This one's gonna be doozy. Let's all remain remotely close to civil.
[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
A means of brainwashing that would be outlawed were it not for stupid taboos against iconoclasticism? Certainly. Along with Christianity, Judaism, and the rest.
:: Does not duck. ::
quote:
Muslims may currently be violent
You do mean individual Muslims, don't you?
On the other hand, I haven't seen 'peaceful' Muslims everywhere condemning these acts as strongly as they should be. Rather, our attempting to punish the guilty 'offends' them... despite their demonstrated lack of ability (or is it lack of desire?) to do it themselves.
quote:
Snay for the Stalinist Era.
Uh, beg pardon?
quote:
Originally posted by First of Two:
On the other hand, I haven't seen 'peaceful' Muslims everywhere condemning these acts as strongly as they should be. Rather, our attempting to punish the guilty 'offends' them... despite their demonstrated lack of ability (or is it lack of desire?) to do it themselves.
Well the main reason they don't do it themselves is that in each Islamic nation, there is often a small but vocal fundamentalist group. The last thing any one of those governments want is that group rising up because they attacked the taliban. Nations like Uzbekistan and even Pakistan are taking a big risk helping us. If things go wrong, those little fundie groups could become BIG fundie groups. Then you've got a problem.
Secondly, about muslims feeling offended, you only think that because of what you see on CNN. It is a well documented statistic that when you are against something, you will be quite a bit more vocal about it. So in essence, we are seeing only a small proportion of the population. A friend of mine from Pakistan told me that more often than not, its the same three nutjobs from his old apartment building who go out protesting just about everything. Others who feel offended might be because of the news about attacks on Muslim Americans in America. I mean, its the same thing, a couple of wack jobs affecting the image of the entire nation.
And just how far do you want these people to condemn the attacks. Not as much as they "Should be"? i mean what the hell does that mean. There are two continents and two oceans between us and them. Its a bit hard to feel sympathy for people so far away. I'm not saying that they SHOULDN'T feel sympathy, just don't expect so much. I still have trouble imagining the suicide bombings in Israel or death in Serbia. I don't consider myself a bad person, I just have trouble relating to it as I'm sure many people are.
[ October 13, 2001: Message edited by: USS Vanguard ]
"On the other hand, I haven't seen 'peaceful' Muslims everywhere condemning these acts as strongly as they should be. Rather, our attempting to punish the guilty 'offends' them..."
Well, I'm not Muslim, but the way we're handling this offends me...
Even though most Muslims are not violent, but their defiance towards helping out or handing over those responsible make them just as guility.
I say give them benefit of the doubt first, wait until another "serious" case of terrorism happens, then bomb every single living things in Afganistan into outer space.
BTW, let me know before it happens, so I can move to Europe, or something...
What I mean by 'not enough' is that if _I_ were a part of a 'peaceful' religion, and some guy started fragging children in the name of MY God, I'd be so goddamned pissed off that I'd rush out and waste the bastard. I'd consider it my utmost moral responsibility as a TRUE follower of that God, to put a stop to any evil acts committed in Its name, no matter the cost to me.
Snay: You're a Socialist (or at least, you seem to speak like one). Stalin was a Socialist (or claimed to be). Of course, other than that, you have nothing whatsoever in common to my knowledge. It's probably a bad analogy, but it's as close as I could get.
TSN, don't you grasp the difference between accidental killing and deliberate planned killing? Pity. Must be hard to go through life thinking that everybody who's been involved in a fatal accident is a murderer.
[ October 14, 2001: Message edited by: First of Two ]
"TSN, don't you grasp the difference between accidental killing and deliberate planned killing?"
Better than you do, apparently. The original quote was...
"I say give them benefit of the doubt first, wait until another 'serious' case of terrorism happens, then bomb every single living things in Afganistan into outer space."
Now, if you can explain to me how one can "accidentally" bomb an entire country off the face of the Earth in retribution for a terrorist attack, I'll be glad to hear it.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: TSN ]
I'm saying that we should quit being "Mr. Nice Guy", do whatever you gotta do to win a war and put those damn ammunitions into good use.
I rather see "they" get wiped-out BEFORE we do, even if it mean civilian casualities at Afganistan.
I hate Bush's "limited definition" of "War on Terroism".
Taliban made it clear that they're behind Bin Laden and his actions, therefore Taliban is in large part "responsible" for what happened on the 11th of September.
