Argus Posted June 9, 2013 Report Posted June 9, 2013 Argus interestingly the UK is not secular eg. it has a National Church, the Church of England. It is still a secular country with a secular society. If a government abuses its powers, and engages in wars, it is likely that some of its citizens will turn against the government, and its forces as happened to the Taliban and in the UK. In a democratic country turning against the government means campaigning against them in the media and in elections, not killing people in the streets. Afghanistan is not the only country the UK has attacked either in the Middle East. Iraq, Libya, active sanctions against Iran, funnelling arms to the Syrian Civil War (Syrians against Syrians) etc. So western countries are guilty of abetting dictators when they support them, when they merely do business with them, or when they oppose them. Have I got that right? Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
GostHacked Posted June 9, 2013 Report Posted June 9, 2013 It had absolutely nothing to do with what I said. Reading Comprehension 101. Try it. Careful AW, .. reading comprehension? Quote
Guest American Woman Posted June 9, 2013 Report Posted June 9, 2013 Careful AW, .. reading comprehension? Oh, good God. Not this again. Do you truly not understand the difference between a lack of reading comprehension and misreading a word?? If you don't, I suggest you educate yourself so you don't keep ignorantly making this same ludicrous comment - and I don't have to waste my time responding to it. Over and over. Quote
G Huxley Posted June 9, 2013 Report Posted June 9, 2013 If you're going to suggest all citizens are guilty, and thus fair targets to those angry at the actions of their government, then you'll have to abide by the reverse and consider all Muslims fair targets for attack due to the actions of the Islamists. The Islamists weren't elected and thus don't represent them. Quote
G Huxley Posted June 9, 2013 Report Posted June 9, 2013 "It is still a secular country with a secular society." No if it has an official national church it is not a secular country. sec·u·lar /ˈsekyələr/ Adjective Denoting attitudes, activities, or other things that have no religious or spiritual basis: "secular buildings". In a democratic country turning against the government means campaigning against them in the media and in elections, not killing people in the streets. The UK is actually a non-secular constitutional monarchy and is not a democracy. And that is laughable when the police in the UK have killed an innocent man in the streets, and when the UK is funneling thousands of dollars of weapons into the Syrian streets where Syrians are killing each other, and invading and occupying the streets of numerous foreign countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_of_Jean_Charles_de_Menezes So western countries are guilty of abetting dictators when they support them, when they merely do business with them, or when they oppose them. Have I got that right? I don't see how that follows from my above comment. Quote
jbg Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 I'm totally against what these guys did, BUT I can understand why they did it . As one guy said, the Westerns never see the women and children killed in the Middle-East , more since the 9/11. This areas have lost more people than 2700-2900 that died in 9/11. It has only created more angry people towards the West, violence does work, it only creates more! Maybe attacking the West on September 11, 2001 (and the prior attacks to which we didn't respond) wasn't such a good idea for the Muslim world. Perhaps if you engage in warfare others will return the favor. Actually, the Muslims say they love death, and the West loves life. Why not give them what they represent they love? Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
G Huxley Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 (edited) . Edited June 12, 2013 by G Huxley Quote
Argus Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 The Islamists weren't elected and thus don't represent them. And not everyone voted for the government. And even those who did don't control it's day to day actions. And for the most part, Muslims support the aims of the Islamists, even if they quibble over the methods. By your standards, that makes them all the enemy. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Argus Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 "It is still a secular country with a secular society." No if it has an official national church it is not a secular country. It is a secular society. That's all there is to it. The UK is actually a non-secular constitutional monarchy and is not a democracy. The above statement is sheer idiocy. I don't see how that follows from my above comment. You don't? Part of your condemnation was them supporting the rebels in Syria. So you condemn them for both supporting and opposing dictators. Quote "A liberal is someone who claims to be open to all points of view — and then is surprised and offended to find there are other points of view.” William F Buckley
Army Guy Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 Complaint: Terrorists attack planes with 5 year olds aboard. Complaint: US air attacks target funerals with 5 year olds in attendance. Terrorist attacked that plane to make a political piont.....thats what they do.... US drone strikes had a military target on hand, the 5 year old was colateral damage.... Again you fail to grasp the piont here, one that is clearly spelled out in all the laws, genva conventions, etc......colateral damage is the word invented to discribe innocent civilians killed in a conflict.....they were not intentional targeted but a spill over from the attack.... it's been part of the conflict since man picked up his first club.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GostHacked Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 Terrorist attacked that plane to make a political piont.....thats what they do.... US drone strikes had a military target on hand, the 5 year old was colateral damage.... Again you fail to grasp the piont here, one that is clearly spelled out in all the laws, genva conventions, etc......colateral damage is the word invented to discribe innocent civilians killed in a conflict.....they were not intentional targeted but a spill over from the attack.... it's been part of the conflict since man picked up his first club.... How can you be sure that is the case when the people running the drones really have no clue who they are targeting most of the time? That's not collateral damage, that is pure negligence. That negligence has a chance of getting YOU killed as well. Quote
