Your analogy was reductio ad absurdum, read about on wikipedia if you don't know what it is. It's a common logical fallacy. So then the reaons is only valid if you agree with it? That sir is a contradiction. I'm sure that is on Wiki as well. You should really really read an article about that logical fallacy you enjoy making. I'm done here, bye...[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] You haven't made a point. If you had you would allow that my analogy works the same. Instead you backpedaled.LJS9502_basic
US drone war kills up to 168 children in Pakistan
This topic is locked from further discussion.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]So then the reaons is only valid if you agree with it? That sir is a contradiction. I'm sure that is on Wiki as well. You should really really read an article about that logical fallacy you enjoy making. I'm done here, bye... Yes because when one doesn't want to answer in such a way as to make their earlier statements show an error....a fallacy is always the reason. Seriously dude. You have not once explained why my rationale that another group being angry at the Canadian government is in anyway inferior as an reason. But I'm glad we've finished. The quote thread can be judged from others.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Your analogy was reductio ad absurdum, read about on wikipedia if you don't know what it is. It's a common logical fallacy.Stavrogin_
You should really really read an article about that logical fallacy you enjoy making. I'm done here, bye... Yes because when one doesn't want to answer in such a way as to make their earlier statements show an error....a fallacy is always the reason. Seriously dude. You have not once explained why my rationale that another group being angry at the Canadian government is in anyway inferior as an reason. But I'm glad we've finished. The quote thread can be judged from others. And judging here you completely missed his point. He was not trying to say a reason is valid or not just that there's a reason and what that reason is. There was no judgment of value applied by him but you somehow started talking about credibility and valid reasons which is absurd in the context of what he was saying.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So then the reaons is only valid if you agree with it? That sir is a contradiction. I'm sure that is on Wiki as well.
LJS9502_basic
You should really really read an article about that logical fallacy you enjoy making. I'm done here, bye... Yes because when one doesn't want to answer in such a way as to make their earlier statements show an error....a fallacy is always the reason. Seriously dude. You have not once explained why my rationale that another group being angry at the Canadian government is in anyway inferior as an reason. But I'm glad we've finished. The quote thread can be judged from others.You are basing this response on a previous quote-mining, i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making and that the the reason for the attacks is different then the one perceived by some people on the forum. It's that simple, don't know why you're being so stubborn.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] So then the reaons is only valid if you agree with it? That sir is a contradiction. I'm sure that is on Wiki as well.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Yes because when one doesn't want to answer in such a way as to make their earlier statements show an error....a fallacy is always the reason. Seriously dude. You have not once explained why my rationale that another group being angry at the Canadian government is in anyway inferior as an reason. But I'm glad we've finished. The quote thread can be judged from others.You are basing this response on a previous quote-mining, i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making and that is the reason for the attacks is different then the one perceived by some people on the forum. It's that simple, don't know why you're being so stubborn. No. That is not quote mining. I asked that question of you and you answered as the thread evolved. Period. That started that line of discussion.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] You should really really read an article about that logical fallacy you enjoy making. I'm done here, bye...Stavrogin_
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Yes because when one doesn't want to answer in such a way as to make their earlier statements show an error....a fallacy is always the reason. Seriously dude. You have not once explained why my rationale that another group being angry at the Canadian government is in anyway inferior as an reason. But I'm glad we've finished. The quote thread can be judged from others.You are basing this response on a previous quote-mining, i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making and that is the reason for the attacks is different then the one perceived by some people on the forum. It's that simple, don't know why you're being so stubborn. No. That is not quote mining. I asked that question of you and you answered as the thread evolved. Period. That started that line of discussion.You based your arguments on quote-mining me, i never said yours or anyone's personal opinions don't matter i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making because they're completely outside the point.LJS9502_basic
No. That is not quote mining. I asked that question of you and you answered as the thread evolved. Period. That started that line of discussion.You based your arguments on quote-mining me, i never said yours or anyone's personal opinions don't matter i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making.No I didn't. That was your total response.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]You are basing this response on a previous quote-mining, i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making and that is the reason for the attacks is different then the one perceived by some people on the forum. It's that simple, don't know why you're being so stubborn.Stavrogin_
How is that quote mining? Either we accept that people have reasons for what they do...or we do not. You cannot have it both ways. You can check back and see that that was the entirety of your post if you like.It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.Stavrogin_
You based your arguments on quote-mining me, i never said yours or anyone's personal opinions don't matter i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making.No I didn't. That was your total response.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. That is not quote mining. I asked that question of you and you answered as the thread evolved. Period. That started that line of discussion.LJS9502_basic
How is that quote mining? Either we accept that people have reasons for what they do...or we do not. You cannot have it both ways. You can check back and see that that was the entirety of your post if you like. That IS quote-mining. You're quoting one of his responses without the context of the conversation. That quote alone doesn't even make sense.It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.Stavrogin_
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]No I didn't. That was your total response.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]You based your arguments on quote-mining me, i never said yours or anyone's personal opinions don't matter i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making.
