US War Crime?

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I guess you never heard of World War II then? We nuked two Japanese cities and killed many, many civilians. But it was necessary to end the war.

Yes, yes we did, and it ended the war because the war was driven by a country, and those attacks convinced the country to surrender.

Terrorists are not nation states, it's a different problem. Killing random innocent civilians won't convince them to surrender, because they aren't responsible for those people, and it will only fuel anger against the US.

Who do you thnk funds the terrorits and allows the terrorists to operate in their nation? Do you honestly believe that the governments in the middle east have nothing to do with the terrorists and are doing everything possible to stop them? Open your eyes. Having terrorists in their nations makes it easier for the nations to carry out their attacks against the US becuase they can claim that they were not responsible for it. And it is people like you who fall for it. The truth is that the governments in the middle east support and encourage terrorist activity against Israel and the United States. That is when we are going after Iran next.

Ok, thank you for totally missing my point. I'm not naive enough to believe countries don't support terrorism, but terrorism is an asymetric threat vs a symetric threat (like Japan in WWII). A few terrorists with a few dollars can hurt people on a much larger scale than ever before. Look at 9/11, estimates I've seen put the cost at $500,000 and it required less than two dozen people. Can we destroy the ability of anyone who wants to to fund and support that kind of action?

In WWII, Japan required ships and hundreds of thousands of troops and factories and planes and millions of weapons. Through our actions, we made it clear that Japan as a whole would not be able to continue making war without incurring significant loss. Even if there were elements in Japan that wanted to continue attacking the US, they wouldn't have the resources to do so. That has been our defense for a long time, anyone who has the resources to attack us is also vulnerable to counter attack.

With terrorism, the terrorists don't need so many resources to inflict significant damage. Yes, countries in the Middle East either can't deal with terrorists or activly support them. But let me ask you this, given the atmosphere there, where the full might of the US military is unable to deal with terrorism, how could we expect Middle Eastern countries to do so? Countries don't need to activly support terrorism so much as be unable to activly hunt down people who are trying to stay hidden. I don't have much faith in the atmosphere in the Middle East to get rid of terrorists, even if the governments of the countries involved attempt to do so.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: raildogg

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Bozo Galora
US War Crime?

:thumbsdown:

It truly is disgusting to see what parts of our nation has degraded into. At every opportunity, unpatriotic Americans try to bash and destroy America. We are at war. I consider these acts of condemning our military an act of sedition and treason. Punishment for this horrific offense against our nation can include death.

Agreed. We are a nation at war.

If these people lived during WW2 in America, they would have been tried for treason.

Remember, loose lips sink ships. Stop aiding the enemy.

Action movie faux patriotism is not a substitute for the real thing. You two make me fvcking sick.

Honestly, I think people like you two are just as much of a threat to freedom and democracy as the terrorists. Supporting the war is one thing, but advocating putting people to death for disagreeing with you? Holy sh!t, what is wrong with you two?

Ha, have I ever posted to put people to death for being against me or the war? No way. During WW2, in America you had much less freedom of speech when it came to criticizing the USA and its activies, and people were jailed for it. It was wrong. Be glad we are not putting people into concentration camps like we did during WW2.

Oh, my mistake, HalosPuma simply said disagreeing with his views is treason which can be punished with death and you agreed, and further expanded your views to say that disagreement is "aiding the enemy".

So maybe I was mistaken in saying you support killing people who disagree with you or the war...you did say the restrictions placed on freedom of speech during WW2 were wrong...but that doesn't really fall into place with what you and HalosPuma said before.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I guess you never heard of World War II then? We nuked two Japanese cities and killed many, many civilians. But it was necessary to end the war.

Yes, yes we did, and it ended the war because the war was driven by a country, and those attacks convinced the country to surrender.

Terrorists are not nation states, it's a different problem. Killing random innocent civilians won't convince them to surrender, because they aren't responsible for those people, and it will only fuel anger against the US.

Who do you thnk funds the terrorits and allows the terrorists to operate in their nation? Do you honestly believe that the governments in the middle east have nothing to do with the terrorists and are doing everything possible to stop them? Open your eyes. Having terrorists in their nations makes it easier for the nations to carry out their attacks against the US becuase they can claim that they were not responsible for it. And it is people like you who fall for it. The truth is that the governments in the middle east support and encourage terrorist activity against Israel and the United States. That is when we are going after Iran next.

