Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: Gunthr on February 15, 2006, 08:57:45 AM
-
Well isn't this just great. Oh yes, now is a wonderful time to inflame Islam even more. :rolleyes: "The West" is idiotic when it comes to being able to recognise that we are in a war on terror.
http://today.reuters.com/news/newsarticle.aspx?type=topNews&storyid=2006-02-15T140406Z_01_SYD143554_RTRUKOC_0_US-IRAQ-ABUSE.xml&rpc=22
-
One question: Do you think abusing and torturing prisoners is also form of terror?
If not then what is it?
-
It'd be easier if none of that would've happened in the first place... whos moronic idea was it to torture the prisoners, let alone FILM IT?!
What happened to our moral high ground that we were supposedly defending from the terrorists?
-
One question: Do you think abusing and torturing prisoners is also form of terror?
If not then what is it?
I'm against routine torture. I can conceive of situations in which I would approve of torture (who gives a rats *** what I think).
This thread is about the wisdom of broadcasting anything like this when we are in a war on terror. It should be handled in a more low key fashion.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
This thread is about the wisdom of broadcasting anything like this when we are in a war on terror. It should be handled in a more low key fashion.
Sounds like Rendition. :D
-
People will get pissed, flags will be burnt, Islamic people will be "hurt" emotionally and spiritually. The evil U.S.A will be denounced and jihad will be called.
How will this be different than any other day in the Middle East?
-
Sounds like Rendition.
No, Sandy. I think we ought to abide by the law, or change it. I meant that I personally have no moral problems with torture in special circumstances - where there is reasonable belief that an uncooperative individual has critical info about an imminent terrorist act that endangers human life.
I just see no need to broadcast this kind of inflammatory stuff that will needlessly cause further loss of life and endanger westerners around the world, particularly when the viewers are left free to draw possibally false conclusions about what they are seeing.
-
Well Gunthr,
I'm starting to think it'd be a good thing... it will end up in an all out war and everyone goes *pop* with a few nukes... then, there'll be less whining and moaning on the world's forums... I just can't stand the pressure anymore!
* Please notice I have used the sarcasm colour for our homo-erecti friends.
-
something on news today, 3 people died/killed in some muslim country in the "cartoon riots"
-
Did you notice that atleast two of the "inmates" were blonde headed?
Looks staged to me and they were smailing way too muchy to look like they were being tortured:rofl
-
Why is something that happened 1 or 2 years ago still considered "news"?
-
Yep, lets fight for freedom, unless it gets messy, or that darn freedom makes us look bad. Then we'll fight for semi-freedom. We'll let you know if that changes to sorta-freedom.
-
Originally posted by Holden McGroin
Why is something that happened 1 or 2 years ago still considered "news"?
Because it proves the torture was systematical instead of isolated cases by narrow minded cowboys.
-
Yep, lets fight for freedom, unless it gets messy, or that darn freedom makes us look bad. Then we'll fight for semi-freedom. We'll let you know if that changes to sorta-freedom. - MT
__________________
The West certainly has the freedom to broadcast this matierial, just as it has the freedom to publish images of the prophet that offend Islam... I'm only suggesting the west use some discretion.
Sorry MT, but I'll have to charge you a 20% restocking fee to put your all-purpose witisicism back up on the shelf - next to your well-worn talking points.
-
Fishu, is this from a few years back or is this new? Staga, you ever find any names of innocent people executed in the US?
-
Originally posted by Saintaw
Well Gunthr,
* Please notice I have used the sarcasm colour for our homo-erecti friends.
Err... Did I miss something ?
Yeager; I'm sure you'd easily learn how to use Google, it's not that hard :)
-
Originally posted by Yeager
Fishu, is this from a few years back or is this new?
"...what it said were previously unpublished images of physical abuse of Iraqi prisoners inside the U.S.-run Abu Ghraib prison near Baghdad."
"...had been taken at the same time as the now-infamous photographs of U.S. soldiers abusing Iraqis in Abu Ghraib, which sparked international outrage in 2004."
More to the old case.
-
Anyone else have serious doubts over whether the Western Democracies can actually fight and win a war against militant Islam?
The Islamic world goes into paroxysms of rioting, burning, and shooting if it is reported that a page of the Quran was flushed down a toilet somewhere, meanwhile in countries under Sharia law, it is impossible to build a new church, and bibles are a contraband item, and those one attempts to smuggle into those natians (such as Saudi Arabia) are actively destroyed. Worship meetings by religions other than Islam are actively broken up and the worshippers subject to violence by security forces in nations like Iran and Saudi Arabia, or mobs in countries like Pakistan and Indonesia, newspapers routinely publish anti-democracy, anti-Christian, and anti-semitic cartoons, and yet the only religious attrocities acknowledged by Al Jazeera are when a Danish newspaper prints a few tame and frankly boring cartoons featuring Muhammad.
We have grown used to hideous human rights abuses in Islamic countries and graphic images of Jihadis torturing, shooting, and beheading prisoners in countries like Chechnya, Iraq, Afghanistan, the Phillipines, etc. and yet the only real crimes against humanity occur when a few Brits put the boot in or a few Americans make naked human pyramids.
I am not saying that it is acceptable to make naked human pyramids, or kick prisoners, such things should be quietly dealt with by military justice, what I am saying is that we appear to have lost all perspective, and really have no clue how to go about fighting a war against men for whom unspeakable cruelty is a way of life. When we have an Islamic state working hard, and making it absolutely clear that this is their intent, to be able to launch a nuclear strike and wipe another nation off the map, and an entire section of the world "cheerleading" for them, we have to be fundamentally unbalanced, nay really and deeply screwed-up, to think that a two year old case of prisoner degradation is our biggest problem.
How long do we realistically expect to be able to maintain our current self-flagellating approach? This is a road-map to painfully drawn-out but inevitable defeat, not victory. Either we bite the bullet, say "Democracy is better", and begin to work to actively replace their ideology or we will lose. Oh, and for heaven's sake, if you are going to fight a war, at least reinstate the same World War Two era levels of censorship that prevailed in AMERICA from 1941-1945 on your own press. Or was FDR "teh evil ChimpHitler" too? Democracy doesn't have to mean Anarchy. Get serious or give up.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon, we're not at war with Islam. Perhaps that's the problem.
-
Harry, Seagoon specified "militant Islam" in his first sentence - you know who they are - the ones cutting off heads and plotting terrorist attacks to cause mass casualties.
Seagoon then goes on to describe life in Islamic countries...
-
in case anyone missed what seagoon said,
the nancy boys want us to "fight fair" and not do "anything wrong" because that will make us "as bad as them"
meanwile the bad guys can do anything they want because they are the "bad guys"
there is no fight fair in war. you fight to win
-
So the goal justifies the means?
Like in nazi-Germany in ww2?
ok.
-
I understand more and more why you want Iraq to be a democraty with a constitution some of you think America doesn't need either.
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
Harry, Seagoon specified "militant Islam" in his first sentence - you know who they are - the ones cutting off heads and plotting terrorist attacks to cause mass casualties.
Seagoon then goes on to describe life in Islamic countries...
You completely missed my point.
Originally posted by john9001
in case anyone missed what seagoon said,
the nancy boys want us to "fight fair" and not do "anything wrong" because that will make us "as bad as them"
meanwile the bad guys can do anything they want because they are the "bad guys"
there is no fight fair in war. you fight to win
Tell me how abusing petty criminals in Abu Ghraib helps win the war? Seems to me that it’s helping the enemy.
-
well...they just showed some of the 'new' photos on CBC and there is a couple of them that are more severe than the original naked pyramids.
You know what though? If those prisoners are in support of what happened on 9/11, I frankly am prepared to look the other way. I wouldn't have said that a year ago, but I'm saying it now.
Their violent lifestyle is truely shocking; Just today there was a 70,000 person protest in Pakistan (3 killed) over cartoons. They want us dead or subjugated; That makes them an enemy.