I never agree with the use of term "terrorism". I think what happend is way past that, and is in fact an "act of war" by Afganistan.
U.S. should have respond more seriously, and shut them up once and for all.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
Dude, the problem is, you're acting like all the terrorists are in Afghanistan.
They're not.
They're spread out through the Middle East. They're in Africa, Asia, Europe, and the United States. I'm sure they're in Canada, Australia, and Australia as well. In other words, they're all over the world.
Of course, we could just start nuking every single city in the world, but, uh, I don't think people would like that a lot -- I know I wouldn't care for it too much if Baltimore got nuked to take care of a handful of terrorists.
My reasons for going into a "full out" war with Afganistan are as follow:
1. Taliban IS responsible for the "act of war"(not act of terrorism), therefore, U.S. should respond as such.
2. Since it is a central point for terrorist activities, it wouldn't hurt to take it out once and for all.
3. Showing that U.S. is not a "paper tiger", showing that we don't do thing "half-assed", showing that we're not all talk, and show that we can "play dirty" as well as or maybe even better then they do if it is necessary, and I think in this case it is.
4. A warning message to any other countries that support terrorists: "don't follow Taliban, or we will ELIMINATE you!"
Why spend time with civilized negotiation when they refused to respond.
I say we can show them a clear message of 'not to mess with us" by "full military force".
If they want to play "chicken", so be it, we didn't start the fight, they did, and I said we should finished the fight with total victory. We got the military equivalent of a "truck", they got the military equivalent of a "bike". Their terrorist attack kills us by hundreds, our air raid kills them by millions, that's see who's gonna last longer.
quote:
1. Taliban IS responsible for the "act of war"(not act of terrorism), therefore, U.S. should respond as such.
No, Bin Laden is responsible for this terrorist action. The Taliban has supported Bin Laden, which is why they are being targeted.
quote:
Since it is a central point for terrorist activities, it wouldn't hurt to take it out once and for all.
Take out the Taliban? Shit, dude, lots of people in the U.S. and around the world -- and yes, in Afghanistan -- have wanted the Taliban ousted ever since they took power.
quote:
Showing that U.S. is not a "paper tiger", showing that we don't do thing "half-assed", showing that we're not all talk, and show that we can "play dirty" as well as or maybe even better then they do if it is necessary, and I think in this case it is.
That's why we're targeting the Taliban ... and NOT civilians. Duh. The problem is, a lot of people in the Middle East don't care a whole lot for Western powers, and when we start attacking Islamic nations, they take it as a personal affront, regardless of the reasons. It's the same way that when, in this nation, a Democrat gets in the news, some certain people have an uncontrollable urge to scream about the "damn liberal press!" ::shrug::
quote:
A warning message to any other countries that support terrorists: "don't follow Taliban, or we will ELIMINATE you!"
Uh ... hello? You support killing lots of civilians? Well, if that's what you support, that's what you support ...
quote:
I say we can show them a clear message of 'not to mess with us" by "full military force".
Do you watch the news? Do you read the newspaper? The U.S. and Great Britain are bombing the Taliban's military and other resources in Afghanistan. Reports are we've got elements of the 10th Mountain Division and other Spec Ops soldiers on the ground.
quote:
If they want to play "chicken", so be it, we didn't start the fight, they did, and I said we should finished the fight with total victory.
Actually, again, Bin Laden did. Total victory does not mean we nuke Afghanistan into tiny little pieces of rubble.
quote:
We got the military equivalent of a "truck", they got the military equivalent of a "bike".
That's a horrible analogy.
quote:
Their terrorist attack kills us by hundreds, our air raid kills them by millions, that's see who's gonna last longer.
Yes! Let's go bomb civilians who had no role whatsoever in the attack! Because that's justice: killing people who didn't do anything. Get your head out of your ass, and start thinking about what you say before you say it.
Bin Laden is Taliban, Taliban is Bin Laden, the two are not separable.
What U.S. is doing now is the usual "military punishment" when they should've gone to war already.
If you're any where near a great military leader, you would know that in a war, limitations are few, EVERYTHINGS can be potentional targets, and civilian casualities on the side of the enemy are usually not the top priority.
War is the best example of "the end justify the means", either you win, or you lost, there's nothing in between.
A country delicated to win a war shouldn't be "bounded" by "civilian casuality" in every angle, or else, this country would've lost half the war before it's even started.