kuraimen
How is that quote mining? Either we accept that people have reasons for what they do...or we do not. You cannot have it both ways. You can check back and see that that was the entirety of your post if you like. That IS quote-mining. You're quoting one of his responses without the context of the conversation. That quote alone doesn't even make sense. Uh that was the answer to my analogy which I posted above. That's not quote mining. That was his response.:roll:It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.Stavrogin_
You based your arguments on quote-mining me, i never said yours or anyone's personal opinions don't matter i said personal opinions don't influence the point i was making.No I didn't. That was your total response.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] No. That is not quote mining. I asked that question of you and you answered as the thread evolved. Period. That started that line of discussion.LJS9502_basic
How is that quote mining? Either we accept that people have reasons for what they do...or we do not. You cannot have it both ways. You can check back and see that that was the entirety of your post if you like.You just shot yourself in the foot. Yes, and then you claimed that i said opinions don't matter and yet i used my subjective opinion to decide what's trivial or not, when it wasn't like that. I never said opinions don't matter, i said opinions don't influence the point i was making. How is that not quote-mining?It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.Stavrogin_
Here's the direct quote....You just shot yourself in the foot. Yes, and then you claimed that i said opinions don't matter and yet i used my subjective opinion to decide what's trivial or not, when it wasn't like that. I never said opinions don't matter, i said opinions don't influence the point i was making. How is that not quote-mining?
Stavrogin_
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]It's an absurd analogy when you compare it with a trivial thing.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.
Stavrogin_
Nothing you posted above applies to what was said here. This is post one and two of the conversation. I didn't say you said opinions don't matter by the way. I said you gave opinions you agreed with value...and those you didn't no value. You are misrepresenting what I said.
When I responded to that....you said this.
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Trivial is subjective. 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. So my question to you is...why do you decide what is a trivial reason or not? And if that is up for interpretation than we can surely think the reason for 911 was trivial. Which is it? Why is one reason absurd and the other not when it's personal opinion after all?
We were never arguing that line.....can you grasp that? I asked you a simple question using Canada as an example since as far as I know Canada has no enemies. And you responded with a contradiction.You seem to have a hard time grasping simple concepts. Here's my point, the reason Al Qaeda attacked the US is different than the one some people think it is. Whether you think the real reason is still valid or not is not important NOT because opinions are not important but because they're outside my point. My point was i remind you again, the reason the Al Qaeda attacked the US is different then the one perceived by some people. How old are you exactly?
Stavrogin_
.
And I bolded the contradiction I found....
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] Terrorists have historically entered the US through those borders. That is not trivial. Stavrogin_Why are you so stubborn? The point i am trying to make is very simple.
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.
Never was I discussing different interpretations of the event with you. If you were arguing that...then you were not arguing what I asked you. I asked if they had a reason to attack Toronto. And all I got in response was the reason was trivial or absurd. That is a personal judgment. That does not answer my question. So I guess what this discussion came down to in the end....was (reading your last paragraph quoted) your straw man to deflect the question I asked you in regard to the analogy.Why are you so stubborn? The point i am trying to make is very simple.And I bolded the contradiction I found.... [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.
