US drone war kills up to 168 children in Pakistan

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"] You're going off on a tangent here. He was not talking about credibility, he was talking about the historical context that generated the conflict.kuraimen

His post had nothing to do with trusting Al Qaeda or not.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I know what we were discussing but it doesn't seem you understood my answer. It was directly related to his post. Not a tangent dude.LJS9502_basic

His post had nothing to do with trusting Al Qaeda or not.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="kuraimen"]

His post had nothing to do with trusting Al Qaeda or not.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]You avoided my question.LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]That wasn't the subject of my post.:|LJS9502_basic

It's definitely a controversial subject. You have to ask yourself if there is a difference between intentionally targetting and killing people or having them die by "collateral" damage. I think there is, but either way the people are dead. I'm sure it's no consolation to them or their families. Violence stinks and I wish the world would find better ways to deal with things.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] There is a difference....or there should be to everyone....between the relations between two countries....and an organization not officially recognized that just creates "terror". Or don't you see that?

LJS9502_basic

When you start installing military facilites on the place were the prophet of Islam was born and where the holiest cities of Islam are, someone is bound to get pissed off. Whether you think the attacks were justified or not is not important, the point is the idea that the US had nothing to do with this conflict is absurd.

What he said. It's pretty simple, i'm attacking the idea that the US government were sitting still only minding their own business and then the mujahideens attacked them because they are jealous of their freedom and democracy. I'm attacking the idea that the US had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict and that the attacks were unprovoked. Take Iran for an example. One of the reasons Ahmadinejad is so pissed of at the US is that when he was growing up he witnessed the influence the US had on Iran, even going as far a huge number of Americans working there receiving immunity from the Shah.

When you start installing military facilites on the place were the prophet of Islam was born and where the holiest cities of Islam are, someone is bound to get pissed off. Whether you think the attacks were justified or not is not important, the point is the idea that the US had nothing to do with this conflict is absurd.

Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

What he said. It's pretty simple, i'm attacking the idea that the US government were sitting still only minding their own business and then the mujahideens attacked them because they are jealous of their freedom and democracy. I'm attacking the idea that the US had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict and that the attacks were unprovoked. Take Iran for an example. One of the reasons Ahmadinejad is so pissed of at the US is that when he was growing up he witnessed the influence the US had on Iran, even going as far a huge number of Americans working there receiving immunity from the Shah.

When you start installing military facilites on the place were the prophet of Islam was born and where the holiest cities of Islam are, someone is bound to get pissed off. Whether you think the attacks were justified or not is not important, the point is the idea that the US had nothing to do with this conflict is absurd.

LJS9502_basic

It's definitely a controversial subject. You have to ask yourself if there is a difference between intentionally targetting and killing people or having them die by "collateral" damage. I think there is, but either way the people are dead. I'm sure it's no consolation to them or their families. Violence stinks and I wish the world would find better ways to deal with things.

sonicare

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

What he said. It's pretty simple, i'm attacking the idea that the US government were sitting still only minding their own business and then the mujahideens attacked them because they are jealous of their freedom and democracy. I'm attacking the idea that the US had absolutely nothing to do with the conflict and that the attacks were unprovoked. Take Iran for an example. One of the reasons Ahmadinejad is so pissed of at the US is that when he was growing up he witnessed the influence the US had on Iran, even going as far a huge number of Americans working there receiving immunity from the Shah.

When you start installing military facilites on the place were the prophet of Islam was born and where the holiest cities of Islam are, someone is bound to get pissed off. Whether you think the attacks were justified or not is not important, the point is the idea that the US had nothing to do with this conflict is absurd.

Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="sonicare"]

It's definitely a controversial subject. You have to ask yourself if there is a difference between intentionally targetting and killing people or having them die by "collateral" damage. I think there is, but either way the people are dead. I'm sure it's no consolation to them or their families. Violence stinks and I wish the world would find better ways to deal with things.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So then you both misunderstood the post vis a vis there is a difference between issues between governments as opposed to terrorists? He was incorrect by the way.....

