never be done because doing so means you are violating your own moral code, and that is much worse than not doing anything. well thats pretty stupid the end results are what actually affect the real world. if your inaction causes more deaths than your action would it doesnt matter if you have the moral high ground, you've done a disservice to the world. I do not see how using irrational (unethical) actions to quell irrational actions is doing a service to the world. But yeah, judging by the way you responded, I am going to guess you're a full-on utilitarian? I just wanna ask, to what morally vacant ends are you willing to see America reach to assure a victory in Afghanistan? Would you be willing to bomb a village, with ample warning beforehand of course, just to kill some terrorists? Man, it's on your head, not mine, bud. the actions are neither irrational or unethical. inaction that causes harm is just as bad as action that causes harm, therefore it would be unethical to not act in a situation where not acting causes more damage than acting. if there were terrorists setting the next 9/11 in motion hiding in the village, hell yes. are you saying you wouldnt? i take back what i said, i dont see how you can claim the moral high ground in this situation. obviously 9/11 is an extreme example, but yes if i believed allowing the terrorists to survive would cost more lives than the collateral damage of the bombing, i would. So you're saying I'm immoral for not supporting the death of innocents? How can you support actions that fuel the motives of the terrorists more? Come dusk, the Afghans know that the bombs dropped on their village were American. To whom are they to put the blame? How will you be able to tell them that their deaths were for their own benefit? These people see the United States as a threat, not an ally. Why are we allowed to impose on their lives when they cannot do the same to us? For every village that the government bombs there is going to be at least one child who looks at the burning pile of rubble and body parts, forever compelled to go to any lengths to destroy the entity who destroyed his or her home. Each bomb plants the seeds for dissent. The bigger the bomb, the more helpless they will feel and the more drastic measures they will take to retaliate. Why support violence when it only breeds more violence? Even from a Utilitarian point of view, this course of action seems rash and improvised. The true Utilitarian would not advocate these useless forms of violence, so it is assumed that those who support the American style of diplomacy are themselves rash. Then we must assume that the American course of action was not born out of calculated necessity but out of the anger and frustration stemming from the tragic loss of life on September 11th. It is out of this blind rage that nearly a decade of disastrous foreign policy was enacted. We have treaded onto an immense minefield that we now don't see ourselves getting safetly out of. We have done this to ourselves because we could not think beyond the cold hard statistics of "getting even". We have traded our morality for the insanity of attrition. "All is well as long as they're dead and we're not," one would say. "Kill them all." It's wrong, unjustifiable, and heinous.
the only will we are imposing on them is that they are not allowed to impose their will on us, which seems perfectly fine to me. we arent telling them how to live their lives or who to pray to, just that they cant blow themselves up in our buildings if we make a comic about allah.
bombing villages does indeed create potential terrorists, as does allowing those children to grow up in the islamic terrorist environment. you seem to miss the point that there is no good solution when dealing with an enemy like this. we cant simply pack up and go home and expect them to ignore us. it is a war of cultures that cannot coexist as they stand, we either beat them into submission and force them to become acceptable members of the world, or we live under the constant threat of another bin laden. i personally dont think thats acceptable, and i dont see them voluntarily changing any time soon.
|
Well the problem is that this military pressure isn't stopping a future bin Laden. Part of it is just that search-and-destroy missions or air strikes mostly alienate the population without doing anything useful. Secondly, most halfway competent modern terrorist organizations operate in a cell structure, where realistically it means jack squat if you kill bin Laden or Zawahiri or any number of al-Qaeda number twos, since it's not a standard top-down control structure. In other words, what we're doing in Afghanistan is not keeping us safe from a pragmatist level, and ideologically just makes it even easier for the world to hate us.
|
On December 23 2008 02:54 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 01:49 Locke. wrote:On December 22 2008 23:18 Jibba wrote:On December 22 2008 20:54 Locke. wrote:On December 22 2008 18:03 BluzMan wrote:On December 22 2008 17:04 Locke. wrote:
The civilians who will die are the moral responsibility of the terrorists, not you. It must be clear that western armies will kill terrorists wherever they are. Only that way they will be defeated and stop using civilians as shelter.
The blood of the soldiers you send to die and the life of their families is your moral responsibility, they must only be sent to die when there is no other way. Oh cool, I heard some Palestinian extrimists hide near your house, may I kill you? Israel doesn't have extremists hiding in kindergartens and hospitals, shooting rockets on civilians from there. The Palestinians do. Extremely hypothetically if there were terrorists around here and my house was used as a hiding place for terrorists I would face the danger of being hurt as well. If you were one of the fucking idiots moving to settlements there might be. Honestly, how hard is it to stop making new settlements? Why should we stop building "settlments" in the land of our ancestors? Judea and Samaria are as much Israel as Tel Aviv is. Jerusalem (Israel's capitol) is IN Judea and a part of it was taken back in the 1967, it doesn't give Jordan any claim on it. This is just fucking absurd. Because there's a few supposed scraps of animal skin from a contract Abraham signed, Israelis have a right to the land? Absolute bullshit. There was no inherent right to the land. They could've just as well taken a chunk out of South America and almost did. Ben Gurion and Co. admitted they were simply taking land from another group of people and he said they were essentially terrorists at the time (which the British wholly believe); that the Palestinian anger was justified. The only right Israel has tot he land is that it's already there and it's impossible to move it. All the crap you're talking about is the same stuff repeated for years from From Time Immemorial, basically a piece of academic fraud. I suggest you start reading some Finkelstein for a better take on the history.
You got it plain wrong. This is our country first of all because it is the land of the Jews, the fact that we're here and it's hard to move us comes after.
First of all before the Jews started coming back to Israel the land was basically empty, read Mark Twain's book on his visit to Israel. Second through the years, and we're talking around 2000 years there wasn't a single period of time where the few local inhabitants defined themselves as Palestinians or wanted to have a country for themselves.
As for the occupation in 67. Who did we occupy it from? Egypt, Syria, Jordan - not the "Palestinians".The "Palestinians" never asked Egypt, Syria or Jordan for independence, why is that?
"On May 23, 2008, Finkelstein was denied entry to Israel because ..."he had contact with elements 'hostile' to Israel"... He was banned from entering Israel for 10 years.[6]" - academic objectivity at its best
|
This is not taking a good direccion :S .
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
