Yep, sometimes rescues go bad. Welcome to, I dunno, reality. If you want a fantastic example of hostage rescue gone wild, though, check out the Beslen School Hostage Crisis. The next time the 'rescued' death toll exceeds 300 from an American rescue, you can get back to me. ;)
Ooh yeah, that stuff was nasty, I remember that one.
Bad things happen in war.
But I am not going to second guess troops involved in operations.
Yeah, it's a shame...
But I blame nobody but the terrorist scum that kidnapped her. Had they not done that, the US would not have had to rescue her... and kill her in the process.
But I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that some euro-weenie, progressive meathead is going to chime in and say how US troops are murderers, blah, blah, blah...
*shrug*
Bad things happen in war.
But I am not going to second guess troops involved in operations.
Yeah, it's a shame...
But I blame nobody but the terrorist scum that kidnapped her. Had they not done that, the US would not have had to rescue her... and kill her in the process.
But I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that some euro-weenie, progressive meathead is going to chime in and say how US troops are murderers, blah, blah, blah...
I ask you one thing: who in their right mind throws a grenade in a hostage situation?
I don't know the details, but that's nearly aiming for killing the hostage.
*shrug*
Bad things happen in war.
But I am not going to second guess troops involved in operations.
Yeah, it's a shame...
But I blame nobody but the terrorist scum that kidnapped her. Had they not done that, the US would not have had to rescue her... and kill her in the process.
But I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that some euro-weenie, progressive meathead is going to chime in and say how US troops are murderers, blah, blah, blah...
I ask you one thing: who in their right mind throws a grenade in a hostage situation?
I don't know the details, but that's nearly aiming for killing the hostage.
We don't know what happened.
We don't know why the grenade was thrown.
We don't know if the grenade was thrown somewhere else and was kicked/bounced/whatever.
And, as I said before, I WILL NOT second guess troops involved in active operations.
And, as I said before, I WILL NOT second guess troops involved in active operations.
I will, when people die needlessly. That's the only way to improve.
You were in the army, you know how grenades work. Of all people you should know it's asking for civilian kills. Grenades can be kicked, can bounce or whatever - so why not find something less risky?
We don't know why the grenade was thrown.
We don't know if the grenade was thrown somewhere else and was kicked/bounced/whatever.
And, as I said before, I WILL NOT second guess troops involved in active operations.
Bad things happen in war.
We don't know what happened.
We don't know why the grenade was thrown.
We don't know if the grenade was thrown somewhere else and was kicked/bounced/whatever.
And, as I said before, I WILL NOT second guess troops involved in active operations.
I will, when people die needlessly. That's the only way to improve.
You were in the army, you know how grenades work. Of all people you should know it's asking for civilian kills. As you said, grenades can be kicked, can bounce or whatever - so why not find something less risky?
And to make it a bit less silly, what do you think of the Beslan school situation, where we know what happened? What if we pretend it happened in Chicago and the operation was carried out by American troops?
Just tell us what you want.
I am not going to ceaslessly argue with you about this.
And I will wait to pass judgement once more is known.
What do you want to happen ADH?
Just tell us what you want.
I am not going to ceaslessly argue with you about this.
And I will wait to pass judgement once more is known.
I wanted to see what do you think about this, especially with our recent discussions of how great American troops are.
I don't like ceaselessly arguing as well, that's why, when I'm not joking, I add something to discussion with each of my posts.
Sure, maybe I'll change my opinion when more information is revealed (though I doubt it will), but for now it looks for me like the soldier was acting recklessly or without imagination, which led to a civilian kill.
In my opinion military operations should be first and foremost efficient - civilian kills are unacceptable, despite being unavoidable.
Oh, and next reply in a couple hours - I need to get up early tomorrow.
What do you want to happen ADH?
Just tell us what you want.
I am not going to ceaslessly argue with you about this.
And I will wait to pass judgement once more is known.
I wanted to see what do you think about this, especially with our recent discussions of how great American troops are.
I don't like ceaselessly arguing as well, that's why, when I'm not joking, I add something to discussion with each of my posts.
Sure, maybe I'll change my opinion when more information is revealed (though I doubt it will), but for now it looks for me like the soldier was acting recklessly or without imagination, which led to a civilian kill.
In my opinion military operations should be first and foremost efficient - civilian kills are unacceptable, despite being unavoidable.
Oh, and next reply in a couple hours - I need to get up early tomorrow.
Bad things can happen, and they do. What you're doing is pinpointing an accident over whatever views you have concerning our two wars.
Ignoring the fact that something went SERIOUSLY WRONG here for the sake of "not second guessing a soldier" won't solve anything, and will leave everyone worse off. Being a soldier is a ridiculously hard job, but it's a job none the less. When I make a mistake at the pharmacy I work at, the pharmacist will tell me what occured, and tell me how to avoid it in the future, and even though I feel bad for making a mistake I am thankful that I was called out on it and corrected. It helps me avoid a potentially fatal accident in the future, and that logic should also be applied to soldiers.
NOTE: Canadian.
But I blame nobody but the terrorist scum that kidnapped her. Had they not done that, the US would not have had to rescue her... and kill her in the process.
But I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that some euro-weenie, progressive meathead is going to chime in and say how US troops are murderers, blah, blah, blah...
But those terrorist scum were trained by CIA. Talibans in Afghanistan are the creation of the States.
So if the States had not trained the Talibans in the first place, that girl might not have died.
And I am not from Europe.
You simply cannot be taken seriously.
And anyone who does is as foolish as you are.
You deny that the CIA trained the Talibans? Who is foolish here?
You are.
The CIA may have helped the Afghans against the Russians, but you cannot claim that current Taliban members are trained by the CIA.
"It's better for one to keep ones mouth shut and appear a fool than for one to opens ones mouth and leave no doubt."
Or SCUDs missiles.
SCUDS are a Russian design.
And America didn't make it's enemies.
America did not force/command/tell those terrorist scum of the earth to do what they are doing.
On a side note...
I have never put anybody on ignore/block, but I am re-thinking my decision... I can only tolerate a small amount of foolishness...
But I blame nobody but the terrorist scum that kidnapped her. Had they not done that, the US would not have had to rescue her... and kill her in the process.
But I know, beyond the shadow of a doubt, that some euro-weenie, progressive meathead is going to chime in and say how US troops are murderers, blah, blah, blah...
But those terrorist scum were trained by CIA. Talibans in Afghanistan are the creation of the States.
So if the States had not trained the Talibans in the first place, that girl might not have died.
And I am not from Europe.
The situation in Afghanistan is significantly more complicated then either of these claims. Ignoring all of the many, many nuances that have led to the current state of the region is not a recipe for charting any form of long-term solution.
And America didn't make it's enemies.
That's not actually accurate. The proxy wars we fought against the soveit union have created trouble spots for us. In a sense, we are fortunate that only one of those trouble spots has spread to infect other parts of the world. By failing to consider the long-term ramifications of our proxy wars, and the abandonment of our allies in those wars (particularly the afghan rebels), we have clearly played a role of at least partial responsibility.
Of course, there's more than enough blame to go around. And the lion's share of it has shifted, over the last 3 decades, from us to the nations we fought proxy wars in.
Goldomark, you're a native English speaker, aren't you?
No. Québecois. French Canadian in other words.
Hm. You make a lot of the same mistakes that native English speakers make.
I learned English while watching TV. Take this comment the way you want it.
I suppose that's fair enough. I learned quite a bit of my japanese vocabulary from music, manga, and anime.
If ADHadh's primary reason for examining it is to make improvements then I would strongly suggest that ADHadh should probably spend his efforts elsewhere as people infinitely more capable and better equipped for the task have been working on it since before he ever heard about it in all likelihood. If he actually has some other reason for wanting to examine the incident then he should speak his piece clearly and stop hiding behind the guise of a concerned analyst working towards improving the damn future.
I thought you spent time in Japan. Ever went there?
I believe you are thinking about another poster (whose name I can't recall off the top of my head).
I have actually not been to Japan yet. My economic situation makes that rather impossible for the time being.
I thought you spent time in Japan. Ever went there?
I believe you are thinking about another poster (whose name I can't recall off the top of my head).
Violence Jack
I thought you spent time in Japan. Ever went there?
I believe you are thinking about another poster (whose name I can't recall off the top of my head).
Violence Jack
That's the one I was thinking of (I had to search the name to see the avatar for confirmation).
The only problem here is that the military has the habbit of covering up their own mess.
To investigate the army, you would need some independant investigator.
Bullshit. The only reason anyone knows about it at all is because the Military admitted the mistake. And frankly, noone needed to know anyways, aside from the womans family and military personel. Even if the military had burried this thing so damn deep noone ever found out about it outside of the pentagon, that would still clearly demonstrate that they find it to be a problem and would still be motivated to fix it if at all feasiable if for no other reason than to have to avoid covering it up in the future.
But of course, every Tom Dick and Harry the world over needs to have their damn say to feel important and such. Why don't we start making archetectural plans by world wide popularity vote? Lets have a poll to deside when each kind of crop should be planted! Surely the experts cannot make these kinds of decisions better than the majority consensus of the cries of the ignorant masses of the world!
"Aha! They told us something! Must mean they couldn't cover it up! See how they cover everything up?!
You act like your making a point when all your doing is demonstrating your own bias on a topic that is not ever germaine to the situation.
Congratulations, the public now knows, it is common knowledge! Horray! Now it becomes a political problem! So now a solution gets to be decided upon not what is best in the reasoned opinion of the experts but rather upon what is best for publicity! Woot! Attempt to please the unpleaseable masses at the likely exspense of competency and efficency! Win for the common man!
If you are really concerned about fixing and improving military action maybe you should start here and here.
You said that experts should look at the scene, implying that only they could analyse the scene. But if you truly believed that, you most also awknowledge that they must be independant, if not, even if they are experts, the results aren't worth more then my opinion.
...
So, because I am in the employ of the person I work for, any work I do for them is worthless because I am not independent. Your opinion on if a batch of product we produced is in line with our standards and, if not, what can be done to fix it is as valid as mine despite the fact that you have (I'm assuming) no laboratory training, experience with the chemicals and products in questions, knowledge of our production system, or access to the data or product to be analysed. Being not associated with my company out weighs your utter ignorance of the situation?
This one is for you.
Bad things can happen, and they do. What you're doing is pinpointing an accident over whatever views you have concerning our two wars.
Quote me mentioning those wars. I dare you.
ADHadh examining the facts will do nothing. I have no reason to believe that ADHadh is in any way qualified to speak on the matter of what happened from any position of authority. The people who have the knowledge (Military Command) of the subject matter, the people who have the best data about the incident (Military Command), the people who have the time and responsibility to establish procedures for the future (Military Command) and the people with the authority to see them carried out (Military Command) are already examining it.
I know I'm one of the least qualified people to examine thios and draw the right conclusions on Earth. It was the remark that soldiers should never be questioned that ticked me off.
ADHadh,
If you are really concerned about fixing and improving military action maybe you should start here and here.
Those, the Beslan school incident, the hostage killing I linked to and many, many other things are the reasons for my view of the military. Irresponsible people shouldn't be given guns or explosives.
why so much hate against armies? everyone makes mistakes at their job. a florist might break a vase. a pet shop owner might not balance the pH and a goldfish dies. soldiers deal with lives. you get what i'm saying.
I'm not against armies, I'm against needless killing, i.e. armies should be efficient, and by efficient I mean reaching goals with the least casualties possible. Call it "realistic pacifism".
fair enough...what if the goal is to kill people?
Then you make sure you lose as few men doing it as possible. Likely by bombing the site.
Such bad faith. If they really wanted independant experts they wouldn't send the same army who commited the fault to investigate it.
And how do we know we can rely on those independent 'expert' investigators to find the truth? They're people, after all, and therefore susceptible to the same corrupting influences that the military is. Maybe, then, we should find another group of independent 'experts' to investigate that group of investigators we sent to investigate the event. Hmm, they could be corrupted, too. Maybe we should send another group of ...
I'm not against armies, I'm against needless killing, i.e. armies should be efficient, and by efficient I mean reaching goals with the least casualties possible. Call it "realistic pacifism".
You keep emphasizing "needless" killings. Its not like the hostage was saved, then they just shot her for the love of murder. It was an attempted rescue with hostile forces; everyone should know there's a chance of people dying. Even if the odd of an innocent dying was 1% (the real odds were probably much higher), someone is going to die someday. Its the risks which happen when you try to rescue a hostage. If someone dies, shouldn't you be blaming the people who put the hostage in risk, not the people who tried to save them from it?
You keep emphasizing "needless" killings. Its not like the hostage was saved, then they just shot her for the love of murder. It was an attempted rescue with hostile forces; everyone should know there's a chance of people dying. Even if the odd of an innocent dying was 1% (the real odds were probably much higher), someone is going to die someday. Its the risks which happen when you try to rescue a hostage. If someone dies, shouldn't you be blaming the people who put the hostage in risk, not the people who tried to save them from it?
I'm one of those people who believe human life should not be taken lightly, hence my emphasis.
I admit I was a bit too quick to pass judgment before; playing the blame game will not resurrect anyone.
I'd still like to know why did the soldier throw a grenade there, it just seems odd to a non-military person like me with so little information.
I'm not against armies, I'm against needless killing, i.e. armies should be efficient, and by efficient I mean reaching goals with the least casualties possible. Call it "realistic pacifism".
