|
?
since when were we talking about all muslims
there are plenty who have ignored the more revolting parts of islam's teachings and so are perfectly functional, normal members of society, theres nothing wrong with them and i have nothing against them.
we were talking specifically about the terrorists. i do believe they deserve to die horrible deaths.
kinda ironic you talking about having no brain, seeing as you dont seem to have a single thought in your head, just keep saying 'kantian philosophy' whenever told to explain yourself.
|
You have to define who the Terrorists are.
In Afghanistan there are... resistance fighters and civilians. *You/We* kill both of them out of no real reason at all.
You say just *kill* all of the evil dudes, when *we/you* were the guys that gave them all the reasons to do the shit they do now.
|
you dont want a definition, you want a way of killing the evil guys without hitting the civilians theyre hiding amongst. when we find one we'll let you know.
fighting back may make it easier for them to recruit, but it is not the base reason.
|
So address the base reason.
|
read the thread?
their religion commands them to wage jihad until the rest of the world is under muslim control or eliminated
pretty sure that covers it.
|
Assuming that's correct, addressing the base reason would imply converting every muslim, or killing them all.
Which explains a lot of your previous posts.
|
On December 23 2008 17:58 L wrote:
Assuming that's correct, addressing the base reason would imply converting every muslim, or killing them all.
Which explains a lot of your previous posts.
is every muslim you know or know of devoted to the destruction of the western world?
is every christian you know as crazy as the fundamentalists?
i would prefer if they would all give up religion simply because i believe religion is bad in general, but for the purposes we're discussing here they only need to ignore the militant parts of their religion, which many people already do.
|
So then the solution to the base reason is dissuading people from taking up the militant side of their religion, which you're suggesting bombing despite collateral damage for?
Tell me, what do you think makes someone go radical?
|
On December 23 2008 17:28 IdrA wrote:
you dont want a definition, you want a way of killing the evil guys without hitting the civilians theyre hiding amongst
The civilians are the taliban. Just some are male and some have weapons. And they aren't hiding among woman and children. It's their families.
And if they aren't with the Taliban they get killed and NATO won't do anything for them while the US destroy their only income whatever they choose to do.
You can't wage a war on terrorists, period. It goes against the definition of a terrorist. A terrorist is a criminal, not a soldier. You always have to use police and intelligence to combat terrorism.
Not to mention all Al Qaeda people left are across the border and the 9/11 terrorists almost all came from Saudi Arabia. Plus, the US never provided any evidence to the Taliban that Bin Laden was behind 9/11. So yeah the Taliban didn't hand OBL over to the US. Not so strange. No self-respecting country would do that. The US even protects war criminals where the evidence is freely available because they were on the CIA payroll and if they are put on trial they will talk and that will be bad for the US. People like Emmanuel "Toto" Constant.
And actually it turned out that at that point the US didn't even have that evidence.
So what is left to fight for in Afghanistan? Only to support one warlord over the other. Many important people in the Afghan government or Karzai clan are former Taliban people. They have the exact same morals as those they are fighting. They just don't have to be as cruel because they have NATO on their side. Not to mention that western public opinion demands that from them. And if you want to be cruel you always have an excuse. No need to behead someone with a sword. Just throw a bomb and call it collateral damage. It will get the same message across.
|
On December 23 2008 17:20 IdrA wrote:
?
there are plenty who have ignored the more revolting parts of islam's teachings and so are perfectly functional, normal members of society, theres nothing wrong with them and i have nothing against them.
Yet you're saying that these people who are perfectly functional, normal members of society who have nothing wrong with them can be considered perfectly acceptable casualties as long as the terrorists get killed along with them. You have nothing against them, but they're worm food if they get caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and the American army. You're ok with that.
---------------
If subscribing to a certain code of ethics means I must be stupid, then you must be absolutely brain dead seeing as you subscribe to no code of ethics.
|
theyre not going to change. they have no desire to change. unfortunately they do have the desire to either subjugate or destroy the rest of the world. i dont really see how that attitude can be allowed.
I'm pretty sure most Afghanis would settle for "US gets out" and sees "destroy NATO" as something that's (beyond being impossible) pretty far out.