Ok, thank you for totally missing my point. I'm not naive enough to believe countries don't support terrorism, but terrorism is an asymetric threat vs a symetric threat (like Japan in WWII). A few terrorists with a few dollars can hurt people on a much larger scale than ever before. Look at 9/11, estimates I've seen put the cost at $500,000 and it required less than two dozen people. Can we destroy the ability of anyone who wants to to fund and support that kind of action?

In WWII, Japan required ships and hundreds of thousands of troops and factories and planes and millions of weapons. Through our actions, we made it clear that Japan as a whole would not be able to continue making war without incurring significant loss. Even if there were elements in Japan that wanted to continue attacking the US, they wouldn't have the resources to do so. That has been our defense for a long time, anyone who has the resources to attack us is also vulnerable to counter attack.

With terrorism, the terrorists don't need so many resources to inflict significant damage. Yes, countries in the Middle East either can't deal with terrorists or activly support them. But let me ask you this, given the atmosphere there, where the full might of the US military is unable to deal with terrorism, how could we expect Middle Eastern countries to do so? Countries don't need to activly support terrorism so much as be unable to activly hunt down people who are trying to stay hidden. I don't have much faith in the atmosphere in the Middle East to get rid of terrorists, even if the governments of the countries involved attempt to do so.

That is why we are in the M.E. now. We are ensuring that US-friendly governments will be put in place that will co-operate with us to hunt down and destroy all those who threaten us. We are in Afghanistan, Iraq, and have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Next up is Iran, then Syria. As I am not happy with Turkey or Saudi Arabia, I would like the US to take a much more aggressive position in those countries.

This the goal of PNAC (see sig). Only after our influence is spread to those M.E. countries and their Muslim citizens will there be peace.

 

[Aimster]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I guess you never heard of World War II then? We nuked two Japanese cities and killed many, many civilians. But it was necessary to end the war.

Yes, yes we did, and it ended the war because the war was driven by a country, and those attacks convinced the country to surrender.

Terrorists are not nation states, it's a different problem. Killing random innocent civilians won't convince them to surrender, because they aren't responsible for those people, and it will only fuel anger against the US.

Who do you thnk funds the terrorits and allows the terrorists to operate in their nation? Do you honestly believe that the governments in the middle east have nothing to do with the terrorists and are doing everything possible to stop them? Open your eyes. Having terrorists in their nations makes it easier for the nations to carry out their attacks against the US becuase they can claim that they were not responsible for it. And it is people like you who fall for it. The truth is that the governments in the middle east support and encourage terrorist activity against Israel and the United States. That is when we are going after Iran next.

Ok, thank you for totally missing my point. I'm not naive enough to believe countries don't support terrorism, but terrorism is an asymetric threat vs a symetric threat (like Japan in WWII). A few terrorists with a few dollars can hurt people on a much larger scale than ever before. Look at 9/11, estimates I've seen put the cost at $500,000 and it required less than two dozen people. Can we destroy the ability of anyone who wants to to fund and support that kind of action?

In WWII, Japan required ships and hundreds of thousands of troops and factories and planes and millions of weapons. Through our actions, we made it clear that Japan as a whole would not be able to continue making war without incurring significant loss. Even if there were elements in Japan that wanted to continue attacking the US, they wouldn't have the resources to do so. That has been our defense for a long time, anyone who has the resources to attack us is also vulnerable to counter attack.

With terrorism, the terrorists don't need so many resources to inflict significant damage. Yes, countries in the Middle East either can't deal with terrorists or activly support them. But let me ask you this, given the atmosphere there, where the full might of the US military is unable to deal with terrorism, how could we expect Middle Eastern countries to do so? Countries don't need to activly support terrorism so much as be unable to activly hunt down people who are trying to stay hidden. I don't have much faith in the atmosphere in the Middle East to get rid of terrorists, even if the governments of the countries involved attempt to do so.