War in nature is currupted and ugly, that's why countries try to avoid it. But when it is neccessary, a country should do everything in it's power to win.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
And that "war" is preferable to "military punishment."
*sigh* I guess Democracy can't be an effective method of government if it allows people with such mindnumbingly stupid ideas to participate in the decision-making process.
quote:
Bin Laden is Taliban, Taliban is Bin Laden, the two are not separable.
Bin Laden existed before the Taliban did. At the rate this war is going, Bin Laden will exist after the Taliban has ceased to exist (although probably for not very long).
Both Bin Laden and the Taliban are symptoms of the fundementalist movement within Islam.
quote:
What U.S. is doing now is the usual "military punishment" when they should've gone to war already.
The United States has not gone to war since Germany needed an ass kicking sixty years ago.
Now, if you're talking a big military operation designed to destroy the Taliban, that's happening. Do you ever read the paper or turn on the TV, or do you just spout stuff you don't comprehende?
quote:
If you're any where near a great military leader, you would know that in a war, limitations are few, [I]EVERYTHINGS[/] can be potentional targets, and civilian casualities on the side of the enemy are usually not the top priority.
Considering that one of the big priorities is to NOT make new enemies, and the best way to do that is to show that we're at war with terrorists and those that support them, avoiding civilians IS a top priority. Do you watch CNN ... ? Read the newspaper ... ? Anything?
Again, you fucking idiot, we are not at war with Afghanistan, we are at war with the Taliban. We're trying to avoid Afghani civilian casualties, and since a large number of Afghanis are anti-Taliban anyway (there are about a dozen groups -- from feminists to the Northern Alliance opposing the Taliban), killing them doesn't help us.
Please. Read a newspaper.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
As long as we support the Isrealies, most of the Arab are not gonna like us, and there's pretty much nothing we can do about that. The one who are behind us will always be behind us. There's no way that we'll win the popularity of those who hated us already by playing the "good samaritan".
When Allies when to war in WWII, we fought Nazi "GERMANY", not just the Nazi party!
Ruling government represent the country as a WHOLE, even when there are oppositions! Which mean when Taliban commited act of war on U.S., the whole country prepare for war, not just the Taliban party!
Avoid civilian casualities sound moral and pretty, but who's saying that they should be the utmost priority? military professionals, or politians?
Almost all wars has a military casuality LOWER then that of civilian casualities.
I'm not saying U.S. should be out to get the civilian, I'm saying when the issue of "civilian casualities" are pitted against "military objectives", then "military objective" should take prioirty any day!
Killing people is not pretty, and that's why war is not pretty, and therefore people try to avoid war from happening!
But when someone provoke you into one, we should do everything in our power to win the war!
U.S. are not doing that, they're restraining themself like usual, and guess what, that's not the way to win a war, and there's plenty of examples in past U.S. military operations for the last 50 years.
Finally, no matter how "high-tech" today's warfare is, the last move to win a war is land troop, and I ask you this question, where's the damn troop? I don't see any, do you?
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: BlueElectron ]
You might learn something.
quote:
Man, we ain't playing school "Counseler" trying to be nice to the bullies terrorising the school yard!
We're killing the bullies terrorizing the school yard. We're trying not to kill the classmates of the bullies who don't want or have anything to do with the bullies.
quote:
When Allies when to war in WWII, we fought Nazi "GERMANY", not just the Nazi party!
The difference, of course, that we went to war with a nation, and not terrorists.
quote:
Ruling government represent the country as a WHOLE, even when there are oppositions!
When a country is in the middle of a civil war, the "ruling" government does NOT represent the country as a whole. The United States certainly didn't represent the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War, now did it?
quote:
Avoid civilian casualities sound moral and pretty, but who's saying that they should be the utmost priority? military professionals, or politians?
The U.S. Military is commanded by the Commander-in-Chief. The United States is ruled by the Congress and the President. So, yes, politicians do. Duh. If you talk to any career military enlisted or officer, I'm sure they'll tell you they'd rather kill enemy military then enemy unarmed civilians.
quote:
I'm not saying U.S. should be out to get the civilian, I'm saying when the issue of "civilian casualities" are pitted against "military objectives", then "military objective" should take prioirty any day!