Never was I discussing different interpretations of the event with you. If you were arguing that...then you were not arguing what I asked you. I asked if they had a reason to attack Toronto. And all I got in response was the reason was trivial or absurd. That is a personal judgment. That does not answer my question. So I guess what this discussion came down to in the end....was (reading your last paragraph quoted) your straw man to deflect the question I asked you in regard to the analogy.Man, you're like a little kid. I explained the bolded part. Your opinion doesn't matter because it's outside the point, the point is they had a different reason. Not that opinions don't matter, jeezzzz...
Why are you so stubborn? The point i am trying to make is very simple.And I bolded the contradiction I found.... [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.
Never was I discussing different interpretations of the event with you. If you were arguing that...then you were not arguing what I asked you. I asked if they had a reason to attack Toronto. And all I got in response was the reason was trivial or absurd. That is a personal judgment. That does not answer my question. So I guess what this discussion came down to in the end....was (reading your last paragraph quoted) your straw man to deflect the question I asked you in regard to the analogy.Its pretty obvious isn't it? The Middle Eastern people view the entire west as the enemy.. Canada may have not directly done operations in it, but they have always supported the nations that have..
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]We were never arguing that line.....can you grasp that? I asked you a simple question using Canada as an example since as far as I know Canada has no enemies. And you responded with a contradiction.Your analogy is and remains a logical fallacy that i only answered for the sake of argument. Yet you claimed that i subjectively give no value to examples i disagree with, come on, please google an explanation. Goodbye, this one is for real :PNo it's not a logical fallacy. It's taking your idea that a group can disagree with a government and they have a reason to advance terrorist activities. You did say the terrorists acted because they didn't like US policy...did you not?You seem to have a hard time grasping simple concepts. Here's my point, the reason Al Qaeda attacked the US is different than the one some people think it is. Whether you think the real reason is still valid or not is not important NOT because opinions are not important but because they're outside my point. My point was i remind you again, the reason the Al Qaeda attacked the US is different then the one perceived by some people. How old are you exactly?
Stavrogin_
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Never was I discussing different interpretations of the event with you. If you were arguing that...then you were not arguing what I asked you. I asked if they had a reason to attack Toronto. And all I got in response was the reason was trivial or absurd. That is a personal judgment. That does not answer my question. So I guess what this discussion came down to in the end....was (reading your last paragraph quoted) your straw man to deflect the question I asked you in regard to the analogy.Man, you're like a little kid. I explained the bolded part. Your opinion doesn't matter because it's outside the point, the point is they had a different reason. Not that opinions don't matter, jeezzzz... And there is the contradiction I'm talking about...you should not have said the reason in my analogy was absurd. Because it's outside the point. The point had a different reason. Get it now?And I bolded the contradiction I found.... [QUOTE="Stavrogin_"] Why are you so stubborn? The point i am trying to make is very simple.
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. Stavrogin_
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Never was I discussing different interpretations of the event with you. If you were arguing that...then you were not arguing what I asked you. I asked if they had a reason to attack Toronto. And all I got in response was the reason was trivial or absurd. That is a personal judgment. That does not answer my question. So I guess what this discussion came down to in the end....was (reading your last paragraph quoted) your straw man to deflect the question I asked you in regard to the analogy.Man, you're like a little kid. I explained the bolded part. Your opinion doesn't matter because it's outside the point, the point is they had a different reason. Not that opinions don't matter, jeezzzz... And there is the contradiction I'm talking about...you should not have said the reason in my analogy was absurd. Because it's outside the point. The point had a different reason. Get it now?Your analogy is absurd because you comparing it with a problem that carries much less weight. Attempting to control an entire region with border control.LJS9502_basic
Ah but sub...I wasn't discussing the reasons. I've never stated otherwise as to their reasons. It's stav you wants to assume the reason is misrepresented.Its pretty obvious isn't it? The Middle Eastern people view the entire west as the enemy.. Canada may have not directly done operations in it, but they have always supported the nations that have..
sSubZerOo
it is unfortunate that we need to do this, but we need to do this.
Maybe if the international community (in this case, Pakistan) would expose these fundamentalist and actually try to make the world a better place, this would not be needed. But until the US can stop doing Pakistan's job for them, I guess this is how its going to go.
I am sorry for the loss of life, I really am, but it is hard to feel really bad when all other options have been sought or have failed.
