Debate over this. A tumblr user posted it and I agree with it 100%.
"RIP the 2976 Americans that died in the 9/11 attacks and RIP the approximately 48,600 Afghan and 1,691,00 Iraqi and 35000 Pakistani people who paid the ultimate price for a crime they didn't commit."
Where was al Qaeda hidden in Iraq?
The weapons of mass destruction?
Cheney and Halliburton connection?
Billions paid out to military contracts?
Quote from: Taysby on September 11, 2014, 07:08:15 PM
Without the war on terror, bad things would have continued to happen. We would have been saying, terrorist attacks are ok with us. Sure, it's bad that innocents died, but there's not muh you can do to keep terrorists under control.
So you're saying it's OK that we weep (metaphorically sometimes) over not quite 3000 people but it's okay that 2.53 (ish) innocent people died in foreign countries and most of us don't give a flying .love.?
I think the idiotic concept of "American exceptionalism" and the political system in America are to blame for this. We aren't better than anyone else, and you shouldn't vote for a politician because you saw a TV ad.
Is 9/11 a tragedy? Yes, absolutely. Is it the worst thing that's ever happened? No, probably not, but for some people(namely Americans) it is the worst tragedy they've experienced. We can discuss ethics all day but it's a pointless discussion because ethics, morals, personal beliefs and such are all different. There are real threats and people are doing their best to keep it contained. And that's the problem with guerrilla warfare, that's basically the whole point actually; blending in with the community. It's not the civilians fault, or the soldiers fault; it's the insurgent's fault. If you don't think it weighs heavily on a man's soul whenever they kill an innocent civilian, it absolutely does. That's not our goal. That's not our purpose.
Quote from: Taysby on September 11, 2014, 08:08:43 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 11, 2014, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 11, 2014, 07:08:15 PM
Without the war on terror, bad things would have continued to happen. We would have been saying, terrorist attacks are ok with us. Sure, it's bad that innocents died, but there's not muh you can do to keep terrorists under control.
So you're saying it's OK that we weep (metaphorically sometimes) over not quite 3000 people but it's okay that 2.53 (ish) innocent people died in foreign countries and most of us don't give a flying .love.?
We care, but not doing anything about terrorism would have been worse than what we did.
How is killing millions of innocents better than doing nothing?
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 11, 2014, 08:16:19 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 11, 2014, 08:08:43 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 11, 2014, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 11, 2014, 07:08:15 PM
Without the war on terror, bad things would have continued to happen. We would have been saying, terrorist attacks are ok with us. Sure, it's bad that innocents died, but there's not muh you can do to keep terrorists under control.
So you're saying it's OK that we weep (metaphorically sometimes) over not quite 3000 people but it's okay that 2.53 (ish) innocent people died in foreign countries and most of us don't give a flying .love.?
We care, but not doing anything about terrorism would have been worse than what we did.
How is killing millions of innocents better than doing nothing?
I mean, the groups' goals are to kill millions of innocent people....
Quote from: NovusOrbis on September 11, 2014, 08:20:46 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 11, 2014, 08:16:19 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 11, 2014, 08:08:43 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 11, 2014, 07:54:02 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 11, 2014, 07:08:15 PM
Without the war on terror, bad things would have continued to happen. We would have been saying, terrorist attacks are ok with us. Sure, it's bad that innocents died, but there's not muh you can do to keep terrorists under control.
So you're saying it's OK that we weep (metaphorically sometimes) over not quite 3000 people but it's okay that 2.53 (ish) innocent people died in foreign countries and most of us don't give a flying .love.?
We care, but not doing anything about terrorism would have been worse than what we did.
How is killing millions of innocents better than doing nothing?
I mean, the groups' goals are to kill millions of innocent people....
So if we do that too, how does that make us better than them?
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 10:49:37 AM
Are you saying it would have been better to let terrorist run rampant and do whatever the want?...
The reason civilians died was that the terrorists were using guirella warfare in the cities. We had no choice. Also, the terrorists were directly responsible for a lot of those deaths.
I'm saying we shouldn't have killed the innocents. It's begged to let killers of 3000 run wild than kill 2.5 million innocents in search.
Isis.
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 03:14:45 PM
Then those killers keep killing. And killing. And killing.