-
Holy Crap!~!
We've lost perspective? I suggest that you Seagoon have lost perspective. You are willing to accept or keep "on a low key" abuses by our side while emphasizing the same or worse that is admittedly committed by the enemy.
The whole objective of this "war on terror" should be to win over the hearts and minds of enough people in the world to make terrorism unacceptable and near immpossible to support. Sure we also need to kick some bellybutton but..
Our morals, our way of life is the best arrow we have in our quiver. We can't bomb terrorists into submission. We can't nuke an entire region. We can't stand forever as an occupying force and expect people to come around. We need to show the World that our way is better and we need to do it with an openness that leaves no doubt of our intensions. That may mean we air our own dirty laundry and clean up our own mess. We start sweeping this stuff under the table and we get a situation like we have today. The goodwill of the entire World was with us only 4 years ago.... Now it is almost all gone. Do you honestly think our Freedom of the Press caused this fall? Incredible!
Does anyone ever wonder why the one place in this Country that was actually attacked by terrorists would vote overwhelmingly AGAINST the war in Iraq?
-
agreed midnight target. I just hope this latest regurgitation of abuse photos doesnt get more people killed, people like jill carrol. Revealing new photos from the year(s) old prison abuse snafu serves no worthwhile purpose now, but will only serve to motivate more extremism and get more people killed for no good reason.
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
well...they just showed some of the 'new' photos on CBC and there is a couple of them that are more severe than the original naked pyramids.
You know what though? If those prisoners are in support of what happened on 9/11, I frankly am prepared to look the other way. I wouldn't have said that a year ago, but I'm saying it now.
Their violent lifestyle is truely shocking; Just today there was a 70,000 person protest in Pakistan (3 killed) over cartoons. They want us dead or subjugated; That makes them an enemy.
So you condone this completely unnecessary abuse of enemy prisoners? Civilized people are measured not by how they treat their friends, but by how they treat their enemies. In my opinion you’re just as uncivilized as they are. And that makes you my enemy.
-
Originally posted by Harry
So you condone this completely unnecessary abuse of enemy prisoners? Civilized people are measured not by how they treat their friends, but by how they treat their enemies. In my opinion you’re just as uncivilized as they are. And that makes you my enemy.
don't mess with me...I didn't say I condone it, I said I have reached a point at which I am now going to disregard it
save the drama little girl
-
who let harry out?
:aok
-
Originally posted by Fishu
Because it proves the torture was systematical instead of isolated cases by narrow minded cowboys.
Do you have some evidence that shows those already held responsible are not responsible for this?
All I got from the linked article was "While some of the latest pictures are similar to those images, others suggest further abuse in the form of incidents of killing, torture and sexual humiliation, Dateline said."
Well, I suppose if it's suggested it must be true.
-
Hello MT,
Originally posted by midnight Target
Holy Crap!~!
We've lost perspective? I suggest that you Seagoon have lost perspective. You are willing to accept or keep "on a low key" abuses by our side while emphasizing the same or worse that is admittedly committed by the enemy.
No MT, I haven't lost perspective, every day of every week I remember that I'm the guy in Fayetteville who is the first person the military will call if one of several men is killed in Afghanistan or Iraq. It is then my duty to be the first one to tell their wives and children. That is the reality I live with.
Therefore, when Aussie TV run old photographs that will further inflame an already hate-frenzied portion of the world, increase Jihadi recruitment, and further steel the resolve of martyrdom attackers, create mob violence, and strengthen the control of countless Imams, Mullahs, Sheiks, and dictators, whilst simultaneously sapping support in friendly areas - in short when men publish material that will make the lives of the good side harder and put them in greater danger, and make the job of the bad side easier, all to make money and score political points against "the right wing" I get frustrated and disgusted.
Either start treating this like a real, global war waged against an intractable ideology, and recognize that the other side is playing for keeps and will not give up and will continue to kill us at home if we don't. Or otherwise withdraw, surrender, and start handing out the hijabs and Qurans. But please, don't sacrifice the lives of the congregation I love just to ensure that Hillary beats whoever in '08.
No country I am aware of has ever won a war whilst simultaneously generating propaganda for the other side. Did the allies commit attrocities during WW2? Absolutely. Should we have been proud of that? Not at all. Should we have told the world in the middle of the war amidst huge displays of hand-wringing and handing the high ground to the Axis while demanding that Churchill, FDR and Stalin resign every five minutes? No.
But then again, back then we had moral clarity, and were determined to win no matter the cost. Oh, and back then no Republican in his right mind would have published information defaming the Allied forces in order to try to unseat FDR or undermine the administration. Any Republican who tried would have been universally excoriated by the American people. Sadly, times have changed. I sometimes wonder if we wouldn't be better off losing that we might actually learn first hand as Dhimmis what words like "intolerance" "torture" and "authoritarian" and "evil" actually mean.
- SEAGOON
-
Seagoon...there isn`t a single thing that I disaggree in what You`ve said.
The west is yet to reallize that the cold war was a picnic compared to the mess we`re in now. I wish we had leaders like FDR and Churchill in our time...leaders the know what and how to do.
-
The Aussies clearly aren't with us, therefor they are against us. Tag 'em up on the Axis of EVIL! Wall and we'll hit them after we get done with them Iraqis and Iranis and the rest 'o them Middle Eastis.
DOWN WITH KNOWLEDGE, UP WITH DOGMA!!!
-
I still demand a photoshop of Lyndie England pointing at SOB's fish
-
Watch out man, me and my trout and Lyndie in the same picture would probably make Nash keel over dead in a fit of homoerotic pleasure. ;)
-
Originally posted by SOB
The Aussies clearly aren't with us, therefor they are against us. Tag 'em up on the Axis of EVIL! Wall and we'll hit them after we get done with them Iraqis and Iranis and the rest 'o them Middle Eastis.
DOWN WITH KNOWLEDGE, UP WITH DOGMA!!!
The liberal govt. also knew millions of dollars was being given in bribes by the Australian Wheat Board directly to Saddam in a oil for food "deal", but thats so 3 years ago...plus we're extending our mechanised infantry battalion's tour in southern Iraq conveniently at the same time when we're trying to help the "Iraqi" government to forget that little detail...
...I think it's a fantastic idea to help regime change in australia!
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by xrtoronto
don't mess with me...I didn't say I condone it, I said I have reached a point at which I am now going to disregard it
Then you condone it. I've seen many hypocrites here on this forum, mostly Americans, but you just made first place. I still have those photos you e-mailed me, showing US soldiers beheading Viet-Cong POWs. And I still remember how you used to berate the Americans on this bbs for "looking the other way" and defending US atrocities in Iraq. At least the Americans have very good reasons for acting uncivilized. As a Canadian you don't even begin to approach what they have endured as a nation and people, but you turned savage that much easier. How does it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Excusing, disregarding, feel free to use any euphemisms you like ... you're condoning it.
-
I'm with seagoon.
If you become aware that someone is stalking your house, that he intends to do nasty things to you & your family. That he will NOT stop until you and your family are dead or he is dead. You'd do something about it, right?
This is no different.
They want to see the USA as the next 3rd world country.
They want us to be worse off than they are.
They want us under their thumb, as slaves or worse.
They want our culture and its values destroyed.
Our current culture is the biggest single threat Islam has had in 2000 years.
And they know it, and will do anything to fight it.
There is no peacefull coexistance.
One or the other is going to go down kicking and screaming.
I suggest that it not be us.
-
Good!
Let em broadcast the pictures.
Let em torture em and broadcast that too.
Preferably all over the Middle East.
Screw em. The only way they will ever get it is if they see we can be just as nasty as they are.
Actually we would be far better off if we showed them we can be even more brutal and nasty then they are.
yea yea yea I know.
We dont want to be the same way they are.