And there is the contradiction I'm talking about...you should not have said the reason in my analogy was absurd. Because it's outside the point. The point had a different reason. Get it now?Your analogy is absurd because you comparing it with a problem that carries much less weight. Attempting to control an entire region with border control.And ease of entry into the US for terrorists is trivial?[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Man, you're like a little kid. I explained the bolded part. Your opinion doesn't matter because it's outside the point, the point is they had a different reason. Not that opinions don't matter, jeezzzz...Stavrogin_
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Your analogy is absurd because you comparing it with a problem that carries much less weight. Attempting to control an entire region with border control.And ease of entry into the US for terrorists is trivial?You already made that point. It's still carries much less weight than the control of an entire region.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And there is the contradiction I'm talking about...you should not have said the reason in my analogy was absurd. Because it's outside the point. The point had a different reason. Get it now?LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]Your analogy is absurd because you comparing it with a problem that carries much less weight. Attempting to control an entire region with border control.And ease of entry into the US for terrorists is trivial?You already made that point. It's still carries much less weight than the control of an entire region. And again...that is a SUBJECTIVE opinion of yours. Not a fact.Stavrogin_
You already made that point. It's still carries much less weight than the control of an entire region. And again...that is a SUBJECTIVE opinion of yours. Not a fact.No, as a problem on its own, of course it's not trivial but compared to the Middle Eastern conflict it certainly carries much less weight. That's an objective opinion. As is saying that the murder of a thousand people carries much more weight than the murder of one, even though the murder of one is not trivial if it stands on its own. In comparison it is.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And ease of entry into the US for terrorists is trivial?LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]And again...that is a SUBJECTIVE opinion of yours. Not a fact.No, as a problem on its own, of course it's not trivial but compared to the Middle Eastern conflict it certainly carries much less weight. That's an objective opinion. As is saying that the murder of a thousand people carries much more weight than the murder of one, even though the murder of one is not trivial if it stands on its own. In comparison it is.Ah but then we come back to the discussion vis a vis legitimate government...which has diplomacy and international status to deal with the US and terrorist organization with no legitimacy.....or credibility as it were. And yes the words are interchangeable in regard to legal status to speak for a people...ie government.[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]You already made that point. It's still carries much less weight than the control of an entire region.Stavrogin_
[QUOTE="Stavrogin_"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"] And again...that is a SUBJECTIVE opinion of yours. Not a fact.No, as a problem on its own, of course it's not trivial but compared to the Middle Eastern conflict it certainly carries much less weight. That's an objective opinion. As is saying that the murder of a thousand people carries much more weight than the murder of one, even though the murder of one is not trivial if it stands on its own. In comparison it is.Ah but then we come back to the discussion vis a vis legitimate government...which has diplomacy and international status to deal with the US and terrorist organization with no legitimacy.....or credibility as it were. And yes the words are interchangeable in regard to legal status to speak for a people...ie government. Oh god please no! :DLJS9502_basic
it is unfortunate that we need to do this, but we need to do this.
Maybe if the international community (in this case, Pakistan) would expose these fundamentalist and actually try to make the world a better place, this would not be needed. But until the US can stop doing Pakistan's job for them, I guess this is how its going to go.
I am sorry for the loss of life, I really am, but it is hard to feel really bad when all other options have been sought or have failed.
mrbojangles25
so basically you are saying is ok to kill inocents because it is a war? correct me if im wrong but thats exactly what the terrorist think
Ah but then we come back to the discussion vis a vis legitimate government...which has diplomacy and international status to deal with the US and terrorist organization with no legitimacy.....or credibility as it were. And yes the words are interchangeable in regard to legal status to speak for a people...ie government. Oh god please no! :D But that is a valid answer. When a government is unhappy they should make it known. Disgruntled citizens have no standing to launch terrorist attacks based on their views. If we allow that as justification.....and reasons are more or less a justification of sorts...then we open the doors to anarchy and terrorism worldwide.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Stavrogin_"]No, as a problem on its own, of course it's not trivial but compared to the Middle Eastern conflict it certainly carries much less weight. That's an objective opinion. As is saying that the murder of a thousand people carries much more weight than the murder of one, even though the murder of one is not trivial if it stands on its own. In comparison it is.Stavrogin_
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
it is unfortunate that we need to do this, but we need to do this.
