Bush OFFICIALLY VETOS Legislation Barring Use of Waterboarding.

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"][QUOTE="The_Ish"]

False, again.

Directly attacking innocent people to stop them from continuing their lives like they want is pretty much a universal wrong. It isn't a Western moral standard. It isn't an Eastern moral standard. It's just a moral standard.

The_Ish

Then the US Government is a terrorist every time it arrests a weed smoker.

Failed analogy.

Arresting weed smokers and making them pay a civil fine or go to a rehab center for a week is not comparable to stopping terrorists from killing hundreds of innocent people.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

US kills civilians

Completely justified right, since the US did not deliberately target these people. Am I right. They're just casualties of war.

Bombing a cafe killing 8 people is terrorism, carpet bombing a village which possesses terrorists is completely justified no matter the civilan death count.

Again for people who may want to insult me:

I have never supported the use of targetting civilians or indirectly bombing them, whether you're a suicide bomber or a B52 plane.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.MacBP

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

Good, its probably saved more lives than you can ever imagine...anotehr attack kills thousands it will be a tragedy....but waterboarding a murder to prevent that....thats a scandal....w/e its not the american government that is ****ed it is the people...Clinton015

Stalin would agree.

[QUOTE="MacBP"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.sonicare

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Aidenfury19"][QUOTE="The_Ish"]

False, again.

Directly attacking innocent people to stop them from continuing their lives like they want is pretty much a universal wrong. It isn't a Western moral standard. It isn't an Eastern moral standard. It's just a moral standard.

Hoobinator

Then the US Government is a terrorist every time it arrests a weed smoker.

Failed analogy.

Arresting weed smokers and making them pay a civil fine or go to a rehab center for a week is not comparable to stopping terrorists from killing hundreds of innocent people.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

US kills civilians

Completely justified right, since the US did not deliberately target these people. Am I right. They're just casualties of war.

Bombing a cafe killing 8 people is terrorism, carpet bombing a village which possesses terrorists is completely justified no matter the civilan death count.

Carpet bombing a village which possesses terrorists is not justified because civilians were knowingly killed and targetted. In fact, that could be considered an act of terrorism itself. Intent plays a large role.

[QUOTE="Clinton015"]Good, its probably saved more lives than you can ever imagine...anotehr attack kills thousands it will be a tragedy....but waterboarding a murder to prevent that....thats a scandal....w/e its not the american government that is ****ed it is the people...gobo212

Stalin would agree.

[QUOTE="MacBP"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.sonicare

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

Would you label the US army as insurgents?

I understand that the army is only taking orders from he president, and the fact that 1 000 000 innocent civilians were killed as a result of direct actions from the army would lead me to call the US president (Bush) a terrorist, and by vetoing this bill, I believe that he should prosecuted and interrogated in the techniques that he himself approves. Who agrees with me here?

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.Aidenfury19

I'm saying our categorization of terrorists and freedom fighters is entirely dependent upon what totalitarian or democratic ruler the US wants to build up or tear down at the moment. We made Saddam, we made fundamentalist Iran, we made Bin Laden. None of these guys would have been able to gain as much power or stay in power as long without our direct assistance and support to various entities.

Terrorism is fundamentally no different from what these "freedom fighters" engage in and the US has the most disproportionate response probably in the history of mankind to the actual real threat of terrorism.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

The_Ish

It absolutely includes attacking, terrorism doesn't require violence to work it just requires fear..absent fear the violence is worthless. Violence is just one way they get them to submit. Also you seem to be unclear on the real history of marajuana enforcement, several innocent people have been killed in these drug raids or their entire livelihoods destroyed.

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="MacBP"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.MacBP

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

Would you label the US army as insurgents?

I understand that the army is only taking orders from he president, and the fact that 1 000 000 innocent civilians were killed as a result of direct actions from the army would lead me to call the US president (Bush) a terrorist, and by vetoing this bill, I believe that he should prosecuted and interrogated in the techniques that he himself approves. Who agrees with me here?

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.sonicare

I'm saying our categorization of terrorists and freedom fighters is entirely dependent upon what totalitarian or democratic ruler the US wants to build up or tear down at the moment. We made Saddam, we made fundamentalist Iran, we made Bin Laden. None of these guys would have been able to gain as much power or stay in power as long without our direct assistance and support to various entities.