We want to show we are above that...BOVINE SCAT (or BS for short)
What we see as "being above that" They see as our Weakness they use against us very very well and to great effect.
We as a culture have become too civilsed to be able to effectivly deal with these people.
In the movie Apocolypse Now we hear Colonel Walter E. Kurtz explains this perfectly when he talks about "the horror" and how it is used as a weapon.
They use it very effectivly. Its what they do. its what they understand.
Take into account that your average Iraqi doesnt understand why Saddam hasnt been executed yet.
These people cheer with glee at the sight of a westerner having his head hacked off.
They understand "the horror" perfectly They "get" that.
They would understand if the president went on worldwide TV and publically blew the brains out of one of these detainees.
THAT they would "get"
THAT they would respect.
This buisness of being nice and making nice nice with these people they dont get,understand or respect.
We wont stop these people by showing "we are better then them", or "above that"
The only thing that will work is by showing them we can be more phsycotic then they are
In their eyes what we call civilised they call weak or see as a weakness
We keep trying to apply our standards, our culture and our way of thinking to an area that has completely different standards, a completely different culture, and a completely different way of thinking.
And so long as we keep doing that.
We're going to have a hard time of it
-
Originally posted by Harry
Then you condone it. I've seen many hypocrites here on this forum, mostly Americans, but you just made first place. I still have those photos you e-mailed me, showing US soldiers beheading Viet-Cong POWs. And I still remember how you used to berate the Americans on this bbs for "looking the other way" and defending US atrocities in Iraq. At least the Americans have very good reasons for acting uncivilized. As a Canadian you don't even begin to approach what they have endured as a nation and people, but you turned savage that much easier. How does it feel to be on the other side of the coin? Excusing, disregarding, feel free to use any euphemisms you like ... you're condoning it.
What if you just don't care?
-
Originally posted by Ghosth
I'm with seagoon.
If you become aware that someone is stalking your house, that he intends to do nasty things to you & your family. That he will NOT stop until you and your family are dead or he is dead. You'd do something about it, right?
So would there be a reason why someone is stalking you and your family? Perhaps you emptied your hunting rifle to their home or threw a grenade inside their house from the window? Are you innocent?
-
If you don't like seeing ******* heathen prisoners get beat down, you might be a liberal.
-
Originally posted by texace
What if you just don't care?
That's what condoning means tex.
You have knowledge of, but just don't deem it important enough to do or say anything.
-
I condone it.
I'd also condone slowly lowering them into the shark tank during feeding time at SeaWorld and broadcasting that over there.
-
Originally posted by texace
What if you just don't care?
that's exactly how I feel...I looked up the meaning of 'condone' and indeed by definition I do condone it.
Etymology: Latin condonare to absolve, from com- + donare to give -- more at DONATION
: to pardon or overlook voluntarily; especially : to treat as if trivial, harmless, or of no importance
There it is. (still feels like: I just don't care)
-----------------------------------
Hypocrite:Etymology: Middle English ypocrite, from Old French, from Late Latin hypocrita, from Greek hypokritEs actor, hypocrite, from hypokrinesthai
: a person who puts on a false appearance of virtue or religion
Changing ones point of view over a long period of time (a couple years) doesn't make them a hypocrite
-
So, what made you turn? Did their savageness rub off on you?
-
Harry,
Just out of curiousity, what do you regard as "savage?"
Were the allies "savage" in their prosecution of the war against the Axis? Was this "savagery" unethical and morally evil?
To put it in real world terms, would you concur that because an officer in the 101st Airborne almost certainly shot unarmed German prisoners on D-Day, that the allies should have internationally published pictures of the murdered Germans, started congressional investigations, withdrawn their forces from Normandy, forced the Secretary of War to resign, and brought down the FDR administration?
If not, why not? Isn't that "condoning savagery?"
- SEAGOON
-
What if that officer shot unarmed prisoners after May 1945...or that officer shot suspected de-mobbed SS men being held until the allies could investigate their previous activites, shot common german criminals, got his jollies kicking around POWS - possibly beating them to death and or making them believe what is going to happen to them would be a similar situation if the gestapo grabbed them before the war ended?
....all after the war had ended and they were all "safe" in custody...would that constitute a crime...would that be considered savage?
Tronsky
-
Originally posted by -tronski-
What if that officer shot unarmed prisoners after May 1945...or that officer shot suspected de-mobbed SS men being held until the allies could investigate their previous activites, shot common german criminals, got his jollies kicking around POWS - possibly beating them to death and or making them believe what is going to happen to them would be a similar situation if the gestapo grabbed them before the war ended?
....all after the war had ended and they were all "safe" in custody...would that constitute a crime...would that be considered savage?
Tronsky
The war hasnt ended
-
If you can rationalize beating subdued prisoners, you might be a boroda. In other words, incapable of negotiating thought obstacles independantly.
A complete laps of military bearing and self discipline, certainly unbecoming of a professional soldier. There's NO excuse for it. But it won't stop untill some field grade officers get canned. Busting a couple of sgt's or spc4's is an insulting farce. Anybody who says beating a prisoner is an effective way of debriefing him doesn't know what they're talking about. Infact it's quite counterproductive. So don't bother bringing that up.
Violence borne of anger, particularly frustrated brutality against the defensless, is a trait of a weak temper.
McCain was a pow who suffered physical abuse, I bet he and his comrades have some insightful things to say about this.
BTW, if you can't tell, I'm not being sarcastic now.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Harry,
Just out of curiousity, what do you regard as "savage?"
Anyone who is less than civilized.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Were the allies "savage" in their prosecution of the war against the Axis? Was this "savagery" unethical and morally evil?
Yes they most certainly were. Atrocities like Dresden and Hiroshima were only overshadowed by the Holocaust itself.
Originally posted by Seagoon
To put it in real world terms, would you concur that because an officer in the 101st Airborne almost certainly shot unarmed German prisoners on D-Day, that the allies should have internationally published pictures of the murdered Germans, started congressional investigations, withdrawn their forces from Normandy, forced the Secretary of War to resign, and brought down the FDR administration?
As far as I know your government hasn’t published anything, they have just released the pictures. Nor have they withdrawn their forces from Iraq, forced the Secretary of War to resign or brought down the Bush administration. Why should any of these events take place? All that is required is that you punish the guilty, and do not condone the act like so many here do.
Turning a blind eye to the POW murders would indeed be condoning them. Lt. Spear should have been executed for his crimes.
-
Originally posted by DREDIOCK
The war hasnt ended
Iraq surrendered in 2003.
-
Didn’t think I’d get the opportunity to use this golden oldie again:
(http://www.lordpanzer.com/images/iraq.jpg)
-
Originally posted by Harry
Iraq surrendered in 2003.
When did Zarqawi surrender?
-
any guesses as to what harrys primary bsb account name is?
-
"bsb"?
-
Originally posted by Yeager
any guesses as to what harrys primary bsb account name is?
:cool: :cool: :cool:
well in a different thread he claims he is from Norway, which means he is who i think he is
yet, he must be on new meds, no ranting and raving yet, and he is occasionally coherant
-
lol :)
-
I *think* Harry's old handle used to be 'sholz'
-
I'm Voss :noid
-
No, I'm Voss!
:noid :noid
-
Hi Harry,
Thanks for answering the questions...
Originally posted by Harry
Anyone who is less than civilized.
We obviously have a different definition of civilized. For instance, for me the parody you posted was crass, demeaning, uncouth, false, unfair, and frankly uncivilized. I also don't tend to believe that cultures are becoming "more civilized" as they grow less and less willing to correctly identify and actively resist evil and instead tolerate, appease, or encourage it. For instance, as someone born in Europe, I happen to believe that on the whole European society has passed through its "civilized" stage and is now well into "decadent."