You keep emphasizing "needless" killings. Its not like the hostage was saved, then they just shot her for the love of murder. It was an attempted rescue with hostile forces; everyone should know there's a chance of people dying. Even if the odd of an innocent dying was 1% (the real odds were probably much higher), someone is going to die someday. Its the risks which happen when you try to rescue a hostage. If someone dies, shouldn't you be blaming the people who put the hostage in risk, not the people who tried to save them from it?
Always blame yourself first, everyone you are in command off second, and outside forces last and only if it's the only thing left to blame. You can never improve without admitting you could've done better.
Nobody thinks you're to blame if you see a guy shouting at a woman and you ignore it and later find out the guy killed the girl. Doesn't mean you shouldn't think about if there was anything you could've done better.
Even if you arrive at the (fair) conclusion that you couldn't have known and you shouldn't change anything and **** happens, it's still good to think about things that went wrong. Because maybe you'll reach the conclusion that there was something you could've done better, and you'll be able to utilise that knowledge the next time
Similarly here. Maybe this really was the best way to go about it, maybe the death of the hostage could not have been prevented... the only way to know is to see if there's anything in the situation you can be blamed for, and to find out how you can improve yourself for the next case.
Those, the Beslan school incident, the hostage killing I linked to and many, many other things are the reasons for my view of the military. Irresponsible people shouldn't be given guns or explosives.
Interesting...
What would qualify someone as irresponsible?
What would qualify someone else as responsible enough?
But I blame nobody but the terrorist scum that kidnapped her. Had they not done that, the US would not have had to rescue her... and kill her in the process.
What a load of buck-passing mitigatory bull
. If the operation had gone smoothly would you credit the terrorists with the win for having instigated the situation as well? You can't have it both ways. Accepting responsibility for one's actions and mistakes is a sign of maturity. When one screws up the mature response is to admit one screwed up and to make sure one takes all reasonable actions to try to ensure a similar screwup never occurs again, it is not to say "nuh uh, he made me do it!"
When it comes to issues of life and death, Bart Simpson is not a good role model.
Fair enough, it's indeed small enough to ignore if we agree on the rest.
Yup.
But I blame nobody but the terrorist scum that kidnapped her. Had they not done that, the US would not have had to rescue her... and kill her in the process.
What a load of buck-passing mitigatory bull
Accepting responsibility for one's actions and mistakes is a sign of maturity. When one screws up the mature response is to admit one screwed up and to make sure one takes all reasonable actions to try to ensure a similar screwup never occurs again, it is not to say "nuh uh, he made me do it!"
When it comes to issues of life and death, Bart Simpson is not a good role model.
but if the terrorists hadn't of taken her she wouldn't have died
you're both rightThe problem is that even if the operation went smoothly, there would probably be a significant chance of an innocent person dying. Even if you are optimistic and say its a 10% chance of someone dying if "everything goes right" in the operation, someone is going to die eventually.
So just because someone died caused by a rescuer's equipment, it doesn't mean a rescuer was to blame for it. Its not even like we know what exactly happened, so its possible that there was no screw up and the rescuer(s) made correct decisions. We can't know based on what is public.
Now kindly go screw yourself Pluisjen.
Interesting...
What would qualify someone as irresponsible?
What would qualify someone else as responsible enough?
Well, blowing stuff up "for lulz" in the warzone or using particularly dangerous and unpredictable weaponry in hostage situations is highly irresponsible.
Shooting civilians is never clear; after all, it's the warzone and in the Middle-East it's particularly difficult to discern civilian from enemy. But avoiding responsibility for such fatal mistakes is, well, irresponsible as well.
but if the terrorists hadn't of taken her she wouldn't have died
Immaterial. One can play the causality blame-game all the way back to when the first organism crawled out of the primordial muck and it changes nothing. Irrespective of how one enters a situation one must accept responsibility for one's own actions within it. All this "it's the terrorists fault" nonsense feels little different than an abuser telling his victim "why do you make me hit you".
Um, it is my opinion Pluisjen. Her kidnapping made it possible for US forces to track the kidnappers so yeah, she's a hero, just like the fire fighters, police officers, and civilians that died in the towers and on that jet over Pennsylvania.
Wanton misuse of the term "hero" renders it meaningless.
Now kindly go screw yourself Pluisjen.
Not cool, man. Not cool.
Um, it is my opinion Pluisjen. Her kidnapping made it possible for US forces to track the kidnappers so yeah, she's a hero, just like the fire fighters, police officers, and civilians that died in the towers and on that jet over Pennsylvania.
Now kindly go screw yourself Pluisjen.
It's just a question. We seem to have differening opinions on what makes someone a hero.
Different opinions on what is decent behaviour as well, apparently
The fact that she was kidnapped, and she died in a failed rescue attempt, that at least led to the death of her kidnappers... those things might not make her more of a hero, because they weren't specifically due to any additional choice or bravery on her part.
But she wouldn't have been kidnapped by the Taliban had she stayed safe at home in Britain. She is a hero, just like the other aid workers in Afghanistan are heroes as well. What her kidnapping has made her, over and above what the other aid workers are, is a martyr.
Linda Norgrove is a hero because she went to a dangerous part of the world to help the people who lived there, at great risk to herself.
The fact that she was kidnapped, and she died in a failed rescue attempt, that at least led to the death of her kidnappers... those things might not make her more of a hero, because they weren't specifically due to any additional choice or bravery on her part.
But she wouldn't have been kidnapped by the Taliban had she stayed safe at home in Britain. She is a hero, just like the other aid workers in Afghanistan are heroes as well. What her kidnapping has made her, over and above what the other aid workers are, is a martyr.
This sounds a lot more like the description of a hero then "woman who died during a rescue attempt". When you put it like that, I'll agree that she was a hero for being an aid worker in a dangerzone.
but if the terrorists hadn't of taken her she wouldn't have died
Immaterial. One can play the causality blame-game all the way back to when the first organism crawled out of the primordial muck and it changes nothing. Irrespective of how one enters a situation one must accept responsibility for one's own actions within it. All this "it's the terrorists fault" nonsense feels little different than an abuser telling his victim "why do you make me hit you".
Unhuh. So If I am robbing a bank and taking hostages, and a cop shoots at me and misses, killing the teller: Tottally not my fault. Cop shoulda aimed better.
I disagree, and so does the US legal system, and most rational individuals. Talk out your ass till your face turns brown on the matter and, well, you'll still probably sound retarded.
Hey, mabey we should charge the doctor with murder, for failing to save the hostage I took that the cop shot!
Edit: Better yet! Boraxe is to blame for the woman dieing! He should have been in afganistan and thrown himself on the gernade that killed to woman to prevent her death! His failure to be there and stop the gernade blast is the reason why she died!
@ADHadh: Noone said noone was going to question the soldiers. R_H said that he was not going to.
@ThunderBane and everyone else using the word 'terrorist': Do we have any reason to belive they where acting as terrorists? Sounds more like they where, you know, kidnappers. If they where or where not terrorists as well is rather irrelevant. In the situation being discussed they where kidnappers, so hows about we stick to calling them that, 'k'?
@ADHadh: Noone said noone was going to question the soldiers. R_H said that he was not going to.
Twice and in bold. That irked me.
@ThunderBane and everyone else using the word 'terrorist': Do we have any reason to belive they where acting as terrorists? Sounds more like they where, you know, kidnappers. If they where or where not terrorists as well is rather irrelevant. In the situation being discussed they where kidnappers, so hows about we stick to calling them that, 'k'?
That's how the article describes them: they were doing it for the money, not for Allah and negotiations were not only possible, but also successful in the past.
It was also mentioned that initially it was announced that she died of "suicide bombing", but the facts didn't add up to that. So accusations of a cover-up aren't that out there.
And seriously: fragmentation grenade?
The US military failed to rescue her.
EVERY SINGLE PERSON ON THE PLANET also failed to rescue her.
They at least tried.
A grenade caused the attempt to fail. The people in power are looking into the cause of the failure of the mission.
The people responsible for the woman's death are those who made the rescue attempt necessary in the first place.
You keep emphasizing "needless" killings. Its not like the hostage was saved, then they just shot her for the love of murder. It was an attempted rescue with hostile forces; everyone should know there's a chance of people dying. Even if the odd of an innocent dying was 1% (the real odds were probably much higher), someone is going to die someday. Its the risks which happen when you try to rescue a hostage. If someone dies, shouldn't you be blaming the people who put the hostage in risk, not the people who tried to save them from it?
I'm one of those people who believe human life should not be taken lightly, hence my emphasis.
I admit I was a bit too quick to pass judgment before; playing the blame game will not resurrect anyone.
I'd still like to know why did the soldier throw a grenade there, it just seems odd to a non-military person like me with so little information.
Diffrence in training. Regular army troops do not recieve the kind of dedicated hostage training that police negotiators do. He probably acted out of reflex, I know from being in the Navy certain situations come up you respond almost automatically. I never saw combat, but was trained for it. In all due honesty the army while good in a lot of situations would not be my first response to a hostage situation unless I had no other choice or options, it would be like sending navy personnel to assault a land position rather than army or marine personnel.
War is NOT pretty in any way shape or form it is ugly, brutal and horrible. The causes of the conflict in afghanistan are many but yes the US did in a lot of ways create our current enemies. The reason many countries hate us is because of our policies during the cold war, we will probably be feeling some of the fall out from that for years to come.
As to investigating the incident there are pros and cons to having the army investigate itself and for having an outside force conduct the investigation. For public relations reasons they should use an outside agency, but the army should provide assistance for said investigation.
Side note Japan is awsome spent 2 years on a cruiser out of there, well when we were in port 240 days at sea underway my last year there...
That's how the article describes them: they were doing it for the money, not for Allah and negotiations were not only possible, but also successful in the past.
And policy exists about that. For good reasons. Wether or not you agree with that policy is another matter all together.
It was also mentioned that initially it was announced that she died of "suicide bombing", but the facts didn't add up to that. So accusations of a cover-up aren't that out there.
Perhapes, if, you know, the people being accused of attempting a coverup where not the people who told you the truth.
@ADHadh: Noone said noone was going to question the soldiers. R_H said that he was not going to.
Twice and in bold. That irked me.@ThunderBane and everyone else using the word 'terrorist': Do we have any reason to belive they where acting as terrorists? Sounds more like they where, you know, kidnappers. If they where or where not terrorists as well is rather irrelevant. In the situation being discussed they where kidnappers, so hows about we stick to calling them that, 'k'?
That's how the article describes them: they were doing it for the money, not for Allah and negotiations were not only possible, but also successful in the past.
It was also mentioned that initially it was announced that she died of "suicide bombing", but the facts didn't add up to that. So accusations of a cover-up aren't that out there.
And seriously: fragmentation grenade?
Negotiating with hostage takers and terrroist is NEVER a good idea. Half the time they are likely to kill the hostages anyway.
The people responsible for the woman's death are those who made the rescue attempt necessary in the first place.
Exactly
My
Point
And to the rest of you defending those TERRORIST scum (and they certainly terrified that woman)...
Kiss my you know what.
Are the terrorists to blame? Sure.
If a soldier screwed up some way or other and caused the woman's death, is that soldier also to blame? Yep.
Not to mention that there's a difference between saying it's someone's fault and saying they did the wrong thing. And a difference between saying someone is to blame/at fault, and saying they should be punished for it, or that everyone at fault/blame should be punished equally.
Yeesh. World isn't black and white people.
The people responsible for the woman's death are those who made the rescue attempt necessary in the first place.
Exactly
My
Point
And to the rest of you defending those TERRORIST scum (and they certainly terrified that woman)...
Kiss my you know what.
Terrifying someone does not make you a terrorist!
That is how the police operates. When a police officer makes a mistake or a potential crime, he isn't investigated by police officers of the same police force. At least this is how we do it here. It is not the perfect system, but it theory it is a way to avoid potential conflict of interests. Why can't it be applied to the military?
So, what, the NYDP comes up and does internal affair investigations for the mounties? First I ever heard of that. Where is this 'conflict of intrest'? If the guy who threw the grenade, or his squad mates, where doing the investigation then you would have a point and I would call foul. But you think the Pentagon has something to lose by identifying a potential problem in its own process and correcting it? That is not a conflict of interest, it is the opposite really. They are the ones who stand to gain by finding the cause and fixing it if possible.
The people responsible for the woman's death are those who made the rescue attempt necessary in the first place.
Exactly
My
Point
And to the rest of you defending those TERRORIST scum (and they certainly terrified that woman)...
Kiss my you know what.
Terrifying someone does not make you a terrorist!
True that.
But, in that part of the world...
Look, if you are against the Afghan gov't, and, consequently, the NATO mission going on there, and/OR are part of a criminal gang doing things you shouldn't, in a land already torn by war, well....
in my eyes, you're a terrorist.
True that.
But, in that part of the world...
Look, if you are against the Afghan gov't, and, consequently, the NATO mission going on there, and/OR are part of a criminal gang doing things you shouldn't, in a land already torn by war, well....
in my eyes, you're a terrorist.
Then in my eyes, you are using that word wrong. Guerrilla, Jihadist (depending upon ideaoligy), Partisan, Insurgent (depending upon origin), combatant, sabeture (depending upon function) are all accurate words. Also criminal, outlaw, brigand. Terrorist? Mabey, but probably not.
True that.
But, in that part of the world...
Look, if you are against the Afghan gov't, and, consequently, the NATO mission going on there, and/OR are part of a criminal gang doing things you shouldn't, in a land already torn by war, well....
in my eyes, you're a terrorist.
Then in my eyes, you are using that word wrong. Guerrilla, Jihadist (depending upon ideaoligy), Partisan, Insurgent (depending upon origin), combatant, sabeture (depending upon function) are all accurate words. Also criminal, outlaw, brigand. Terrorist? Mabey, but probably not.