Keep things in perspective. Is it bad that innocents died? Yes. Should we have let terrorists do their thing? No.
And the only reason innocents died was because the terrorists were taking the war into the cities. It is their fault so many innocents died. They have no appreciation for life.
So as revenge for 3000 deaths we take 2.5 million? Doesn't seen fair. We should let them kill until we catch them in the act.
See how well that goes over with the general population when they're the ones dying....
Quote from: E.kann1 on September 12, 2014, 04:38:46 PM
See how well that goes over with the general population when they're the ones dying....
Because it went sooo well with the Middle East when we killed them...
Not saying that, but they don't vote in the US...
Quote from: E.kann1 on September 12, 2014, 05:21:01 PM
Not saying that, but they don't vote in the US...
Does that mean they're unimportant?
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 12, 2014, 05:31:56 PM
Quote from: E.kann1 on September 12, 2014, 05:21:01 PM
Not saying that, but they don't vote in the US...
Does that mean they're unimportant?
Not at all. What I'm saying is you'll have a hard time convincing most voters to die for them.
Quote from: E.kann1 on September 12, 2014, 05:54:45 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 12, 2014, 05:31:56 PM
Quote from: E.kann1 on September 12, 2014, 05:21:01 PM
Not saying that, but they don't vote in the US...
Does that mean they're unimportant?
Not at all. What I'm saying is you'll have a hard time convincing most voters to die for them.
I have a hard time explaining to people that in US Prseidential Elections, your vote really doesn't count. The Popular Vote doesn't count, it's the Electoral Vote that counts. And those people usually vote in December, after the General Election...
Or at least are supposed to...
Just because voters don't like it that doesn't make it right.
110,937–121,227 civilian deaths from violence from March 2003 to December 2012. According to the Iraq Body Count Project.
US Military killed 6,639
US Military wounded 50,422
US DoD Civilians killed 16
US Civilians killed (includes 9/11 and after) 3,000 +
US Civilians wounded/injured 6,000 +
Total Americans killed (military and civilian) 9,655 +
Total Americans wounded/injured 56,422 +
Total American casualties 66,077 +
That's excluding casualties from the following coalition against terrorism:
NATO participants:
NATO
full list
Albania
Belgium
Bulgaria
Canada
Croatia
Czech Republic
Denmark
Estonia
France
Germany
Greece
Hungary
Iceland
Italy
Latvia
Lithuania
Luxembourg
Netherlands
Norway
Poland
Portugal
Romania
Slovakia
Slovenia
Spain
Turkey
United Kingdom
Non-NATO participants:
Afghanistan
Pakistan
Yemen
Iraq
full list
Algeria
Armenia
Australia
Austria
Azerbaijan
Bahrain
Bosnia and Herzegovina
Burkina Faso
Chad
Colombia
Dominican Republic
El Salvador
Finland
Georgia
India
Indonesia
Ireland
Japan
Kazakhstan
Kenya
South Korea
Macedonia
Malaysia
Mali
Mauritania
Mongolia
Montenegro
Morocco
Moldova
New Zealand
Nicaragua
Niger
Nigeria
Philippines
Qatar
Rwanda
Russia
Senegal
Singapore
Sweden
Thailand
Tonga
Tunisia
Ukraine
United Arab Emirates
International missions *:
NATO—ISAF
Operation Enduring Freedom Allies
Northern Alliance
Multi-National Force – Iraq
Combined Joint Task Force – Horn of Africa
(* note: most contributing nations are included in the international operations)
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 05:43:35 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 12, 2014, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 03:14:45 PM
Then those killers keep killing. And killing. And killing.
Keep things in perspective. Is it bad that innocents died? Yes. Should we have let terrorists do their thing? No.
And the only reason innocents died was because the terrorists were taking the war into the cities. It is their fault so many innocents died. They have no appreciation for life.
So as revenge for 3000 deaths we take 2.5 million? Doesn't seen fair. We should let them kill until we catch them in the act.
So we shouldn't go after bank robbers unless the police catch them in the bank so they don't accidentally arrest the wrong person?
Bank robbers are much easier to find than international terrorists. And no, we shouldn't make a final arrest unless we're sure.