If we get out, I don't believe they'll just hate us forever and ever. Take Vietnam - forty years ago we incinerated, poisoned, raped, and murdered their men, women, and children. One would think that they would be thirsting for bitter vengeance forever and ever. Today? To them we're just another country; we just happen to have been in line behind China, Japan, and France. China and Japan have civil relations, and China lost twenty million civilians (that's the entire population of most countries), not to mention being subjected to horrific medical experiments, mass rapes, genocide... look where they are today.
|
On December 23 2008 18:02 L wrote:
So then the solution to the base reason is dissuading people from taking up the militant side of their religion, which you're suggesting bombing despite collateral damage for?
Tell me, what do you think makes someone go radical?
On December 23 2008 17:44 IdrA wrote:
read the thread?
their religion commands them to wage jihad until the rest of the world is under muslim control or eliminated
pretty sure that covers it.
it is not a matter of 'going radical'
the religion is in itself radical and it is quite apparent they have no intention of giving up that part on their own. it gives the leaders the political and social power they want and it gives the fighters a purpose and a fictional reward.
|
i didnt read all the posts, but the topic name is very misleading, lol i would also like to shoot down planes bombing my country
|
Good for him. If I was him I would be bending over backwards to try and get the Russians to start supplying me with weapons and missle defence systems 
|
On December 23 2008 18:45 kazokun wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 17:20 IdrA wrote:
?
there are plenty who have ignored the more revolting parts of islam's teachings and so are perfectly functional, normal members of society, theres nothing wrong with them and i have nothing against them. Yet you're saying that these people who are perfectly functional, normal members of society who have nothing wrong with them can be considered perfectly acceptable casualties as long as the terrorists get killed along with them. You have nothing against them, but they're worm food if they get caught in the crossfire between the Taliban and the American army. You're ok with that. --------------- If subscribing to a certain code of ethics means I must be stupid, then you must be absolutely brain dead seeing as you subscribe to no code of ethics.
seriously
are you really stupid or just pretending to obscure the discussion?
i never said its good or even ok to kill the civilians. i have said, multiple times, that because of the beliefs and actions of the terrorists innocent people are going to die. if we believe that more deaths would be caused by allowing the terrorists to live than bombing their villages... how can you say its moral to not bomb them? wed be directly responsible for more people dying. (no people dying is not an option). you're the one with the the questionable ethics here, not me.
Yet you're saying that these people who are perfectly functional, normal members of society who have nothing wrong with them can be considered perfectly acceptable casualties as long as the terrorists get killed along with themdont get bombed. You have nothing against them, but they're worm food if they get caught in the crossfire between the Talibanterrorists and the American armytheir 70 virgins. You're ok with that.
wow you're espousing the murder of innocents for insufficient reasons. you must be an amoral asshole!
|
On December 23 2008 19:00 EmeraldSparks wrote:Show nested quote +theyre not going to change. they have no desire to change. unfortunately they do have the desire to either subjugate or destroy the rest of the world. i dont really see how that attitude can be allowed. I'm pretty sure most Afghanis would settle for "US gets out" and sees "destroy NATO" as something that's (beyond being impossible) pretty far out. If we get out, I don't believe they'll just hate us forever and ever. Take Vietnam - forty years ago we incinerated, poisoned, raped, and murdered their men, women, and children. One would think that they would be thirsting for bitter vengeance forever and ever. Today? To them we're just another country; we just happen to have been in line behind China, Japan, and France. China and Japan have civil relations, and China lost twenty million civilians (that's the entire population of most countries), not to mention being subjected to horrific medical experiments, mass rapes, genocide... look where they are today.