Pay particular attention to definition #2...
dictionary.reference.com/browse/terroris...
Another definition...
dictionary.cambridge.org/dictionary/brit...
Also see Terrorism...
www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/terro...
What definition are you using?
(you know you made me spend 15 minutes looking all this up?)
Interesting...
What would qualify someone as irresponsible?
What would qualify someone else as responsible enough?
Well, blowing stuff up "for lulz" in the warzone or using particularly dangerous and unpredictable weaponry in hostage situations is highly irresponsible.
Shooting civilians is never clear; after all, it's the warzone and in the Middle-East it's particularly difficult to discern civilian from enemy. But avoiding responsibility for such fatal mistakes is, well, irresponsible as well.
The only problem is that by the time they blow stuff up and get people killed, you've already given them access to these weapons. My question is: What would qualify someone as irresponsible or responsible enough before you equip them with weapons?
I'm going to assume that you would want to filter these kinds of people out before they were in a position to cause such calamities.
You said that experts should look at the scene, implying that only they could analyse the scene. But if you truly believed that, you most also awknowledge that they must be independant, if not, even if they are experts, the results aren't worth more then my opinion.
...
So, because I am in the employ of the person I work for, any work I do for them is worthless because I am not independent. Your opinion on if a batch of product we produced is in line with our standards and, if not, what can be done to fix it is as valid as mine despite the fact that you have (I'm assuming) no laboratory training, experience with the chemicals and products in questions, knowledge of our production system, or access to the data or product to be analysed. Being not associated with my company out weighs your utter ignorance of the situation?
That is how the police operates. When a police officer makes a mistake or a potential crime, he isn't investigated by police officers of the same police force. At least this is how we do it here. It is not the perfect system, but it theory it is a way to avoid potential conflict of interests. Why can't it be applied to the military?Goldomark,
This one is for you.
Horrible. What is your point?
Honestly? I forgot what my point was with the article I got for you. I know I had a point. But it's been some time. Maybe it was something about how Canadian soldiers aren't doing any better than U.S. soldiers... maybe it was some other point. In any case, I thought you would appreciate the chance to criticize your own soldiers.
The definition of Terrorist that I use is outta the dictionary.
And kidnapper would be even better than saboteur... not sure where the sabotage is though...
I don't know what else to tell and show you.
*shrug*
I guess you have your own, narrow definition of terrorist...
Edit: If we are going by the first definition you listed, only 1 and 2 are at all applicable, and 2 is so general as to apply to any person someone finds scarry. Going by that definition, all black men are terrorists (due to the existence of people who are terrifed of black men). 1 goes back to the definition of terrorisim, which again requers a systematic use of terror. Inspiring terror is not enough. You have to do it intentionally and systematically.
As to the situation with the girl Ill wait till its investigated but if the US soldier is at fault then he should be punished just because they are our soldiers does not mean they should not be held accontable for their actions abu grahb anyone?
Here the Québec Police will investigate the Montréal Police when a a Montréal Police officer does something worth investigating, for example. This way a cover up has less chance of happening. If a Montréal Police officer who is investigating a peer might overlook important evidance out of solidarity. Guess we are just crazy up here.
I'm going to venture a guess here, that the US military is signifigantly larger than the canadian police force, and is divided in to many peices. The people investigating are likely uch further removed from thoes involved in the incident than you police are from their neighboring officers the next jurisdiction over.
What would the army gain from covering up a mistake? They would escape bad press and criticism, that is for sure. The faulty soldier might get away with murder, if he is responsable of murder, with just a slap on the wrist. This is why outside impartial independant investigators are beneficial.
Whats that? Media attention where it dosn't belong and thosands of people putting in their ignorant 2 cents might cause people to make decisions baised upon the ignorant screaming of the masses instead of the carefully weighed and assest opinions of experts? Where have I heard that recently... Now, your implying that a soldier intentionally grenaded the woman in violation of direct orders causing the failure of a mission for no reason, a mission that doubtless cost them large somes of money and man hours and put at risk the lives of several highly trained soldiers? Yeah, clearly they would want to avoid punishing him for that, not courtmarshall him or anything. Tottally in their best intrest to keep people in the ranks who ignore orders and intentionally sabataoge missions to satisfy some blood lust that fighting actual armed oppossition cannot meet. I see you have thought you position through.
But I am mostly criticising people who say we shouldn't question the decisions soldiers make while in action and we should trust the army to investigate and solve any problem. These two positions open door to abuse and not just abuse of foreigners, but of people at home. The army is force used to kill and control, not to make peace.
You are not in a position to reasonablly question their actions, any more than I should have any say in how to arrange strutural supports in a skyscraper.
The CEO tells the designer what they want in a building, the designer tells the enginer what it will look like, the enginer decides where the supports will go, the contractor installs the rivits. You are a share holder in this example: feel free to pettition the CEO about what is needed in a building or even which designers you favor, but you have no business telling the enginer where the supports go or the builders how to use a bolt. When peoples lives depend upon making the right decision, ignorant people do not get a say. Except that they do. It's one of the reasons that the world is becoming more and more ****ed up. People who do not know what they are talking about think they know best due to their own arogance and thoes in charge pay heed. It is insanity.
It seems to me that you have made it abundantly clear that you are after an exscuse to attack the US military and, by extension, the US as a whole and are clearly not that interested in why it happened or how they could mabey prevent it in the future.
Look, if you are against the Afghan gov't, and, consequently, the NATO mission going on there, and/OR are part of a criminal gang doing things you shouldn't, in a land already torn by war, well....
in my eyes, you're a terrorist.
With the OR in it, you just called about 40% of the World Population terrorists. That's pretty broad, I'm not sure if even the US has enough soldiers to deal with that. Hell, you're labelling me a terrorist as well. Thanks for that.
Not to mention a lot of Americans, and probably a part of your own army, maybe even some of the very guys stationed in Afghanistan as well.
Terrifying someone does, however, make you terrific.
bahaha never even considered that lol nice job
And to the rest of you defending those TERRORIST scum (and they certainly terrified that woman)...
I've seen nothing of the sort in this thread. Unless you take criticizing troops for a failed rescue attempt as "defending the terrorists".
Also, I'm sure ADadh is still putting left-wing views on why our military is bad as well.
I'm left-wing? o_O I'm actually probably as right as RH is, maybe a bit more liberal than him (I am an art student after all; and I'm not American), but I come from a very conservative home and honor this.
Or maybe caring for people lives and disliking war in general is left-wing?
Oh, and the suggestion that soldier training might have kicked in is a good enough reason for me. It's still horrible, but easier to understand.
Lastly I admit that the thread title was a provocation. What can I say, if you're Polish, attitude like "America saves the world! Like they did in WWII"1 may invoke anything from annoyance to rage.
And we're still one of the most American-friendly nations/countries in Europe.
_______________________________________________________
1Let's not dwell on this too much. Sore topic.
Unhuh. So If I am robbing a bank and taking hostages, and a cop shoots at me and misses, killing the teller: Tottally not my fault.
Not quite. There is a difference between fault and responsibility. Any cop who is not a sociopath is going to deal with the guilt of the teller's death as a result of his, the cop's, actions for the rest of his life. He's not simply going to say "meh, it's the robber's fault" and go grab a bagel.
Cop shoulda aimed better.
Ideally he shouldn't be firing into a situation where hitting a bystander is so easy. The cop in question was faced with a choice as to whether to fire his weapon and risk hitting the teller. He choose to fire and now must accept responsibilty for the outcome of that choice. Or maybe we should blame the teller for not standing a foot to the left?
I disagree, and so does the US legal system, and most rational individuals.
Where did I say anything about the legal system? I said nothing about legality, I talked about accepting responsibility for one's actions and modifying future behavior to avoid similarly negative outcomes. In this case I think they might consider implementing a "no use of grenades during a hostage rescue" rule for future similar situations.
Collateral damage is an unfortunate consequence of war. Unless one of the soldiers flagrantly violated the rules of engagement then there should be no legal ramifications.
And if you believe "most rational individuals" can simply absolve themselves of responsibility for the consequences of their actions so easily then you and I have a very different understanding of the word "rational"…and "people"…and "most"…
Talk out your ass till your face turns brown on the matter and, well, you'll still probably sound retarded.
Grow up.
Hey, mabey we should charge the doctor with murder, for failing to save the hostage I took that the cop shot!
Edit: Better yet! Boraxe is to blame for the woman dieing! He should have been in afganistan and thrown himself on the gernade that killed to woman to prevent her death! His failure to be there and stop the gernade blast is the reason why she died!
What's a gernade?
And to the rest of you defending those TERRORIST scum (and they certainly terrified that woman)...
I know you prefer a simplified digital world-view, but real life isn't just black-and-white. Disagreeing that the terrorists are at fault in this scenario is not the same thing as defending the terrorists, just as one can oppose a war but support the soldiers who fight in it.
a phonectic pronunciation of the word grenade?
I think it's what Mr. T says in those World of Warcraft ads on TV.
I think he says Moe-hawk GREN-aaaade lol but it's up for debate
In one of them I'm sure he says "guhNADE!"
I am anti-military, no matter what country. We do have someone who is pro-military on these boards. Clashes are bound to happen. The US is a huge military power with soldiers deployed around the world, it is bound to fall under my critic. Especially when people defend it blindly. It doesn't mean that the US doesn't do good, lets just keep things into perspective here.
Personnaly, the best way to stop this sort of mistake is just to disband all armies and destroy all guns and bombs. This won't happen. So the second best thing to do is to have a proper independant investigation into what happened. So that if blame and/or punishement is to be distributed, that the right people are blamed/punished and that this sad event doesn't happen again. (Lets not forget that the high ranking officers never got punished with the Abu Ghraib prison abuse. The orders to torture came from upstaires)
C'mon, between this and the "states shouldn't have borders", can people finally stop arguing with him?
I know you prefer a simplified digital world-view, but real life isn't just black-and-white. Disagreeing that the terrorists are at fault in this scenario is not the same thing as defending the terrorists, just as one can oppose a war but support the soldiers who fight in it.
Wait, so you don't think the terrorists (hostage takers) were at fault in this situation? I thought you were just saying the rescuer could also be at fault. (Sorry, there were lots of people in this thread.)
Is your stance that the rescuer was more at fault than the hostage takers for the death of the woman?
Wait, so you don't think the terrorists (hostage takers) were at fault in this situation? I thought you were just saying the rescuer could also be at fault. (Sorry, there were lots of people in this thread.)
Is your stance that the rescuer was more at fault than the hostage takers for the death of the woman?
I think he meant that they were at fault, but that doesn't mean the soldier isn't responsible as well. Or maybe that was EE. Either way, blame-games won't resurrect anyone or help in avoiding such situations in future.
Why? Because I have opinions that are different than other people? We should all be the same?
(I know I shouldn't respond, but I should at least let you know why I advocate ignoring you.)
Show
Its not that you have different opinions that I disagree with. It is that your opinions do not seem well thought out and you do a very poor job defending them while advocating them very loudly. You also have a very abrasive personality and many times say controversial and obviously offensive things for the sake of causing controversy or for shock factor. You also constantly break forum rules.
While you are not the only person who does this, you appear to be the worst in my opinion. So its just not worth trying to have a dialogue with you. That is why I try to not take what you say seriously and advocate similar behavior from others.
While you are not the only person who does this, you appear to be the worst in my opinion. So its just not worth trying to have a dialogue with you. That is why I try to not take what you say seriously and advocate similar behavior from others.
(...)Now sometimes I do say unsavery things(...)
*cough*Resident Pervert*cough*
Why? Because I have opinions that are different than other people? We should all be the same?
(I know I shouldn't respond, but I should at least let you know why I advocate ignoring you.)ShowIts not that you have different opinions that I disagree with. It is that your opinions do not seem well thought out and you do a very poor job defending them while advocating them very loudly. You also have a very abrasive personality and many times say controversial and obviously offensive things for the sake of causing controversy or for shock factor. You also constantly break forum rules.
While you are not the only person who does this, you appear to be the worst in my opinion. So its just not worth trying to have a dialogue with you. That is why I try to not take what you say seriously and advocate similar behavior from others.
I never said that the US never did bad things in the Middle East...
But then again, "bad things" is relative...
It is not typical military practice to decimate units for failing a mission. I see no gain in starting that again.
@ Everyone: If you want to investigate it yourself: Join the military and get lots of training.
If you want it investigated so they can examine the procedueres and see if they can do something diffrently in the future to make bad outcomes less likely, great, and they are already doing that.
If you want it investigated so that the most sensational parts of the story can make it into the public eye so people can all pressure the government to make the changes that the masses think are best, well, stop beign a moron.
If you want all the grisley details of this womans death so you can point to it as a pretty little beacon of support for your anti-military / anti-US belifes, go **** yourself.
------------------------------------------
I don't really feel I have much more to say on the matter.
If you want all the grisley details of this womans death so you can point to it as a pretty little beacon of support for your anti-military / anti-US belifes, go **** yourself.
------------------------------------------
I don't really feel I have much more to say on the matter.
Agreed.
Newsflash-Civilian may have been accidentally killed by U.S. forces that were assigned to save her.
Random lefty poster: ZOMG!!! The military is so evil!!! WUTZ wrong with our governments?!! INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE!!!! RAWWWWWRRRRR!!!!!!
Random lefty poster: ZOMG!!! The military is so evil!!! WUTZ wrong with our governments?!! INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE!!!! RAWWWWWRRRRR!!!!!!