Army Guy Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 The war on terror is like the special olympics. Even if you win, its better not to have had to have been in the special olympics. Tell that to the victims of these crazy bastards.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
Army Guy Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 How can you be sure that is the case when the people running the drones really have no clue who they are targeting most of the time? That's not collateral damage, that is pure negligence. That negligence has a chance of getting YOU killed as well. I think your misreading your quote....Drone strike are authorized at the very top of the food chain....do you see obama signing off on a strike that they don't even know the targets name, no there is a full brief before auth is given.........CIA are the operators of the drones, they don't need to know who the targets name ....just a picture to id the target , and some intel like where they'll be etc etc...then pull the trigger....Nobody is just hosing the area down and hoping they kill a terrorist.... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
GostHacked Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 I think your misreading your quote....Drone strike are authorized at the very top of the food chain....do you see obama signing off on a strike that they don't even know the targets name, no there is a full brief before auth is given.........CIA are the operators of the drones, they don't need to know who the targets name ....just a picture to id the target , and some intel like where they'll be etc etc...then pull the trigger....Nobody is just hosing the area down and hoping they kill a terrorist.... Look, even the CIA has admitted that they cannot verify a good deal of these targets. They have no clue who they are really firing on. http://www.cnn.com/2012/09/25/world/asia/pakistan-us-drone-strikes The study by Stanford Law School and New York University's School of Law calls for a re-evaluation of the practice, saying the number of "high-level" targets killed as a percentage of total casualties is extremely low -- about 2%. The report accuses Washington of misrepresenting drone strikes as "a surgically precise and effective tool that makes the U.S. safer," saying that in reality, "there is significant evidence that U.S. drone strikes have injured and killed civilians." It also casts doubts on Washington's claims that drone strikes produce zero to few civilian casualties and alleges that the United States makes "efforts to shield the drone program from democratic accountability." http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2336801/CIA-does-know-militants-killed-drone-strikes-emerges-QUARTER-victims-unidentified.html The latter have been particularly criticised by some, as they often kill young men who have not been proven to engage in terrorism and whose identity might be unknown. In 26 of the drone attacks, the fatalities are described in classified document as being 'other militants' who did not necessarily have ties to Al Qaeda or the Taliban. Controversy: Barack Obama is a strong supporter of drone strikes but has been criticised over the attacks Controversy: Barack Obama is a strong supporter of drone strikes but has been criticised over the attacks However, despite the uncertainty over the identity of those killed by the CIA's drones, officials insist that they were undoubtedly jihadist fighters who were plotting against the rest. Out of around 600 victims of drone strikes, just one - the wife or girlfriend of an Al Qaeda operative - was officially classified as a civilian non-combatant. However, analysts claim the idea that the U.S. has totally avoided incurring civilian casualties is almost certainly false. So high value targets consist of 2% of those killed. And they cannot verify WHAT terror organization a suspected militant belongs to. So by that they cannot even be sure that they are terrorists. You'd figure if they are going to carry out these attacks better intelligence would have been gathered. Quote
cybercoma Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 Oh, good God. Not this again. Do you truly not understand the difference between a lack of reading comprehension and misreading a word?? If you don't, I suggest you educate yourself so you don't keep ignorantly making this same ludicrous comment - and I don't have to waste my time responding to it. Over and over. You don't have to waste your time, but... Quote
G Huxley Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 And not everyone voted for the government. And even those who did don't control it's day to day actions. And for the most part, Muslims support the aims of the Islamists, even if they quibble over the methods. By your standards, that makes them all the enemy. The west already made them the enemy ages ago. So there's nothing new here. Just a stupid war started by hawks. It is a secular society. That's all there is to it. Not if there is an official state religion the church of England. Coronations of the head of state in Westminster Abbey etc. The UK is actually a non-secular constitutional monarchy and is not a democracy. The above statement is sheer idiocy. Only because you don't understand the meaning of the word democracy. You don't? Part of your condemnation was them supporting the rebels in Syria. So you condemn them for both supporting and opposing dictators. I condemn them for trying to meddle and dictate the affairs of other countries and especially through the promotion of violence. Quote