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="sonicare"]

It's definitely a controversial subject. You have to ask yourself if there is a difference between intentionally targetting and killing people or having them die by "collateral" damage. I think there is, but either way the people are dead. I'm sure it's no consolation to them or their families. Violence stinks and I wish the world would find better ways to deal with things.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Hey you replied to my post and you missed my point, the difference between a government and an organization labeled as terrorist is not important, that's not what i'm pointing to.

kuraimen

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So then you both misunderstood the post vis a vis there is a difference between issues between governments as opposed to terrorists? He was incorrect by the way.....

LJS9502_basic

Where have I said that I don't see the insurgents using civilians as human shields as wrong? Stop putting words in my mouth and trying to guess what I think.kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Of course it's important. Otherwise you are giving legitimacy to terrorist organizations to strike when they don't like what another country is doing. Canada doesn't secure their borders to the satisfaction of group X. Would you think group X was correct in a terrorist attack on Toronto? Remember....they have a reason why they attacked.LJS9502_basic

the taliban andal qaeda really don't get enough love nowadays so i'm glad they have so many defenders in this thread. but i guess the little guy needs someone to stand up for them against big, bad america.

there have been countless more deaths caused by these militants and insurgents than caused by the US. but to me its not just a numbers game, its a question of intent like some other rational people in this thread have already brought up. the way i see it, terrorists are killing our soldiers and civilians so we have a justifiable reason to pursue and kill them. drones are a good way of doing it because it doesn't put our soldiers in danger and so what if its less "personal"? war is about defeating your enemy in the most efficient way possible with the smallest amount of lives lost, and i believe we are attempting to do just that. collateral damage happens and it is sad when any civilian lives are lost, especially children, but that's what happens when militants hide amongst, and protected by, some of the population.

the people who are comparing our intent to that of al qaeda during 9/11 i feel are truly misguided and are either blinded by their hatred of the US or are just ignorant of the facts.

ItalStallion777

And fyi, the Taliban offered twice to hand over Osama Bin Laden had in fact been in talks with U.S. officials for over three years prior to the September 11th attacks to hand him over. The Taliban, did not commit the attacks, they offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country and they demanded evidence (not an unreasonable request), something the U.S. refused to give to them.

Fast forward to now, Osama Bin Laden is dead (at least to public knowledge) and Afghanistan is now ruled by either the differen warlords, who were and are still worse than the Taliban (The people of Afghanistand welcomed the Taliban, since they were actually less brutal than the warlords) and the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan. So why is the U.S. still in Afghanistan?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Hey you replied to my post and you missed my point, the difference between a government and an organization labeled as terrorist is not important, that's not what i'm pointing to.

Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="kuraimen"] You can't ignore a historical context just because you find some of the parts not credible. Hey lets just ignore the Holocaust because Hitler was a douche. Yeah history doesn't work like that.kuraimen

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Of course it's important. Otherwise you are giving legitimacy to terrorist organizations to strike when they don't like what another country is doing. Canada doesn't secure their borders to the satisfaction of group X. Would you think group X was correct in a terrorist attack on Toronto? Remember....they have a reason why they attacked.LJS9502_basic

Then say right here and now the insurgents are responsible for the civilian deaths. Because you have said anything but in this thread.

LJS9502_basic

I have said it several times actually, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths. There three times. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge the US responsibility in killing civilians. I have said that both are murderers, insurgents killing civilians and US forces killing civilians.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Like i said, whether you think their reason is legitimate or not is not important, the point is that it's not as one-sided as some people think. And your example was reductio ad absurdum.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Then say right here and now the insurgents are responsible for the civilian deaths. Because you have said anything but in this thread.

kuraimen

I have said it several times actually, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths. There three times. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge the US responsibility in killing civilians. I have said that both are murderers, insurgents killing civilians and US forces killing civilians.