That is why we are in the M.E. now. We are ensuring that US-friendly governments will be put in place that will co-operate with us to hunt down and destroy all those who threaten us. We are in Afghanistan, Iraq, and have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Next up is Iran, then Syria. As I am not happy with Turkey or Saudi Arabia, I would like the US to take a much more aggressive position in those countries.

This the goal of PNAC (see sig). Only after our influence is spread to those M.E. countries and their Muslim citizens will there be peace.

and how many Syrian/Iranian terrorist have you heard of?
How about Saudi Arabian terrorist?

History has shown friendly U.S puppet regimes fall.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I guess you never heard of World War II then? We nuked two Japanese cities and killed many, many civilians. But it was necessary to end the war.

Yes, yes we did, and it ended the war because the war was driven by a country, and those attacks convinced the country to surrender.

Terrorists are not nation states, it's a different problem. Killing random innocent civilians won't convince them to surrender, because they aren't responsible for those people, and it will only fuel anger against the US.

Who do you thnk funds the terrorits and allows the terrorists to operate in their nation? Do you honestly believe that the governments in the middle east have nothing to do with the terrorists and are doing everything possible to stop them? Open your eyes. Having terrorists in their nations makes it easier for the nations to carry out their attacks against the US becuase they can claim that they were not responsible for it. And it is people like you who fall for it. The truth is that the governments in the middle east support and encourage terrorist activity against Israel and the United States. That is when we are going after Iran next.

Ok, thank you for totally missing my point. I'm not naive enough to believe countries don't support terrorism, but terrorism is an asymetric threat vs a symetric threat (like Japan in WWII). A few terrorists with a few dollars can hurt people on a much larger scale than ever before. Look at 9/11, estimates I've seen put the cost at $500,000 and it required less than two dozen people. Can we destroy the ability of anyone who wants to to fund and support that kind of action?

In WWII, Japan required ships and hundreds of thousands of troops and factories and planes and millions of weapons. Through our actions, we made it clear that Japan as a whole would not be able to continue making war without incurring significant loss. Even if there were elements in Japan that wanted to continue attacking the US, they wouldn't have the resources to do so. That has been our defense for a long time, anyone who has the resources to attack us is also vulnerable to counter attack.

With terrorism, the terrorists don't need so many resources to inflict significant damage. Yes, countries in the Middle East either can't deal with terrorists or activly support them. But let me ask you this, given the atmosphere there, where the full might of the US military is unable to deal with terrorism, how could we expect Middle Eastern countries to do so? Countries don't need to activly support terrorism so much as be unable to activly hunt down people who are trying to stay hidden. I don't have much faith in the atmosphere in the Middle East to get rid of terrorists, even if the governments of the countries involved attempt to do so.

That is why we are in the M.E. now. We are ensuring that US-friendly governments will be put in place that will co-operate with us to hunt down and destroy all those who threaten us. We are in Afghanistan, Iraq, and have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Next up is Iran, then Syria. As I am not happy with Turkey or Saudi Arabia, I would like the US to take a much more aggressive position in those countries.

This the goal of PNAC (see sig). Only after our influence is spread to those M.E. countries and their Muslim citizens will there be peace.

Before we figure out if PNAC is really a good idea or not (it sounds a little too much like Manifest Destiny for my taste), is it even possible? Getting allies in the middle east by using force to replace their governments seems like it would require a little more force than we can muster. Iraq isn't that big by Middle Eastern standards, and look how much trouble they are giving us. Is it realistic to expect we could even take on Iran and win on our terms, a country with almost 3 times the population of Iraq? Again, this isn't like WW2, nobody in the Middle East seems interested in surrendering any more, they seem to be approaching the fight to the last man mentality, and that's a hell of a lot harder to deal with.

So I'll ask, given Iraq as a benchmark, even if PNAC was an ok idea, is it possible to achieve?

Edit: By the way, the last time we were "modifying" the Middle East to protect our interests (against the commies that time), we ended up giving ourselves Saddam, the current Iran and Osama. We could at least partially blame our current problems on bad decisions we've made in the past in the ME, shouldn't that give us pause before we go charging around there again?