Terrorism is fundamentally no different from what these "freedom fighters" engage in and the US has the most disproportionate response probably in the history of mankind to the actual real threat of terrorism.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

The_Ish

It absolutely includes attacking, terrorism doesn't require violence to work it just requires fear..absent fear the violence is worthless. Violence is just one way they get them to submit. Also you seem to be unclear on the real history of marajuana enforcement, several innocent people have been killed in these drug raids or their entire livelihoods destroyed.

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

To turn that argument around the War on Terror is also failing. There are now more terrorists running around in the Middle East and Iraq than before 2001.

And the Taliban are a separate entity.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="MacBP"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.MacBP

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

Would you label the US army as insurgents?

I understand that the army is only taking orders from he president, and the fact that 1 000 000 innocent civilians were killed as a result of direct actions from the army would lead me to call the US president (Bush) a terrorist, and by vetoing this bill, I believe that he should prosecuted and interrogated in the techniques that he himself approves. Who agrees with me here?

Every leader that has ever declared or allowed a war would then be a terrorist under that classification.

[QUOTE="MacBP"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="MacBP"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.Clinton015

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

Would you label the US army as insurgents?

I understand that the army is only taking orders from he president, and the fact that 1 000 000 innocent civilians were killed as a result of direct actions from the army would lead me to call the US president (Bush) a terrorist, and by vetoing this bill, I believe that he should prosecuted and interrogated in the techniques that he himself approves. Who agrees with me here?

OK, you could quite easily call Bush a war criminal, which he has been called on many occassions.

[QUOTE="MacBP"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="MacBP"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.Clinton015

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

Would you label the US army as insurgents?

I understand that the army is only taking orders from he president, and the fact that 1 000 000 innocent civilians were killed as a result of direct actions from the army would lead me to call the US president (Bush) a terrorist, and by vetoing this bill, I believe that he should prosecuted and interrogated in the techniques that he himself approves. Who agrees with me here?

Sorry, I meant to say terrorists, as they are targeting civilians, because the fact that 1 million were kiled really doesnt match up with the precision of the equipment they are using.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.Hoobinator

I'm saying our categorization of terrorists and freedom fighters is entirely dependent upon what totalitarian or democratic ruler the US wants to build up or tear down at the moment. We made Saddam, we made fundamentalist Iran, we made Bin Laden. None of these guys would have been able to gain as much power or stay in power as long without our direct assistance and support to various entities.

Terrorism is fundamentally no different from what these "freedom fighters" engage in and the US has the most disproportionate response probably in the history of mankind to the actual real threat of terrorism.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

The_Ish

It absolutely includes attacking, terrorism doesn't require violence to work it just requires fear..absent fear the violence is worthless. Violence is just one way they get them to submit. Also you seem to be unclear on the real history of marajuana enforcement, several innocent people have been killed in these drug raids or their entire livelihoods destroyed.

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

To turn that argument around the War on Terror is also failing. There are now more terrorists running around in the Middle East and Iraq than before 2001.

And the Taliban are a separate entity.

True. But the war on terror could be failing because of poor choices by Bush and Blair to invade Iraq which had nothing to do with 911. Afghanistan was a haven for al qaeda.

[QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.Hoobinator

I'm saying our categorization of terrorists and freedom fighters is entirely dependent upon what totalitarian or democratic ruler the US wants to build up or tear down at the moment. We made Saddam, we made fundamentalist Iran, we made Bin Laden. None of these guys would have been able to gain as much power or stay in power as long without our direct assistance and support to various entities.

Terrorism is fundamentally no different from what these "freedom fighters" engage in and the US has the most disproportionate response probably in the history of mankind to the actual real threat of terrorism.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

The_Ish

It absolutely includes attacking, terrorism doesn't require violence to work it just requires fear..absent fear the violence is worthless. Violence is just one way they get them to submit. Also you seem to be unclear on the real history of marajuana enforcement, several innocent people have been killed in these drug raids or their entire livelihoods destroyed.

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

To turn that argument around the War on Terror is also failing. There are now more terrorists running around in the Middle East and Iraq than before 2001.

And the Taliban are a separate entity.

[

So again I make my point, using a government like the US or its allies to attach the word "terrorist" onto a person or a people, seems to strip them of any right they ever had.

Hoobinator

Then what is your point?

The US should use whatever it has to stop terrorists capable and willing to attack the US and her people. This isn't about who, this is about what. Banning certain types of torture because the terrorist might be wrongly accused is a different matter from who calls who a terrorist. Instead of throwing out a method because the person you are using it on might be in the right, the government should focus on who is the terrorist is at first, and whether or not they are willing and capable of attacking the US. The IRG will probably never attack the US (in fact, I doubt they ever will), but Al Queda has definately promised.

[QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.sonicare

I'm saying our categorization of terrorists and freedom fighters is entirely dependent upon what totalitarian or democratic ruler the US wants to build up or tear down at the moment. We made Saddam, we made fundamentalist Iran, we made Bin Laden. None of these guys would have been able to gain as much power or stay in power as long without our direct assistance and support to various entities.

Terrorism is fundamentally no different from what these "freedom fighters" engage in and the US has the most disproportionate response probably in the history of mankind to the actual real threat of terrorism.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

The_Ish

It absolutely includes attacking, terrorism doesn't require violence to work it just requires fear..absent fear the violence is worthless. Violence is just one way they get them to submit. Also you seem to be unclear on the real history of marajuana enforcement, several innocent people have been killed in these drug raids or their entire livelihoods destroyed.

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="Aidenfury19"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.sonicare

I'm saying our categorization of terrorists and freedom fighters is entirely dependent upon what totalitarian or democratic ruler the US wants to build up or tear down at the moment. We made Saddam, we made fundamentalist Iran, we made Bin Laden. None of these guys would have been able to gain as much power or stay in power as long without our direct assistance and support to various entities.

Terrorism is fundamentally no different from what these "freedom fighters" engage in and the US has the most disproportionate response probably in the history of mankind to the actual real threat of terrorism.

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

The_Ish

It absolutely includes attacking, terrorism doesn't require violence to work it just requires fear..absent fear the violence is worthless. Violence is just one way they get them to submit. Also you seem to be unclear on the real history of marajuana enforcement, several innocent people have been killed in these drug raids or their entire livelihoods destroyed.

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

To turn that argument around the War on Terror is also failing. There are now more terrorists running around in the Middle East and Iraq than before 2001.

And the Taliban are a separate entity.

True. But the war on terror could be failing because of poor choices by Bush and Blair to invade Iraq which had nothing to do with 911. Afghanistan was a haven for al qaeda.

I completely agree with you on that one, and if Mcain gets sworn into presidency, then the US will make the next mistake of attacking Iran which has nothing to do with terrorism.

[QUOTE="Clinton015"][QUOTE="MacBP"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="MacBP"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.MacBP

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

Would you label the US army as insurgents?

I understand that the army is only taking orders from he president, and the fact that 1 000 000 innocent civilians were killed as a result of direct actions from the army would lead me to call the US president (Bush) a terrorist, and by vetoing this bill, I believe that he should prosecuted and interrogated in the techniques that he himself approves. Who agrees with me here?

Sorry, I meant to say terrorists, as they are targeting civilians, because the fact that 1 million were kiled really doesnt match up with the precision of the equipment they are using.

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

sonicare

Our response is exactly the same, it merely strengthens the terrorists/freedom fighters amongst their own people and dissipates any sympathy the US used to have. The best option is to not intervene at all.

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

Aidenfury19

Our response is exactly the same, it merely strengthens the terrorists/freedom fighters amongst their own people and dissipates any sympathy the US used to have. The best option is to not intervene at all.

[QUOTE="MacBP"][QUOTE="Clinton015"][QUOTE="MacBP"][QUOTE="sonicare"][QUOTE="MacBP"]

[QUOTE="sonicare"]I agree that the US is too quick to label organizations terrorists. There is a difference between guerilla warfare and terrorism, but do you really consider the people that attacked that school in Beslan freedom fighters? I would classify them as terrorists.Clinton015

Adding to that:

Would you say that those who target American soldiers in Afghanistan and Iraq terrorists? I call them freedom fighters personally, they are defending their countries, and Im sure that put in their situation, most Americans would do the same.

I would call them guerillas or insurgents. They are not terrorists. I only label people who attack civilians, non-military, non essential targets as terrorists.

Would you label the US army as insurgents?

I understand that the army is only taking orders from he president, and the fact that 1 000 000 innocent civilians were killed as a result of direct actions from the army would lead me to call the US president (Bush) a terrorist, and by vetoing this bill, I believe that he should prosecuted and interrogated in the techniques that he himself approves. Who agrees with me here?

Sorry, I meant to say terrorists, as they are targeting civilians, because the fact that 1 million were kiled really doesnt match up with the precision of the equipment they are using.

The use of violence and intimidation in the pursuit of political aims...Isn't that exactly what the US was doing when they attacked Iraq to remove Saddam?