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] History doesn't ignore what Hitler did. He's demonized. And rightly so. I don't think that analogy quite worked for you. And I see you skimmed over the context of my post rather than have to think about it's message.

LJS9502_basic

I'm not confusing anything since nobody here but you is talking about the difference of legitimate governments and terrorist organizations.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ah I see. It's absurd to take the context of your posts and apply it to a different scenario. It's basically what you have been advocating in this thread. Because government A has done situation B then group C has a justification for attacking government A. But when the issue is against someone other than the US...it's an absurd analogy. Gotcha then. The US is always wrong no matter what. The enemy is right and the ends justify the means. Guess that's as far as we can go then since you don't allow for the differnece between legitimate governments and terrorits.

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="kuraimen"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

Then say right here and now the insurgents are responsible for the civilian deaths. Because you have said anything but in this thread.

LJS9502_basic

I have said it several times actually, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths, insurgents are responsible for civilian deaths. There three times. You on the other hand refuse to acknowledge the US responsibility in killing civilians. I have said that both are murderers, insurgents killing civilians and US forces killing civilians.

[QUOTE="ItalStallion777"]

the taliban andal qaeda really don't get enough love nowadays so i'm glad they have so many defenders in this thread. but i guess the little guy needs someone to stand up for them against big, bad america.

there have been countless more deaths caused by these militants and insurgents than caused by the US. but to me its not just a numbers game, its a question of intent like some other rational people in this thread have already brought up. the way i see it, terrorists are killing our soldiers and civilians so we have a justifiable reason to pursue and kill them. drones are a good way of doing it because it doesn't put our soldiers in danger and so what if its less "personal"? war is about defeating your enemy in the most efficient way possible with the smallest amount of lives lost, and i believe we are attempting to do just that. collateral damage happens and it is sad when any civilian lives are lost, especially children, but that's what happens when militants hide amongst, and protected by, some of the population.

the people who are comparing our intent to that of al qaeda during 9/11 i feel are truly misguided and are either blinded by their hatred of the US or are just ignorant of the facts.

m25105

And fyi, the Taliban offered twice to hand over Osama Bin Laden had in fact been in talks with U.S. officials for over three years prior to the September 11th attacks to hand him over. The Taliban, did not commit the attacks, they offered to hand Bin Laden over to a neutral country and they demanded evidence (not an unreasonable request), something the U.S. refused to give to them.

Fast forward to now, Osama Bin Laden is dead (at least to public knowledge) and Afghanistan is now ruled by either the differen warlords, who were and are still worse than the Taliban (The people of Afghanistand welcomed the Taliban, since they were actually less brutal than the warlords) and the Taliban in the south of Afghanistan. So why is the U.S. still in Afghanistan?

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Trivial is subjective. LJS9502_basic

1. Person thinks the attacks were totally unprovoked.

2. They were not unprovoked, they had a reason.

3. Whether you think that reason is legitimate is not important, point is they HAD a reason.

The same goes with your trivial analogy, if a terrorist organization attacked Toronto because of the borders and a person thinks that they attacked them because of hate or jealousy i would correct them too by saying "no they attacked you because you didn't want to close your borders". THAT is the point i was trying to make. And yes, comparing border control with attempting to control an entire region is pretty falacious.

By the way earlier in this thread some guy said "Name one terrorist attack the U.S. has done." Here is one.

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Come on, you are comparing the meddling of Western government in Islamic countries with borders??? That is the very definition of reductio ad absurdum.

Stavrogin_

1. Person thinks the attacks were totally unprovoked.

2. They were not unprovoked, they had a reason.

3. Whether you think that reason is legitimate is not important, point is they HAD a reason.

The same goes with your trivial analogy, if a terrorist organization attacked Toronto because of the borders and a person thinks that they attacked them because of hate or jealousy i would correct them too by saying "no they attacked you because you didn't want to close your borders". THAT is the point i was trying to make. And yes, comparing border control with attempting to control an entire region is pretty falacious.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Terrorists have historically entered the US through those borders. That is not trivial.