Maybe if the international community (in this case, Pakistan) would expose these fundamentalist and actually try to make the world a better place, this would not be needed. But until the US can stop doing Pakistan's job for them, I guess this is how its going to go.
I am sorry for the loss of life, I really am, but it is hard to feel really bad when all other options have been sought or have failed.
Krelian-co
so basically you are saying is ok to kill inocents because it is a war? correct me if im wrong but thats exactly what the terrorist think
c'mon dude, nothing I said is even remotely close to what youre putting in my mouth (giggity)
But if you need clarification: terrorists specifically target civilians, the US targets militants. Not that it excuses our actions, but the US kills civilians on accident, and the militants are partially to blame for that as they hide behind civilians.
Contrary to popular belief, the US doesn't go "OOOH! A TERRORIST!" and launch a missile. They weigh the odds, look at the intel, and calculate the risk. If it is "acceptable", and attack is done. Sometimes the risk doesn't work out and, regretfully, civilians are hurt.
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
it is unfortunate that we need to do this, but we need to do this.
Maybe if the international community (in this case, Pakistan) would expose these fundamentalist and actually try to make the world a better place, this would not be needed. But until the US can stop doing Pakistan's job for them, I guess this is how its going to go.
I am sorry for the loss of life, I really am, but it is hard to feel really bad when all other options have been sought or have failed.
mrbojangles25
so basically you are saying is ok to kill inocents because it is a war? correct me if im wrong but thats exactly what the terrorist think
c'mon dude, nothing I said is even remotely close to what youre putting in my mouth (giggity)
But if you need clarification: terrorists specifically target civilians, the US targets militants. Not that it excuses our actions, but the US kills civilians on accident, and the militants are partially to blame for that as they hide behind civilians.
Contrary to popular belief, the US doesn't go "OOOH! A TERRORIST!" and launch a missile. They weigh the odds, look at the intel, and calculate the risk. If it is "acceptable", and attack is done. Sometimes the risk doesn't work out and, regretfully, civilians are hurt.
.. Your point completely flies in the face of decades of policies in the region where we have US supporting and installing dictators that torture and murder their own people.. When you put in this kind of baggage, your going to have terrorist who justify this kind of thing simply due to the West doing the exact same type of things for a huundred years through the said example..
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
[QUOTE="Krelian-co"]
so basically you are saying is ok to kill inocents because it is a war? correct me if im wrong but thats exactly what the terrorist think
sSubZerOo
c'mon dude, nothing I said is even remotely close to what youre putting in my mouth (giggity)
But if you need clarification: terrorists specifically target civilians, the US targets militants. Not that it excuses our actions, but the US kills civilians on accident, and the militants are partially to blame for that as they hide behind civilians.
Contrary to popular belief, the US doesn't go "OOOH! A TERRORIST!" and launch a missile. They weigh the odds, look at the intel, and calculate the risk. If it is "acceptable", and attack is done. Sometimes the risk doesn't work out and, regretfully, civilians are hurt.
.. Your point completely flies in the face of decades of policies in the region where we have US supporting and installing dictators that torture and murder their own people.. When you put in this kind of baggage, your going to have terrorist who justify this kind of thing simply due to the West doing the exact same type of things for a huundred years through the said example..
fair enough, but truthfully that excuse is getting kind of old. It's like black people in the US demanding reparations.
Shouldn't these militants be fighting against their own government if it is so bad? At least they could actually defeat that. Fighting the US is only going to result in your death and the death of those around you.
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
c'mon dude, nothing I said is even remotely close to what youre putting in my mouth (giggity)
But if you need clarification: terrorists specifically target civilians, the US targets militants. Not that it excuses our actions, but the US kills civilians on accident, and the militants are partially to blame for that as they hide behind civilians.
Contrary to popular belief, the US doesn't go "OOOH! A TERRORIST!" and launch a missile. They weigh the odds, look at the intel, and calculate the risk. If it is "acceptable", and attack is done. Sometimes the risk doesn't work out and, regretfully, civilians are hurt.
mrbojangles25
.. Your point completely flies in the face of decades of policies in the region where we have US supporting and installing dictators that torture and murder their own people.. When you put in this kind of baggage, your going to have terrorist who justify this kind of thing simply due to the West doing the exact same type of things for a huundred years through the said example..
fair enough, but truthfully that excuse is getting kind of old. It's like black people in the US demanding reparations.
