|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: Innocence Riots | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
He's probably just joking and forgot the smiley again.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
Mostly its just you.
The US does not target children with drone strikes and its lying when you hyperbolically spin it that way. And since you're such a fan of disgusting photos:
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The US does not target children with drone strikes and its lying when you hyperbolically spin it that way.
The US is entirely happy to continue with drone (and other) attacks in the full knowledge that they repeatedly kill innocent people, including children. Yeah, so?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
First stop posting idiodic messages, and then people will stop telling you how stupid you are.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
The missing information is why you're responding in this way. War is ugly and innocent people die. Its inevitable. And apathy runs deep. But maybe I'm just a heartless bastard.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
If you're ever in a war, I might have more sympathy.
We are at war. Its backed by NATO. The other main participant is the United Kingdom. The countries we're helping are condoning our actions. But I suppose its really easy to sit in your office and go: "Naw, that's not a war"
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Our nations are currently engaged in occupation. So if it really was a war then why would you have more sympathy?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I thought the "war on terror" was using the word "war" in the same sense it is used when we say "the war on poverty" or "the war on drugs" or whatever. I don't think so. We are using our actual armies in this war.
I didn't think we were actually at war in the sense of proper war war. Depends on what you want to consider it. Proper war war traditionally has been between sovereign states. But the times they are a changin'.
Who are we at "war" with exactly......? The Taliban and Al-Qaeda. But they don't have their own sovereign states, so it doesn't look like a proper war war. Still, I think its worth considering a war.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Oh. So you think the US (along with it's allies) and Al Qaeda are at war with each other? I don't think its so cut-n-dried... Al-Qaeda isn't a sovereign state. We are. They don't have a proper army army. We do. They live among and use civilians. We don't. I think we're kinda forced into a double-standard here. We're at war with them but they're not really at war with us. They're just "terrorists".
If Al Qaeda is at war with the US then was 9/11 an act of terrorism or was it instead an act of war in the same way that British planes bombing German cities in WW2 (for example) was? Well, the Bombing of Dresden isn't really a model act of war, is it? Or is that the point? I could see how you could call 9/11 an act of war, and I'd bet that they think it was, but I don't find it particularly useful. Targeting and killing innocent civilians is shitty either way. And I don't accept our actions as being the targeting of innocent civilians, so there's a difference there.
I'm not sure what point I'm making here I'm just interested in where you see the line between terrorism and waging war on a nation in a way that includes all it's citizens. What about the "citizens" who are participating in acts of "war"? Suicide bombers who aren't part of an army. The hijackers on 9/11. They're a part of the terrorist organizations but they're not sanctioned by any state. We can't just sit idly by, but we don't have a state to declare war on. So what do you do? And I'm still wondering where the attitude that if we were really at true war this would all somehow be better comes from.
To be fair to your use of the term "war" I think Al Qaeda would certainly seek to justify their actions by claiming that they are at "war" with the United States as a nation, including it's civilian population.... You mean, like how the Bombing of Dresden was "justified"? 'Cause I'm not so sure it was...
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
I agree. We're using our military and we're invading countries, so it's war. Even if we were just using drones and military proxies it would still be war. And that's the problem. The solution to terrorists blowing up one's buildings is not inflicting death and hardship on foreign lands. It just breeds more terrorists. So what's the answer? I don't know, but I do believe we've definitely identified a wrong answer, so wrong that doing nothing would have been better. Yes, that's right, I believe that just trying to contain Saddam and Osama would have been far better than the course we've followed over the past decade. You've got the advantage of hindsight.... I think if we would have eliminated the Taliban and Al-Qaeda and established those countries then that would've been fine. Doing nothing wasn't an option.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Sure. I agree. But what about the bombing of other German cities in the name of war? Not everyone in Berlin was a Nazi soldier... I think that when you have declared war on a state, you are justified in destroying key cities for the advancement of your military advantage.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
Doing nothing wasn't an option. Being seen as "not doing something" wasn't an option, even though that would have been the far wiser choice. But that is one of the great weaknesses of the US system of government. Of course you are welcome to share your opinion, but unfortunately, you decided to avoid providing anything more convincing than unevidinced assertions.
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member
|
I think that's what we tried to do. As has been asked already, how's that working out? I dunno, sorta okay I guess.
Sure it was. We didn't have to invade Iraq or Afghanistan. We had to do something...
As has been pointed out, trying to wipe out our enemies is creating terrorists faster than we're killing them. Has it? How do you know that? You got figures on numbers of terrorists or something? Edited by Catholic Scientist, : i accidentally a word
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
No, I don't have figures. Do you think the number of terrorists out there is decreasing? That we *are* actually killing them faster than we're creating them? If that's what you believe then it explains why you like invasion as a solution. Yes, I do. Do you have any reasons I should think otherwise?
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
You mean other than the ones I've already described that you're pretending don't exist? No. There's no reason to be a dick about it, I'm not pretending anything doesn't exist. Its more likely that I just didn't see what you're referrring to. Is it a particular message?
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024