LJS9502_basic

1. Person thinks the attacks were totally unprovoked.

2. They were not unprovoked, they had a reason.

3. Whether you think that reason is legitimate is not important, point is they HAD a reason.

The same goes with your trivial analogy, if a terrorist organization attacked Toronto because of the borders and a person thinks that they attacked them because of hate or jealousy i would correct them too by saying "no they attacked you because you didn't want to close your borders". THAT is the point i was trying to make. And yes, comparing border control with attempting to control an entire region is pretty falacious.

You completely and absolutely missed the point. Yet again!

You completely and absolutely missed the point. Yet again!

Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

You completely and absolutely missed the point. Yet again!

LJS9502_basic

Okay, here it is, the simplest explanation i personally can give. Person A thinks that person B attacked object C because of reason X. He is wrong. Person B attacked object C because of reason Y. I hope now you understand what my point was, i'm done with this.

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

You completely and absolutely missed the point. Yet again!

LJS9502_basic

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

You completely and absolutely missed the point. Yet again!

kuraimen

[QUOTE="kuraimen"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No. You missed the point. You ranted that it doen't matter what credence or justification I gave the issue...but then in the same conversation you belittled what would be a valid reason to another. You can't have it both ways. Either we accept reasons as valid to individuals or not. You are wiggling around to justify the reasons you agree with while belittling what you don't agree with. That is, indeed, the defintion of a contradiction.

LJS9502_basic

Nope, nope, wrong again. I didn't say it doesn't matter what you personally feel, i said that it doesn't matter to the point i was trying to make. Do i have to draw everything to you?

Stavrogin_

It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

Nope, nope, wrong again. I didn't say it doesn't matter what you personally feel, i said that it doesn't matter to the point i was trying to make. Do i have to draw everything to you?

LJS9502_basic

It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.Stavrogin_

Your or anyone's personal feelings do not influence the point i was m.a.k.i.n.g.

Are we done now? Please say we're done.

]I explained your analogy for the sake of argument. Okay let me explain this in simplest way i can.

Your or anyone's personal feelings do not influence the point i was m.a.k.i.n.g.

Are we done now? Please say we're done.

Stavrogin_

If you want cohesion with your thoughts than you have toa admit my analogy was correct. Someone could disagree with the Canadian government and you would find their terrorist attack on Toronto to have a valid reason. So which is it...yes or no?

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]I explained your analogy for the sake of argument. Okay let me explain this in simplest way i can.

Your or anyone's personal feelings do not influence the point i was m.a.k.i.n.g.

Are we done now? Please say we're done.

LJS9502_basic

And this was my point...

Guess my previous explanation wasn't simple enough, too many words probably...Okay, here it is, the simplest explanation i personally can give. Person A thinks that person B attacked object C because of reason X. He is wrong. Person B attacked object C because of reason Y. I hope now you understand what my point was, i'm done with this.Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]I explained your analogy for the sake of argument. Okay let me explain this in simplest way i can.

Your or anyone's personal feelings do not influence the point i was m.a.k.i.n.g.

Are we done now? Please say we're done.

Stavrogin_

[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Guess my previous explanation wasn't simple enough, too many words probably...Okay, here it is, the simplest explanation i personally can give. Person A thinks that person B attacked object C because of reason X. He is wrong. Person B attacked object C because of reason Y. I hope now you understand what my point was, i'm done with this.Stavrogin_

Of course it's important. Otherwise you are giving legitimacy to terrorist organizations to strike when they don't like what another country is doing. Canada doesn't secure their borders to the satisfaction of group X. Would you think group X was correct in a terrorist attack on Toronto? Remember....they have a reason why they attacked.LJS9502_basic

Remember you said the 911 terrorists had a correct reason for their actions....all you said in response to this question was it's absurd. It's not. It's the heart of your opinion.