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 12, 2014, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 03:14:45 PM
Then those killers keep killing. And killing. And killing.
Keep things in perspective. Is it bad that innocents died? Yes. Should we have let terrorists do their thing? No.
And the only reason innocents died was because the terrorists were taking the war into the cities. It is their fault so many innocents died. They have no appreciation for life.
So as revenge for 3000 deaths we take 2.5 million? Doesn't seen fair. We should let them kill until we catch them in the act.
Catch them in the act? How exactly are you supposed to catch the incinerated body of a suicide bomber in the act?
It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is, and while you've done a good job at pointinf out many problems with the war on terror, you have yet to offer anything close to a could have been a better course of action. These aren't bank robbers, they are people who don't even value their own lives, let alone anyone else's.
Quote from: Gocougs509 on September 16, 2014, 11:08:45 AM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 12, 2014, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 03:14:45 PM
Then those killers keep killing. And killing. And killing.
Keep things in perspective. Is it bad that innocents died? Yes. Should we have let terrorists do their thing? No.
And the only reason innocents died was because the terrorists were taking the war into the cities. It is their fault so many innocents died. They have no appreciation for life.
So as revenge for 3000 deaths we take 2.5 million? Doesn't seen fair. We should let them kill until we catch them in the act.
Catch them in the act? How exactly are you supposed to catch the incinerated body of a suicide bomber in the act?
It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is, and while you've done a good job at pointinf out many problems with the war on terror, you have yet to offer anything close to a could have been a better course of action. These aren't bank robbers, they are people who don't even value their own lives, let alone anyone else's.
You'll notice the masterminds of al queda did not burn to a crisp in a suicide bombing. You can do it and lose less lives.
Quote from: Taysby on September 16, 2014, 03:09:41 PM
And you'll notice that they never left their home base. How do we find them without the war on terror?
It'd take years but millions of innocents wouldn't die for something they didn't do.
Quote from: Taysby on September 16, 2014, 07:17:59 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 16, 2014, 06:03:17 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 16, 2014, 03:09:41 PM
And you'll notice that they never left their home base. How do we find them without the war on terror?
It'd take years but millions of innocents wouldn't die for something they didn't do.
Hah! did you not notice how many innocents died in 1 attack from them?
So 7000 deaths justify killing hundred of thousands of innocents?
So the possibility of another issue justifies lying to the public about why we were invading( WMD weren't there which is fact), killing almost a million innocent women and children, an our new "war" on oil producing countries that won't work with us anymore? Only reason we care about Syria or keep our relations with the barbaric Saudis is their oil, same with Iran.
Jihadists (the only label I have for ISIS and similar organizations) are impossible to negotiate with. (Generally). They are so into their warped religion that they believe they must kill all of America and Israel (big and little satan, respectively) or get as close to that goal as possible so their 12th Imam can show up. The 12 Imam is the 12th coming of "Christ" where he sets the world right.
I do not agree with what America did. The war they launched wasn't properly aimed at who needed to get punished for what happened. I believe there was a hidden agenda. But there hasn't been something like 9/11 since then. (That I'm aware of.)
I don't buy into the conspiracy that 9/11 was faked so America could launch an attack. But some of the evidence is scary.
IMO 9/11 was a tragedy that needs to never repeat itself. Something needs to be done about ISIS and other such organizations. The only option I know of is fighting back, I don't know how to do that without innocents dying. It's probably impossible, /but innocents are already dying./
Don't forget that Jihadist =/= Muslim.
I read the first post and the last page. You guys twist things into a large argument that doesn't have to happen
Quote from: Munchlax on September 16, 2014, 08:53:11 PM
I read the first post and the last page. You guys twist things into a large argument that doesn't have to happen
Actually seems pretty much still on topic, but yes this is the Internet and debates change shape!
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 16, 2014, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: Gocougs509 on September 16, 2014, 11:08:45 AM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 12, 2014, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 03:14:45 PM
Then those killers keep killing. And killing. And killing.
Keep things in perspective. Is it bad that innocents died? Yes. Should we have let terrorists do their thing? No.
And the only reason innocents died was because the terrorists were taking the war into the cities. It is their fault so many innocents died. They have no appreciation for life.