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Before we figure out if PNAC is really a good idea or not (it sounds a little too much like Manifest Destiny for my taste), is it even possible? Getting allies in the middle east by using force to replace their governments seems like it would require a little more force than we can muster. Iraq isn't that big by Middle Eastern standards, and look how much trouble they are giving us. Is it realistic to expect we could even take on Iran and win on our terms, a country with almost 3 times the population of Iraq? Again, this isn't like WW2, nobody in the Middle East seems interested in surrendering any more, they seem to be approaching the fight to the last man mentality, and that's a hell of a lot harder to deal with.

So I'll ask, given Iraq as a benchmark, even if PNAC was an ok idea, is it possible to achieve?

I have Iranian friends and they do not like the Iranian government. The common pattern is that most civilians do not like the government and want it changed. The problem arises when there are complications in removing the old government and having free elections for a new government.

That is why elections in Iraq is very important. It is a sense of empowering the people (and ensuring that a US-friendly government is elected). They did not like their previous government under Saddam, they do not like the insurgents, and they want to rule their own country. The sooner elections happen the better. A US-friendly government is elected; that government gives the orders to get rid of the insurgents (instead of the orders coming from the US military); new security forces are trained; and we can pull out our troops from patroling the cities and leave them on our new military bases like we do in almost 100 other nations.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Before we figure out if PNAC is really a good idea or not (it sounds a little too much like Manifest Destiny for my taste), is it even possible? Getting allies in the middle east by using force to replace their governments seems like it would require a little more force than we can muster. Iraq isn't that big by Middle Eastern standards, and look how much trouble they are giving us. Is it realistic to expect we could even take on Iran and win on our terms, a country with almost 3 times the population of Iraq? Again, this isn't like WW2, nobody in the Middle East seems interested in surrendering any more, they seem to be approaching the fight to the last man mentality, and that's a hell of a lot harder to deal with.

So I'll ask, given Iraq as a benchmark, even if PNAC was an ok idea, is it possible to achieve?

I have Iranian friends and they do not like the Iranian government. The common pattern is that most civilians do not like the government and want it changed. The problem arises when there are complications in removing the old government and having free elections for a new government.

That is why elections in Iraq is very important. It is a sense of empowering the people (and ensuring that a US-friendly government is elected). They did not like their previous government under Saddam, they do not like the insurgents, and they want to rule their own country. The sooner elections happen the better. A US-friendly government is elected; that government gives the orders to get rid of the insurgents (instead of the orders coming from the US military); new security forces are trained; and we can pull out our troops from patroling the cities and leave them on our new military bases like we do in almost 100 other nations.

Just because they don't like their current government means they'll like "our" government. Presumably they would like to set up their own government and choose their own destiny. Personally I think this is what's causing all the problems, the Iraqis didn't like Saddam, but I'm not sure they like us coming in and telling them what their government is going to do.

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Before we figure out if PNAC is really a good idea or not (it sounds a little too much like Manifest Destiny for my taste), is it even possible? Getting allies in the middle east by using force to replace their governments seems like it would require a little more force than we can muster. Iraq isn't that big by Middle Eastern standards, and look how much trouble they are giving us. Is it realistic to expect we could even take on Iran and win on our terms, a country with almost 3 times the population of Iraq? Again, this isn't like WW2, nobody in the Middle East seems interested in surrendering any more, they seem to be approaching the fight to the last man mentality, and that's a hell of a lot harder to deal with.

So I'll ask, given Iraq as a benchmark, even if PNAC was an ok idea, is it possible to achieve?

I have Iranian friends and they do not like the Iranian government. The common pattern is that most civilians do not like the government and want it changed. The problem arises when there are complications in removing the old government and having free elections for a new government.

That is why elections in Iraq is very important. It is a sense of empowering the people (and ensuring that a US-friendly government is elected). They did not like their previous government under Saddam, they do not like the insurgents, and they want to rule their own country. The sooner elections happen the better. A US-friendly government is elected; that government gives the orders to get rid of the insurgents (instead of the orders coming from the US military); new security forces are trained; and we can pull out our troops from patroling the cities and leave them on our new military bases like we do in almost 100 other nations.

Just because they don't like their current government means they'll like "our" government. Presumably they would like to set up their own government and choose their own destiny. Personally I think this is what's causing all the problems, the Iraqis didn't like Saddam, but I'm not sure they like us coming in and telling them what their government is going to do.