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Terrorism doesn't work though. It never has. It just creates more hate. The people behind 911 wanted to strike at the US because they were upset with them being in Saudi Arabia, being in the middle east, interfering . . . Now what happened? The US is there in a bigger presence than ever before.

Aidenfury19

Our response is exactly the same, it merely strengthens the terrorists/freedom fighters amongst their own people and dissipates any sympathy the US used to have. The best option is to not intervene at all.

I don't think there is a best option, unfortunately. Sort of "damned if you do" and "damned if you don't".

Terrorism completely works. It's only a matter of perception. What about the American Revolution or the October Revolution? To the British the Americans were terrorists and to the Tsarists the Bolsheviks were terrorists. Look what came from that terrorism? Two extremely powerful nations.
bman784

you know what they say: terrorists never win because then they are called freedom fighters.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"]

The former does not include "attacking" in any form whatsoever.

Aidenfury19

It absolutely includes attacking, terrorism doesn't require violence to work it just requires fear..absent fear the violence is worthless. Violence is just one way they get them to submit. Also you seem to be unclear on the real history of marajuana enforcement, several innocent people have been killed in these drug raids or their entire livelihoods destroyed.

You want to know why the prisons are overpopulated? A lot of it is marajuana enforcement even though there is virtually no scientific evidence to support it's Schedule I status.

And those "attacks" were never directed at those people. Besides, most drug dealers can be dangerous criminals, and the police don't use force unless they have to. Drug raids maybe done by SWAT teams, but they only shoot when the drug dealer has a weapon.

The police have the right to defend themselves if those who they are trying to arrest are willing to harm them. Unfortunately, innocents sometimes get in the crossfire, but that does not make the US terrorists, since they are not attacking anyone to advance their own agenda.

[QUOTE="bman784"]
Terrorism completely works. It's only a matter of perception. What about the American Revolution or the October Revolution? To the British the Americans were terrorists and to the Tsarists the Bolsheviks were terrorists. Look what came from that terrorism? Two extremely powerful nations.
Hewkii

you know what they say: terrorists never win because then they are called freedom fighters.

[QUOTE="bman784"]
Terrorism completely works. It's only a matter of perception. What about the American Revolution or the October Revolution? To the British the Americans were terrorists and to the Tsarists the Bolsheviks were terrorists. Look what came from that terrorism? Two extremely powerful nations.
Hewkii

you know what they say: terrorists never win because then they are called freedom fighters.

I have never heard anybody say that. Freedom is achieved a lot, we just tend to focus on the opposite side of world events. Terrorism wouldn't even be needed if we didn't have higher powers that think they should control everything (it happened to the founding fathers of America, whom the British refered to as terrorists, and its happening everywhere in the world that the US simply refers to as the "Axis of Evil" we all found out just how evil saddam's WMDs were remember)

Every leader that has ever declared or allowed a war would then be a terrorist under that classification.

sonicare

its gonna happen though...and eventually it is going to get worse...if we dont someone else will, I see a major Chinese effort looming....and we are going to have problems with Iran and Venezuela, and since teh UN lacks the ****s todo anything anymore we have failed...Clinton015

You don't seem to comprehend my point here, plus you are falling for the same sort of bullcrap that was spouted about Iraq with respect to Iran and Venezuela. You will never, NEVER be able to convince entire nations that hate you not to attack you by using military force. The only way you will do that is by leaving their country and letting things run their course. That does of course have implications of it's own, but no nation will remain oppressed and not do something about it.

The reason we haven't seen more efforts by moderate factions in the middle east is because the extremist factions have been able to paint the US and western civilization in general as wanting to force them all to submitt.

And those "attacks" were never directed at those people. Besides, most drug dealers can be dangerous criminals, and the police don't use force unless they have to. Drug raids maybe done by SWAT teams, but they only shoot when the drug dealer has a weapon.

The police have the right to defend themselves if those who they are trying to arrest are willing to harm them. Unfortunately, innocents sometimes get in the crossfire, but that does not make the US terrorists, since they are not attacking anyone to advance their own agenda.

The_Ish

You my friend have been brainwashed. There are hundreds of thousands if not millions of pot smokers out there and a miniscule amount of those are "drug dealers". The police have also been shown to use extreme force even when they don't have to in the case of marajuana enforcement.

The innocents were the suspects, some were shot trying to drop weapons, others had their pets shot, others were shot because they were in the same room and others were shot just trying to run away because they thought they were being robbed. No-knock warrants tend to end up with tragedies of that sort.

US kills civilians

Hoobinator

Exactly how is this related to my post?