G Huxley Posted June 10, 2013 Report Posted June 10, 2013 Terrorist attacked that plane to make a political piont.....thats what they do.... US drone strikes had a military target on hand, the 5 year old was colateral damage.... Terrorists use the exact same logic. To the terrorist the 5 year old i just collateral damage, just as NATO considers the 5 year old as collateral damage. In fact memos found on the boston bomber listed the targets as collateral damage. Its two sides of the same coin. The pot calling the kettle black. Again you fail to grasp the piont here, one that is clearly spelled out in all the laws, genva conventions, etc......colateral damage is the word invented to discribe innocent civilians killed in a conflict.....they were not intentional targeted but a spill over from the attack.... it's been part of the conflict since man picked up his first club.... If you target a funeral you are intentionally targetting everyone there, which includes loads of innocent civilians. That's not collateral damage that's outright mass murder. Tell that to the victims of these crazy bastards.... On both sides. Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 11, 2013 Report Posted June 11, 2013 Woolwich was a travesty not so much because it was an Islamic terrorist attack...plenty of those every day...but rather that nobody did a darn thing for twenty-odd minutes. Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
Army Guy Posted June 11, 2013 Report Posted June 11, 2013 Terrorists use the exact same logic. To the terrorist the 5 year old i just collateral damage, just as NATO considers the 5 year old as collateral damage. In fact memos found on the boston bomber listed the targets as collateral damage. Its two sides of the same coin. The pot calling the kettle black. If you target a funeral you are intentionally targetting everyone there, which includes loads of innocent civilians. That's not collateral damage that's outright mass murder. On both sides. No the terrorist targets the 5 year old intentionally, the 5 year old is the mission. it is his intention to make a statement through this kiling..... Military targets.... military targets only, collateral damage is the result of a strike gone wrong....their was no intention to kill innocent civilians. I've ask you before to provide a source that backs up your statement, and you've failed...it's murder in your mind only..... Time to stop stepping up for these scumbags time to choose sides..... Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
G Huxley Posted June 12, 2013 Report Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) No when you target a funeral its no longer collateral damage. Its targeting innocents, just like terrorists. Murder is murder. One of these days you'll have an epiphany and realize it too. I just hope when you do that you can deal with it without causing more harm to yourself and others. Edited June 12, 2013 by G Huxley Quote
Army Guy Posted June 12, 2013 Report Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) No when you target a funeral its no longer collateral damage. Its targeting innocents, just like terrorists. Murder is murder. One of these days you'll have an epiphany and realize it too. I just hope when you do that you can deal with it without causing more harm to yourself and others. In your mind only, if it was murder then feel free to pursue that in a court of law, you've failed to prove your piont to the other readers , but then again it's not a piont but your opinion........And one day you to will have an epiphany and come to the conclusion that War is an ugly thing, and both sides have blood on their hands.... I've learned to live with my ghosts long ago....And still willing to answer the call of this nation. which will proably mean making more ghosts... Edited June 12, 2013 by Army Guy Quote We, the willing, led by the unknowing, are doing the impossible for the ungrateful. We have now done so much for so long with so little, we are now capable of doing anything with nothing.
G Huxley Posted June 12, 2013 Report Posted June 12, 2013 (edited) In your mind only, if it was murder then feel free to pursue that in a court of law, Do I look like I'm dripping in gold? you've failed to prove your piont to the other readers , I didn't know that you spoke for the other readers here. .And one day you to will have an epiphany and come to the conclusion that War is an ugly thing, and both sides have blood on their hands.... Hello I had that epiphany long before I said the Afghan war was a bad idea long before it had even begun. Edited June 12, 2013 by G Huxley Quote
Jeff M Posted June 13, 2013 Report Posted June 13, 2013 (edited) Couple of things about this attack that made it different: 1.Knives and sharp things scare people when they are used to cut off heads. Bombing hundreds of thousands to death from 30,000' is much more sanitary in comparison. 2.The perp got to state his case and that will never do. Those few words are going to take the propagandists volumes to counterspin. #2 is the more relevant issue. Edited June 13, 2013 by Jeff M Quote
DogOnPorch Posted June 13, 2013 Report Posted June 13, 2013 Were hundreds of thousands bombed to death from 30,000 feet? Quote Nothing cracks a turtle like Leon Uris.
jbg Posted June 14, 2013 Report Posted June 14, 2013 Were hundreds of thousands bombed to death from 30,000 feet?In some alternative reality. Quote Free speech: "You can say what you want, but I don't have to lend you my megaphone." Always remember that when you are in the right you can afford to keep your temper, and when you are in the wrong you cannot afford to lose it. - J.J. Reynolds. Will the steps anyone is proposing to fight "climate change" reduce a single temperature, by a single degree, at a single location? The mantra of "world opinion" or the views of the "international community" betrays flabby and weak reasoning (link).
.thumb.jpg.9a49e1b2f22a6d34a345152c50044aa9.jpg)
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.