I'm pretty sure it's not aimed at me. I'm not a lefty and I haven't breathed a word about government. Also, I use more coherent language ;)
Anyone know who is this guy reffering to?
Anyone know who is this guy reffering to?
Yes.
(but I don't think he means you... specifically)
If you want all the grisley details of this womans death so you can point to it as a pretty little beacon of support for your anti-military / anti-US belifes, go **** yourself.
Same to you.
So, is this an admission of sorts on your part goldo?
"you want all the grisley details of this womans death so you can point to it as a pretty little beacon of support for your anti-military / anti-US belifes".
After all, you responded to TA as though he was describing you and your attitude.
I do not get the spoiler part and I am not sure why breaking forum rules are such a bad thing if they are bad rules.
Spoiler part was probably a concession to it being (even more) off topic, and debatably CoC breaking.
As for why breaking forum rules are a bad thing if they are bad rules... well, the problem there is two-fold. First, you haven't really done much to establish that they are bad rules (just that you don't like them, which is a different beast entirely), and second, regardless of whether they're good or bad, you still agreed to abide by them.
Yes, that works back around to you being dishonorable.
And no one has asked you to respect the rules, just abide by them. Which you don't, as evidenced by your frequent use of alternate accounts.
As for me trying to insult/flame/bait you or whatever you think I tried to do, you're wrong. I honestly answered a question that I trusted was asked in good faith. If you didn't ask the question in good faith, that's your problem, not mine.
Not to mention that trying to insult someone who claims to not believe in honor by saying they're dishonorable is as stupid as trying to insult a Catholic by saying they're a bad Buddhist. If it works, it's a fluke you couldn't have anticipated, ya know?
No, I was mostly responding to his go **** yourself. I do not need the details of this woman's death to know that violence is bad and only leads to more violence.
While true in a limited sense this is a very very naive stance. Freedom is never free it is paid for in blood. There are principals and things worth fighting for. In fact kidnappers the only way to deal with them is to use force. I hate to say it but if someone is kidnapped use of force is the only way, because chances are the kidnappers are going to kill the hostage anyway. Was the woman's death a tragic mistake yes do mistakes happen yes, could it have been handled better I don't know, because we do not have all the facts.
For what?
The soldier evidently didn't see her. A tragic accident.
And he may suffer disciplinary action because he "failed to initially inform his commanding officers that he had tossed a grenade into an insurgent hideout during the operation". Which is probably what led them to believe it was a suicide attack at first.
British Prime Minister David Cameron also states "the circumstances surrounding the aid worker's death were still "unclear." The responsibility for Linda's death lies with those cowardly, ruthless people who took her hostage in the first place".
And since the soldier in question is a SEAL, I firmly believe this was simply a tragic accident with no negligence involved.
But let's wait and see what else may come of it.
Now I am not the poster child for the perfect poster, and I do appreciate that you are sticking up for me, but I have very different ideas than most people. How can I improve my image and saty true to my beliefs?
It is possible that you can't. But then, this is not a public forum open to all, nor is it appropriate for all things.
However, I will tell you the same thing as I've told RH: it's not what you say, but how you say it. If you can find a way to continue to express your beliefs in a more civil and appropriate manner, great. If not, you may find it best to just not engage in certain discussions around here.
I hate to break it to you Will, but most hostage situations (on the international level) are solved with long negociations and governments paying for the hostage's release. It is not advertised because governments do not want people to multiply hostage taking.
And some hostage situations can't be solved that way. For example, if the demand is to release imprisoned terrorists, in general that is a demand that can never be accepted. Also, when a hostage taking occurs during wartime, doing anything to make life easier for the enemy is strictly out as well - you save one life, you just make it easier for the enemy to kill many others.
Accepting responsibility for one's actions and mistakes is a sign of maturity. When one screws up the mature response is to admit one screwed up and to make sure one takes all reasonable actions to try to ensure a similar screwup never occurs again, it is not to say "nuh uh, he made me do it!"
To the extent that any of those who tried to rescue Linda Norgrove failed to do their duty, or made mistakes that helped to cost her life, they certainly are responsible for that.
But hostage rescues are a tricky business with no guarantees. The hostage-takers put her in harm's way by threatening her death. If they had been local bandits, paying them off might have been an option. But it is claimed that they were Taliban. You know, the forces we're at war with. So a hostage rescue, hazardous as it was, was the only option we were left with.
Of course, one could say we are responsible for choosing not to roll over and get out of Afghanistan and let the Taliban set up shop there, and give Osama bin Laden a place to operate. I don't take that position: instead, as a consequence of the events of September 11, 2001, I believe that the United States has no real choice but to continue until al-Qaeda and the Taliban both cease to exist.
[Update]
Is gloating against the CoC?
What's to gloat about? Even a broken clock is right twice a day. Start gloating when you have a history of being right.
I will also point out that the investigation is not finished. Does it look like a US Navy SEAL was the cause of the explosion that killed the aid worker? Yes. Are we certain yet? No.
The responsibility for Linda's death lies with those cowardly, ruthless people who took her hostage in the first place
No, the SEAL admited to trowing the grenade. He killed her. Stop making excuses for a murdering scum! /ripes shirt off
You forgot to yell "Stella!" or state that the shirt said "Hulkamania" on it.
-20 pts.
No, the SEAL admited to trowing the grenade. He killed her. Stop making excuses for a murdering scum!
Oh, he's responsible too. The hostage-takers are murderers. His offence is at most, I presume, involuntary homicide (or, as we call it where I live, criminal negligence causing death).
I assume he was throwing the grenade for some other reason than to kill her.
The responsibility for Linda's death lies with those cowardly, ruthless people who took her hostage in the first place
No, the SEAL admited to trowing the grenade. He killed her. Stop making excuses for a murdering scum! /ripes shirt off
Most reasonable, educated, and rational people would disagree with you.
No, the SEAL admited to trowing the grenade. He killed her. Stop making excuses for a murdering scum!
Oh, he's responsible too. The hostage-takers are murderers. His offence is at most, I presume, involuntary homicide (or, as we call it where I live, criminal negligence causing death).
I assume he was throwing the grenade for some other reason than to kill her.
It says in the article that it was obvious/evident that he didn't see her.
And it's obvious you didn't even read the article.
I'm through with you and your antics.
Does anyone take you seriously?
*shrug*
Some do... maybe even most.
And certainly those I would call friend on here do.
But then again, I don't act as bad as you do...
So when you do not see people you throw grenades? It was a attempt to rescue a hostage. I would think grenages are a no no in those situations. Your making excuses for the guy, like you accused people of making excuses for terrorists. Be constant RH.
And educated rational people would say that the guy who pulled the tricker of a gun who killed someone is a murder. He might not be the only one responsable for the murder, but he still is.
Saying educated rational people wouldn't believe certain things is a argument that people use to undermind other people's confidence. Please, stick to real arguments.
Its WAR, and only an idiot would try to negotiate with terrorists. Hong Kong has the right idea when it comes to hostage situations they never negotiate, why becuase the hostages will die anyway, and if you give into hostage takers in any situation just encourages more hostage taking.
Mistakes happen if he did not see her he did not see her.
Does anyone take you seriously?
*shrug*
Some do... maybe even most.
And certainly those I would call friend on here do.
But then again, I don't act as bad as you do...
I do not always agree with RH, in fact on a lot of issues we do disagree but I do take him seriously most of the time.
And educated rational people would say that the guy who pulled the tricker of a gun who killed someone is a murder.
Ignoring the fact that this sentence makes no sense, you are wrong. Kill != Murder. *****.
I wasn't kidding Will, most government settle wit hhostage takers. How do you think that hostages are set free when no military interventions happen?
Actually there are quite a few police forces that do NOT do this anymore. Why because criminals and terrorists cannot be trusted, this was true in the 80s and 90s not so much anymore after 9-11 people are less likely to take the chance that the prisoners will simply be executed, in my opinion I would never negotiate with hostage takers ever, its a bad idea and a mistake force is the only answer to such cowardly SOBS.
And educated rational people would say that the guy who pulled the tricker of a gun who killed someone is a murder.
Ignoring the fact that this sentence makes no sense, you are wrong. Kill != Murder. *****.
So the SEAL is a murderer.
It doesn't make any sense? /sniff
Its war what about this do you not get?
I am not talking about a bank robber who took some hostages and the police are "negociating" with him. I am talking governments negociating with foreign kidnappers.
Governments do not make the knowledge public to avoid too many hostage takings, but they do pay for the release of hostages. Canada, France, Great-Britain, Roumania, etc, all do it. Maybe the States do not. This does not exclued the use of force, of course, from time to time, but governements do pay. They do also release prisonners in exchange for hostages. Look up Ingrid Betancourt. It shows how government can be pragmatic when it comes to hostage taking, dispite all the offical rethoric.
As for killing, weither intentional or not, done during war or not, for self defence or not, the moment you killed another human being you are a murderer.
It has happened in the past not so much anymore. You CANNOT negotiate with some of the people that resort to these tactics to do so is cowardly and idiotic. Only an idiot would think that you can negotiate with people willing to go to those lengths these are enemies.
Now we may end up have to have a negotiated peace with the taliban, but that does not mean we should negotiate with Al Qada. If someone has resorted to taking hostages the only answer is to kill them and kill them quickly otherwise they will pull the same manuver again and again.
We might even be offended by how our own governments are cold, calculating and cynical when negociating the lives of it's citizens.
No, I don't think we would. Governments should do everything they can to rescue hostages but should never buy them back. If I were a hostage, I'd rather have my government bomb the building than give in to demands. Of course, I'd prefer rescue over that. By a VERY wide margin.
I won't die for a country and wars I do not believe in.
Neither will I. I will however die for the sake of preventing future hostage situations (let the government blow up one hostage situation building and see how long it takes for someone to try it again). The only reason people take hostages is because it works. If you don't let it work, then people will stop doing it.
It does raise the question how much a life is worth and is an american life worth 100 Arabe prisonners.
It's not just comparing an American life to the lives of 100 prisoners. There is something else that gets sacrificed in the process: the rule of law. It is part of the very foundation of western society and shouldn't be violated because some scumbag with a gun/bomb has hostages.
Personnally I would like to by bought back.
As would I. Death is not my preferred solution. Plus, I could probably work out a lucrative book deal about my ordeal.
Regardless of who they eventually decide to place blame on, this guy apparently was under enough of an impression that he did something wrong that he "forgot" to mention throwing a grenade.
I hope that, even if they decide that it ultimately wasn't his fault and he did the best he could, they come down on him for lying in his report about what happened, just to make sure other people don´t do the same in such situations.
There's no way to figure out right or wrong in a combat situation if you can't even trust your own elite soldiers to take responsibility for what they do.
[Update]
So, some more details are revealed, the SEAL will face punishment for a) accidentally killing a hostage and b) trying to hide this fact from his superiors. I'd say I agree with RHs comment on this earlier. I'd disagree with Cameron if he said the kidnappers were fully responsible for the aid worker's death, but it was them who put her in this situation in the first place, and that's how I understand his words.
So when you do not see people you throw grenades?
Note: she escaped from her captors and lay on the ground to avoid being hit. It was at night. The soldier likely wanted to hit the enemy, but didn't notice the hostage lying on the ground, which is understandable. He didn't intent to kill her or throw a frag grenade at an empty spot. That should be clear.
But let's wait and see what else may come of it.
Anti-war or anti-US manifestations with her as a martyr? I don't think British populace is particularly happy about this war.
@Boraxe: Sorry cheif, your argument still sounds bat **** retarded to me.
Key words highlighted.
It is not typical military practice to decimate units for failing a mission. I see no gain in starting that again.
Again, I said nothing of the sort. Unless there was some flagrant disregard for mission protocol or depraved indifference for the safety of the victim there should probably be no punishment at all, let alone "decimation" (killing every tenth man in the unit seems a little extreme).
I'm usually loathe to use the "s word", but you really are building a strawman here. You are arguing against points I never made, and even insulting me while doing so. To clarify, I said nothing anywhere about punishment or legal ramifications. I was rebutting the absurd claim that the fault lies entirely with "the terrorists" when it was not they who killed the woman.
And educated rational people would say that the guy who pulled the tricker of a gun who killed someone is a murder.
You are wrong. Murder requires intent.
Goldo, negotiating with hostage-takers is only good for buying time while you prepare to intervene. If you give in to their demands, they will see that it worked, and others will do likewise. Hostage-takers are a threat to public safety and should be killed the moment a good shot on the target becomes available.
In his book Why Terrorism Works Alan Dershowitz sums it up quite succinclty: "The root cause of terrorism is success".
Legaly, yes. You're still a murder in my book and not a manslaughterer.
Then your book is wrong.
Depends with whom you are hanging out with.
But ok, I'll just use killer instead.
What's with the loaded words? Killer has negative connotations as well, you know. If any label can be affixed to this SEAL, it's - as things stand today - accident victim. He accidentally killed her (so far as we know). She's a victim and so is he. Unless we're assuming he wanted her dead or is happy with the result - which is an irresponsible assumption to make - there's no need to use negatively loaded words to describe him. Unless, of course, the intention is to be needlessly provocative.
Don't be surprised when people come out aggressively when you admit to provoking them into it. It's ... not smart. Try to just make it clear what you want to talk about. I mean, you're all like 'why do they attack me instead of having a conversation' while also saying 'yeah, I chose that word on purpose in order to provoke people into responding to me'. Think about that for a minute. Hopefully you'll see the problem.