So as revenge for 3000 deaths we take 2.5 million? Doesn't seen fair. We should let them kill until we catch them in the act.
Catch them in the act? How exactly are you supposed to catch the incinerated body of a suicide bomber in the act?
It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is, and while you've done a good job at pointinf out many problems with the war on terror, you have yet to offer anything close to a could have been a better course of action. These aren't bank robbers, they are people who don't even value their own lives, let alone anyone else's.
You'll notice the masterminds of al queda did not burn to a crisp in a suicide bombing. You can do it and lose less lives.
Like I said before, you seem to be good at pointing out the problem over and over again, yet if the solution is as simple as you make it out to be, why have you not offered one?
Or is sitting back and doing nothing while terrorism runs rampant your idea of a 'solution'?
Quote from: Gocougs509 on September 16, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 16, 2014, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: Gocougs509 on September 16, 2014, 11:08:45 AM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 12, 2014, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 03:14:45 PM
Then those killers keep killing. And killing. And killing.
Keep things in perspective. Is it bad that innocents died? Yes. Should we have let terrorists do their thing? No.
And the only reason innocents died was because the terrorists were taking the war into the cities. It is their fault so many innocents died. They have no appreciation for life.
So as revenge for 3000 deaths we take 2.5 million? Doesn't seen fair. We should let them kill until we catch them in the act.
Catch them in the act? How exactly are you supposed to catch the incinerated body of a suicide bomber in the act?
It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is, and while you've done a good job at pointinf out many problems with the war on terror, you have yet to offer anything close to a could have been a better course of action. These aren't bank robbers, they are people who don't even value their own lives, let alone anyone else's.
You'll notice the masterminds of al queda did not burn to a crisp in a suicide bombing. You can do it and lose less lives.
Like I said before, you seem to be good at pointing out the problem over and over again, yet if the solution is as simple as you make it out to be, why have you not offered one?
Or is sitting back and doing nothing while terrorism runs rampant your idea of a 'solution'?
Maybe, my solution is that we should have tried to work with the innocents in that region to find them instead of massacre them.
You cannot deal with terrorism without innocent people dying. If you don't deal with the terrorists, people die. If you try and deal with the terrorists, they hide behind innocent people.
It is a lose lose situation and nobody has the right solution.
America could have launched a stealth mission, using snipers and spies to try and track down the leaders. But what then? It'd have to be completely secret, and the American people would think that they were just sitting there, doing nothing.
I don't know what the solution is. But the terrorists are very smart. They don't value innocent lives.
The worst things you can imagine happen to snipers and spies that get caught.
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 06:50:48 AM
Quote from: Gocougs509 on September 16, 2014, 11:44:33 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 16, 2014, 02:53:46 PM
Quote from: Gocougs509 on September 16, 2014, 11:08:45 AM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 12, 2014, 04:14:13 PM
Quote from: Taysby on September 12, 2014, 03:14:45 PM
Then those killers keep killing. And killing. And killing.
Keep things in perspective. Is it bad that innocents died? Yes. Should we have let terrorists do their thing? No.
And the only reason innocents died was because the terrorists were taking the war into the cities. It is their fault so many innocents died. They have no appreciation for life.
So as revenge for 3000 deaths we take 2.5 million? Doesn't seen fair. We should let them kill until we catch them in the act.
Catch them in the act? How exactly are you supposed to catch the incinerated body of a suicide bomber in the act?
It's nowhere near as simple as you seem to think it is, and while you've done a good job at pointinf out many problems with the war on terror, you have yet to offer anything close to a could have been a better course of action. These aren't bank robbers, they are people who don't even value their own lives, let alone anyone else's.
You'll notice the masterminds of al queda did not burn to a crisp in a suicide bombing. You can do it and lose less lives.
Like I said before, you seem to be good at pointing out the problem over and over again, yet if the solution is as simple as you make it out to be, why have you not offered one?
Or is sitting back and doing nothing while terrorism runs rampant your idea of a 'solution'?
Maybe, my solution is that we should have tried to work with the innocents in that region to find them instead of massacre them.
That is how bin Laden got his start. He was funded by the US.
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 01:54:14 PM
You cannot deal with terrorism without innocent people dying. If you don't deal with the terrorists, people die. If you try and deal with the terrorists, they hide behind innocent people.