I know that many Europeans joke that the USA has never even been civilized, but having travelled the world, I still find this to be the most generous, big-hearted, and moral nation on the map. True, they too are gradually "Slouching Towards Gomorrah", but at least there are still people left in this nation who are concerned about that process and actively involved in resisting it.
Yes they most certainly were. Atrocities like Dresden and Hiroshima were only overshadowed by the Holocaust itself.
Hardly, if you can't see the difference between attempting to speed the end of the war in Europe via area bombing, and an attempt to end the War in the Pacific without an invasion that could have killed Millions (most of them Japanese), and a systematic and brutal Genocide that sprang from philosophies like Aryanism, Nihilism, and social Darwinism, then we aren't going to be able to really converse.
You see, there is a philosophical connection between those events and the current events in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Jihadis actively target civilans, and kill and torture in the most cruel manner imaginable, because they, like the Nazis, believe that their opponents are "apes and pigs," that the world must be cleansed, and that their authoritarian ideology must become universal - and that anything that achieves that end is justifiable. On the other hand the Americans and Brits fought to defeat that worldview and prevent its ascendency. They were not an equally malignant evil merely fighting over turf. So the attrocities that the allies occasional committed, like the murder of prisoners were deeply regretable, but not systematic or intentional and certainly not an inevitable outgrowth of their worldview.
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Harry,
Thanks for answering the questions...
We obviously have a different definition of civilized. For instance, for me the parody you posted was crass, demeaning, uncouth, false, unfair, and frankly uncivilized. I also don't tend to believe that cultures are becoming "more civilized" as they grow less and less willing to correctly identify and actively resist evil and instead tolerate, appease, or encourage it. For instance, as someone born in Europe, I happen to believe that on the whole European society has passed through its "civilized" stage and is now well into "decadent."
Judge not, lest ye be judged. Mmmkay?
Hardly, if you can't see the difference between attempting to speed the end of the war in Europe via area bombing, and an attempt to end the War in the Pacific without an invasion that could have killed Millions (most of them Japanese), and a systematic and brutal Genocide that sprang from philosophies like Aryanism, Nihilism, and social Darwinism, then we aren't going to be able to really converse.
Do you actually think Christ would condone area bombing? In any circumstance? I mean, really?
"I am Jesus, and think it prudent that area bombing take place."
Yet you defend it. Please help me out with this unfortunate dichotomy. It taxes my brain to the fullest.
Strategically? Yeah, you could argue for it. But in terms of religeousity it could and perhaps should be argued on much different grounds.
This weird meshing.... this confusing state that has spiritual leaders making a case for carpet bombing based on a story quoted from Newsmax is a condemning and seering indictment of religion.
And: "brutal Genocide that sprang from philosophies...?"
Exactly what about this exempts your particular philosophies from the exact same sad ends?
Have not your own "philosophies" compelled men to kill?
You're a man of the cloth, and as such, a man..... every bit as flawed a man as myself and the person to my left and to my right. So I try not to hold you to a higher spiritual or intellectual standard than I would anyone else.
My attempts fail. Because I do hold you to a higher standard. Based almost solely on the high standards you claim to stake out for yourself.
Instead of peace, love and service, you argue in favour of area bombing.
There is in fact scant evidence of any connection between your words and any God, or at least any God as I've come to know him.
Something sickening has happened with both religion's sycophancy to government in order to attain a louder voice, and the lengths that this government will go to in order to seduce that voice's vote.
BOTH suffer. A mutual, sad descent.
This is why seperation of Church and State matters. Because combined, they are like a couple of buddies with good intentions but real bad tendancies. They talk eachother into crap that they wouldn't even consider left to their own devices.
The further apart they remain, the more governmnet will sound like government, and the more our spiritual leaders will sound, spiritual.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Harry,
Thanks for answering the questions...
My pleasure.
Originally posted by Seagoon
We obviously have a different definition of civilized. For instance, for me the parody you posted was crass, demeaning, uncouth, false, unfair, and frankly uncivilized.
Yes we obviously do. You’re obviously in the “camp” that would find a cartoon uncivilized.
I’m in the “camp” that finds murder and abuse uncivilized.
Originally posted by Seagoon
I also don't tend to believe that cultures are becoming "more civilized" as they grow less and less willing to correctly identify and actively resist evil and instead tolerate, appease, or encourage it. For instance, as someone born in Europe, I happen to believe that on the whole European society has passed through its "civilized" stage and is now well into "decadent."
I would agree to that.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hardly, if you can't see the difference between attempting to speed the end of the war in Europe via area bombing, and an attempt to end the War in the Pacific without an invasion that could have killed Millions (most of them Japanese), and a systematic and brutal Genocide that sprang from philosophies like Aryanism, Nihilism, and social Darwinism, then we aren't going to be able to really converse.
To you the end justifies the means. To me the means are unjustifiable. Why is it the London Blitz is always considered a war crime, but the eradication of German and Japanese cities are not? Hypocrisy.
Originally posted by Seagoon
You see, there is a philosophical connection between those events and the current events in Iraq and Afghanistan. The Jihadis actively target civilans, and kill and torture in the most cruel manner imaginable, because they, like the Nazis, believe that their opponents are "apes and pigs," that the world must be cleansed, and that their authoritarian ideology must become universal - and that anything that achieves that end is justifiable. On the other hand the Americans and Brits fought to defeat that worldview and prevent its ascendency. They were not an equally malignant evil merely fighting over turf. So the attrocities that the allies occasional committed, like the murder of prisoners were deeply regretable, but not systematic or intentional and certainly not an inevitable outgrowth of their worldview.
I would agree to that as well, but you are always judged by what you do, not by your intentions. The US/UK may have good intentions but if they behave like savages they will be considered savages by others. What I find disappointing is that many here are more interested in covering up or marginalizing these crimes. If Norwegian soldiers had done something similar I would be deeply ashamed and apologize to every Iraqi I met.
-
Harry, Nash,
My sincere apologies for not replying to you sooner. My youngest son Graham had surgery on Friday (which went well, although he is still in pain), and then I had the Lord's Day and a Funeral to prepare for, so the O'Club got neglected of necessity.
First, I believe you both misunderstood the point I was trying to make. That was probably my fault for not being clear enough, and for that I apologize.
I am not a utilitarian in the least, I do not subscribe to the philosophy that the ends justify the means. I firmly believe that one should never do evil in the hopes that good may come of it. I am also not a supporter of prisoner abuse or the indiscriminate bombing of civilian populations. I have posted several times to this board regarding my beliefs regarding what actions are justifiable in war and which are not. A search on my name and a phrase like "limited objectives" should bring them up.
That said I firmly believe that the Civil Magistrate has been given the power of the sword to wage war, as Paul put it in Romans 13:3-4 - "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
In other words a good magistrate is one that encourages good and punishes evildoers. The use of the sword means that he has the power to put to death those who murder, or whose intention is to murder his subjects. This includes the ability to wage war and subdue those who attack. In pursuing that objective, he should proceed as ethically as he can, but he must also act in a totally committed manner that will most speedily produce that good outcome that will best protect his people from being unjustly killed.
This will mean that he will not hamstring himself or wage war in a manner that unnecessarily hands the advantage to the evildoer, gets his own soldiers killed, or prolongs the conflict. This will mean making hard choices on occasion, for instance the choice to drop an atomic bomb in order to end a war quickly even though it means killing tens of thousands because it is preferable to an invasion that will prolong the conflict and is projected to cost the lives of over a million.
It also means that he should be doing all he can to see that abuses are not committed by men on his side, and when they do commit them, and are detected they should be dealt with swiftly by military justice. What should not happen, however, is the unnecessary publicizing of those incidents until the war is over.