Well, they need to keep in mind that the reason Saddam is no longer in power is due to the United Staters coming in and removing him. The only thing we ask from the Iraqi people is to elect a government that will be friends towards the US. In return, they will have US support and aid. That does go a long way.

 

[CycloWizard]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

 

[beyoku]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I really getting sick of all this US bashing. Lets get real.

We are fighting the scum of the earth terrorists over there, if our soldiers deem those scum as dangerous I have no problem with them destroying the terrorist. Do they show mercy when they kidnap American or any other nation's hostages? I think not.

We need to obliterate the enemy.

I really getting sick of all this Iraq bashing. Lets get real.

We are fighting the scum of the earth soldiers over there, if our soldiers deem those scum as dangerous I have no problem with them destroying the soldiers. Do they show mercy when they kidnap Iraqi or any other nation's hostages? I think not.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bozo Galora
http://www.khilafah.com/home/c...cumentID=10672&TagID=2

I see no war crime here...

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: Bozo Galora
US soldiers blow brains of mother onto 11 year old daughter

(Warning - Disturing images)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/shared...in_tal_afar/html/1.stm
(11 pics)

Disturbing? Yes.

Sad? yes.

War crime?

" military officials extended their condolences for this "unfortunate incident" and were investigating."

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

There is no difference between him and the clerics which incite jihad. In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

He is no different than terrorists. Killing innocents is just a means to an end.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

There is no difference between him and the clerics which incite jihad. In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

He is no different than terrorists. Killing innocents is just a means to an end.

Actually he qualified his statement with "when under attack" I guess you missed that part.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford
Before we figure out if PNAC is really a good idea or not (it sounds a little too much like Manifest Destiny for my taste), is it even possible? Getting allies in the middle east by using force to replace their governments seems like it would require a little more force than we can muster. Iraq isn't that big by Middle Eastern standards, and look how much trouble they are giving us. Is it realistic to expect we could even take on Iran and win on our terms, a country with almost 3 times the population of Iraq? Again, this isn't like WW2, nobody in the Middle East seems interested in surrendering any more, they seem to be approaching the fight to the last man mentality, and that's a hell of a lot harder to deal with.

So I'll ask, given Iraq as a benchmark, even if PNAC was an ok idea, is it possible to achieve?

I have Iranian friends and they do not like the Iranian government. The common pattern is that most civilians do not like the government and want it changed. The problem arises when there are complications in removing the old government and having free elections for a new government.

That is why elections in Iraq is very important. It is a sense of empowering the people (and ensuring that a US-friendly government is elected). They did not like their previous government under Saddam, they do not like the insurgents, and they want to rule their own country. The sooner elections happen the better. A US-friendly government is elected; that government gives the orders to get rid of the insurgents (instead of the orders coming from the US military); new security forces are trained; and we can pull out our troops from patroling the cities and leave them on our new military bases like we do in almost 100 other nations.

Just because they don't like their current government means they'll like "our" government. Presumably they would like to set up their own government and choose their own destiny. Personally I think this is what's causing all the problems, the Iraqis didn't like Saddam, but I'm not sure they like us coming in and telling them what their government is going to do.

Well, they need to keep in mind that the reason Saddam is no longer in power is due to the United Staters coming in and removing him. The only thing we ask from the Iraqi people is to elect a government that will be friends towards the US. In return, they will have US support and aid. That does go a long way.

I think you're being a little unrealistic, my point is that even if the Iraqis didn't like Saddam, that doesn't mean they wanted the US to come in and then force them to set up a friendly government. They aren't some poor dumb people who live only to serve us, we have no right to ask ANYTHING of them, and I think they realize this.

In a perfect world, we'd all be able to live together in harmony, but you're being naive if you think there are no hard feelings from us coming in and telling them how they're going to run their country. Yeah, we got rid of Saddam for them, I suspect most of them appreciate this, but I don't think they agree that this gives us the right to stick around and tell them how to run their country.

If nothing else, we need to remember that the Iraqis didn't do anything to us, they are not our enemies. We invaded their country, at the very least we should treat them with respect, not as servents who should do what we want so America can follow its "roadmap to greatness". Maybe YOU think it's fair, but I doubt THEY do, and that's the big problem here.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

There is no difference between him and the clerics which incite jihad. In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

He is no different than terrorists. Killing innocents is just a means to an end.