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

Every leader that has ever declared or allowed a war would then be a terrorist under that classification.

Aidenfury19

its gonna happen though...and eventually it is going to get worse...if we dont someone else will, I see a major Chinese effort looming....and we are going to have problems with Iran and Venezuela, and since teh UN lacks the ****s todo anything anymore we have failed...Clinton015

You don't seem to comprehend my point here, plus you are falling for the same sort of bullcrap that was spouted about Iraq with respect to Iran and Venezuela. You will never, NEVER be able to convince entire nations that hate you not to attack you by using military force. The only way you will do that is by leaving their country and letting things run their course. That does of course have implications of it's own, but no nation will remain oppressed and not do something about it.

The reason we haven't seen more efforts by moderate factions in the middle east is because the extremist factions have been able to paint the US and western civilization in general as wanting to force them all to submitt.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

US kills civilians

The_Ish

Exactly how is this related to my post?

It was meant as an example to the other persons post, that targetting and attacking civilians has been used by the US. A carpet bomb raid over an Iraqi Village is a means of aggression towards civilian populations.

US fires missiles at Somalian town because of a potential "Al Qaeda terrorist", ends up killing civilians.

thats not what I meant...attacking i mean...i meant sanction wise the power of the UN....Clinton015

Sanctions have never worked, Castro wasn't brought out of power by them, Kim Jong isn't any weaker because of them and Hamas is in fact stronger thanks to them. The sanctions never really hurt the people we are supposedly sanctioning.

[QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

US kills civilians

Hoobinator

Exactly how is this related to my post?

It was meant as an example to the other persons post, that targetting and attacking civilians has been used by the US. A carpet bomb raid over an Iraqi Village is a means of aggression towards civilian populations.

Did you read the article carefully? It makes no mention of a carpet bombing. It says that the first attack by supporting aircraft killed 4 terrorists, and ground forces were deployed to finish off the fleeing enemies. When they caught up, they were fired upon, and rather than risk trying to take on a group of terrorists, they called in air support, completely oblivious to there were civilians with them.

They could not have known that there were civilians amidst the terrorists firing on them, and they never had the objective of attacking a village despite it's inhabitants.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"][QUOTE="The_Ish"][QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

US kills civilians

The_Ish

Exactly how is this related to my post?

It was meant as an example to the other persons post, that targetting and attacking civilians has been used by the US. A carpet bomb raid over an Iraqi Village is a means of aggression towards civilian populations.

Did you read the article carefully? It makes no mention of a carpet bombing. It says that the first attack by supporting aircraft killed 4 terrorists, and ground forces were deployed to finish off the fleeing enemies. When they caught up, they were fired upon, and rather than risk trying to take on a group of terrorists, they called in air support, completely oblivious to there were civilians with them.

They could not have known that there were civilians amidst the terrorists firing on them, and they never had the objective of attacking a village despite it's inhabitants.

Carpet bombing raid is used as an illustration purpose, to show that indirectly targetting a civilian population is a means of aggression towards civilians.

Want more? Last Monday, US fires missiles at a Somalian town because of a potential "Al Qaeda terrorist" was hiding there.

Unsurprisingly 4 civilians were killed, no mention of any death of terrorists. Is this justified? Is bombing a civilian population for the potential death of one terrorist justified? No. It is aggression towards civilian populations.

Carpet bombing raid is used as an illustration purpose, to show that indirectly targetting a civilian population is a means of aggression towards civilians.

Carpet bombing is an actual term. If it was actual carpet bombing, there would have been no need for the ground forces.

Want more? Last Monday, US fires missiles at a Somalian town because of a potential "Al Qaeda terrorist" was hiding there.

Unsurprisingly 4 civilians were killed, no mention of any death of terrorists. Is this justified? Is bombing a civilian population for the potential death of one terrorist justified? No. It is aggression towards civilian populations.

Unfortunate for them, but this one event does little to paint the US as a nation trying to directly attack civilian populations.

Hoobinator

The CIA should just use Chinese Water Torture or whatever it is called where they drip water between your eyes for hours on end until you finally snap.DSgamer64

One thing we need to be careful about now is that if Torture is completely legal (for the army) what will be be considered a bad enough crime to get you tortured? If someone just has connections to a terrorist group but doesn't actually do anything then can be they be tortured? Maybe in the future if you are against the government and want to change something peacefully the government could come and torture you and your group even though you are peaceful. If you want torture against someone who could harm lives then fine but in the future we need to be careful because the rules of torture could change.