In real terms, the world, and certainly the enemies of Democracy did not need to hear about abuses Abu Ghraib or false reports about actions at Gitmo, and they certainly didn't need to hear about it again and again and again... During the Second World War, that is the kind of information the US government would have censored, rightly assessing it as a morale buster that would have damaged the war effort and greatly aided the Axis. We in the West today, on the other hand, are willing to release pictures of abuses that will damage our ability to fight, while we censor and hold back images of what the enemy regularly do as part of their systematic approach to Jihad. To use the example above, had it occurred in the 2nd World War, it would be like publishing images of the Spears incident again and again, while refusing to release images from the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, or the Death Camps.
Finally, we seldom seem to realize this, but the US today is far more careful and restricted in the way it wages war than it was during and after the Second World War. And this goes well beyond just endangering the lives of our own troops to prevent collateral damage. Just as one example, according to the rules of war, civilians who take up arms and attack soldiers are unlawful combatants who have voided any of the protections afforded to lawful combatants by the Geneva convention. They endanger peaceful civilians and make it increasingly difficult to bring a conflict to a close and provoke dangerous overreactions by occupying powers. In Germany following the end of the Second World War, the American Army summarily executed anyone (such as the "Werewolves") who engaged in these activities. Technically, the vast majority of Jihadis should fall into this category, and yet they are not summarily executed. Far from it. It should be sobering that when they are wounded, our troops frequently offer them medical assistance and struggle to save their lives, while the Jihadis torture and kill their prisoners.
Anyway, Nash, I realize I didn't touch on many of your questions, maybe we can discuss them in another thread. I will say, I don't preach politics (search on threads where I discuss the "spirituality of the church") and that in the pulpit I am not seeking to utilize human means to bring about a "peace" that consists only of a temporary cessation of armed conflict. I preach the Gospel in order to bring real peace between God and man, knowing that only if that happens will you ever see real peace between man and man. Also, the command not to be judgmental is not a command not to discern the difference between good and evil . Give some serious consideration to Matt. 11:20-24 for instance (http://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=matt.%2011:20-24;&version=50;) and the "judgment" there.
Going back to bed now...
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
My sincere apologies for not replying to you sooner. My youngest son Graham had surgery on Friday (which went well, although he is still in pain), and then I had the Lord's Day and a Funeral to prepare for, so the O'Club got neglected of necessity.
I hope your son is well.
Originally posted by Seagoon
First, I believe you both misunderstood the point I was trying to make. That was probably my fault for not being clear enough, and for that I apologize.
No need to apologize so much.
Originally posted by Seagoon
I am not a utilitarian in the least, I do not subscribe to the philosophy that the ends justify the means. I firmly believe that one should never do evil in the hopes that good may come of it.
I hear you say that, but …
Originally posted by Seagoon
That said I firmly believe that the Civil Magistrate has been given the power of the sword to wage war, as Paul put it in Romans 13:3-4 - "For rulers are not a terror to good works, but to evil. Do you want to be unafraid of the authority? Do what is good, and you will have praise from the same. For he is God's minister to you for good. But if you do evil, be afraid; for he does not bear the sword in vain; for he is God's minister, an avenger to execute wrath on him who practices evil."
Originally posted by Seagoon
This will mean making hard choices on occasion, for instance the choice to drop an atomic bomb in order to end a war quickly even though it means killing tens of thousands because it is preferable to an invasion that will prolong the conflict and is projected to cost the lives of over a million.
… here you’re clearly trying to justify the means (A-bomb) with the end (shortening the war). Which is it?
I don’t know about you, but vaporizing 50.000 civilians and condemning 250.000 more to slow lingering deaths of radiation sickness and cancer, the effects of which still haunt Hiroshima and Nagasaki half a century later … I can only describe this as evil and utterly unjustifiable, no matter the alternative.
Originally posted by Seagoon
It also means that he should be doing all he can to see that abuses are not committed by men on his side, and when they do commit them, and are detected they should be dealt with swiftly by military justice. What should not happen, however, is the unnecessary publicizing of those incidents until the war is over.
In real terms, the world, and certainly the enemies of Democracy did not need to hear about abuses Abu Ghraib or false reports about actions at Gitmo, and they certainly didn't need to hear about it again and again and again... During the Second World War, that is the kind of information the US government would have censored, rightly assessing it as a morale buster that would have damaged the war effort and greatly aided the Axis. We in the West today, on the other hand, are willing to release pictures of abuses that will damage our ability to fight, while we censor and hold back images of what the enemy regularly do as part of their systematic approach to Jihad. To use the example above, had it occurred in the 2nd World War, it would be like publishing images of the Spears incident again and again, while refusing to release images from the Bataan Death March, the Rape of Nanking, or the Death Camps.
Which images of terrorist/insurgent atrocities have the press “refused to release”?
I also noticed your claim “false reports about actions at Gitmo”. Are you in the know? What “false reports” are you referring to?
“The enemies of Democracy” … If you restrict essential democratic freedoms like the freedom of expression and freedom of the press … what does that make you?
Terrorism can only win if you let them corrupt your way of life. The Spaniards know this, so does the British, Irish, French, Germans and Italians.
Originally posted by Seagoon
Finally, we seldom seem to realize this, but the US today is far more careful and restricted in the way it wages war than it was during and after the Second World War
The argument that today’s atrocities are not so bad because you used to do worse is a fallacy. As a Norwegian I could probably commit the most heinous acts and still claim we used to do worse back in the day. That would hardly absolve me of any guilt.
Eagerly awaiting your reply, but please, if you can, refrain from quoting bible scripture. I’m not a religious man, and Christians quoting select passages of the Bible always makes me want to quote some of the more obscure passages myself, and we don’t need that in this thread.
Again, my best wishes for your son’s speedy convalescence.
-
WWJB?
Who Would Jesus Bomb?
-
Heya Seagoon,
First of all, I hope your son is doing fine.
As to your response, it's appreciated. Although it's a rare thing for me, it's nevertheless always nice to see you put the thought and effort into the posts you make.
As to the content of your response, I must say that my questions regarding your stances on these issues remain. Yes, you've explained how your religion justifies it, offering up this in another thread:
"Here is a brief outline of what general rules of just war Christian theologians have distilled from scripture."
It's amusing to note that in the seven points that follow, each can be soundly swatted down when applied to the current war in Iraq. Likewise, they can also be defended (dubiously, in my opinion.) That's fine. But what that leaves us with is theologians cherry picking the bible for a set of criteria that would justify war, and then a theologian (in this case you) coming down in support of a particular war based on what is clearly a questionable interpretation of how this war actually meets that criteria.
It seems to me that spiritual leaders, even if giving themselves a green light to support a war based on an interpretation of the bible, should then make sure that the criteria they bind themselves to be doubly, triply, and quadruply checked and met by the facts. In other words, spiritual leaders should error on the side of peace by default. That's just my opinion of course, and I don't wanna tell you guys how to do your jobs or anything. :)
Erhm, but here's what the guys who actually do your job said today:
"We lament with special anguish the war in Iraq, launched in deception and violating global norms of justice and human rights."
This came from a coalition of American churches representing the World Council of Churches and includes more than 350 mainstream Protestant, Anglican and Orthodox churches. It was the largest gathering of Christian churches in nearly a decade. They denounced the war, "accusing Washington of "raining down terror" and apologizing to other nations for "the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."
Also, on Friday, "the U.S. National Council of Churches - which includes many WCC members - released a letter appealing to Washington to close the Guantanamo Bay detention facility and saying reports of alleged torture violated "the fundamental Christian belief in the dignity of the human person."
It goes on:
"Our country responded (to the Sept. 11, 2001 attacks) by seeking to reclaim a privileged and secure place in the world, raining down terror on the truly vulnerable among our global neighbors ... entering into imperial projects that seek to dominate and control for the sake of national interests," said the statement. "Nations have been demonized and God has been enlisted in national agendas that are nothing short of idolatrous."
....and on:
"The churches said they had "grown heavy with guilt" for not doing enough to speak out against the Iraq war and other issues. The statement asked forgiveness for a world that's "grown weary from the violence, degradation and poverty our nation has sown."