Actually he qualified his statement with "when under attack" I guess you missed that part.

His qualifications are meaningless. Many believed they were under attack in the middle east and acted upon it. So they made 9/11 happen.

Sorry, but he's a loser.

 

[Ozoned]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: Ozoned

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

There is no difference between him and the clerics which incite jihad. In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

He is no different than terrorists. Killing innocents is just a means to an end.

Actually he qualified his statement with "when under attack" I guess you missed that part.

His qualifications are meaningless. Many believed they were under attack in the middle east and acted upon it. So they made 9/11 happen.

Sorry, but he's a loser.

Maybe I just read this wrong, but you excuse their barbarism by citing ours?

 

[HalosPuma]

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
There is no difference between him and the clerics which incite jihad. In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

He is no different than terrorists. Killing innocents is just a means to an end.

By both of your logic, you'll would consider our World War II veterans "terrorists" for killing innocents. How easily you all forget that we are defending ourselves just as we defended ourselves in World War II. War is nasty, war is ugly, war is hell. But we must respond in force to these terrorists or they will never stop.

For decades these terrorists have been attacking Western civilization and US assets. These same terrorists struck the same target (WTC bombing) with the same goal (topple the buildings) during Clinton's watch and that liberal wimp did nothing. We now get an even more devastating attack and Bush is doing everything he can to root out these terrorists and all some parts of America can do is complain about some foreign casaulties.

You are cowards for not having the guts to stand up for our nation, our Western civilization, and defend ourselves when under attack. Thank God we have a president who has the balls to go after the enemy in their home countries before they bring the fight to US soil.

 

[Engineer]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
There is no difference between him and the clerics which incite jihad. In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

He is no different than terrorists. Killing innocents is just a means to an end.

By both of your logic, you'll would consider our World War II veterans "terrorists" for killing innocents. How easily you all forget that we are defending ourselves just as we defended ourselves in World War II. War is nasty, war is ugly, war is hell. But we must respond in force to these terrorists or they will never stop.

For decades these terrorists have been attacking Western civilization and US assets. These same terrorists struck the same target (WTC bombing) with the same goal (topple the buildings) during Clinton's watch and that liberal wimp did nothing. We now get an even more devastating attack and Bush is doing everything he can to root out these terrorists and all some parts of America can do is complain about some foreign casaulties.

You are cowards for not having the guts to stand up for our nation, our Western civilization, and defend ourselves when under attack. Thank God we have a president who has the balls to go after the enemy in their home countries before they bring the fight to US soil.

And as Al Qaeda and other terrorist groups sit quietly in the background and grow, just planning the next big attack......

Iraq (and any upcoming attack on any other country, especially the Middle East) will develope more terrorists than almost anything else we could have done.



Here we go again. Bashing Clinton when generations predicted the threat....and did nothing.

 

[raildogg]

Originally posted by: Aimster

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: Rainsford

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I guess you never heard of World War II then? We nuked two Japanese cities and killed many, many civilians. But it was necessary to end the war.

Yes, yes we did, and it ended the war because the war was driven by a country, and those attacks convinced the country to surrender.

Terrorists are not nation states, it's a different problem. Killing random innocent civilians won't convince them to surrender, because they aren't responsible for those people, and it will only fuel anger against the US.

Who do you thnk funds the terrorits and allows the terrorists to operate in their nation? Do you honestly believe that the governments in the middle east have nothing to do with the terrorists and are doing everything possible to stop them? Open your eyes. Having terrorists in their nations makes it easier for the nations to carry out their attacks against the US becuase they can claim that they were not responsible for it. And it is people like you who fall for it. The truth is that the governments in the middle east support and encourage terrorist activity against Israel and the United States. That is when we are going after Iran next.

Ok, thank you for totally missing my point. I'm not naive enough to believe countries don't support terrorism, but terrorism is an asymetric threat vs a symetric threat (like Japan in WWII). A few terrorists with a few dollars can hurt people on a much larger scale than ever before. Look at 9/11, estimates I've seen put the cost at $500,000 and it required less than two dozen people. Can we destroy the ability of anyone who wants to to fund and support that kind of action?