Shouldn't these militants be fighting against their own government if it is so bad? At least they could actually defeat that. Fighting the US is only going to result in your death and the death of those around you.
Aren't their governments and policies shaped around the West though? That these things will never really stop until the West stops having a say in the region.. If you actually look at the history of the region.. Western powers were actually a detriment to democracy.. Thats right thanks to the west.. Democracy was actually slowed down to outright destroyed.. No better example of this is with Iran..
[QUOTE="mrbojangles25"]
[QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]
.. Your point completely flies in the face of decades of policies in the region where we have US supporting and installing dictators that torture and murder their own people.. When you put in this kind of baggage, your going to have terrorist who justify this kind of thing simply due to the West doing the exact same type of things for a huundred years through the said example..
sSubZerOo
fair enough, but truthfully that excuse is getting kind of old. It's like black people in the US demanding reparations.
Shouldn't these militants be fighting against their own government if it is so bad? At least they could actually defeat that. Fighting the US is only going to result in your death and the death of those around you.
Aren't their governments and policies shaped around the West though? That these things will never really stop until the West stops having a say in the region.. If you actually look at the history of the region.. Western powers were actually a detriment to democracy.. Thats right thanks to the west.. Democracy was actually slowed down to outright destroyed.. No better example of this is with Iran..
absolutely, same thing with south america as well. For being a "democracy", the US definitely does not like the share the spirit lol.
[QUOTE="tocool340"][QUOTE="sSubZerOo"]I approve of what you said...:PDo you? All wars are war of choices so basically what he said is war has collateral damage and civilian deaths happen. As for his last few statements......I suggest reading up on how some other countries conduct war to see the US does, indeed, do it's best to limit collateral deaths. The reason many happen in the ME/current situation is insurgents who use human shields. Why not decry those guys? Oh right....it's better to blame the US for the actions of insurgents.:| I blame BOTH. I put more blame on U.S. though given their agenda of fighting for peace. If your fighting to protect people, there really shouldn't be no collateral damage on our side. Blowing up people for the sake of trying to catch an insurgent makes you no better than the terrorist holding someone hostage. And considering there's an unknown amount of insurgents hanging around, who knows how many sacrifices it will take. If you fight for peace, do it 100%. Don't just half-ass it and make up excuses to why civilians were killed. If you have a choice not to kill a civilian, take it. Back off and wait til its possible to take a clean shot....The statement that always makes me facepalm is "well thats war sadely".. Yes thats war when its unavoidable.. Both the Iraq and Afghanistan war are wars of choice.. In these types of wars, there is no excuse or condoning these kinds of losses.. Especially when the US pays so close attention to tragic losses no matter how small from hostile forces.. If the US really cared about "saving" people or really most countries for that matter.. There are multiple different avenues that could be went down that could save far more.. The fact of the matter are these places hold political and economic importance.. And really only is a extension of the imperialism the West has been flexing on regions like the Middle East for a century now.. The sad thing is.. Neither party has hardly a different policy or outlook overall.. The only politicians I hear that speak out against this kind of crap are shunned such as men like Ron Paul or Jimmy Carter.. Newsflash, we can't call ourselves the good guys, the voice of reasoning, the compassioante side, when we have this kind of callous hypocrisy at the forefront. You can be one or the other, you can't have both worlds.