See.... Now this is more like it.
But I'm not sure how it squares with your approach to this. What you've done instead is to first point out that passages in the bible make war rational under certain circumstances, and when ambiguities clearly exist as applied to these rationales, you come down on the side of war. You choose to error on the side of war.
Then you don't denounce torture, but minimize it by saying "Korans flushed down a toilet" or "human pyramids" or "a few Brits put the boot in." Clearly you have no understanding of what's been taking place, or choose to downplay it for us by choosing to describe it in the ways you do. And... you go one further and support the curtailing constitutional freedoms in order that these things not be discussed.
I guess we have some disagreement here, so... well, there ya go.
-
Why is it the London Blitz is always considered a war crime, but the eradication of German and Japanese cities are not? Hypocrisy.
It's not. wasn't then, isn't now and even on these boards (and others) it's vastly used as a reminder for the axis "victimizers" that "you started it -- reap the whirlwind and all that."
I don’t know about you, but vaporizing 50.000 civilians and condemning 250.000 more to slow lingering deaths of radiation sickness and cancer, the effects of which still haunt Hiroshima and Nagasaki half a century later … I can only describe this as evil and utterly unjustifiable, no matter the alternative.
What if the alternative is having a million or more of the same civilians die a slow, lingering death of the rampant starvation that was just getting ramped up in late 1945? You are aware of that, aren't you? Statues erected to occupation base commanders who supplied local civilians with surplus and half-eaten food from the mess halls?
The kids and women armed with bamboo spears, 250,000 at least.
Or, what if it were your son stepping out of the ramp on the first boat going ashore on the invasion, to end a war he didn't start? Kind of hard to trade the life of a true innocent like that allied soldier, for people actively supporting and actively supplying a world war of aggression even with the title of civilian. I guess if it was a limited 18th and 19th century, small standing army, fight a battle or two war it might be different though. But it wasn't.
Guess some lessons have to be learned the hard way. From what I can tell, they sunk in well among the populations of both Germany and Japan as a result. War is war. Maybe we should pay more attention before we elect the next Herr Hitler...
BTW, I consider Abu Ghraib to be a shameful, disgraceful event that showed both a lack of discipline and lack of leadership (as high up as it can go), was Un American (guess it's ok to treat our guys the same way now) and that ultimately hurt the cause 10000 times more than any benefits that might have came from it. We didn't need it, and we should be better and smarter than that. At least they got the higher-up deniability part right.
Charon
-
Originally posted by Harry
I hope your son is well.
Graham is a lot better.
… here you’re clearly trying to justify the means (A-bomb) with the end (shortening the war). Which is it?
No Harry, actually I was comparing a decision to kill thousands rather than having to kill over a million and suffer horrendous casualties. The invasion of Japan would also have utterly anhilated the infrastructure of that country and caused suffering that makes the two A-bomb drops pale by comparison. Trueman made his decision based on the "fight to the death and employ mass suicide attacks" defenses of Iwo and Okinawa and the high casualties the US had sustained. Additionally, the mass suicides of native islanders that would have been repeated en masse on the home islands was also a factor they wanted to avoid. Add to that the potential casualties caused by disease and starvation and you are talking about a staggering cataclysm. Believe it or not one of the compelling factors in using the A-bomb was a desire to save both American and Japanese lives.
But I'm sensing that your preferred solution was neither the A-bomb or the invasion. Should the Americans have entered into mass diplomacy with the Japanese after Pearl Harbor, said "we are partly to blame for this, being capitalist imperialist pigs and all," tried to figure out "why they hate us so much," announced Shinto was a "peaceful religion" full of cherry blossoms and Haikus, etc., etc.
Personally I happen to agree that their ideology needed to be eliminated and the Japanese empire needed to be overthrown and that it had to be done in a way that would minimize the extent of the suffering involved.
Which images of terrorist/insurgent atrocities have the press “refused to release”?
More than I can take the time to document on this BB. For instance, when an injured unarmed civilian helicopter pilot stumbling around in a daze asking for help has the entire magazine of an AK-47 pumped into him to chants of ALAHU AKBAR! , that is "too graphic for the news" and something we can't air because it might incite anti-muslim violence. But when a US soldier shoots a wounded Iraqi Jihadi he suspects is faking death in order to get the drop on his squad (as had happened previously), the image is broadcast again and again and again. Here in the US, the news media routinely refuse to give much airtime to kidnap videos, beheadings, or even the 9/11 attack imagery. But pictures of Naked Iraqi prisoners can somehow make it through the self-censorship to be played and discussed in an endless loop.
Let me give just one easy example, how about the Nick Berg beheading?
Brent Bozell wrote: "How would this story grab the American news media? How would it change the media’s obsession with much less graphic photos of sexual humiliation of prisoners? Many suggested that since the media wanted to make such a show out of the Abu Ghraib pictures, they ought to do the same with the Berg murder. An endless spiral into more and more gory images isn’t the best way to run a news business – or a foreign policy. But it’s instructive that after news reports had touted the public’s "right to know" about Abu Ghraib, to see every picture, suddenly some images weren’t supposed to stick in the public mind.
But there’s more to this double-standard story. While NBC aired 58 stories on U.S. prison abuse in the first few weeks of that story, NBC aired only five stories over 16 months on the discovery of Saddam’s mass graves. Abu Ghraib holds 1500 prisoners, a fraction of whom were abused. Saddam’s graves held as many as 300,000 people, all of whom were murdered. How is Abu Ghraib ten times more important than that?
Sadly, the distortions continued. With few exceptions, the Berg beheading was at best a two-day TV story, an obstacle to get around, a white-noise distraction from The Scandal. Berg died. The media’s take: sad, but so what? That shouldn’t register in public opinion. On the very night of the Berg story’s emergence, ABC’s "Nightline" couldn’t spend more than a few minutes on Berg before Ted Koppel was back to soliciting John McCain to explain what horrific treatment Americans might dish out next.
I also noticed your claim “false reports about actions at Gitmo”. Are you in the know? What “false reports” are you referring to?
I am referring to the unsubstantiated rumors that were printed by Newsweek that Qurans were being desecrated at Gitmo, the reports turned out to be false, and Newsweek issued a "how this journalistic screwup occurred" article but this was only after the article had provoked massive rioting in the Muslim world and led to deaths. It also no doubt led to increased Jihadi recruitment, etc. But who cares, after all we have an obligation to get the "truth" out about "Western Atrocities" out regardless of whether its true or what it costs.
The fourth rail has a good terse documentation of this if you want more details: http://billroggio.com/archives/2005/05/the_message_1.php
“The enemies of Democracy” … If you restrict essential democratic freedoms like the freedom of expression and freedom of the press … what does that make you?
Harry, were FDR and Churchill enemies of democracy because they censored their press during wartime and restricted "freedom of expression?" Was that the end of Constitutional Freedom? Come now, lets be realists, does freedom of expression mean I have a right to publish whatever I think will bring down the administration I hate, even if it directly leads to the death and defeat of the armies of democracy?
Terrorism can only win if you let them corrupt your way of life. The Spaniards know this, so does the British, Irish, French, Germans and Italians.
Hardly, the Spaniards thought capitulating to Al-Qaeda's demands would stop Islamic Jihadi activity in their country. Sadly that proved to be false. Many Europeans stongly feel that if they just appease the enemy, withdraw from the Dar-El-Islam, and agree to adopt Sharia anti-blasphemy laws, they will be safe. In essence, they are willing to assist in the creation of "Eurabia" in the hopes that it will make them safe from Jihadi violence. I would argue that this is a far greater corruption of ones way of life than merely stopping the press from acting as a fifth column in a shooting war.
Eagerly awaiting your reply, but please, if you can, refrain from quoting bible scripture. I’m not a religious man, and Christians quoting select passages of the Bible always makes me want to quote some of the more obscure passages myself, and we don’t need that in this thread.