You're ignorance is so astounding. We've got complete military control over Afghanistan. The Taliban defenses have been destroyed. We've eliminated them, and been able to avoid mass amounts of civilian casualties too! Where the fuck do you get your news?
quote:
Killing people is not pretty, and that's why war is not pretty, and therefore people try to avoid war from happening!
Um, okay, on one hand you're saying we should blow up civilians, then you're saying we should avoid war? What the fuck are you trying to say, because I don't get it.
quote:
But when someone provoke you into one, we should do everything in our power to win the war!
Look, dude, it's not like these terrorists have home nations. It's not like they've got military bases. They've got members spread out across the world, and even if we do take out every single nation that has supported them, they'll still be out there. This isn't like any war ever fought before. Every single person on any TV channel, in any magazine, in every newspaper across the world has only said that about 50 billion times.
quote:
U.S. are not doing that, they're restraining themself like usual, and guess what, that's not the way to win a war, and there's plenty of examples in past U.S. military operations for the last 50 years.
You're an idiot. The U.S. is not "restraining" itself. The mission profile has been changed regarding air-combat rules that were in place over Kosovo.
Plenty of examples? You mean like the Iraqi army? Open a history book.
quote:
Finally, no matter how "high-tech" today's warfare is, the last move to win a war is land troop, and I ask you this question, where's the damn troop? I don't see any, do you?
As has been WIDELY reported (except, apparently, to you), the 10th Army Mountain Division is in or near Afghanistan. Over 1,000 Special Forces soldiers have been on the ground in Afghanistan for at least two weeks.
At least when argueing with Omega, I've got to do research and critical thinking and stuff. I mean, this is like taking a machine gun back to the Revolutionary War and raking it across advancing infantry. No challenge.
[ October 15, 2001: Message edited by: Malnurtured Snay ]
"Bin Laden is Taliban, Taliban is Bin Laden, the two are not separable."
Well, w/ that statement, you lost all semblance of having even the slightest idea what you're tlaking about, but, for some reason, I feel the need to address your other points as well...
"A country delicated to win a war shouldn't be 'bounded' by 'civilian casuality' in every angle, or else, this country would've lost half the war before it's even started."
That's true in the sense that we shouldn't kill ourselves the first time a civilian is accidentally killed. But intentionally killing civilians just because they're in the same country as the bad guys is so wrong that I can't even begin to describe it.
"When Allies when to war in WWII, we fought Nazi 'GERMANY', not just the Nazi party!"
No, we fought the Nazis. If we had gone blowing up concentration camps just because they were in Germany, it would have rather defeated the purpose. "Yeah, well, we took out the Nazis. Took out everyone they were fighting, too, but oh well..."
"Ruling government represent the country as a WHOLE, even when there are oppositions!"
So, if we were at war w/ Afghanistan, and a group of Afghanis burst into your house and killed your family, you'd say "Well, that's the way war is, so it's okay."?
"As long as we support the Isrealies, most of the Arab are not gonna like us, and there's pretty much nothing we can do about that. The one who are behind us will always be behind us. There's no way that we'll win the popularity of those who hated us already by playing the 'good samaritan'."
I just thought I'd point out the irony of this statement, considering that the entire purpose of the original "good Samaritan" story is that the Jews and Samaritans were enemies, but the "good Samaritan" was able to put differences aside and help a Jew who was in trouble. Now you're suggesting that we be the "good Samaritan" and blow up thousands of innocent people just because they're Afghani, and Afghanistan is our "enemy".
"Ruling government represent the country as a WHOLE, even when there are oppositions!""When a country is in the middle of a civil war, the 'ruling' government does NOT represent the country as a whole. The United States certainly didn't represent the Confederacy during the U.S. Civil War, now did it?"
That's a good point Jeff's made. Killing Afghanis just because we're at war w/ the Taliban is like if someone had been at war w/ the CSA, and started killing people in Maine, saying "Well, the Confederacy is still part of the US, and Maine is part of the US, so it's all the same"...
quote:
Pakistan isn't going to antagonize its own small fundamentalist movement
The leaders of the Taliban came from the fundementalist movement in Pakistan. By Blue's logic, we should nuke Islamasbad.
quote:
Originally posted by The_Tom:
Jeff: Actually, the Taliban aren't Pakistani, but the Pakistani intelligence service helped them during their takeover.
The Pakastani government also suffered a coup recently, so I'm guessing that the Intelligence was also following different directives at the time.