In WWII, Japan required ships and hundreds of thousands of troops and factories and planes and millions of weapons. Through our actions, we made it clear that Japan as a whole would not be able to continue making war without incurring significant loss. Even if there were elements in Japan that wanted to continue attacking the US, they wouldn't have the resources to do so. That has been our defense for a long time, anyone who has the resources to attack us is also vulnerable to counter attack.

With terrorism, the terrorists don't need so many resources to inflict significant damage. Yes, countries in the Middle East either can't deal with terrorists or activly support them. But let me ask you this, given the atmosphere there, where the full might of the US military is unable to deal with terrorism, how could we expect Middle Eastern countries to do so? Countries don't need to activly support terrorism so much as be unable to activly hunt down people who are trying to stay hidden. I don't have much faith in the atmosphere in the Middle East to get rid of terrorists, even if the governments of the countries involved attempt to do so.

That is why we are in the M.E. now. We are ensuring that US-friendly governments will be put in place that will co-operate with us to hunt down and destroy all those who threaten us. We are in Afghanistan, Iraq, and have diplomatic relations with Saudi Arabia and Turkey. Next up is Iran, then Syria. As I am not happy with Turkey or Saudi Arabia, I would like the US to take a much more aggressive position in those countries.

This the goal of PNAC (see sig). Only after our influence is spread to those M.E. countries and their Muslim citizens will there be peace.

and how many Syrian/Iranian terrorist have you heard of?
How about Saudi Arabian terrorist?

History has shown friendly U.S puppet regimes fall.

its not Iranian terrorists actually. its terrorists that enter from there

no matter how many times one shows you evidence of Iran actually sending terrorists into Iraq, you wont believe it. so whats the point?

 

[judasmachine]

Originally posted by: raildogg
I really getting sick of all this US bashing. Lets get real.

We are fighting the scum of the earth terrorists over there, if our soldiers deem those scum as dangerous I have no problem with them destroying the terrorist. Do they show mercy when they kidnap American or any other nation's hostages? I think not.

We need to obliterate the enemy.

George Orwell once said:
The nationalist not only does not disapprove of atrocities committed by his own side, but he has a remarkable capacity for not even hearing about them.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
There is no difference between him and the clerics which incite jihad. In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

He is no different than terrorists. Killing innocents is just a means to an end.

By both of your logic, you'll would consider our World War II veterans "terrorists" for killing innocents. How easily you all forget that we are defending ourselves just as we defended ourselves in World War II. War is nasty, war is ugly, war is hell. But we must respond in force to these terrorists or they will never stop.

For decades these terrorists have been attacking Western civilization and US assets. These same terrorists struck the same target (WTC bombing) with the same goal (topple the buildings) during Clinton's watch and that liberal wimp did nothing. We now get an even more devastating attack and Bush is doing everything he can to root out these terrorists and all some parts of America can do is complain about some foreign casaulties.

You are cowards for not having the guts to stand up for our nation, our Western civilization, and defend ourselves when under attack. Thank God we have a president who has the balls to go after the enemy in their home countries before they bring the fight to US soil.

You dumb fsck, I have seen more guts and gore in real life than in your fantasies. I have been in places where they would have gutted you on the spot for giving people crap.

Go back to Counter Strike.

 

[aidanjm]

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

:laugh:

 

[BeauJangles]

Originally posted by: HalosPuma

Originally posted by: CycloWizard

Originally posted by: HalosPuma
I said bullets and RPGs. When under attack, we should kill everyone in the direction where the attack came from until it stops. And if insurgents can be identified, then we do not stop firing until they are dead. If that means killing civilians caught in the cross-fire, so be it. Most would have dispersed anyways. Every additional day an insurgent lives is another day that he can kill Americans. Better to end his life as soon as possible.

Honestly, at this point I can't make any logical distinction between you and a terrorist. You are perfectly willing to cause civilian casualties to further your cause, which is sickening.

Originally posted by: WinstonSmith
There is no difference between him and the clerics which incite jihad. In another country, he could have been a Bin Laden if he had a brain and balls.