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]Ineffective shield?BiancaDK
the targets are getting bombed regardless, so speaking from a defensive strategy point of view, it's pretty inefficient against U.S strikes
And that's where you're wrong, we do not intentionally drop munitions on a target when we suspect there are innocent civilians in the mix.FYI the US does try to avoid killing civilians...but as is the nature of the beast...it sometimes happens. And there is a difference between an accident and a deliberate event.[ I blame BOTH. I put more blame on U.S. though given their agenda of fighting for peace. If your fighting to protect people, there really shouldn't be no collateral damage on our side. Blowing up people for the sake of trying to catch an insurgent makes you no better than the terrorist holding someone hostage. And considering there's an unknown amount of insurgents hanging around, who knows how many sacrifices it will take. If you fight for peace, do it 100%. Don't just half-ass it and make up excuses to why civilians were killed. If you have a choice not to kill a civilian, take it. Back off and wait til its possible to take a clean shot....
tocool340
FYI the US does try to avoid killing civilians...but as is the nature of the beast...it sometimes happens. And there is a difference between an accident and a deliberate event. It's not either. They're not going "look, a group of civilians, lets kill them" but it's not accidental either. The USA doesn't care if there's civilians in the cross fire, they'll shoot and then go "oh, woops" after. If only they'd think of the innocent people they've murdered, and their families. They're so desensitized to death, that they dont care if they kill civilians to get their missions done.[QUOTE="tocool340"]
[ I blame BOTH. I put more blame on U.S. though given their agenda of fighting for peace. If your fighting to protect people, there really shouldn't be no collateral damage on our side. Blowing up people for the sake of trying to catch an insurgent makes you no better than the terrorist holding someone hostage. And considering there's an unknown amount of insurgents hanging around, who knows how many sacrifices it will take. If you fight for peace, do it 100%. Don't just half-ass it and make up excuses to why civilians were killed. If you have a choice not to kill a civilian, take it. Back off and wait til its possible to take a clean shot....
LJS9502_basic
[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]FYI the US does try to avoid killing civilians...but as is the nature of the beast...it sometimes happens. And there is a difference between an accident and a deliberate event. It's not either. They're not going "look, a group of civilians, lets kill them" but it's not accidental either. The USA doesn't care if there's civilians in the cross fire, they'll shoot and then go "oh, woops" after. If only they'd think of the innocent people they've murdered, and their families. They're so desensitized to death, that they dont care if they kill civilians to get their missions done.You are quite wrong there.....[QUOTE="tocool340"]
[ I blame BOTH. I put more blame on U.S. though given their agenda of fighting for peace. If your fighting to protect people, there really shouldn't be no collateral damage on our side. Blowing up people for the sake of trying to catch an insurgent makes you no better than the terrorist holding someone hostage. And considering there's an unknown amount of insurgents hanging around, who knows how many sacrifices it will take. If you fight for peace, do it 100%. Don't just half-ass it and make up excuses to why civilians were killed. If you have a choice not to kill a civilian, take it. Back off and wait til its possible to take a clean shot....
Nibroc420
[QUOTE="Nibroc420"][QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"]FYI the US does try to avoid killing civilians...but as is the nature of the beast...it sometimes happens. And there is a difference between an accident and a deliberate event.It's not either. They're not going "look, a group of civilians, lets kill them" but it's not accidental either. The USA doesn't care if there's civilians in the cross fire, they'll shoot and then go "oh, woops" after. If only they'd think of the innocent people they've murdered, and their families. They're so desensitized to death, that they dont care if they kill civilians to get their missions done.You are quite wrong there..... The numbers suggest otherwise.LJS9502_basic
I'll stick with the facts and hard data, rather than your speculation.
[QUOTE="Blaze787"]Yeah, people will walk all over you if you don't go around inflicting your arbitrary will on other nations. You'll get walked on if you don't kill children. It amazes me how mass killing is more accepted than killing on a smaller scale.The unfortunate nature of war is that, sometimes, civilians get killed. For all the advances in technology and precision guided weaponry, it's still unavoidable. The alternative is to sit at home and let people walk all over you.
Rhazakna
When one man dies, it is a tragedy. When a million men die, it is a statistic.
-Joseph Stalin
You are quite wrong there..... The numbers suggest otherwise.[QUOTE="LJS9502_basic"][QUOTE="Nibroc420"] It's not either. They're not going "look, a group of civilians, lets kill them" but it's not accidental either. The USA doesn't care if there's civilians in the cross fire, they'll shoot and then go "oh, woops" after. If only they'd think of the innocent people they've murdered, and their families. They're so desensitized to death, that they dont care if they kill civilians to get their missions done.Nibroc420
I'll stick with the facts and hard data, rather than your speculation.Numbers don't actually address what you posted.;)
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment