Boston and Beyond...

[conehead433]

No commentary, lock it.

Quite true, I can't believe the mods haven't locked this thread for the OP's failure to follow the rules.

 

[lotus503]

Sorry, you're not going to convince me that most of the Middle East loved (or even liked) America before the drone campaign began. If it wasn't this reason it'd be another reason why they hate us. They're always going to hate us.

As I've pointed out before, drones are the most significant development in warfare ever. It's hard to even think of anything comparable. They feed us a constant stream of intelligence, provide the ability to strike targets anywhere in the world in a moment's notice and represent no risk to US military members. They keep the bad guys from meeting. They keep the bad guys from using cell phones and radios. They force the bad guys to live in a state of terror, worrying that they may be killed at any moment. They have single handedly destroyed entire terror networks all over the world.

So you're telling me we need to end the most significant and efficient advancement in warfare ever because some people who hate us are traumatized by the constant fear of drones? Hah. No shits given.

The reality is that we live in a very free country, where anyone who wants to can easily build a powerful bomb and kill Americans. This will happen more frequently in the future, as the enemies of our nation realize how effective these simple attacks can be. The only way to stop them is to surrender our freedoms to a police state that monitors all communications and can search without warrant. It's simply not worth it. We'll just have to learn to accept that the world is a violent place, and a constant struggle, and sometimes the violence winds up on your doorstep.

Meanwhile some of the most fanatical governments in the ME are not waging war and invading other countries.

I agree drones didn't cause the hatred, I'm sure the decades of war we have waged in the ME had something to do with it, drones are just a technical extension of what we have already been doing, killing people and a lot of them innocent.

Sure the worlds a violent place and one of the biggest contributors is the United states.

 

[Gintaras]

And if you continue to believe that the average Muslim has the same logic and reasoning mechanisms as the Western world, you'll continue to misunderstand the situation. They hate us because we won't submit. These are people that are literally willing to die for their religion. That largely doesn't exist in the West, and it's hard for us to understand.

What country has asked US to submit? Any country with islamic religion wanted to bring to US their religion? Which one? Any country have attacked US because of religion believes?

Why people are dying all over The World?
Maybe because of religion that's called - DEMOCRACY?
And it's the western countries want others to submit to "western religion - Democracy"

What is a main principle of Democracy?

If some people want to build a mosque in NYC and a mayor of NYC won't allow that, neither Egypt nor Afganistan nor any other islamic country won't bomb US....

But...If some country won't give their resources - gas/oil, metals...etc for free, build McDonald's, won't buy Coca-Cola, won't watch porn , won't accept unmoral gay propaganda - it's called non-Democracy and can be easily bombed...

As of today, countries without human rights...as in "western Media": China, Russia, Belarus....

Wonder why? Because they don't submit to WESTERN DEMOCRACY...
I do communicate with people from Belarus or Russia...they never told me, that their Human Rights are compromised...They can travel where they want to...they can say what they want to...No problem at all...
So called "opposition" over there? It's same like in US - you don't see Ron Paul or Noam Chomsky telling The Truth on Prime TV...
And arrested are mostly the ones, that become violent...

Situation with Democracy isn't so good in some countries that US see as democracy...
In Lithuania, a journalist Rūta Janutienė was fired from her job because she made a documentary(with all the facts) about current president of Lithuania....Rūta Janutienė exposed some unwanted past of current president of Lithuania - Dalia Grybauskaite - a die-hard communist turned out to be a democrat now.....

European Union is a democracy? Why then they - Brussels force other EU members-countries to accept laws that some countries don't want to?

Is it too a Democracy?

 

[Nebor]

Meanwhile some of the most fanatical governments in the ME are not waging war and invading other countries.

I agree drones didn't cause the hatred, I'm sure the decades of war we have waged in the ME had something to do with it, drones are just a technical extension of what we have already been doing, killing people and a lot of them innocent.

Sure the worlds a violent place and one of the biggest contributors is the United states.

Realize that when they have natural disasters, the imams tell their flock that the Americans caused it. Earthquake in Iran? It was the jews.

We can't win by playing nice.

 

[lotus503]

They hated us because we were invading their countries and messing with their government by appointing our own dictators onto them.

Do you not remember what we did to Iran with the Shah of Iran?

I agree!

 

[lotus503]

Realize that when they have natural disasters, the imams tell their flock that the Americans caused it. Earthquake in Iran? It was the jews.

We can't win by playing nice.

It's always been that way to a degree. Thing is what they tell them doesn't always manifest as violence. What does manifest as violence is being attacked by a foreign invader repeatedly.

If you tell me our actions in the middle east don't contribute to the problem significantly we can't have a rational logical discussion on the issue.

I'd wager if we got out of the ME entirely terrorism would subside substantially.

 

[Nebor]

It's always been that way to a degree. Thing is what they tell them doesn't always manifest as violence. What does manifest as violence is being attacked by a foreign invader repeatedly.

If you tell me our actions in the middle east don't contribute to the problem significantly we can't have a rational logical discussion on the issue.

I'd wager if we got out of the ME entirely terrorism would subside substantially.

That's ok, I don't need to have a rational discussion, the drones are in the air and killing bad guys as we speak. Status quo FTW. :biggrin:

 

[lotus503]

That's ok, I don't need to have a rational discussion, the drones are in the air and killing bad guys as we speak. Status quo FTW. :biggrin:

Thats what I thought another person with their head in the sand. whats the ratio of bad guys the innocent folks?

 

[Nebor]

Thats what I thought another person with their head in the sand. whats the ratio of bad guys the innocent folks?

There are no "innocent folks." The checks and balances that go into authorizing a drone strike are myriad. They don't strike unless they're sure they're going to hit a named objective, and they balance that against the collateral damage. When the collateral damage is just his wife and kids, or his terrorist cohorts, it's approved and they all get smoked. No tears shed.

It's not like "whoops, we hit that school bus!"

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I'd wager if we got out of the ME entirely terrorism would subside substantially.

I'd wager that is complete bullshit. Where do the terrorists that attack the US come from? It's not Afghanistan or Iraq, the two countries we have invaded. Are we being attacked because of our intervention with Iraq in the 90s, after being invited into the ME by both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? It's not as if we weren't unwelcome in the ME for the Gulf War.

The terrorists are coming from places where hardcore Islamic fundamentalism flourishes. The US has never invaded Saudi Arabia. The US has never invaded Pakistan. The US has never invaded Yemen.

Is it simply our presence in the ME that's the problem? If so, then claiming we should leave to resolve the problem sounds cretinish. It would be like a redneck saying "If them thar Mooslims just left the good ol' US o' Aye they wouldn't have to worry about being persecuted." I doubt you would agree with such a sentiment. So why would you agree with it when a slightly different spin is put on it?

 

[lotus503]

I'd wager that is complete bullshit. Where do the terrorists that attack the US come from? It's not Afghanistan or Iraq, the two countries we have invaded. Are we being attacked because of our intervention with Iraq in the 90s, after being invited into the ME by both Kuwait and Saudi Arabia? It's not as if we weren't unwelcome in the ME for the Gulf War.

The terrorists are coming from places where hardcore Islamic fundamentalism flourishes. The US has never invaded Saudi Arabia. The US has never invaded Pakistan. The US has never invaded Yemen.

Is it simply our presence in the ME that's the problem? If so, then claiming we should leave to resolve the problem sounds cretinish. It would be like a redneck saying "If them thar Mooslims just left the good ol' US o' Aye they wouldn't have to worry about being persecuted." I doubt you would agree with such a sentiment. So why would you agree with it when a slightly different spin is put on it?

Yes a big reason we are being attacked now is because of desert storm.

That was bin ladens trigger to go from CIA stooge to hell bent on terrorism in the united states.

One of your numerous misconceptions.is that the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia represent the average citizen.

Next your post leaves out the radicalization that has occurred because we have now spent a couple of decades killing people in Muslim countries.

Make no mistake far more Muslims are radicalized and want to kill westerners because of our actions in the middle east. If you don't get that you are being willfully ignorant.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yes a big reason we are being attacked now is because of desert storm.

That was bin ladens trigger to go from CIA stooge to hell bent on terrorism in the united states.

One of your numerous misconceptions.is that the governments of Kuwait and Saudi Arabia represent the average citizen.

Next your post leaves out the radicalization that has occurred because we have now spent a couple of decades killing people in Muslim countries.

Make no mistake far more Muslims are radicalized and want to kill westerners because of our actions in the middle east. If you don't get that you are being willfully ignorant.

Are you trying to say that the average citizen in Kuwait or SA would have been fine being invaded by Saddam? I somehow doubt that.

As far as OBL:

1) You seem to believe in the claim that he was a CIA stooge in Afghanistan. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

2) We didn't invade any ME country in Desert Storm.

3) Desert Storm was a UN authorized action.

4) OBL didn't have a problem with the US until after he was refused, twice, by the Saudi Minister of Defense to allow his mujahedeen to protect the country against Saddam. When the US was chosen instead he went ballistic and turned his ire against the US at that time.

As far as radicalized Muslims who want to kill westerners, I am not shaking in my boots. They will eventually die off faster than those of a sane mind will.

 

[nextJin]

Are you trying to say that the average citizen in Kuwait or SA would have been fine being invaded by Saddam? I somehow doubt that.

As far as OBL:

1) You seem to believe in the claim that he was a CIA stooge in Afghanistan. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

2) We didn't invade any ME country in Desert Storm.

3) Desert Storm was a UN authorized action.

4) OBL didn't have a problem with the US until after he was refused, twice, by the Saudi Minister of Defense to allow his mujahedeen to protect the country against Saddam. When the US was chosen instead he went ballistic and turned his ire against the US at that time.

As far as radicalized Muslims who want to kill westerners, I am not shaking in my boots. They will eventually die off faster than those of a sane mind will.

I'd ask you the same question I asked Nebor earlier.

 

[lotus503]

Are you trying to say that the average citizen in Kuwait or SA would have been fine being invaded by Saddam? I somehow doubt that. No however I think the average citizen didn't want US involvement

As far as OBL:

1) You seem to believe in the claim that he was a CIA stooge in Afghanistan. The evidence to the contrary is overwhelming.

mujahideen definitely was used by the CIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone



2) We didn't invade any ME country in Desert Storm. Correct and true bad word choice on my part, should have said occupation.

3) Desert Storm was a UN authorized action. so?

4) OBL didn't have a problem with the US until after he was refused, twice, by the Saudi Minister of Defense to allow his mujahedeen to protect the country against Saddam. When the US was chosen instead he went ballistic and turned his ire against the US at that time. True

As far as radicalized Muslims who want to kill westerners, I am not shaking in my boots. They will eventually die off faster than those of a sane mind will.

responses in red

 

[Jaskalas]

If you don't believe killing people incites violence, then you haven't been paying attention.

 

[DucatiMonster696]

It's both.

They hate us for our actions which in the past have propped up their dictatorial regimes but they also have more than enough hate directed at us due to our differences in culture and religion (i.e. raging against a cartoon image and cartoonists, their insane hatred of Israel). Of which their society has been hijacked by extremists who have been embolden and benefited from the aforementioned statement of our own actions in the past which have created only two distinct choices to support politically in many ME nations, i.e. radical islamic clerics or a dictatorial regime both of whom play the ant-US/Jew card to keep the masses on their respective sides in order to placate political and social changes.

As for Norm's comments I agree with him to an extent however falsely believing in the belief of Big "Good" government overcoming Big "Bad" government if we push for "Democracy" (aka his distorted notion of populist socialism) is like a battered wife rationalizing the reasons why she stays married with a wife-beater. If the guy just changes his ways he would be perfect, after all he has a sensitive side he shows to her the day after he beats the crap out of her and when he wants to make up with flowers and false words of remorse.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

I'd ask you the same question I asked Nebor earlier.

I'd respond in a similar manner. Your question is flawed because it assumes a victory can be attained. The war on terror is much like the war on stupidity. Even though there can never be a complete victory, and it will never end, it should still be fought in the hope that stupid (or terrorism) wins as few battles as possible.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

responses in red

No however I think the average citizen didn't want US involvement

I don't like the cops at my place either. But if someone is trying to break in they are the first ones I'd call.

mujahideen definitely was used by the CIA, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Cyclone

Your claim was that OBL was a "stooge" of the US. Your own link shows that is not true. I posted another wiki link to show that is not true as well. Unfortunately, someone in P&N will, in the future, claim that OBL was a US stooge because people seem to love 'facts' that fellate their ingrained biases, no matter how incorrect those facts are.

Also, the "mujahideen" used by the CIA (or more accurately, by the ISI with US funding) were Afghans. No doubt some foreign fighters in Afghanistan could have tangentially benefitted from the US funding but it has never been demonstrated that the US had anything to do with OBL.

Correct and true bad word choice on my part, should have said occupation.

We didn't occupy any ME countries during Desert Storm either.

 

[glenn1]

I can't believe I just agreed with Noam Chomsky.

Drone strikes, such as those in Pakistan are:

1. Not a declared war
2. Incite future violence against us
3. Will be used domestically against Americans

It's a win/win if we stop fighting the war on terror - we save money, and if another attack happens, their target will be somewhere like NYC which Al Qaeda and red staters both hate anyway.

 

[nextJin]

I'd respond in a similar manner. Your question is flawed because it assumes a victory can be attained. The war on terror is much like the war on stupidity. Even though there can never be a complete victory, and it will never end, it should still be fought in the hope that stupid (or terrorism) wins as few battles as possible.

Yet our war on stupid people does not directly lead to even more stupid people. It's not a flawed argument at all. Do you honestly believe that if we stopped bombing the ME we would turn into the United States of Arabs ruled by Sharia?

We didn't have a problem with this group until we started poking the hornets net. Would leaving them alone solve the problem? Not immediately. But to continue to throw blood and treasure at the problem is not the solution when that directly contributes to their hatred offering up ridiculous recruitment numbers for those groups.