He is no different than terrorists. Killing innocents is just a means to an end.

By both of your logic, you'll would consider our World War II veterans "terrorists" for killing innocents. How easily you all forget that we are defending ourselves just as we defended ourselves in World War II. War is nasty, war is ugly, war is hell. But we must respond in force to these terrorists or they will never stop.

For decades these terrorists have been attacking Western civilization and US assets. These same terrorists struck the same target (WTC bombing) with the same goal (topple the buildings) during Clinton's watch and that liberal wimp did nothing. We now get an even more devastating attack and Bush is doing everything he can to root out these terrorists and all some parts of America can do is complain about some foreign casaulties.

You are cowards for not having the guts to stand up for our nation, our Western civilization, and defend ourselves when under attack. Thank God we have a president who has the balls to go after the enemy in their home countries before they bring the fight to US soil.

You really need to read Walzer's Just and Unjust Wars. We are a country that prides ourself on freedom for all, a beacon of democracy, blah blah blah, but we shoot innocent women and children, arrest people without due process of law, and humiliate them. We lock them up in prison, torture them, and generally treat them as subhuman. What are we defending then? We are acting just like the terrorists, but shrowding it in a message of peace and democracy. We are literally terrorizing the majority of Iraqis and for what? To bring them an unstable regime that may or may not turn out to be democratic?

I'm a coward? I don't think so. I recognize that we can't sacrifice the very things we are trying to protect (freedom, due process of law, and democracy). Iraq has been a public relations nightmare for the United States and has bred more hate of the West than ever before.

We aren't even in Iraq because of terrrorists, remember that. As much as Bush has tried to convince the population that Saddam was an impending threat, there is NO EVIDENCE that this was the case. He had little to no contact with Al-Queda - OBL didn't even like Saddam because he wasn't religious enough-, his weapons of mass destruction clearly didn't exist. Is the only reason left because Saddam was such a bad guy and we need to bring democracy to the Iraqi people? Well, sure he did lots of bad stuff to his people, but there have been many leaders around the world that do terrible sh1t and the US doesn't give a damn or even supports them! And, if we really wanted to free the iraqis, why talk about WMDs before the invasion? Funny, huh? Our leader doesn't even know WHY we invaded. Or, at least, won't tell us the truth. Instead he makes up these reasons that cleary aren't correct.

Please, Bush, Cheney, and Rummy are the cowards. Two of them dodged the draft. They have no clue as to the horror they are unleashing on both the Iraqis and our soldiers.

 

[MadRat]

I don't understand how Iran is the "axis of evil". Quite frankly the people of Iran are warmer to the U.S. than to the vocal fundementalists that cower within their border. Most Iranians are not diehard supporters of anything remotely akin to fundementalism, and even before the Shah was deposed a large sliver of the population considered themselves agnostic. Its probably the most westernized country in the Middle East and having them as strategic allies would be a thorn for both Russia and China.

President Bush wants us to believe that Osama is hiding out in Afghanistan because of indirect support from either Iran or Pakistan. Quite frankly the type of Muslim attracted by Osama worship is quite repulsive to the Shiite Muslim found strewn throughout Iran to Jordan. Osama is as good as dead in the presence of the Iranian Shiite leaders, far from supported like its popularly described. The press reports regularly how Iranian religious leaders issue all these psuedo-fatwas upon former Iranians and other so-called 'apostates' and 'infidels'. The truth is its very forbidden for these people to carry out any of their threats, its just not a crime over there to make the threats. Its their culture. In some ways people in America say 'we're going to kill you' all the time to each other in popular slang and nobody makes a big deal about it. Okay, they are more likely to act on their statements, but it is similar nonetheless.

The U.S. cannot strike Iran without ruining their own welcome in Iraq. What people are largely missing in their news coverage about Iraq is that the U.S. has largely staged the battles with insurgents to keep the people involved. Falluja wasn't anything like reported on television, but it was hostile and there was fighting. The truth is that the U.S. knew full well who they'd be killing there, and so the battle took place under tight constraints. When the U.S. has reached their goals then the action there was immediately ended. There are alot of blogs out there with the details of what really happened. Its sad, too, because so many Iraqis got their heads blown off thinking they actually had a chance to fight.