So now who's censoring eh? Harry, I'll end the dialogue if you want, but given that my worldview is based on a belief in the truth of the bible, I'm not going to be able to shift to arguing from an atheistic worldview. It would be ingenuine and a repudiation of everything I believe in.
Thank you for your best wishes.
- SEAGOON
-
Perhaps thebug can chime in here and educate me some but I have developed the opinion here that the US was going to continue manufacturing and deploying WMDs to the japanese homeland until they surrendered.
I mean think about it......we had this new weapon and the japanese werent surrendering....why not just go up and down the coast of Japan, popping off large population centers until nothing remained. Why go through OkinawaX100,000.
Im sure that if the emperor had not surrendered after Nagasaki he would eventually have surrendered after the 15th or 20th atomic detonation.
I mean, seriously......
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
The whole objective of this "war on terror" should be to win over the hearts and minds of enough people in the world to make terrorism unacceptable and near immpossible to support.
"Win the hearts and minds"............................. ..that sounds vaguely familiar. In the particular instance I am speaking of it was quickly found out that the easiest way to win their hearts and minds was with a Huey. Take six up, bring five back. Amazingly simple concept that saved time and worked extremely well when allowed to. The objective is to stomp the the enemy into oblivion in every cave, hole and harboring point. Don`t let up to the job is done. Seek out and totaly destroy training, financial support and quit panzying around with the fair weather friends that supply both. It`s war, not a quilting bee. Screw their hearts and minds.
The goodwill of the entire World was with us only 4 years ago.... Now it is almost all gone.
It always seems to work out that those that have been riding our gravy train and claiming to be with "goodwill" with the U.S. has a way of autoejecting their friggen goodwill when it`s payday and gets down to the tree shaking. When it`s not a free ride and they are actualy expected to participate in securing their own security, then we turn into the bad guys until everything is sorted out. At that time we get an "all is forgiven"..."pass me a biscuit"....."I want to show ya some more goodwill and sop some more of your gravy. Screw em. For some the gravy train has been permantly derailed.
Does anyone ever wonder why the one place in this Country that was actually attacked by terrorists would vote overwhelmingly AGAINST the war in Iraq?
When did this vote take place?
-
Hi Jackal,
Originally posted by Jackal1
When did this vote take place?
I can't be sure, but I believe MT was implying that only New York has been attacked by terrorists, and that they followed their traditional policy of voting democrat for President in 2004 not because they are so liberal they actually elected Hillary to the Senate, but because they are against the War on Terror.
Personally, I expect that at this point you could have terrorists detonate a Nuke in California or NY and they'd still go blue in the next presidential election. Even Republican strategists have mostly given up on the North Eastern states. It has little to do with their views on terrorism and everything to do with the fact that the prevailing culture in these states is deeply and abidingly liberal.
-
Thanks SG. Awww......I see.....it`s a Billary thing.
The one who just got through contradicting herself in the press release while trying to do "the dance".
Hope all of the best for your son.
-
Originally posted by Seagoon
Hi Jackal,
I can't be sure, but I believe MT was implying that only New York has been attacked by terrorists, and that they followed their traditional policy of voting democrat for President in 2004 not because they are so liberal they actually elected Hillary to the Senate, but because they are against the War on Terror.
Personally, I expect that at this point you could have terrorists detonate a Nuke in California or NY and they'd still go blue in the next presidential election. Even Republican strategists have mostly given up on the North Eastern states. It has little to do with their views on terrorism and everything to do with the fact that the prevailing culture in these states is deeply and abidingly liberal.
If a nuke went off anywhere in the US I'd hope that the whole place would turn blue. It would be a complete failure ...again.. of the Bush administration and maybe the folks who have been completely duped by the right wing propaganda will finally wake up to the truth.
But I doubt it.
-
MT,
What exactly would be accomplished if the entire country "went blue"? Please explain what strategy to save the world would evolve from this situation. How would the "blue" faction actually eliminate all the problems of the ME and our existance with them on the same globe if not the same country? in short, what is the "plan" the blue side has?
The apeasement option has already been tried in the past. It had a resounding success didn't it....for the other side.
-
Who called for appeasement? Not me.
We were attacked by Al Quaida.. we sent in 10,000 troops to find and kill them in Afghanistan.
Bush sent in 150,000 troops to Iraq.
Al Quiada wasnt there .... then.
Maybe we should have sent the 150k into the mountains of ToraBora... maybe then we could have brought that bastage BinLaden to justice. Who exactly would that have appeased?
-
So MT.......I wanna se if I`m reading you right. OK, we need to kick their butts, but don`t make em mad. Is that what you`re saying? :)
-
Originally posted by Jackal1
So MT.......I wanna se if I`m reading you right. OK, we need to kick their butts, but don`t make em mad. Is that what you`re saying? :)
I think the point you continue to miss is the definition of "their" and "em".
Yes we need to kick their butts, and we should make sure the correct people are angered by our actions. Abu Graib didn't piss off Al Quaida... it made their day.
-
Just so you know, Harry (I believe) is not a shades account. His writing style and absolute lunacy don't match anyone's on this board. Even if a crazy person tried to hide being crazy, it would still manifest itself someway.
-
Originally posted by Yeager
any guesses as to what harrys primary bsb account name is?
I'm betting he is mentioned in my sig. :D
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
I think the point you continue to miss is the definition of "their" and "em".
Yes we need to kick their butts, and we should make sure the correct people are angered by our actions. Abu Graib didn't piss off Al Quaida... it made their day.
If they got off on it so much, we can arrange for accomadations. :)
Yea, we made a mistake with that. We should have started out on the right course to begin with. Double the ammo, take no prisoners.
-
MT,
You responded to my post while I was in process of editing it. Can you take a look at it and address the questions I placed there? I think that will clarify for you what I originally had in mind when I first posted.
-
Originally posted by Elfie
I'm betting he is mentioned in my sig. :D
He's Jeff Foxworthy?
shamus
-
Hi Nash,
Originally posted by Nash
Heya Seagoon,
First of all, I hope your son is doing fine.
As to your response, it's appreciated. Although it's a rare thing for me, it's nevertheless always nice to see you put the thought and effort into the posts you make.
As to the content of your response, I must say that my questions regarding your stances on these issues remain.
Thanks, Graham is doing well, we're a little perturbed at his Doctor's "no pain meds for two year olds" position as well as his definition of "easily" as in "The pressure dressing should come off easily." But apart from that...
Anyway, I'm sorry I haven't gotten to the majority of your questions, its just that most of them would require a lot of time to give anything close to a thorough response, and would take us so far off topic that they'd really have no legitimate place in this thread. So, I'm going to create a new topic entitled "Seagoon's Replies to Nash" and answer them there.
Hope that's ok with you?
- SEAGOON
-
Originally posted by Maverick
MT,
You responded to my post while I was in process of editing it. Can you take a look at it and address the questions I placed there? I think that will clarify for you what I originally had in mind when I first posted.
If I understand correctly you want to know what the "Blue" folks would have done differently.
I think I spelled that out pretty well. Concentrate on the perpetrators. If only that was our original response to the events of 9/11. If only we hadn't made this illogical and nonsensical excursion into Iraq...
if only.
-
If only we hadn't made this illogical and nonsensical excursion into Iraq...
if only. - MT
If only... what? We wouldn't have a strategic position in a Middle Eastern country with a friendly government?
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
If only... what? We wouldn't have a strategic position in a Middle Eastern country with a friendly government?
You mean Saudi Arabia doesn't count?
-
Last I heard the "perpetrators that " that took over the planes and crashed them went down with the plane. I am still waiting to hear what the wonderful "blue" plan would be.
If, for the sake of arguement, you are going to "go after the perpetrators" exactly how would that be done? Where would you go? What constitutes "getting them"? Just how far are you going to go to "get them"? What are you going to do if they don't want you to "get them" or the country they are in doesn't want you to "get them"?