It is a lose lose situation and nobody has the right solution.
America could have launched a stealth mission, using snipers and spies to try and track down the leaders. But what then? It'd have to be completely secret, and the American people would think that they were just sitting there, doing nothing.
I don't know what the solution is. But the terrorists are very smart. They don't value innocent lives.
The worst things you can imagine happen to snipers and spies that get caught.
Less people would die with my solution of working with the innocents.
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 01:54:14 PM
You cannot deal with terrorism without innocent people dying. If you don't deal with the terrorists, people die. If you try and deal with the terrorists, they hide behind innocent people.
It is a lose lose situation and nobody has the right solution.
America could have launched a stealth mission, using snipers and spies to try and track down the leaders. But what then? It'd have to be completely secret, and the American people would think that they were just sitting there, doing nothing.
I don't know what the solution is. But the terrorists are very smart. They don't value innocent lives.
The worst things you can imagine happen to snipers and spies that get caught.
Less people would die with my solution of working with the innocents.
Everything sounds good on paper.
Quote from: NovusOrbis on September 17, 2014, 06:09:19 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 01:54:14 PM
You cannot deal with terrorism without innocent people dying. If you don't deal with the terrorists, people die. If you try and deal with the terrorists, they hide behind innocent people.
It is a lose lose situation and nobody has the right solution.
America could have launched a stealth mission, using snipers and spies to try and track down the leaders. But what then? It'd have to be completely secret, and the American people would think that they were just sitting there, doing nothing.
I don't know what the solution is. But the terrorists are very smart. They don't value innocent lives.
The worst things you can imagine happen to snipers and spies that get caught.
Less people would die with my solution of working with the innocents.
Everything sounds good on paper.
This.
This right here.
Quote from: NovusOrbis on September 17, 2014, 06:09:19 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 01:54:14 PM
You cannot deal with terrorism without innocent people dying. If you don't deal with the terrorists, people die. If you try and deal with the terrorists, they hide behind innocent people.
It is a lose lose situation and nobody has the right solution.
America could have launched a stealth mission, using snipers and spies to try and track down the leaders. But what then? It'd have to be completely secret, and the American people would think that they were just sitting there, doing nothing.
I don't know what the solution is. But the terrorists are very smart. They don't value innocent lives.
The worst things you can imagine happen to snipers and spies that get caught.
Less people would die with my solution of working with the innocents.
Everything sounds good on paper.
That's fair.
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 07:05:08 PM
Quote from: NovusOrbis on September 17, 2014, 06:09:19 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 01:54:14 PM
You cannot deal with terrorism without innocent people dying. If you don't deal with the terrorists, people die. If you try and deal with the terrorists, they hide behind innocent people.
It is a lose lose situation and nobody has the right solution.
America could have launched a stealth mission, using snipers and spies to try and track down the leaders. But what then? It'd have to be completely secret, and the American people would think that they were just sitting there, doing nothing.
I don't know what the solution is. But the terrorists are very smart. They don't value innocent lives.
The worst things you can imagine happen to snipers and spies that get caught.
Less people would die with my solution of working with the innocents.
Everything sounds good on paper.
That's fair.
Working with the innocents? How?
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 07:05:08 PM
Quote from: NovusOrbis on September 17, 2014, 06:09:19 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 01:54:14 PM
You cannot deal with terrorism without innocent people dying. If you don't deal with the terrorists, people die. If you try and deal with the terrorists, they hide behind innocent people.
It is a lose lose situation and nobody has the right solution.
America could have launched a stealth mission, using snipers and spies to try and track down the leaders. But what then? It'd have to be completely secret, and the American people would think that they were just sitting there, doing nothing.
I don't know what the solution is. But the terrorists are very smart. They don't value innocent lives.
The worst things you can imagine happen to snipers and spies that get caught.
Less people would die with my solution of working with the innocents.
Everything sounds good on paper.
That's fair.
Working with the innocents? How?
Treating them well, for a start.
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 07:44:39 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 07:12:08 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 07:05:08 PM
Quote from: NovusOrbis on September 17, 2014, 06:09:19 PM
Quote from: Kaworu, the Fifth Child on September 17, 2014, 03:09:53 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 17, 2014, 01:54:14 PM
You cannot deal with terrorism without innocent people dying. If you don't deal with the terrorists, people die. If you try and deal with the terrorists, they hide behind innocent people.