except as far as theyre concerned us not being under their control or worshipping their god is a grievous offence. china and japan did not make peace while the chinese were being mass murdered.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 23 2008 16:50 IdrA wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 11:35 Jibba wrote:Here's the problem, IdrA. First, it's easy to abuse anything "for the greater good" (see: PATRIOT Act.) Second, our intelligence is and will always be extremely imperfect. The cost/benefit analysis for "possibly killing terrorists in caves" fails, because we are terrible at predicting the cost (see: Afghanistan 1979/Somalia 2005) and the benefits are unpredictable as well. Our weapons are extremely accurate, but the decision making is not. The collateral damage we've caused is enormous and hasn't been effective and it may not even be particularly beneficial. The Taliban is essentially a greater threat to Afghanis than it is to the US. Like Saddam, their major intent is to avoid rocking the boat in international waters and retain control of the country. If they, or anyone for that matter, wanted to attack the United States, it could be done fairly easily. Two rednecks in Oklahoma did a pretty good job, and they chose a terrible target. Numerous independent studies have shown that we're not safer from any type of attack than we were 10 years ago. Remember, who trained the 9/11 pilots- a Florida flight school. If you want to make the case that we should do it for humanitarian reasons, then fine. Afghanis don't deserve the miserable treatment the Taliban will inflict, just like Iraqis didn't deserve what Saddam gave them. Still, this is an even more difficult battle to win than Iraq is, because we have too few troops (Soviets failed with 600,000), little internal support (this is an anarchic/tribal territory), ridiculously mountainous borders to control and there's nothing to cover the costs. Afghanistan has deserts, mountains, rocks and a few opium/rose fields- it's a shitty place to live. Not only will the conflict hemorrhage us financially, but it's also taken our attention away from the nearly failed state next door, that actually has nuclear weapons. It'd be great if we could punish the groups that attacked us, and one could even argue the government has an obligation to attempt to, but eventually you have to realize that it was a failed state that drained an empire, and it's currently a failed state that's draining an empire. BTW, here's a nice article on what's going on. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1219/p01s01-wosc.html you're right its impractical, but there is no good solution to the middle east at the moment. as you said right now their main goal is upsetting the international scene as little as possible so they can regain control of their country. as much as it sucks to agree with the bush administration, its better to fight them over there than over here. it seems to me it would be far more dangerous to withdraw and let them restabilize when at the moment theyre forced into hiding in villages and caves while we control the cities. i dont really know how effective the bombing raids are, it may be that they should be stopped for practical reasons. but i was arguing that they were justified on moral grounds, given that the terrorists were capable of greater potential harm than what we would be doing. How so? Al Qaeda could attack us right now if they wanted to. Keeping pressure on Afghanistan is doing nothing but weakening us in the future.
The grievances of other "dredges" doesn't really compare and they don't have the expertise. If Pinochet were alive and well today, it wouldn't be that shocking if a crafty leader turned Catholicism for the same cause.
|
United States22883 Posts
On December 23 2008 17:44 IdrA wrote:
read the thread?
their religion commands them to wage jihad until the rest of the world is under muslim control or eliminated
pretty sure that covers it.
This understanding of Islam and what goes on is elementary at best. There's over a billion muslims in the world and the number of terrorists is probably in the tens of thousands, all for different causes. Muslims of the same religion are killing eachother in Turkey and Somalia, and Islamic empires have been around for a thousand years without what we're seeing today.
http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0219_extremism_chowdhry.aspx?rssid=political campaigns
The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in effect legitimizing the extremists' understanding of the struggle, and second, it overstates the extent to which bin Laden's world view constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. These zealous religious views are not only alien to most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringe of the history of Islamic intellectual thought.
...
The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the United States. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the United States, and the West in general, as perpetuators of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American FINANCIAL and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though the United States should not accept at face value the legitimacy of al Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.
|
On December 23 2008 22:37 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 17:44 IdrA wrote:
read the thread?
their religion commands them to wage jihad until the rest of the world is under muslim control or eliminated
pretty sure that covers it. This understanding of Islam and what goes on is elementary at best. There's over a billion muslims in the world and the number of terrorists is probably in the tens of thousands, all for different causes. Muslims of the same religion are killing eachother in Turkey and Somalia, and Islamic empires have been around for a thousand years without what we're seeing today. http://www.brookings.edu/opinions/2008/0219_extremism_chowdhry.aspx?rssid=political campaignsShow nested quote +The "battle of ideas" approach is counterproductive for two important reasons: first, it encourages the concept of a Manichean struggle raging between two equally powerful and opposing world views, in effect legitimizing the extremists' understanding of the struggle, and second, it overstates the extent to which bin Laden's world view constitutes a viable theological alternative for the world's 1.3 billion Muslims. These zealous religious views are not only alien to most Muslims living today, but have also earned a place on the fringe of the history of Islamic intellectual thought.