From what I saw you didn't specify a "plan" any more than kerry did when he said he had a "plan" and would "do it better".
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
If only... what? We wouldn't have a strategic position in a Middle Eastern country with a friendly government?
Right up until that good ol' democracy kicks in. Shi'ites don't like us too much.
-
Originally posted by Maverick
Last I heard the "perpetrators that " that took over the planes and crashed them went down with the plane. I am still waiting to hear what the wonderful "blue" plan would be.
If, for the sake of arguement, you are going to "go after the perpetrators" exactly how would that be done? Where would you go? What constitutes "getting them"? Just how far are you going to go to "get them"? What are you going to do if they don't want you to "get them" or the country they are in doesn't want you to "get them"?
From what I saw you didn't specify a "plan" any more than kerry did when he said he had a "plan" and would "do it better".
Oh come on. I made it very plain.
I would have put the same effort that Bush squandered on Iraq and spent it in Afghanistan. I would have paid much more attention to the threat of Al Quaida and to getting Bin Laden. Clear enough?
-
What? You'd have invaded Pakistan to get OBL?
That'd open a can of madrasas fer shure.
-
Sure Toad, Bush was just acting out of ... hmmmm
self restraint... yeah, thats the ticket.
That's why he invaded Iraq.... so we wouldn't piss off Pakistan.
:aok
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh come on. I made it very plain.
I would have put the same effort that Bush squandered on Iraq and spent it in Afghanistan. I would have paid much more attention to the threat of Al Quaida and to getting Bin Laden. Clear enough?
Actually no it is not clear. You have not defined what that "effort" would be. What is the goal of that "effort"? Explain what you mean by paying more attention to al queda? Does that mean you would enter a "meaningfull dialogue" with them, invite them to a midnight stroll on the beach with airhead?
What are you saying a "blue" country would do? All you have posted have been extremely vague statements. I want details or at least a concrete statement of a course of action. I still do not see any plan in any of your posts.
Since Afghanistan seems to be far quieter than Iraq is (at least as far as media coverage is concerned) I fail to see what else a "blue" country would do there. Please let us know so we can see exactly what the action would be.
How would you be "getting Bin Laden"? I thought I gave enough information in the last post about what I was asking about. The same questions still stand. How will you accomplish this? What will you do if he does not want to go? Where will you go to find him and what are you going to do if the harboring country decides to not let you look there much less "get him"? Again, WTF is the "plan"
-
Originally posted by Fishu
It'd be easier if none of that would've happened in the first place... whos moronic idea was it to torture the prisoners, let alone FILM IT?!
What happened to our moral high ground that we were supposedly defending from the terrorists?
Why not nut up and ask the British the same thing? Funny how a "Commonwealth" finds the need to take the spotlight off of England, at a most curious time.
Karaya
-
How would you be "getting Bin Laden"? I thought I gave enough information in the last post about what I was asking about. The same questions still stand. How will you accomplish this? What will you do if he does not want to go? Where will you go to find him and what are you going to do if the harboring country decides to not let you look there much less "get him"? Again, WTF is the "plan" - Maverick
You gave more than enough information, Maverick. But direct answers are just not MT's bag. Get ready for a witty obfuscation...
-
Originally posted by Gunthr
You gave more than enough information, Maverick. But direct answers are just not MT's bag. Get ready for a witty obfuscation...
Oh please, What do you want, landing sites and troop strength dispositions? My "plan" is no more or less thought out than Bush's plan for ending the war in Iraq.
And saying Afghanistan is quiet while Iraq isn't is just funny. Iraq was quiet, until we invaded it...... to protect ourselves from WMD.
-
Actually MT you have specified no plan or alternative option. All you have done is level ambiguous criticism of the bush admin. That in and of itself is one thing and certainly your right. I'm just calling you on your implication that a "blue country" would have an alternative (viable or not) or do anything different. So far you have said exactly zip, nada, zilch about what that "plan" would be to include military action or asking for those wonderfully effective un sanctions or resolutions. Since there seems to be no alternative action from a "blue country" I can only assume you would simply just hide your head in the sand and solve the problem by ignoring it. Yep that would really be an effective option alright.
-
Wow... I've said numerous times what I would do, yet you keep saying I've said nothing. I'm getting that twilight zone music in my head again..
-
Originally posted by midnight Target
Oh please, What do you want, landing sites and troop strength dispositions? My "plan" is no more or less thought out than Bush's plan for ending the war in Iraq.
And saying Afghanistan is quiet while Iraq isn't is just funny. Iraq was quiet, until we invaded it...... to protect ourselves from WMD.
#1 You have no idea what Bush`s plan on ending the war in Iraq is. None of us do. I can tell you that it will not be "instantly" as some of you seem to be jumping up and down about. Maybe you would have preferred that he set up a press conference in the beginning and alid it out for everyone. It`s not just Iraq and Afghanistan involved in the whole picture. It`s far more wide reaching than that. I sort of expect that , by your statements, that if you noticed a rattlesnake in your yard that you would grab a garden hoe and promptly chop off it`s tail and think the threat was over.
The way things are being done and have been done are about as good as it gets IMO. A full scale, full blown invasion into Afghanistan, such as was done in Iraq, would have been a major waste if you want to talk about waste. It would have been sort of like being all dressed up and nothing to do after we got there. They would have scattered like fleas. What is being done there is the only way to go. Slow and methodicaly is the only way it will work. It is only a starting place, such as Iraq. It reachs far further than that. They have had many years plotting , training and most importantly, building up a network of safe havens and financing from many different countries. Some of these have been very transparently claiming to be western allies. The gravy train for these people are having their free ride severed. Iraq is like a huge rat trap baited with prime cheese. The rats are flocking in by the numbers, but they are having to show their faces for the first time. We are methodicaly stomping their heads in the sand as they come in. It`s not instant. Neither was the planining and network setup for the terrorists.
#2 You say that Iraq was quiet until we invaded it. Yea, they were quietly slaughtering anyone who got in their way under the leadership of one of the world`s most notorious mass murders and tyrants the world has seen since Hitler. More importantly they were participating in the training facilities, financial pipelining, safe havens for the network of terrorists. The end goal was to eliminate and destroy anything in their path and who disagreed with them and got in their way to destroy US, the western world. It didn`t start last year or the year before or the year before that and it won`t be set straight instantly. If we continued to set back and do nothing, as had been being done, the attack on the twin towers would have been a Sunday walk in the park. Giving your enemy an open door and the entire world to operate while you sit on your fat, pampered behinds and wait is not too stratgicaly sound. Seems the very ones who wished to ignore and not address an obvious and growing problem over the last years are the very same group of folks who made the loudest whines after the twin towers attack wanting to know why it wasn`t avoided before it happened. They are also the ones who, now that action is being taken to protect our country from future attacks, that are screaming and whining about how things are being done and want instant gratification and go back to the "don`t rock my boat and everything is peachy" mode. They would also be the ones who would lament and gansh their teeth the loudest upon another attack. One that would have surely came and most certainly is possible to come as things are now. We are not insulated. We don`t have a force field around us.What we are doing is beginning to make an attempt to protect ourself from our enemy. Finaly.....and it`s just the beginning.
-
What did I do? Seriously!
-
Hey Jackal,
#1 - I don't know, you don't know, and there is evidence to suggest that Bush doesn't know either. But that's OK, cause Hillary will straighten it all out in 2008.
#2 - hehe that was funny, really classic fiction, you should put up walls of text more often.
-
MT, I`m proud that you are the one who said you were hearin Twilight zone music in your head. It seems appropiate to your awareness and state of mind. :)
But that's OK, cause Hillary will straighten it all out in 2008.
I didn`t know Hilary Duff was gonna run. It would be the only Hilary/Hillary I can think of who might have a shot. :)