It is provocation, but not to simply provoke. The guy took a life, probably not intentionaly in the case of the woman, that makes him a killer, a negative thing. Killing enemy combattants makes you a killer. Their is nothing positive about killing, unless I am wrong here.
The provocation is to stur up discussion on the act of killing and it's moral implication. I do not think it should be considered a postive thing, except in the most extraordinary of circumstances and it should still make a person a killer. You're free to dismiss my opinions and call me stupid or we can have a talk about it.
War is extenuating circumstances. Even if you disagree with the war you cannot morally decry the people fighting it. The choice was to give into the demands of muslim extremist and make the entire US look weak or attempt a rescue. Religious fanatics are like rabid dogs they have to be put down, why because they threaten the existence and property of others. Are you really that naive that you think all war is bad? It is bad in a lot of ways but it is also a necessity. As long as some people are willing to use force and to terrorize people others will need force to oppose them.
Actually, I'm kinda surprised nobody mentioned the fact that this SEAL guy, right or wrong, chose to omit that the threw a grenade in his report. I doubt that's something you forget...
When the update was first posted, I'm pretty sure Robin_Hoodlum mentioned that the soldier was being disciplined for omitting that information. So it was said pretty early. But it was easy to miss in a bunch of arguing.
That is the point I am trying to make, their is no extenuating circumstances when it comes to killing.
Nonsense. Killing is an amoral act. There are many circumstances under which killing is not only understandable or excusable by highly desirable, even to the exclusion of all other options.
As for religious fanatics, that is relative. Now I am not trying to provoke here, but their seem to be a lot of religious fanatics in the US and it scares people in other countries. Should those fanatics be put down?
Some of them, yes.
BTW, am I the only person who, every time I read the title of this thread, can't help but singing "America,
YEAH! Coming again, to save the mother day, yeah! America, YEAH! Freedom is the only way, yeah…"?That is the point I am trying to make, their is no extenuating circumstances when it comes to killing. If everyone refuse to fight, leaders would have a lot of problems trying to make wars. It is not very realistic, I know.
That journalist held in North Korea, the US negociated her release. Granted that was a crountry and not just group of fighters.
As for religious fanatics, that is relative. Now I am not trying to provoke here, but their seem to be a lot of religious fanatics in the US and it scares people in other countries. Should those fanatics be put down? What I am trying to say here is that we condamn too easily. We should put ourselves in Muslim shoes to understand why they want to attack us. Maybe we wouldn't call them extremist and hate mongers so easily.
]
Paramilitary groups such as the KKK and neo nazis yes those groups should be put down and outlawed. There are extenuating circumstances for killing lots of them. Morality is very seldom black and white. As to why they hate us simple they hate a free and open society and want everyone to conform to their world view I do not hate muslims I find it tragic that a lot of their religion has been hijacked by extremists to the point where the moderates and those that hate the violence are afraid to speak out against it. There valid reasons to fight. Al Qada attacked us first, short of adopting sharia, which is islamic law across all the US you can't appease them. Apeasment rarley works, and the only reason we got the journalist out of nk is because we backed up the negotiations with threats of force if they didnt give her back. We threatned NK with more sanctions unless they gave us her back, we did give them some things, but thats international diplomacy with a legit government.
You cannot treat terrorists the same way as you would another state they have no legitmacy. They only seek to kill and destroy. Goldmark you are really naive. Nothing in the world is black and white. Kantian philosophy is all well and good till it hits the real world.
BTW, am I the only person who, every time I read the title of this thread, can't help but singing "America,
Team America?
BTW, am I the only person who, every time I read the title of this thread, can't help but singing "America,
Team America?
yeah!Meh. It was made by the South Park guys, wasn't it?
It was, though it is far better than South Park IMO. It is defintely worth a viewing.
Does anyone here besides me feel that this debate is over? It seems as though there's not much else to discuss. Maybe that's just me.
The key issue on these forums is not determining whether or not the topic has been resolved, it is that everything is considered a debate that requires resolution rather than simply a discussion.
That is the point I am trying to make, their is no extenuating circumstances when it comes to killing. If everyone refuse to fight, leaders would have a lot of problems trying to make wars. It is not very realistic, I know.
That journalist held in North Korea, the US negociated her release. Granted that was a crountry and not just group of fighters.
As for religious fanatics, that is relative. Now I am not trying to provoke here, but their seem to be a lot of religious fanatics in the US and it scares people in other countries. Should those fanatics be put down? What I am trying to say here is that we condamn too easily. We should put ourselves in Muslim shoes to understand why they want to attack us. Maybe we wouldn't call them extremist and hate mongers so easily.
Paramilitary groups such as the KKK and neo nazis yes those groups should be put down and outlawed. There are extenuating circumstances for killing lots of them. Morality is very seldom black and white. As to why they hate us simple they hate a free and open society and want everyone to conform to their world view I do not hate muslims I find it tragic that a lot of their religion has been hijacked by extremists to the point where the moderates and those that hate the violence are afraid to speak out against it. There valid reasons to fight. Al Qada attacked us first, short of adopting sharia, which is islamic law across all the US you can't appease them. Apeasment rarley works, and the only reason we got the journalist out of nk is because we backed up the negotiations with threats of force if they didnt give her back. We threatned NK with more sanctions unless they gave us her back, we did give them some things, but thats international diplomacy with a legit government.
You cannot treat terrorists the same way as you would another state they have no legitmacy. They only seek to kill and destroy. Goldmark you are really naive. Nothing in the world is black and white. Kantian philosophy is all well and good till it hits the real world.
KKK and Neo Nazis are racist before religion plays any part in their fanaticism. I believe freedom of speech is more important and vital then outlawing hatemongers. Who has the moral authority to say this is good this is bad? Some would say Green Peace should be outlawed or the Tea Party.
So they hate want everyone to conform to their view of the world. A lot of people, Westerners included, think the same thing about the US, that American want everyone to conform to their political and economical model. Is the American model the best one in the world? This is what I ment when I said we should put ourselves in other people shoes.
So they hate us because we are free? Maybe some of the more extremist hate us because we do not worship Allah, but a lot hate us because we exploit the Middle East, support dictatorships who oppress Arabe populations, sold weapons to government who used them against their population, protect Israel who is doing really bad things to Palestinians, support war between countries, trained religious extremist who became the new governing forces, etc. Dictatorships like Saoudi Arabia or Egypt keep their population poor and ignorant by not providing public schools. Imams have a bunch of bitter, poor and uneducated people at their disposale to indoctrinate. Like you said, it isn't black and white.
Moderates do have some voices. We hear a lot about extremists but we rarely hear about the inner turmoils inside Arabe countries and the power struggle between moderates and extremists. Take Iran, recently they had a spark of a rebellion against the oppressive government when it was made clear that the elections were rigged. Remember that poor woman who got shot in the street? Do not dismiss moderates so easily.
Did Al Qada attack first or just retaliated? Are they rebels and freedom fighters? Victors write history. After WWI the Ottoman Empire collapse and the British pretty much became the masters of the Middle East. After WWI the British Empire couldn't afford to control the region, but the US could. The British had a very unique way of controlling dominated territories. Make some a guy a king who will be loyal to the British and let him oppress the population with his army. Very cost effective for the British and they could exploit the resources of a foreign country. When the US took over, they just continued with the model. So you know Arabes are proud people, maybe they do not like to be dominated by foreign power (would Americans like that). So maybe this is really a fight for independance before a religious war.
We are NOT dominating them now it does not matter what the british did years ago. They struck the first blow in this war. What happened decades ago does not matter and they should get over it, that stuff is almost a hundred years in the past now, very few currently alive remember those times. The arabs have been in control of their own countries for years now and by and large they impose islamic laws that are a travesty of justice.
Did the US make mistakes in the past by using al qada and such against the russians yes. Have we made other mistakes over the years yes, but NOTHING justifies the targeting of civilians that al-qada uses. They are not freedom fighters the very idea of freedom is anethma to the people opposing us, they do not believe in equal rights look at how they treat women and other groups. Heck the taliban blew up centuries old monuments simply because they were religious icons of a different religion, such people cannot be reasoned with and must be put down and killed.
We are NOT dominating them now it does not matter what the british did years ago. They struck the first blow in this war. What happened decades ago does not matter and they should get over it, that stuff is almost a hundred years in the past now, very few currently alive remember those times. The arabs have been in control of their own countries for years now and by and large they impose islamic laws that are a travesty of justice.
I disagree. The most of the governments in place are puppet regimes, our puppet regimes (and we are in Iraq and Afghanistan right now (and a little bit in Pakistan)). Religion is an alternative power to government, best way to keep Imams in check? Let them preach. Of course that backfired.Did the US make mistakes in the past by using al qada and such against the russians yes. Have we made other mistakes over the years yes, but NOTHING justifies the targeting of civilians that al-qada uses. They are not freedom fighters the very idea of freedom is anethma to the people opposing us, they do not believe in equal rights look at how they treat women and other groups. Heck the taliban blew up centuries old monuments simply because they were religious icons of a different religion, such people cannot be reasoned with and must be put down and killed.
I agree with you that them attacking isn't the solution, violence only brings forth violence, but what is their alternative if we do not listen? The American Revolution spilled a lot of blood for the US's independance, how is this different from their point of view?
Your not listening the only thing that the islamic extremist want is us to be just like them. They want us to not educate women to not support israel and basically not be America. The Taliban had to be outed as they were harboring terrorist, as to Iraq well Sadam was a monster who again needed to be put down. He used chemical weapons on his own people. Hell we shoulld have gone in during the first gulf war and outed him then. The arabs do govern their own countries none of them are our puppet governments. Saying otherwise is ignorant.
Maybe America shouldn't have sold the chemicals weapons to Saddam in the first place. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the old Irannian government, Iraq before and when Saddam was leader until he attacked Kuweit have/had US support.
Ah, but you're not presenting the whole situation. We supproted Iraq after we lost our ally in the Shaw of Iran. Supproting Iraq was part of the many proxy wars we fought against the USSR (a strategy that has proved to come back and bite us in the ass), and you cannot reasonably look at US support for Iraq without considering the cause for it.
Your not listening the only thing that the islamic extremist want is us to be just like them.
It is rethoric to motivate the masses. Intrumentalization of religion to mobilize. I'll use a example that is close to home, not to provoke, but to compare. During the 2004 Presidential Elections, Republicans made Referendums in key states about gay marriage because people who oppose to gay marriage than to be more religious and than to vote Republican. Hmmm, not the best example but I'll post it anyway.
Right your naive if you believe that we cannot appease al quada.
They want us to not educate women to not support israel and basically not be America. The Taliban had to be outed as they were harboring terrorist, as to Iraq well Sadam was a monster who again needed to be put down. He used chemical weapons on his own people. Hell we shoulld have gone in during the first gulf war and outed him then. The arabs do govern their own countries none of them are our puppet governments. Saying otherwise is ignorant.
Maybe American shouldn't have sold the chemicals weapons to Saddam in the first place. Saudi Arabia, Egypt, Kuwait, the old Irannian government, Iraq before and when Saddam was leader until he attacked Kuweit have/had US support. And these aren't democraties.
It is true that Talibans protected Al Qada, but a lot of Al Qada's money comes from the Princes of oil rich Saudi Arabia. It is not a democraty, women are lapidated, it doesn't like Israel, it has American hating Imams, Ben Laden comes from Saudi Arabia and so did the majority of the 9/11 terrorists. They are evil by your standards, should we attack?
Actually yes Id have issued assasination orders for every member of the saudi royal family a long time ago. Instead of invading Iraq we should have gone into Saudi Arabia for that very reason, however I would not have done so at that point in time Id have waited till we had afghanistan won then taken out saudi arabia. The fact is you cannot negotiate with terrorist you have to kill them. Think of al quada like hitler was there any way of negotiating a settlement with him in power in germany, hell no. Appeasment does not work.
Does anyone here besides me feel that this debate is over? It seems as though there's not much else to discuss. Maybe that's just me.
"I don't know how to retort" doesn't mean "the debate is over". And as Boraxe pointed out, this is, and was, more like a discussion than a debate.
It's the Tavern, we discuss world politics and questions of life until we drop under the table.
Oh, and aren't Taliban an ethnic group? Outing them out for extermination sounds, well... I think this thread Godwined earlier already though.
OR
they are so incredibly simple as to border on handicapped.
You decide.
Does anyone here besides me feel that this debate is over? It seems as though there's not much else to discuss. Maybe that's just me.
"I don't know how to retort" doesn't mean "the debate is over". And as Boraxe pointed out, this is, and was, more like a discussion than a debate.
It's the Tavern, we discuss world politics and questions of life until we drop under the table.
Oh, and aren't Taliban an ethnic group? Outing them out for extermination sounds, well... I think this thread Godwined earlier already though.
When you say "I don't know how to retort", who are you paraphrasing? If that's meant for you to label me, then you're mistaken. What R_H, and I have been posting is the same logic that any rational person can follow. I'm over it to be honest. I shouldn't have to rebuff my same argument more than a few times, if that.
Some posters are either intentionally being argumentative and disruptive for the sake of trolling...
OR
they are so incredibly simple as to border on handicapped.
You decide.
OR
They are opinionated about controversial tropics.
Some posters are either intentionally being argumentative and disruptive for the sake of trolling...
OR
they are so incredibly simple as to border on handicapped.
You decide.
OR
They are opinionated about controversial tropics.
Being opinionated about controversial tropics is one thing, but some posters go beyond this.
When you say "I don't know how to retort", who are you paraphrasing? If that's meant for you to label me, then you're mistaken. What R_H, and I have been posting is the same logic that any rational person can follow. I'm over it to be honest. I shouldn't have to rebuff my same argument more than a few times, if that.
You labeled me, and later general posters as "anti-American leftists" before and since those "accusations" were debunked your only input in this thread was "the debate is over". So yeah, logical, rational stuff.
And a small hint: nothing shows how much you care than saying that you don't.
And I do not think he meant any malice with his thread or subsequent statements. He may have overreacted without all the info, but I do not think him "anti-American/US military".
Unfortunately, I cannot say that about all of those who opined...
EDIT: I have no idea why the forums does this with some of my posts...
This was a rescue mission. The entire point of it was to get her out alive. At what point was using grenades a safer option than anything else the premiere military in the world had to offer, or even to let her captives take her away? I don't know all the facts, but it sickens me nevertheless.
Bombs are the tools of terrorsts. Al-Qaida. Iraqi Insurgents. The Oklahoma City Bomber. The Unabomber. Bombs are not precision weapons. They are meant to inflict mass amounts of damage to a large area. They are not weapons you use when you want to differentiate between combatants and civilians.
The people planning this should have known better, and the soldiers who fought for the U.S., who know better than us what a grenade can do in combat, should have known the risks.
I appreciate ADHadhs, and Polands, support of America, and I like ADHadhs conservative background and respect of it.
And I do not think he meant any malice with his thread or subsequent statements. He may have overreacted without all the info, but I do not think him "anti-American/US military".
Unfortunately, I cannot say that about all of those who opined...
EDIT: I have no idea why the forums does this with some of my posts...
I am only anti-military, never said anti US-military or anti-US. It might sound like that, but people rarely start threads with "Canada saves the Day!" Rest assure that when the day comes, I will be there with my protest poncho.
It is a shame that you do not consider the opinions of leftist and anti-military people. It is not all crazy crap.
The problem with this stance is who wins in a fight 100 pacifists or 1 terrorist with a machine gun? Thats why you need a military.
Learn to differentiate between people who dislike the US and people who just couldn't care less but happen to live in the same area, or who actually like what the US is doing but get killed for saying so by the people you guys have a valid issue with.
You're always hammering on the freedom thing, you should understand that if a country doesn't have it, the opinions of its people cannot be trusted to be true. That includes "I like you" as much as "I hate you".
EDIT: I have no idea why the forums does this with some of my posts...
The Boldy part?
Its probably cause you didnt know how to spell ADHadh's name, so you copied and pasted it, which for whatever reason causes eveything else to be bolded, and even if you try to turn the bold off, its still there. Happens to me all the time, well ok, not all the time, but definitely more than once.
EDIT: I have no idea why the forums does this with some of my posts...
The Boldy part?
Its probably cause you didnt know how to spell ADHadh's name, so you copied and pasted it, which for whatever reason causes eveything else to be bolded, and even if you try to turn the bold off, its still there. Happens to me all the time, well ok, not all the time, but definitely more than once.
Ah-ha!
That is, indeed, the issue.
Thanks!
When you say "I don't know how to retort", who are you paraphrasing? If that's meant for you to label me, then you're mistaken. What R_H, and I have been posting is the same logic that any rational person can follow. I'm over it to be honest. I shouldn't have to rebuff my same argument more than a few times, if that.
You labeled me, and later general posters as "anti-American leftists" before and since those "accusations" were debunked your only input in this thread was "the debate is over". So yeah, logical, rational stuff.
And a small hint: nothing shows how much you care than saying that you don't.
OR the fact that there hasn't been any further discussions that have put any new light on what has happened. As far as my "accusation" that you took so personally; I don't know you, and never said your name directly. Don't expect to always try, and follow implications that may not exist.
OR the fact that there hasn't been any further discussions that have put any new light on what has happened. (...)
Well, you haven't added any input into the discussion, that's for sure.
Of course here in the tavern threads always wander, far and wide. But there still is discussion.
As far as my "accusation" that you took so personally; I don't know you, and never said your name directly. (...)
Ahem.
(...)
Bad things can happen, and they do. What you're doing is pinpointing an accident over whatever views you have concerning our two wars.
Here's you implying that the point of creating this thread was to share my views about wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, which is false.
Last I checked, I don't recall Canada winning any wars recently. I'm sure Son_of_Goldomark will have something to say about that. Also, I'm sure ADadh is still putting left-wing views on why our military is bad as well.
Here's you personally calling my views "left-wing".
This thread should be closed. I'm not gonna go out of my way to notify a Wizo, but the general feeling I get from some bumbling posters is this:
Newsflash-Civilian may have been accidentally killed by U.S. forces that were assigned to save her.
Random lefty poster: ZOMG!!! The military is so evil!!! WUTZ wrong with our governments?!! INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE, INVESTIGATE!!!! RAWWWWWRRRRR!!!!!!
Here you're implying that we (or me, as you outed me as a leftie before, but it could be goldomark, Pluisjen or Boraxe for all I know) want to investigate this event; this is untrue in my case, I've protested what I've read as RH suggesting it shouldn't be investigated; I think TA shares your views on this one, judging from his posts that it should be done by the professionals (btw, I've never suggested otherwise).
(...)Don't expect to always try, and follow implications that may not exist.
That's a great piece of advice; try to follow it.
LOLRIFFIC! I failed to look over my previous posts, and see what I had actually said. Touche.
You're welcome!
Goldmark the thing is your not going to be able to build those schools until the people trying to kill us are dead. You cannot reason with these people we have tried, it just does not work. You cannot reason with crazy people who think that their god is going to give them heaven if they kill us. We are not trying to dominate them we would not be there if they did not try to blow us up. What has the US done to deserve ben ladins hate? Answer we sent troops into saudi arabia to protect saudis from Iraq. Wow such a bad thing to do... Not all muslims are terrorists true however the non terrorists are too afraid to stand up to the extremists.
william...
I know we have butted heads in the past, but I'm glad we agree in this instance.
Goldmark the thing is your not going to be able to build those schools until the people trying to kill us are dead.
It is not our responsibility to build schools. It is the those government's job to do so. They have the cash, oil ain't cheap, but they prefere to buy old weapons we sell them. The Hezbollah builds and maintaint schools, they are doing what governments won't do, basically handing over the population to religious zealots. But the education example has gone out of hand.You cannot reason with these people we have tried, it just does not work.
Did we try? It seems to be working with the Talibans in Afghanistan right now.You cannot reason with crazy people who think that their god is going to give them heaven if they kill us.
And we have unreasonnable religious zealots here too. Let he who has never sinned throw the first stone... Or something to that effect.We are not trying to dominate them we would not be there if they did not try to blow us up. What has the US done to deserve ben ladins hate? Answer we sent troops into saudi arabia to protect saudis from Iraq. Wow such a bad thing to do...
At the very least it is a question of perception. You have the Mecca in Saudi Arabia, Islam's most sacred place. American troops over there might enrage people. Like building a Mosque near Groundzero has enraged a lot of Americans. To quote you: "Wow, such a bad thing to do..."Not all muslims are terrorists true however the non terrorists are too afraid to stand up to the extremists.
We have been over this. Moderates and Islamist progressist do exist and aren't powerless or scared. We just do not hear about them. Take Iran, they had a civil uprising recently when the presidential elections were rigged. Iran is boiling from the inside, expect change, maybe not soon, but it will happen.
Riight suuure it is you are incredibly incredibly naive. Also the taliban has said that they will not negotiate while US troops are in afghanistan hence they should all be killed, hell they should all be executed for war crimes anyway.
As to Saudi Arabia we were asked to be there by their government. So yes going on a jihad against the US over it is a vast over reaction. We were there PROTECTING their country from sadam, they should have been grateful, also they should not close their borders to us simply for religious reasons but whatever. Iran has been boiling for awhile yet they still have that insane guy as president Ill believe change is happening when I see it.
These are people that will not stop trying to kill us until we have killed them. There can be no compramise while people like Ben Laden and Mulad Omar (probably screwed his name up) live.
Id also say there can be no peace until they give up the idea of sharia but thats just becasue I find the way they treat their women as criminal. Personally Id love to see Saudi Arabia fall as a country and the entire royal family tried for crimes against hummanity but it is not going to happen.
This thread has been edited and disruptive content has been removed.
Please continue this conversation in a polite fashion that stays within the guidelines of the Wizards Online Code of Conduct. Debates can be constructive and fun if they are conducted with posts that are not personal in nature.
Thanks!
First of all, the Beslan incident was an extremely tragic one and terribly dificult to resolve without a bad outcome. Having said that, the Russians of today should be increasingly seen as our brothers (not in arms yet, but wait'n see) and not strategic adversaries we should be quarterbacking over.
Secondly, what happened there, could and WILL happen here, gosh, it already did (9/11), just in another wrapping and the powerlessness of a modern society with all it's tools at disposal was clearly shown as well. How many threads like this one do you think we can find on Russian blogs? How a bunch of thugs could hijack 4 planes using BOXCUTTERS!!! Today, we have gone so far that we think tactical inventions (Xray scanners, trace sniffing, on-site TSA forensics training) can prevent what is a GIGANTIC challenge to the free world and I include Russia here as well, even though they have not gone as PC yet as we have.
I'm originally from Europe, I have grown up with friends from all over and have Russian friends as well and guess what, we are all in the same boat here. We got to figure out a STRATEGIC solution to this and stop using this as a political gotcha point at every moment to gain a point or two in polls now&then.
No matter how tactically strong you are, no matter how much superiority you have in arms, might and momentum, you WILL lose (and every time) if your strategy is non-existent or a piece if garbage. This is why the south got beaten to pulp during the civil war despite superior individual soldiers, strong backing from it's main bulk of people and defending their homeland. There was no way they could ever defeat the north and the fools that lead their government should have known and admitted that from day one. Fort Sumnter should never have happened.
Also, remember that the MAIN "excuse" for OBL to wack the twin towers was because we "backed Israel". Guess what!!! The moment we pull out of Middle East with military, monetary and any other support (and we should), the restrained pitbull the size of a smaller US state will unleash it's repressed anger and frustration all over the place. I think most jihadists know that deep inside and this must be frustrating them even more as well. Why didn't they take on Israel instead then? Why didn't they hijack 5 Israeli planes and fly them into Tel-Aviv or West-Jerusalem? After all these years, how come the israelis haven't ben hit with anything close to what happened at 9/11? Because they have AT LEAST as good tactical responses as ours, but their STRATEGY and plan to survive is actually based upon real perceptions of facts and not a mere feelgood UnitedNations fashion (which would destroy them in a heartbeat).
USA, leave the Middle East, leave everywhere, take our guys home and as far as I am concerned, let the thankless SOB's (no profanity intended, just couldn't find anything better to say) take care of themselves. Remember how America has had to bail out Europe twice in less than 100 years and hundreds of thousands of our people have died for them, getting at best a spit in the face as thanks. Want to keep repeating that? As far as Israel is concerned, they will do what they have to do and it is just as little of our business as it is to "spread democracy" to a nation (Afghanistan) where a teacher of science is beheaded for simply existing, volunteer foreign medical staff is killed for "bringing in foreign culture" or the leader of the nation is negotiating with the people that AT THIS MOMENT is doing their utmost to kill any US soldier they can find...
Until someone higher up on the political food chain than me starts saying these things loud we will remain in this deep pile of manure with no end in sight...
If the USA supports Israel it is in part because of the Holocost, but Israel is also a very strategic foothole into the Middle East. It is not just out of the goodness of the Western's world's heart that Israel is supported. If the USA stop supporting Israel, it would be like an admission that the Middle East isn't part of the USA's zone of influence.
That being said, it doesn't mean Israel shouldn't treat Palestinians better. It would take away some munitions from extremists.
I find it amusing that you can judge every situation that's going on in the world, yet you haven't experienced any of the stuff you talk about.
If the USA supports Israel it is in part because of the Holocost, but Israel is also a very strategic foothole into the Middle East. It is not just out of the goodness of the Western's world's heart that Israel is supported. If the USA stop supporting Israel, it would be like an admission that the Middle East isn't part of the USA's zone of influence.
That being said, it doesn't mean Israel shouldn't treat Palestinians better. It would take away some munitions from extremists.
I find it amusing that you can judge every situation that's going on in the world, yet you haven't experienced any of the stuff you talk about.
You must be laughing a lot then. There are plenty of people who make judgements about things they have not experienced firsthand. How many politicians do you suppose have ever been so poor as to have to turn to welfare, or had to live a lie to serve their country, or have ever had the private sector experience to know how to create jobs? And yet these people are called upon to make public policy about these very issues. I might be inclined to laugh myself if it didn't fill me with pessimism.
If the USA supports Israel it is in part because of the Holocost, but Israel is also a very strategic foothole into the Middle East. It is not just out of the goodness of the Western's world's heart that Israel is supported. If the USA stop supporting Israel, it would be like an admission that the Middle East isn't part of the USA's zone of influence.
That being said, it doesn't mean Israel shouldn't treat Palestinians better. It would take away some munitions from extremists.
maybe the palastinians should not bomb buildings and kill civilians. As long as the palastinians support terrorists israel has no other option. Hell Bill Clinton wrote up a near perfect peace plan, but yaser Arefat wanted part of jeruslem as well, sorry that is never going to happen. The palastinians need to realize that and come up with a real peace plan. Its not all on the Isralis. The problem in the middle east is that they blame the us for all their problems which is a very simplistic solution. Of course the real solution is to ditch their religious fantasicm and join the 21st century, like Turkey did.
If the USA supports Israel it is in part because of the Holocost, but Israel is also a very strategic foothole into the Middle East. It is not just out of the goodness of the Western's world's heart that Israel is supported. If the USA stop supporting Israel, it would be like an admission that the Middle East isn't part of the USA's zone of influence.
That being said, it doesn't mean Israel shouldn't treat Palestinians better. It would take away some munitions from extremists.
I find it amusing that you can judge every situation that's going on in the world, yet you haven't experienced any of the stuff you talk about.
I'm not even sure how a strategic foothole could be experienced.
yeah that was just someone being a hardcore troll lol
This thread has been edited and disruptive content has been removed.
So everything left in this thread was deemed not disruptive? Wow.
Remember if a Jihidst(?) kills an american they get 70 virgins when they die.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=sRlTqnB6HAo
(It's from Family Guy)This thread has been edited and disruptive content has been removed.
So everything left in this thread was deemed not disruptive? Wow.
Yeah, I was surprised to see that an ORC was here to mod stuff and thought it ok to leave this thing open. Looks like some form of proof that they don't read what they mod (at least all the time), no?
This thread has been edited and disruptive content has been removed.
So everything left in this thread was deemed not disruptive? Wow.
Only the reported posts get deleted.
"The squeeky wheel gets the grease"
It's sheer brilliance
It can only be either one or the other. :P
where are the mods at? like do they have their own threads?
They live under rocks. Look for them if you like.
like scorpions? :D
where are the mods at? like do they have their own threads?
They live under rocks. Look for them if you like.
This is sooo funny, as well as ironic, coming from you...
I just spit coffee all over my work computer...
where are the mods at? like do they have their own threads?
They do, I believe, have a place to talk. The VCLs and the like have a board but we're all able to see it. Anyhoo, they only show up when called. They use a citizen police force to alert them when they're needed. They do not actively scan threads for violations but can, and occasionally do, pop in from time to time to contribute.
Or not a lot of posts in the thread.
Well, they only look at what they're alerted to. But yeah, if the ORC in question read any more of this thread than they were specifically asked to, it'd have been locked. It's obviously gone political and, actually, could be reported for that and closed.
It's obviously gone political and, actually, could be reported for that and closed.
Want me to get involved back in it?
I could get this closed in no time....
Want me to get involved back in it?
I could get this closed in no time....
Nah, it'll die on its own soon enough. Seems most of the conversatin' is ovah.
maybe the palastinians should not bomb buildings and kill civilians. As long as the palastinians support terrorists israel has no other option. Hell Bill Clinton wrote up a near perfect peace plan, but yaser Arefat wanted part of jeruslem as well, sorry that is never going to happen. The palastinians need to realize that and come up with a real peace plan. Its not all on the Isralis. The problem in the middle east is that they blame the us for all their problems which is a very simplistic solution. Of course the real solution is to ditch their religious fantasicm and join the 21st century, like Turkey did.
The problem is we arrived in Palestine (Britihs controlled if I am not mistaken) after WWII and say: "Ok, this part we give to Jews, because we kind of feel guilty about stuff. It will be called Israel." Before that happen a few jews lived side by side with Palestinians and it was a relatively peaceful. After, not so much. With Western back up Israel lead a campaign of terror to scare Palestinians away. Israelites waited at the border saying:"If you want to leave, give us your passports." Now you have hundred of thousands of palestinians living in refugee camps, without any citizenship (no passport) so they can't leave for another country or go back to Isael. They have lived in refugee camps, on foreign aid, for fifty years because Israel wanted them out. The list could go on.
this is not true. The Isralis offered to allow any palastinian who wanted to stay with no penalty, they did not have to leave they chose to leave so i feel little sympathy for them at all. NO one forced them to leave they chose to do so.
We, the Western world, support this. The U.N. tried to pass sanctions against Israel, but the USA used it's Veto to block or waterdown any real sanction.
The palastinians were fighting each other, the country had no infastructure really at all it was one step above a 3rd world country.
So now you have young men and women, oppressed, no future, their homes taken away, what do they have to loose? Why not blow yourself up for the cause, you'll be useful, a hero? After all heaven awaits and heaven can't be worse than hell on earth.
only those that chose to leave the Israelis let a lot of them stay with no penalty.
Yasser Arafat, yes he was a terrorist leader, but also a freedom fighter. He went to th U.N. saying: "I have a olive branch in one hand and a gun in the other. Don't make me use the gun."
The Oslo Accords, were a great peace solution for Israel and Palestine. Both Yasser Arafat and Yitzhak Rabin (the Prime Minister of Israel when the accords where signed) agreed to the Oslo Accords. They both won the Nobel Peace Prize that year. Unfortunately, Yitzhak Rabin was gunned down by an right-wing Israeli. Not a Palestinian, but by his own people. Right-wing none the less. After that both sides commited acts that undermine the spirit of the Accords.
Yes and then Bill Clinton came up with another treaty that gave the palastinians everything except a part of Jeruslem but Arafat rejected it.
Now I agree that terrorism, murder, won't help the Palestinians and is fundamentaly wrong, but please Will, do not put all the blame on them.
As for religious fanatiscism, it doesn't just exist in the Middle East.
Are you high? Seriously? Do you honestly believe that? Wow your naive.
I think you think trolling is not thinking like you. I had to say it, sorry dude.
Absolutely not.
A lot of people butt heads with me over differences in political and other "controversial" issues, and I don't accuse or think of them of trolling.
You, however, have shown you are incredibly naieve and mis-/un- informed on a lot of the subjects (that are verboten here, by the way), and you seem to get a kick out of aggravating people (and I believe you have even said so yourself) on purpose.
Personally, I don't want to have conversation with you about anything.
As for religious fanatiscism, it doesn't just exist in the Middle East.
If anyone cannot agree with this, they are either uninformed or delusional... religious fanaticism exists everywhere. Not all religious fanatics are extremely violent, but fanatical they surely are.
I have colleagues who have parents that are fanatical to the point where there 30 year old son is afraid to tell them he no longer goes to church on sunday, despite living on his own for like 10+ years already.
I think you think trolling is not thinking like you. I had to say it, sorry dude.
Nah, he's never called me a troll. And we disagree on plenty.
As for religious fanatiscism, it doesn't just exist in the Middle East.
If anyone cannot agree with this, they are either uninformed or delusional... religious fanaticism exists everywhere. Not all religious fanatics are extremely violent, but fanatical they surely are.
I have colleagues who have parents that are fanatical to the point where there 30 year old son is afraid to tell them he no longer goes to church on sunday, despite living on his own for like 10+ years already.
Stating the obvious doesn't make a person any smarter.
You mean like saying that obvious troll is obvious?
Which happens to be you, how surprising.
Hmmm. Than it is clear that I am being victimized because my great-grand-mother was probably a Native American. Again the white man does is thing.
Mine was the daughter of the Governor of the French-west-indies. Do you have a point?
I call bs. post your birth certificate and ss number
I wasn't talking about my self.
Then you're mistaken, because you should have in that instance.
shhh i'm trying to steal his identity escher
... Let me reiterate.
You don't need a name or a SSN. You just need their zip code, birth date, and sex. Information that people are much less careful with.
shhh i'm trying to steal his identity escher
... Let me reiterate.
You don't need a name or a SSN. You just need their zip code, birth date, and sex. Information that people are much less careful with.
well what could I do with that?
this guy^^^^ has something against goldo
I think it's obvious. But it doesn't make me any smarter to say it. /wipe tear
well...haha first to say it! lol
well what could I do with that?
Send a birthday card?
shhh i'm trying to steal his identity escher
... Let me reiterate.
You don't need a name or a SSN. You just need their zip code, birth date, and sex. Information that people are much less careful with.
well what could I do with that?
Depends on how creative/hateful you are ;)
this guy^^^^ has something against goldo
O_D isn't the only one...
this guy^^^^ has something against goldo
O_D isn't the only one...
+1
shhh i'm trying to steal his identity escher
... Let me reiterate.
You don't need a name or a SSN. You just need their zip code, birth date, and sex. Information that people are much less careful with.
well what could I do with that?
... I'm pretty sure that it would be terribly irresponsible for me to answer that question. And not just because subtlety seems to be lost on you.
Bottom line is, the Palestinians will not be satisfied until there is no Israel.
Period.
Anything else they tell the West is a lie.
Cuz, you know, the West isn't Muslim, and it's ok to lie to, cheat, and kill non-muslims... cuz, you know, they are sub-human...
Look fellas...
Bottom line is, the Palestinians will not be satisfied until there is no Israel.
Period.
Anything else they tell the West is a lie.
Cuz, you know, the West isn't Muslim, and it's ok to lie to, cheat, and kill non-muslims... cuz, you know, they are sub-human...
Well I dont think its that simple I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
I'm pretty sure he meant our species as a whole. There's going to be exceptions, but who knows?
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
...
Right. You, of all people, tottally do not identify your self as part of any group that defines itself in large part by its opposition to another group, my resident anti-progresive chum.
I'm not a liar.
I am the worlds poorest liar... and my dad cured me of lying a long time ago...
Just ask my wife... I couldn't lie to save my life...
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
Yeah... progressives and liberals really, really piss me off.
So, I understand where you are coming from...
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
Yeah... progressives and liberals really, really piss me off.
So, I understand where you are coming from...
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Also I cross dress on weekends as soon as I move out of parents house (going to school living at home to save money) Im going to completley transition most conservatives tell me that I should not do that because its against "gods plan" religion has no place in politics in anyway shape or form. In fact I wish religious institutions were banned from supporting political canidates in anyway shape or form if they are exempt from taxes then they shouldnt stick their noses in politics.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
Yep. No matter how far we advance technologically, in our minds we are the same grunting cavemen, hating and fearing those SOBs in the next cave over, that we were in the Pleistocene. Politics is nothing but the justification we use these days.
Alright.
That's it.
I'm done here.
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Alright.
That's it.
I'm done here.
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
I would love that you explain what is so ridiculus. Aside from claiming it is, not arguments are ever offered.
Let privilage dialogue.
Nyar says that politics is a way to explain or excuse our conflicts. Since the begining of this thread people have been blaming Islam for the war. I just had what was missing from his comment. Ridiculus?
Everything I said was actually true. The isralis offered to let palistinians stay with no penalty those that couldnt or did not believe it left they did not force anyone to go to the camps. Heck if they really hated muslims theyd destroy the mosque in jeruslem and rebuild their temple. Personally I think that would be awsome if it happened but thats because I find islam to be a distateful religion that takes itself too serioiusly.
Now, I will leave you to yourself.
Everything you say is ridiculous, poorly thought out, and made to agitate.
Now, I will leave you to yourself.
All I see are personal attacks and no real arguments coming from you.
LOL
Then report it.
Yep. No matter how far we advance technologically, in our minds we are the same grunting cavemen, hating and fearing those SOBs in the next cave over, that we were in the Pleistocene. Politics is nothing but the justification we use these days.
Or religion.
That too. We offer all kinds of justifications, large and small, but at the end of the day their just a way of rationalizing our desire to destroy 'The Other'. Whatever that 'other may be.
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
Based on observed evidence I find it substantially more likely you'd blame your lameness on Obama.
Scapegoating is just another form of deception (aka. lies).
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Then stop watching Faux News.
Look fellas...
Bottom line is, the Palestinians will not be satisfied until there is no Israel.
Period.
Anything else they tell the West is a lie.
Cuz, you know, the West isn't Muslim, and it's ok to lie to, cheat, and kill non-muslims... cuz, you know, they are sub-human...
I think most Palestinians are actually Catholic. Or maybe it was Jordanians? Or both?
Either way, not everyone in a keffiyeh is Muslim.
Most are Muslims but you do have Christians, the Christians are victimized and fight from freedom like Muslims.
I think people there are Catholic mostly to piss off Jews. Mind you, I'm not checking my facts on wiki or anywhere, just remembering stuff my mom told me after her Israel holiday/pilgrimage thing a couple years back ;)
I think the king of Jordan himself is paying local Franciscans' water bill. A big deal in that climate.
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Ummmm... aren't Rome and China typically examples people give of awesome societies that lasted a really long time.
So those probably aren't the best examples for your argument.
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Ummmm... aren't Rome and China typically examples people give of awesome societies that lasted a really long time.
So those probably aren't the best examples for your argument.
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
Look fellas...
Bottom line is, the Palestinians will not be satisfied until there is no Israel.
Period.
Anything else they tell the West is a lie.
Cuz, you know, the West isn't Muslim, and it's ok to lie to, cheat, and kill non-muslims... cuz, you know, they are sub-human...
I think most Palestinians are actually Catholic. Or maybe it was Jordanians? Or both?
Either way, not everyone in a keffiyeh is Muslim.
I know Lebanon has a lot of Christians I belive Syria does as well but am not sure of that at all. Lebanon even has its own church similiar to the Orthadox Church but with diffrences not too clear on what those are have not studdied it much.
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
China is a weird situation because even though it was conquered, it remained China. Like the China culture still won out over the conquerors. Its pretty bizarre.
But c'mon, Rome last what 1000 years? How many years do you think is enough to be considered a sucess?
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
China is a weird situation because even though it was conquered, it remained China. Like the China culture still won out over the conquerors. Its pretty bizarre.
But c'mon, Rome last what 1000 years? How many years do you think is enough to be considered a sucess?
Oh in a lot of ways it was the single most successful empire so far, however that does not mean we should ignore its flaws. Even towards the end there were things they could have done to prevent the western empires collapse, but due to the weight of tradition, and such they did not and could not. Other nations had the same problem and fell in the same way the Ottaman Empire failed to adapt to changing times and situations and so it died. Every time a civilization dies one of the causes is a failure to adapt to new times and situations I see the US in much the same position now. We are so afraid of government that we dont see how hobbled ours is. Hell what use is the electorial colledge anymore and yet it hasnt been gotten rid of because???
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
Based on observed evidence I find it substantially more likely you'd blame your lameness on Obama.
Scapegoating is just another form of deception (aka. lies).I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Then stop watching Faux News.
Bait much?
Conservatives should go back to living in caves
The ability to adapt to surroundings and modify surroundings to match us is the single thing the human race has going for it.
Conservatives should go back to living in caves
Living in caves? That's a pretty strong statement; mind backing it up?
Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite that wants to enjoy all the great advantages of progress while still whining that we shouldn't progress.
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
I'm pretty sure he meant our species as a whole. There's going to be exceptions, but who knows?
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
...
Right. You, of all people, tottally do not identify your self as part of any group that defines itself in large part by its opposition to another group, my resident anti-progresive chum.
I'm not a liar.
I am the worlds poorest liar... and my dad cured me of lying a long time ago...
Just ask my wife... I couldn't lie to save my life...
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
Yeah... progressives and liberals really, really piss me off.
So, I understand where you are coming from...
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
Yeah... progressives and liberals really, really piss me off.
So, I understand where you are coming from...
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Also I cross dress on weekends as soon as I move out of parents house (going to school living at home to save money) Im going to completley transition most conservatives tell me that I should not do that because its against "gods plan" religion has no place in politics in anyway shape or form. In fact I wish religious institutions were banned from supporting political canidates in anyway shape or form if they are exempt from taxes then they shouldnt stick their noses in politics.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
Yep. No matter how far we advance technologically, in our minds we are the same grunting cavemen, hating and fearing those SOBs in the next cave over, that we were in the Pleistocene. Politics is nothing but the justification we use these days.
Alright.
That's it.
I'm done here.
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Alright.
That's it.
I'm done here.
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
I would love that you explain what is so ridiculus. Aside from claiming it is, not arguments are ever offered.
Let privilage dialogue.
Nyar says that politics is a way to explain or excuse our conflicts. Since the begining of this thread people have been blaming Islam for the war. I just had what was missing from his comment. Ridiculus?
Everything I said was actually true. The isralis offered to let palistinians stay with no penalty those that couldnt or did not believe it left they did not force anyone to go to the camps. Heck if they really hated muslims theyd destroy the mosque in jeruslem and rebuild their temple. Personally I think that would be awsome if it happened but thats because I find islam to be a distateful religion that takes itself too serioiusly.
Now, I will leave you to yourself.
Everything you say is ridiculous, poorly thought out, and made to agitate.
Now, I will leave you to yourself.
All I see are personal attacks and no real arguments coming from you.
LOL
Then report it.
Yep. No matter how far we advance technologically, in our minds we are the same grunting cavemen, hating and fearing those SOBs in the next cave over, that we were in the Pleistocene. Politics is nothing but the justification we use these days.
Or religion.
That too. We offer all kinds of justifications, large and small, but at the end of the day their just a way of rationalizing our desire to destroy 'The Other'. Whatever that 'other may be.
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
Based on observed evidence I find it substantially more likely you'd blame your lameness on Obama.
Scapegoating is just another form of deception (aka. lies).
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Then stop watching Faux News.
Look fellas...
Bottom line is, the Palestinians will not be satisfied until there is no Israel.
Period.
Anything else they tell the West is a lie.
Cuz, you know, the West isn't Muslim, and it's ok to lie to, cheat, and kill non-muslims... cuz, you know, they are sub-human...
I think most Palestinians are actually Catholic. Or maybe it was Jordanians? Or both?
Either way, not everyone in a keffiyeh is Muslim.
Most are Muslims but you do have Christians, the Christians are victimized and fight from freedom like Muslims.
I think people there are Catholic mostly to piss off Jews. Mind you, I'm not checking my facts on wiki or anywhere, just remembering stuff my mom told me after her Israel holiday/pilgrimage thing a couple years back ;)
I think the king of Jordan himself is paying local Franciscans' water bill. A big deal in that climate.
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Ummmm... aren't Rome and China typically examples people give of awesome societies that lasted a really long time.
So those probably aren't the best examples for your argument.
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Ummmm... aren't Rome and China typically examples people give of awesome societies that lasted a really long time.
So those probably aren't the best examples for your argument.
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
Look fellas...
Bottom line is, the Palestinians will not be satisfied until there is no Israel.
Period.
Anything else they tell the West is a lie.
Cuz, you know, the West isn't Muslim, and it's ok to lie to, cheat, and kill non-muslims... cuz, you know, they are sub-human...
I think most Palestinians are actually Catholic. Or maybe it was Jordanians? Or both?
Either way, not everyone in a keffiyeh is Muslim.
I know Lebanon has a lot of Christians I belive Syria does as well but am not sure of that at all. Lebanon even has its own church similiar to the Orthadox Church but with diffrences not too clear on what those are have not studdied it much.
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
China is a weird situation because even though it was conquered, it remained China. Like the China culture still won out over the conquerors. Its pretty bizarre.
But c'mon, Rome last what 1000 years? How many years do you think is enough to be considered a sucess?
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
China is a weird situation because even though it was conquered, it remained China. Like the China culture still won out over the conquerors. Its pretty bizarre.
But c'mon, Rome last what 1000 years? How many years do you think is enough to be considered a sucess?
Oh in a lot of ways it was the single most successful empire so far, however that does not mean we should ignore its flaws. Even towards the end there were things they could have done to prevent the western empires collapse, but due to the weight of tradition, and such they did not and could not. Other nations had the same problem and fell in the same way the Ottaman Empire failed to adapt to changing times and situations and so it died. Every time a civilization dies one of the causes is a failure to adapt to new times and situations I see the US in much the same position now. We are so afraid of government that we dont see how hobbled ours is. Hell what use is the electorial colledge anymore and yet it hasnt been gotten rid of because???
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
Based on observed evidence I find it substantially more likely you'd blame your lameness on Obama.
Scapegoating is just another form of deception (aka. lies).I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Then stop watching Faux News.
Bait much?
Conservatives should go back to living in caves
The ability to adapt to surroundings and modify surroundings to match us is the single thing the human race has going for it.
Conservatives should go back to living in caves
Living in caves? That's a pretty strong statement; mind backing it up?
Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite that wants to enjoy all the great advantages of progress while still whining that we shouldn't progress.
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
I'm pretty sure he meant our species as a whole. There's going to be exceptions, but who knows?
I think a lot of muslims blame the west for their problems because thats easier than you know fixing the problems in their countries.
Yes, that's true.
Dictators (and that's the way most muslim countries are governed) divert attention to a supposed enemy... so the masses wont notice how bad the dictator is screwing the country...
We are humans, that is what we do.
I don't.
And I'm human.
So I guess I just blasted your hypothesis...
Sorry...
...
Right. You, of all people, tottally do not identify your self as part of any group that defines itself in large part by its opposition to another group, my resident anti-progresive chum.
I'm not a liar.
I am the worlds poorest liar... and my dad cured me of lying a long time ago...
Just ask my wife... I couldn't lie to save my life...
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
Yeah... progressives and liberals really, really piss me off.
So, I understand where you are coming from...
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
pretty much i like to think im tollerant but some groups like kkk, neo nazis and even some tea party people just really really piss me off.. Mainly because a lot of such groups tend to tell me how horrible a person I am.
Yeah... progressives and liberals really, really piss me off.
So, I understand where you are coming from...
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Also I cross dress on weekends as soon as I move out of parents house (going to school living at home to save money) Im going to completley transition most conservatives tell me that I should not do that because its against "gods plan" religion has no place in politics in anyway shape or form. In fact I wish religious institutions were banned from supporting political canidates in anyway shape or form if they are exempt from taxes then they shouldnt stick their noses in politics.
I was refering not to the actions of the hypothetical dicatator but to the belifes and actions of his constituents.
There is always some group that your group is not and a handy 'reason' to hate them. We are humans, that is how we roll.
Yep. No matter how far we advance technologically, in our minds we are the same grunting cavemen, hating and fearing those SOBs in the next cave over, that we were in the Pleistocene. Politics is nothing but the justification we use these days.
Alright.
That's it.
I'm done here.
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Alright.
That's it.
I'm done here.
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
I would love that you explain what is so ridiculus. Aside from claiming it is, not arguments are ever offered.
Let privilage dialogue.
Nyar says that politics is a way to explain or excuse our conflicts. Since the begining of this thread people have been blaming Islam for the war. I just had what was missing from his comment. Ridiculus?
Everything I said was actually true. The isralis offered to let palistinians stay with no penalty those that couldnt or did not believe it left they did not force anyone to go to the camps. Heck if they really hated muslims theyd destroy the mosque in jeruslem and rebuild their temple. Personally I think that would be awsome if it happened but thats because I find islam to be a distateful religion that takes itself too serioiusly.
Now, I will leave you to yourself.
Everything you say is ridiculous, poorly thought out, and made to agitate.
Now, I will leave you to yourself.
All I see are personal attacks and no real arguments coming from you.
LOL
Then report it.
Yep. No matter how far we advance technologically, in our minds we are the same grunting cavemen, hating and fearing those SOBs in the next cave over, that we were in the Pleistocene. Politics is nothing but the justification we use these days.
Or religion.
That too. We offer all kinds of justifications, large and small, but at the end of the day their just a way of rationalizing our desire to destroy 'The Other'. Whatever that 'other may be.
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
Based on observed evidence I find it substantially more likely you'd blame your lameness on Obama.
Scapegoating is just another form of deception (aka. lies).
I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Then stop watching Faux News.
Look fellas...
Bottom line is, the Palestinians will not be satisfied until there is no Israel.
Period.
Anything else they tell the West is a lie.
Cuz, you know, the West isn't Muslim, and it's ok to lie to, cheat, and kill non-muslims... cuz, you know, they are sub-human...
I think most Palestinians are actually Catholic. Or maybe it was Jordanians? Or both?
Either way, not everyone in a keffiyeh is Muslim.
Most are Muslims but you do have Christians, the Christians are victimized and fight from freedom like Muslims.
I think people there are Catholic mostly to piss off Jews. Mind you, I'm not checking my facts on wiki or anywhere, just remembering stuff my mom told me after her Israel holiday/pilgrimage thing a couple years back ;)
I think the king of Jordan himself is paying local Franciscans' water bill. A big deal in that climate.
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Ummmm... aren't Rome and China typically examples people give of awesome societies that lasted a really long time.
So those probably aren't the best examples for your argument.
Most of the time I am a liberal, conservative philsophy never works the status quo always has to be changed without change society stagnates stagnation leads to decay and downfall. The roman empire fell in large part because it failed to adapt to changing circumstances, same with the chinese dynasties change is necessary.
Ummmm... aren't Rome and China typically examples people give of awesome societies that lasted a really long time.
So those probably aren't the best examples for your argument.
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
Look fellas...
Bottom line is, the Palestinians will not be satisfied until there is no Israel.
Period.
Anything else they tell the West is a lie.
Cuz, you know, the West isn't Muslim, and it's ok to lie to, cheat, and kill non-muslims... cuz, you know, they are sub-human...
I think most Palestinians are actually Catholic. Or maybe it was Jordanians? Or both?
Either way, not everyone in a keffiyeh is Muslim.
I know Lebanon has a lot of Christians I belive Syria does as well but am not sure of that at all. Lebanon even has its own church similiar to the Orthadox Church but with diffrences not too clear on what those are have not studdied it much.
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
China is a weird situation because even though it was conquered, it remained China. Like the China culture still won out over the conquerors. Its pretty bizarre.
But c'mon, Rome last what 1000 years? How many years do you think is enough to be considered a sucess?
China was conquored and the fall of rome could have been prevented had they changed their tactics and adapted with the times. China didnt last all that long it was conquored multiple times in its history, and like Egypt had several periods of absolute anarchy and chaos. Im sure there are other examples I could use, but I stutidied greek/roman history a lot so I know it better than I do most others.
China is a weird situation because even though it was conquered, it remained China. Like the China culture still won out over the conquerors. Its pretty bizarre.
But c'mon, Rome last what 1000 years? How many years do you think is enough to be considered a sucess?
Oh in a lot of ways it was the single most successful empire so far, however that does not mean we should ignore its flaws. Even towards the end there were things they could have done to prevent the western empires collapse, but due to the weight of tradition, and such they did not and could not. Other nations had the same problem and fell in the same way the Ottaman Empire failed to adapt to changing times and situations and so it died. Every time a civilization dies one of the causes is a failure to adapt to new times and situations I see the US in much the same position now. We are so afraid of government that we dont see how hobbled ours is. Hell what use is the electorial colledge anymore and yet it hasnt been gotten rid of because???
And, trying to make this on-topic, I wouldn't tell my people a lie just to divert attention away from my lameness. On the contrary, I would probably admit my lameness and offer solutions...
Based on observed evidence I find it substantially more likely you'd blame your lameness on Obama.
Scapegoating is just another form of deception (aka. lies).I simply cannot take anymore stupidity and foolishness.
Then stop watching Faux News.
Bait much?
Conservatives should go back to living in caves
The ability to adapt to surroundings and modify surroundings to match us is the single thing the human race has going for it.
Conservatives should go back to living in caves
Living in caves? That's a pretty strong statement; mind backing it up?
Otherwise, you're just a hypocrite that wants to enjoy all the great advantages of progress while still whining that we shouldn't progress.