It is a lose lose situation and nobody has the right solution.
America could have launched a stealth mission, using snipers and spies to try and track down the leaders. But what then? It'd have to be completely secret, and the American people would think that they were just sitting there, doing nothing.
I don't know what the solution is. But the terrorists are very smart. They don't value innocent lives.
The worst things you can imagine happen to snipers and spies that get caught.
Less people would die with my solution of working with the innocents.
Everything sounds good on paper.
That's fair.
Working with the innocents? How?
Treating them well, for a start.
I'm sorry, was America supposed to show up and start handing out cookies? I'm really not seeing this.
The only way to deal with innocents is to get them out of the way. They don't move, there is crossfire, that's how war works.
Am I being harsh? No. I'm being blunt.
I suppose they could have warned them, but then the terrorists know too.
As I said before, it's a lose lose. Don't pretend that there's some magical solution where all the bad guys stop being bad and everyone lives happily ever after. That's not how life works.
Don't take this the wrong way. I don't think America did the right thing. But I'm hard pressed to find a better solution and working with the innocents and treating them better really isn't how it works.
The terrorist put people in the way and America kept going. What other choices did they have? I'm sure lives could have been spared but they weren't, and saying they could have treated them better doesn't and won't change that.
War is hell.
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2014, 01:09:09 AM
Quote from: Taysby on September 18, 2014, 12:25:15 AM
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 17, 2014, 08:04:29 PM
I find it funny that as far this conversation is concerned, Wahhabism and the radical Islam they propose are some abstract evil that birthed itself in a vacuum...
How do you mean?
"Bad guys" "Terrorists" as if there is some amorphous group whose sole purpose was to hurt Amercans. No, there's no disenfranchised masses who saw our invasion as a massive recruiting poster. There's no inflated threat which we handled in the worst way possible when public opinion was on our side. There's no decades long history of western imperialism into the Middle East that helped bring about this anti-US sentiment. We didn't poke a hornets for decades and expect to not get stung. No, we just have a bunch of meanies who want to hurt us. Now, before you take this the wrong way, let me make this absolutely clear: I abhore what happened on 9/11. I cry when I read about it still. But that doesn't change the fact that this two-dimensional "good guys" v. "terrorists" mentality is over-simplistic and, coupled with the idea that violence is the only answer, is doing more harm than good.
I never claimed that America is the good guys. I know they had a hidden agenda and I don't agree with a lot of what they've done.
That being said there's a religion devoted to the annihilation of America and Israel. As far as I'm concerned if somebody wants to kill me, my family and everyone else around me, they're the bad guy in my life story.
I'm not even American. I'm Canadian. The other thing that Jihadists (specifically ISIS) are doing right now is massacring Christians.
When somebody decides, for whatever messed up reason, that you need to die, what's the proper response?
I don't see an option outside of fighting fire with fire but can you honestly come up with a better one?
Would you sit back knowing somebody was going to strap a bomb to their chest and come after your family? I wouldn't.
I wish there was a way that this could be resolved peacefully and that Jihadists would change there ways, but outside of an act of God I don't see it happening. It sadness me and it sickness me.
Until they stop tying to kill people they are the bad guy, and they will be treated as such.
I mean, to them Americans are the bad guys. It's all a matter of perspective. America made enemies, they have to deal with them.
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2014, 02:08:50 PM
Did it ever occur to you that Israel is just as much at fault? That Zionism is one of the most wrong-headed movements ever conceived? They've reached the state of strapping bombs on people because of a multitude of reasons. Your gross over-simplification for justifying violence is the same as any despot. Leaving the Middle East alone and restraining Israel would certainly help in ratcheting down tensions and not give violent groups living artillery dispensing billboards for recruitment.
I wasn't familiar with the term Zionism until now. From my google crash course it's Jews wanting to live in Israel. Not seeing the problem, even though I don't agree with it. Is there some sort of radical movement I'm not familiar with?
I never said America was the victim. They've been fueling the fire. But if all both sides do is stoke the flames then what?
