bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Are you his speaker? Are you able to pay attention to what people write? Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Never said it was an Olympic game, but like Olympic games, it has rules. I have plenty of criticism for the enemy in this war for targeting civilians You forgot terrorists ARE civilians. If we place more "worth" on our lives, then we can hardly expect groups like Hamas to do differently Only a complete nutcase would expect Hamas to abide by ANY rules whatsoever. If someone fires at me from a group of say six "civilians" I'll make sure all six go down fast as possible. Because it's my life first. And ANYONE who says otherwise is lying to feel good. and we can hardly criticize them for going after civilians instead of military targets. Terrorists are expected to do that - because they always do. Quote
Guest American Woman Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 You forgot terrorists ARE civilians. Ummmm. No. They're not. Not in the context which we are referring to civilians. But I'm sure you already knew that. Only a complete nutcase would expect Hamas to abide by ANY rules whatsoever. If someone fires at me from a group of say six "civilians" I'll make sure all six go down fast as possible. Because it's my life first. And ANYONE who says otherwise is lying to feel good. Who said anything about "expectations?" I was talking about "criticism." Two very different things. Furthermore, I doubt the situation you are using as an example is what's being referred to in this discussion, either. Thousands of civilians don't die due to that type of scenario and frankly, I don't recall hearing much, if any, criticism about such incidents. Terrorists are expected to do that - because they always do. Once again, your comment is totally irrelevant to what I said. Quote
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 I doubt the situation you are using as an example is what's being referred to in this discussion I don't. Thousands of civilians don't die due to that type of scenario No. Some die unexpectedly after arriving in their office in WTC. Or sitting in a Disco. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) No. Some die unexpectedly after arriving in their office in WTC. Or sitting in a Disco. But your argument is that these people are legitimate targets, just as Afghan civilians are "terrorists" by some definition you have yet to impart. Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 But your argument is that these people are legitimate targets No, that is your argument. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 No, that is your argument. No, not at all. I don't think the WTC victims were legtimate targets at all. They were innocent victims. That's why I call it mass murder rather than legtimate targeting. Of the three of us here--Saipan, American Woman, and Bloodyminded--only Saipan is making any argument for the killing of innocent civilians as legitimate targets. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
wyly Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 No, not at all. I don't think the WTC victims were legtimate targets at all. They were innocent victims. That's why I call it mass murder rather than legtimate targeting. Of the three of us here--Saipan, American Woman, and Bloodyminded--only Saipan is making any argument for the killing of innocent civilians as legitimate targets. civilians were not the intended targeted they were collateral damage as the intended targets of 9/11 were symbolic and strategic, center of trade/finance-WTC, military-Pentagon, and leadership-Whitehouse(failed)...was the 9/11 attack any different than when a US drone targets a wedding party or funeral or when the US bombed civilian areas of Hanoi trying to take out a bridge(evidence of cluster bombs say civilians were targeted)...how can we expect a group like al Qaeda using crude unsophisticated means of warfare be expected not have any collateral damage while the US military with some of the best military technology anywhere is allowed to claim collateral damage as an acceptable excuse?... any discussion right vs wrong, good vs evil involving the US always comes with a huge double standard in morality... Quote “Conservatives are not necessarily stupid, but most stupid people are conservatives.”- John Stuart Mill
Guest American Woman Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 civilians were not the intended targeted they were collateral damage as the intended targets of 9/11 were symbolic and strategic, center of trade/finance-WTC, military-Pentagon, and leadership-Whitehouse(failed)... Yes, of course. Al Qaeda has expressed the desire to destroy as many symbolic and strategic centers of trade/finance as possible. Nothing about killing as many westerners/infidels as possible. was the 9/11 attack any different than when a US drone targets a wedding party or funeral Damn the U.S. for purposely targeting wedding parties and funerals. Everyone knows that's the desire/goal of the U.S. -- to take out as many weddings and/or funerals as possible. or when the US bombed civilian areas of Hanoi trying to take out a bridge(evidence of cluster bombs say civilians were targeted) The bridge was actually targeted, not the civilians. And the U.S. didn't use innocent civilians to take the bridge out the way the terrorists used airplanes filled with innocent people. But let me guess. They weren't really the intended target either; the airplanes were. ...how can we expect a group like al Qaeda using crude unsophisticated means of warfare be expected not have any collateral damage while the US military with some of the best military technology anywhere is allowed to claim collateral damage as an acceptable excuse?... I hate to break it to you, but the Canadian military has been responsible for some "collateral damage" too. any discussion right vs wrong, good vs evil involving the US always comes with a huge double standard in morality... It sure does. Just not the way you think. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) any discussion right vs wrong, good vs evil involving the US always comes with a huge double standard in morality... Oh sure, and in Canada too of course. The double standard is real, but fortunately (since I dislike psychopaths) it is normally unconscious. It is taken for granted that "we" (Canada, the US, and whomever our political leaders deem an ally, temporary or otherwise) are benign. That our intentions are good. That we are "protecting freedom" or some such thing. The more "critical" voices might complain that we keep blundering, we keep making mistakes, didn't think this or that policy through, and so on; but our fundamental intentions, which are altruistic and bespeak the best part of humanity, are assumed to be quite excellent. Apparently, the US and its Western allies got rich and powerful not through force and coercion, like all other nations in history without exception, but rather as a reward for our basic goodness. And who rewarded us? Well....some force, undefined, at least by the secularist hawks and triumphalists. (The religious faithful are far more precise about this matter.) And to suggest otherwise--that humanitarian noblity is not the primary cause of our behaviour--is to be deemed a "radical" or some such thing; this is the precise intellectual equivalent of the notion of infidels who dispute the self-evident truths offered in Divine books. There really isn't a terrific amount of difference. Well, it's indoctrination. But of course, and understandably, when you point out indoctrination, people aren't going to take that very well. I don't blame them; I wouldn't appreciate it myself. But unfortunately, this remains, broadly, my view on the matter. What I find more distressing than the jaw-dropping ignorance of the "west is benign" school of thought (if we can call it "thought") is those who finally admit everything, every criticism, as more or less accurate...but then support and defend it anyway. There's more than a few of these people, who are genuine moral relativists. Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 only Saipan is making any argument for the killing of innocent civilians as legitimate targets. Only you do. It's in YOUR post, not mine. Quote
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 The double standard is real, but fortunately (since I dislike psychopaths) it is normally unconscious. It is taken for granted that "we" (Canada, the US, and whomever our political leaders deem an ally, temporary or otherwise) are benign. There is very easy test. See where people are fleeing FROM and where they are fleeing TO. Moslem for example are fleeing TO generally Christian countries, FROM Islamic countries. Likewise people are fleeing Communist countries TO capitalist countries. I rest my case. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Only you do. It's in YOUR post, not mine. Wrong. I said the killing of the WTC victims was not legitimate...that it was mass murder. Tyr debating honestly. Just try. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 There is very easy test. See where people are fleeing FROM and where they are fleeing TO. Moslem for example are fleeing TO generally Christian countries, FROM Islamic countries. Likewise people are fleeing Communist countries TO capitalist countries. I rest my case. This has nothing to do with my post. I wasn't talking about good palces to live, but about foreign policy. If you'd read posts before responding, you'd understand the discussions better. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 civilians were not the intended targeted they were collateral damage as the intended targets of 9/11 were symbolic and strategic Yes they targeted civilians of many nations there. By what army of what nation? Same as attack by Mafia. was the 9/11 attack any different than when a US drone targets a wedding party Another "wedding" party was attended by young "canadian" males of Islamic background in Pakistan. All ended up getting shot in Chechnya carrying AK-47. or funeral or when the US bombed civilian areas of Hanoi trying to take out a bridge Can happen. Last time it happened under Chretien and Clinton when Serbian civilian train full of people was bombed. Later Clinton bombed Aspirin factory is Sudan. Quote
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Wrong. I said the killing of the WTC victims was not legitimate...that it was mass murder. Tyr debating honestly. Just try. No you said: bloodyminded, on 09 January 2011 - 01:29 PM, said: only Saipan is making any argument for the killing of innocent civilians as legitimate targets. So put up or shut up. Or as you just said: "Tyr debating honestly. Just try." Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 No you said: bloodyminded, on 09 January 2011 - 01:29 PM, said: only Saipan is making any argument for the killing of innocent civilians as legitimate targets. So put up or shut up. Or as you just said: "Tyr debating honestly. Just try." One more time: I said killing the civilians in the wTC was not justified. You said killing the civilians in Afghanistan was justified. So I said it was wrong; you said it wasn't. (If you require more moral clarity, go to the words of the lefty, socialist Dalai Lama. By the way, when are you going to explain how those quotes of his are out of "context"? Still waiting for that.) Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 You said killing the civilians in Afghanistan was justified. No, you're saying that. Now again. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) No, you're saying that. Now again. I'm reporting on what you're saying. Why are you ignoring my questions about his Holiness the DL? You said his remarks were out of context: can you explain? Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 I'm reporting on what you're saying. Then post my words. Not yours. Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) Then post my words. Not yours. When AW lamented the fact of civilians being killed, you said You forgot terrorists ARE civilians. But, as you don't seem to understand, most civilians are not terrorists. Most civilians killed by our joint forces are not terrorists. Most people killed are innocent civilians. So why were you arguing the point at all? Edited January 9, 2011 by bloodyminded Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 (edited) When AW lamented the fact of civilians being killed, you said: You forgot terrorists ARE civilians. Yes, they are. That's million miles from what you clainmed that I said about TARGETTING civilians. But, as you don't seem to understand, most civilians are not terrorists. WHO said they are? Most civilians killed by our joint forces are not terrorists. How do you tell them apart? During battle someone is shooting at you from a window. Do you go there and ask everyone in that bulding who is the innocent civilian? Edited January 9, 2011 by Saipan Quote
bloodyminded Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 Yes, they are. That's million miles from what you clainmed that I said about TARGETTING civilians. How is it different? WHO said they are? So...you don't think most civilians are terrorists; and you think it's a tragedy when they are killed? How do you tell them apart? Well, you don't just kill everyone you see, on the basis that any of them could be terrorists. Only knuckledragging, morally-corrupt little losers would advocate such a thing. During battle someone is shooting at you from a window. Do you go there and ask everyone in that bulding who is the innocent civilian? You're inventing scenarios, quite distinct from the usual cases in which most civilians are killed. Too many action movies, maybe. Quote As scarce as truth is, the supply has always been in excess of the demand. --Josh Billings
Saipan Posted January 9, 2011 Report Posted January 9, 2011 How is it different? Simply. Civilians are not the targets - unless they shoot at you. So...you don't think most civilians are terrorists; and you think it's a tragedy when they are killed? Just as it was in EVERY war to date. Only knuckledragging, morally-corrupt little losers would advocate such a thing. Try not to be him. Avoid Islam. Quote
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.