There have been a great many of attrocites commited by us (mistake or not) that if in turn done to us would lead to invasion, war and the decimation of their country.

 

[moonbogg]

Sounds like Chompsky is the world's greatest genius that has all the answers to our poblems. So the US is a murderous terror state then? Oh well, nobody's perfect.

 

[TastesLikeChicken]

Yet our war on stupid people does not directly lead to even more stupid people. It's not a flawed argument at all. Do you honestly believe that if we stopped bombing the ME we would turn into the United States of Arabs ruled by Sharia?

It's a flawed argument because you assume there can be a victory against terrorism. In addition you claim that the war on terror creates more terrorists. Please provide some solid proof of that claim to show it's more than pure speculation on your parts. And by proof I mean numbers, not some talking head making that same claim with no numbers to back them up.

We didn't have a problem with this group until we started poking the hornets net. Would leaving them alone solve the problem? Not immediately. But to continue to throw blood and treasure at the problem is not the solution when that directly contributes to their hatred offering up ridiculous recruitment numbers for those groups.

There have been a great many of attrocites commited by us (mistake or not) that if in turn done to us would lead to invasion, war and the decimation of their country.

I'll repeat what I said before. The Islamic militants committing terror against us are NOT from the countries in the ME that the US have warred against. On the contrary, we were on the same side as OBL during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. So, obviously, war and invasion is not fueling the terrorists. Instead the terrorists come from countries in the ME that we allegedly have decent relations with. That simple fact pretty much blows the claim of 'they hate us for poking them' right out of the water. I guess it appeals to people because of its simplicity, but even a brief glance at the situation shows that claim is not grounded in reality.

 

[nextJin]

It's a flawed argument because you assume there can be a victory against terrorism. In addition you claim that the war on terror creates more terrorists. Please provide some solid proof of that claim to show it's more than pure speculation on your parts. And by proof I mean numbers, not some talking head making that same claim with no numbers to back them up.


I'll repeat what I said before. The Islamic militants committing terror against us are NOT from the countries in the ME that the US have warred against. On the contrary, we were on the same side as OBL during the Soviet invasion of Afghanistan. So, obviously, war and invasion is not fueling the terrorists. Instead the terrorists come from countries in the ME that we allegedly have decent relations with. That simple fact pretty much blows the claim of 'they hate us for poking them' right out of the water. I guess it appeals to people because of its simplicity, but even a brief glance at the situation shows that claim is not grounded in reality.

Solid numbers?

What do I need to prove? If I killed your entire family would you welcome me with open arms?

History is the only thing one needs, all of the real experts believe in the Blowback theory. Our actions have consequences and instead of looking at the original problem we introduce counter measures to their reactions.

How many people from Iraq or Afghanistan have you actually sat down with and had a conversation with?

We have killed thousands of innocent people, shot down civilian airliners filled with Arabs, overthrown governments that were tyrannical towards their people and sanctioned them to no end. Started in the 1950s, where was radial jihad prior to the 50s?

If our actions didn't lead to more terrorists we would have already killed them all. Terrorism is a tactic, when a squad of Rangers get ambushed by 100+ insurgents and are basically slaughtered with only a few casualties on our side with no KIAs they tend to go about war differently.

True story.

 

[GarfieldtheCat]

There are no "innocent folks." The checks and balances that go into authorizing a drone strike are myriad. They don't strike unless they're sure they're going to hit a named objective, and they balance that against the collateral damage. When the collateral damage is just his wife and kids, or his terrorist cohorts, it's approved and they all get smoked. No tears shed.

It's not like "whoops, we hit that school bus!"

So our bloodthirsty troll doesn't admit the truth?

So all those little kids and babies aren't innocent? Really?

You got any proof to the BS you just posted? What about the 16 year old American citizen that was executed? Or all the other locals that have been executed?

 

[Gintaras]

I've been asked to post a comment to my OP....
Well..I posted links to what Noam Chomsky has said...I do consider Noam Chomsky one of most intelligent people living on this planet...
Some don't like him, some call Noam Chomsky crazy...etc...
Well, let's put this way...Noam Chomsky has done speeches at some US Universities, where a few hundred students have listened...So, if Noam Chomsky is crazy and a few hundred of University students listening to hios speeches - they must be crazy too...or...If Noam Chomsky was crazy and students were not - students would, could just simply walk out...would it be normally?

Question for those, who call Noam Chomsky crazy or so...I think, one should explain...WHY...
And a person, who calls Noam Chomsky crazy, have ever done speeches @ any of US Universities and crowd of a few hundred students have listened to this persons speeches?

Or most of The Crowd that listen to a person, who's telling that Noam Chomsky is crazy - is a (I would say, not so intelligent crowd @ AnanTech) at least...AnandTech forums aren't ONLY UNIVERSITY STUDENTS filled Auditorium....