- May 18, 2001
- 24,117
- 2
- 0
Originally posted by: no0b
"In this incident, if non-combatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars, in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences," he said.
Originally posted by: tnitsuj
Originally posted by: no0b
"In this incident, if non-combatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars, in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences," he said.
That could describe the whole country.
"We try very hard not to kill anyone. We would prefer to capture the terrorists rather than kill them," Hilferty said.
"But in this incident, if noncombatants surround themselves with thousands of weapons and hundreds of rounds of ammunition and howitzers and mortars in a compound known to be used by a terrorist, we are not completely responsible for the consequences."
It doesn't seem to me that they were trying to be clever with the words. It seems that they were just stating that civilians are in a compound used by a terrorist, filled with thousands of weapons, ammo and explosives, then they (the us military) are not completely reponsible. Note that he said "not completely" which indicates partial responsibility.
Also, not really sure if this can be classified as a "press release" in the same way that Ari Fliescher (or whomever replaced him) issues press releases.
Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
There's only one good thing about terrorists . . . at least when they kill innocent people they don't bother with the caveats.
And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoint on "collateral damage". The liberal sees no difference in the deaths of the innocents, sees no difference in a targeted terrorist attack intentional against innocents, and a targeted military attack against "not-so-innocents" that also kills innocents.Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't think it's crass . . . it's just the unvarnished truth. When America operates by its ideals, no one can reasonably doubt our motivations OR our methods. This administration (and at times prior administrations) clearly does not respect human life. It is not sufficient to say your opponent is barbaric (attacking civilians, attacking military targets in civilian areas, etc) and then use substantially similar tactics. "Oops, my bad" . . . just doesn't cut it.
At least the terrorists are honest . . . they don't care who they kill as long as they kill somebody. Tyrants the world over and throughout history have killed "for the greater good". It was BS then and it's BS now.
So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?Originally posted by: alchemize
And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoint on "collateral damage". The liberal sees no difference in the deaths of the innocents, sees no difference in a targeted terrorist attack intentional against innocents, and a targeted military attack against "not-so-innocents" that also kills innocents.Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't think it's crass . . . it's just the unvarnished truth. When America operates by its ideals, no one can reasonably doubt our motivations OR our methods. This administration (and at times prior administrations) clearly does not respect human life. It is not sufficient to say your opponent is barbaric (attacking civilians, attacking military targets in civilian areas, etc) and then use substantially similar tactics. "Oops, my bad" . . . just doesn't cut it.
At least the terrorists are honest . . . they don't care who they kill as long as they kill somebody. Tyrants the world over and throughout history have killed "for the greater good". It was BS then and it's BS now.
This supposed respect for human life, actually respects life less, because it is unwilling to take a stand against evil. And so bows to those who would purposefully kill innocents with glee, rather than those who would do it accidentaly, and with great remorse. It can't see the difference between a mud hut filled with bearded maniacs armed with RPG's and dynamite vests (and who cowardly hide amongst the populace...yes there I go with that cowardice again), and folks in a coffee shop.
BBD, if you want to call it similar tactics to what terrorists employ, then we would resorted to nukes a long time ago...
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?
Wow it seems like you have intimate knowledge of what the terrorist feel...or that you are some kind of sick Pedophile!!Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?
The terrorists would gladly take an American child and sodomize him/her with an RPG and then launch it. Yes, they do kill children with glee. The American military does not.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
Wow it seems like you have intimate knowledge of what the terrorist feel...or that you are some kind of sick Pedophile!!Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?
The terrorists would gladly take an American child and sodomize him/her with an RPG and then launch it. Yes, they do kill children with glee. The American military does not.
Originally posted by: Red Dawn
So according to you the Terrorists kill children with glee and we kill then and then apologize afterwards?Originally posted by: alchemize
And therein lies the fundamental difference between the liberal and conservative viewpoint on "collateral damage". The liberal sees no difference in the deaths of the innocents, sees no difference in a targeted terrorist attack intentional against innocents, and a targeted military attack against "not-so-innocents" that also kills innocents.Originally posted by: BaliBabyDoc
I don't think it's crass . . . it's just the unvarnished truth. When America operates by its ideals, no one can reasonably doubt our motivations OR our methods. This administration (and at times prior administrations) clearly does not respect human life. It is not sufficient to say your opponent is barbaric (attacking civilians, attacking military targets in civilian areas, etc) and then use substantially similar tactics. "Oops, my bad" . . . just doesn't cut it.
At least the terrorists are honest . . . they don't care who they kill as long as they kill somebody. Tyrants the world over and throughout history have killed "for the greater good". It was BS then and it's BS now.
This supposed respect for human life, actually respects life less, because it is unwilling to take a stand against evil. And so bows to those who would purposefully kill innocents with glee, rather than those who would do it accidentaly, and with great remorse. It can't see the difference between a mud hut filled with bearded maniacs armed with RPG's and dynamite vests (and who cowardly hide amongst the populace...yes there I go with that cowardice again), and folks in a coffee shop.
BBD, if you want to call it similar tactics to what terrorists employ, then we would resorted to nukes a long time ago...
Originally posted by: sandorski
Often you have to wonder who is an "Armchair" General. Us, discussing strategy, or the Military lobbing missiles/bombs at targets that someimes turn out to be civilian. I appreciate that no one wants to die or send someone to die, but it seems to me that if you want to do something right you need Infantry to a least confirm the target.
Originally posted by: miguel
Originally posted by: sandorski
Often you have to wonder who is an "Armchair" General. Us, discussing strategy, or the Military lobbing missiles/bombs at targets that someimes turn out to be civilian. I appreciate that no one wants to die or send someone to die, but it seems to me that if you want to do something right you need Infantry to a least confirm the target.
Unless you are a military strategist, your being an "Armchair General," as you say, is about as useful as a dog pretending to be a cat. It's amusing as hell, but doesn't provide any insight on cats.
What a pile of horse poo! Valiant people throughout history have fought aggression and oppression . . . stood against evil . . . and done so without purposefully or unintentionally killing innocents. Saddam rose in the ranks of the Ba'athist regime b/c he was ruthless AND effective. Pinochet rose to power b/c he was ruthless and effective. Sudharto rose to power b/c he was ruthless and effective. Marcos rose to power b/c he was ruthless and effective. Noriega rose to power b/c he was ruthless and effective. What do these people have in common other than being lowlifes? They all found support within the US government . . . but of course we supported their effective leadership not necessarily the ruthlessness.This supposed respect for human life, actually respects life less, because it is unwilling to take a stand against evil. And so bows to those who would purposefully kill innocents with glee, rather than those who would do it accidentaly, and with great remorse.
Terrorists blow up a disco frequented by soldiers . . . US drops a JDAM on a restaurant b/c Saddam might be there . . . uh . . . yeah I would say those are similar tactics . . . with morally equivalent results. Unfortunately . . . well actually I mean fortunately but that's difficult for me to say, we cannot ask the suicide bomber whether they feel remorse over killing innocent people. On the otherhand, our elected (and unelected officials) will have news conference; announce that innocent people were killed (only when asked explicitly) . . . and then do it again . . . and again . . . and again. I don't doubt that the vast majority of soldiers abhor the notion of killing innocent people. Unfortunately, the people making the decisions don't abhor it enough to stop giving such orders.BBD, if you want to call it similar tactics to what terrorists employ, then we would resorted to nukes a long time ago