What if libertarians are considered terrorists in the future because they want to change the government? Can they be tortured even if they want peacefull change? It is really up to the government.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

Carpet bombing raid is used as an illustration purpose, to show that indirectly targetting a civilian population is a means of aggression towards civilians.

Carpet bombing is an actual term. If it was actual carpet bombing, there would have been no need for the ground forces.

Want more? Last Monday, US fires missiles at a Somalian town because of a potential "Al Qaeda terrorist" was hiding there.

Unsurprisingly 4 civilians were killed, no mention of any death of terrorists. Is this justified? Is bombing a civilian population for the potential death of one terrorist justified? No. It is aggression towards civilian populations.

The_Ish

That would be true if targetting of civilian populations wasn't a tactic of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Article of many civilian populations that been US targets in Afghanistan, by Prof Marc W Herold, University of Hampshire.

In interviews with 60 Minutes, US military acknowledged that field commanders had clearance to call in air strikes on civilian targets, knowing that innocent deaths would likely occur

Amnesty International attacks US and UK planes for targetting civilians.

Of course if a US bomb drops on a civilian population, and kills say 2 terrorists and 4 civilians, then so be it, those civilians are not really our "equals", so why should we give a damn about their lives.

That would be true if targetting of civilian populations wasn't a tactic of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Article of many civilian populations that been US targets in Afghanistan.

In interviews with 60 Minutes, US military acknowledged that field commanders had clearance to call in air strikes on civilian targets, knowing that innocent deaths would likely occur

Amnesty International attacks US and UK planes for targetting civilians.

Hoobinator

None of your sources explain how the US might be targeting civilians specifically.

^^^Collateral Damage is war...if we only carried out attacks with zero CD probability we'd never carry out an attackClinton015

I was waiting for someone to say this. Collateral Damage, the best excuse against civilian bombing campaigns.

Example:

Terrorist detonates IED nearby a US military base, kills 4 US soldiers, kills 26 civilians.... collateral damage, but job done.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

That would be true if targetting of civilian populations wasn't a tactic of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Article of many civilian populations that been US targets in Afghanistan.

In interviews with 60 Minutes, US military acknowledged that field commanders had clearance to call in air strikes on civilian targets, knowing that innocent deaths would likely occur

Amnesty International attacks US and UK planes for targetting civilians.

The_Ish

None of your sources explain how the US might be targeting civilians specifically.

[QUOTE="Clinton015"]^^^Collateral Damage is war...if we only carried out attacks with zero CD probability we'd never carry out an attackHoobinator

I was waiting for someone to say this. Collateral Damage, the best excuse against civilian bombing campaigns.

Example:

Terrorist detonates IED nearby a US military base, kills 4 US soldiers, kills 26 civilians.... collateral damage, but job done.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

That would be true if targetting of civilian populations wasn't a tactic of the US military in Iraq and Afghanistan.

Article of many civilian populations that been US targets in Afghanistan.

In interviews with 60 Minutes, US military acknowledged that field commanders had clearance to call in air strikes on civilian targets, knowing that innocent deaths would likely occur

Amnesty International attacks US and UK planes for targetting civilians.

The_Ish

None of your sources explain how the US might be targeting civilians specifically.

"In some circumstances, we will bomb the house," says Crowder. From the 60 Minutes interview.

The civilan areas are being targetted by the US military. I suppose if this is justified then an IED outside a US army base is completely justified as well. :roll:

But it's OK, the US might kill some terrorists amongst its indiscriminate bombings of civilian populations. The fallout, the bloodshed.

[QUOTE="Hoobinator"]

[QUOTE="Clinton015"]^^^Collateral Damage is war...if we only carried out attacks with zero CD probability we'd never carry out an attackClinton015

I was waiting for someone to say this. Collateral Damage, the best excuse against civilian bombing campaigns.

Example:

Terrorist detonates IED nearby a US military base, kills 4 US soldiers, kills 26 civilians.... collateral damage, but job done.

And the US wants you to think they're fighting for the people over in the foreign lands. Truth is they don't give a **** about you or those people, only their interests.

See I can play this game as well.

I was waiting for someone to say this. Collateral Damage, the best excuse against civilian bombing campaigns.

Example:

Terrorist detonates IED nearby a US military base, kills 4 US soldiers, kills 26 civilians.... collateral damage, but job done.

Hoobinator

Your point would have more value if those same terrorists never tried attacking civilians directly and specifically, or tried to minimized the amount of civilians caught in the crossfire. But they don't.