My gross over-simplification for justifying violence? Explain to me when I over-simplified. Correct me if you're going to say such things.
America can't really afford to leave the Middle East alone. They're too heavily invested in it. That being said it would certainly help if they worked on their public image over there. (By that I basically mean "were a lot nicer")
Restraining Israel? From doing what? Don't you think restraining Israel might make an enemy of say, Israel?
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2014, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 18, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2014, 02:08:50 PM
Did it ever occur to you that Israel is just as much at fault? That Zionism is one of the most wrong-headed movements ever conceived? They've reached the state of strapping bombs on people because of a multitude of reasons. Your gross over-simplification for justifying violence is the same as any despot. Leaving the Middle East alone and restraining Israel would certainly help in ratcheting down tensions and not give violent groups living artillery dispensing billboards for recruitment.
I wasn't familiar with the term Zionism until now. From my google crash course it's Jews wanting to live in Israel. Not seeing the problem, even though I don't agree with it. Is there some sort of radical movement I'm not familiar with?
I never said America was the victim. They've been fueling the fire. But if all both sides do is stoke the flames then what?
My gross over-simplification for justifying violence? Explain to me when I over-simplified. Correct me if you're going to say such things.
America can't really afford to leave the Middle East alone. They're too heavily invested in it. That being said it would certainly help if they worked on their public image over there. (By that I basically mean "were a lot nicer")
Restraining Israel? From doing what? Don't you think restraining Israel might make an enemy of say, Israel?
If you're unfamiliar with the formation of Israel and it's continued antagonizing relationship with the rest of the Middle East, you aren't informed enough to talk about policy in the area.
That's quite rude. I'd say "Zieg Heil, brother" but don't want to violate Godwin'a rule.
What does Zionism have to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, and Syria anyways? Israel only formed after world war 2, and the whole collective area was called trans Palestine. Before British rule the whole area has just been, gross.
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2014, 08:00:08 PM
Quote from: NovusOrbis on September 18, 2014, 05:58:06 PM
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2014, 05:06:40 PM
Quote from: LinkCelestrial on September 18, 2014, 02:48:25 PM
Quote from: ConanEdo on September 18, 2014, 02:08:50 PM
Did it ever occur to you that Israel is just as much at fault? That Zionism is one of the most wrong-headed movements ever conceived? They've reached the state of strapping bombs on people because of a multitude of reasons. Your gross over-simplification for justifying violence is the same as any despot. Leaving the Middle East alone and restraining Israel would certainly help in ratcheting down tensions and not give violent groups living artillery dispensing billboards for recruitment.
I wasn't familiar with the term Zionism until now. From my google crash course it's Jews wanting to live in Israel. Not seeing the problem, even though I don't agree with it. Is there some sort of radical movement I'm not familiar with?
I never said America was the victim. They've been fueling the fire. But if all both sides do is stoke the flames then what?
My gross over-simplification for justifying violence? Explain to me when I over-simplified. Correct me if you're going to say such things.
America can't really afford to leave the Middle East alone. They're too heavily invested in it. That being said it would certainly help if they worked on their public image over there. (By that I basically mean "were a lot nicer")
Restraining Israel? From doing what? Don't you think restraining Israel might make an enemy of say, Israel?
If you're unfamiliar with the formation of Israel and it's continued antagonizing relationship with the rest of the Middle East, you aren't informed enough to talk about policy in the area.
That's quite rude. I'd say "Zieg Heil, brother" but don't want to violate Godwin'a rule.
What does Zionism have to do with Iraq and Afghanistan, and Syria anyways? Israel only formed after world war 2, and the whole collective area was called trans Palestine. Before British rule the whole area has just been, gross.
The Holocaust was the final push that occurred for a movement that started in the 19th century. The land that was set aside for Israel (and the land it continues to encroach on) was and continues to be inhabited by a large group of Palestinians that have been forced into smaller and smaller spaces. It has been the rallying cry of Pan-Arabist movements since the time of Nasser. The British mucked about and created whole states from cloth in an attempt to make the whole area more governable (see The Invention of Iraq). The west needs to just leave well enough alone.
And I don't doubt any of that. Both sides extremists' goals are nefarious, and I just don't think leaving it alone would be any better than trying to do something about it.