...
The second step requires recognition that most grievances expressed by extremists such as bin Laden are secular and political in nature. They are angry about what they perceive as the exploitation of Muslims at the hands of the United States. They enjoy sympathy from Muslims who perceive the United States, and the West in general, as perpetuators of an unjust global political-economic system. As many have already noted, the attacks of 9/11 targeted American FINANCIAL and military complexes and not Western religious symbols. Though the United States should not accept at face value the legitimacy of al Qaeda grievances, we cannot effectively prevent terrorist acts from taking place without a better understanding of their ultimately profane roots.
i did not say all of islam was the militant teachings, however it cant be denied that it does encourage jihad and martrydom and everything else thats been discussed. maybe the leaders are just using it to further their own goals, in fact i think thats quite likely, but as i said before there are politically and socially downtrodden people all throughout the world. the ones without islam dont seem to be blowing themselves up quite as much.
|
On December 23 2008 22:28 Jibba wrote:Show nested quote +On December 23 2008 16:50 IdrA wrote:On December 23 2008 11:35 Jibba wrote:Here's the problem, IdrA. First, it's easy to abuse anything "for the greater good" (see: PATRIOT Act.) Second, our intelligence is and will always be extremely imperfect. The cost/benefit analysis for "possibly killing terrorists in caves" fails, because we are terrible at predicting the cost (see: Afghanistan 1979/Somalia 2005) and the benefits are unpredictable as well. Our weapons are extremely accurate, but the decision making is not. The collateral damage we've caused is enormous and hasn't been effective and it may not even be particularly beneficial. The Taliban is essentially a greater threat to Afghanis than it is to the US. Like Saddam, their major intent is to avoid rocking the boat in international waters and retain control of the country. If they, or anyone for that matter, wanted to attack the United States, it could be done fairly easily. Two rednecks in Oklahoma did a pretty good job, and they chose a terrible target. Numerous independent studies have shown that we're not safer from any type of attack than we were 10 years ago. Remember, who trained the 9/11 pilots- a Florida flight school. If you want to make the case that we should do it for humanitarian reasons, then fine. Afghanis don't deserve the miserable treatment the Taliban will inflict, just like Iraqis didn't deserve what Saddam gave them. Still, this is an even more difficult battle to win than Iraq is, because we have too few troops (Soviets failed with 600,000), little internal support (this is an anarchic/tribal territory), ridiculously mountainous borders to control and there's nothing to cover the costs. Afghanistan has deserts, mountains, rocks and a few opium/rose fields- it's a shitty place to live. Not only will the conflict hemorrhage us financially, but it's also taken our attention away from the nearly failed state next door, that actually has nuclear weapons. It'd be great if we could punish the groups that attacked us, and one could even argue the government has an obligation to attempt to, but eventually you have to realize that it was a failed state that drained an empire, and it's currently a failed state that's draining an empire. BTW, here's a nice article on what's going on. http://www.csmonitor.com/2008/1219/p01s01-wosc.html you're right its impractical, but there is no good solution to the middle east at the moment. as you said right now their main goal is upsetting the international scene as little as possible so they can regain control of their country. as much as it sucks to agree with the bush administration, its better to fight them over there than over here. it seems to me it would be far more dangerous to withdraw and let them restabilize when at the moment theyre forced into hiding in villages and caves while we control the cities. i dont really know how effective the bombing raids are, it may be that they should be stopped for practical reasons. but i was arguing that they were justified on moral grounds, given that the terrorists were capable of greater potential harm than what we would be doing. How so? Al Qaeda could attack us right now if they wanted to. Keeping pressure on Afghanistan is doing nothing but weakening us in the future. The grievances of other "dredges" doesn't really compare and they don't have the expertise. If Pinochet were alive and well today, it wouldn't be that shocking if a crafty leader turned Catholicism for the same cause.
?
you said yourself, right now their main goal is regaining control of and stabilizing the countries they operate from. drawing international anger with another 9/11 is not the way to go about doing that. its not in their best interests to attack the us while theyre fighting for afghanistan.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
