Argus Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Whoa - pretty sanctimonious stuff....especially for the guy who starts it off by saying that we shouldn't stop people from leaving Canada to engage in killing and mayhem. That's right - people who have been under investigation and we have pretty solid information that they WILL, either directly or indirectly kill people. I like how utterly selfish it is, too. Can you imagine how we'd feel about a foreign country which held the door open for terrorists they knew were headed to Canada to kill people instead of stopping them at their borders? 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) If we were really serious about putting a dent in terrorism we'd be arresting the politicians, public officials and corporate executives responsible for going abroad and causing the grievances that terrorist groups exploit. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sfv3kBzJZgU Edited March 15, 2015 by Argus 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Argus, all I am reading from you is appeal to authority arguments via fear mongering. Which is exactly what the government is doing. Keep telling me the terrorists are going to kill me and eventually after it is repeated over and over I might actually start believing it. You are scaring me more than the terrorists. Correction, you are trying to scare me more than the terrorists are. Edited March 15, 2015 by GostHacked Quote
Argus Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 As I told LemLeaf: "Anyway, you could also just send that sentence to the terrorists for them to use. " Except that they deliberately target innocent people in the largest numbers they can kill. You don't get the moral difference between accidental killings of innocents and deliberate targeting of innocents? 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Argus, all I am reading from you is appeal to authority arguments via fear mongering. Which is exactly what the government is doing. Keep telling me the terrorists are going to kill me and eventually after it is repeated over and over I might actually start believing it. You are scaring me more than the terrorists. I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you? 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
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Except that they deliberately target innocent people in the largest numbers they can kill. You don't get the moral difference between accidental killings of innocents and deliberate targeting of innocents? Oh, of course I do. I also get the difference between legitimate states acting with presumption of moral authority and terrorists. But, again, this was the statement I was commenting on: "We're bombing them, because they're killing innocent people." Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Except that they deliberately target innocent people in the largest numbers they can kill. You don't get the moral difference between accidental killings of innocents and deliberate targeting of innocents? We've dealt with this too. Dead is dead, ask the families of those killed in drone strikes. Just because we are not being 'targeting' does not mean they are not being killed. Precision strikes via Predator Drones? Laughable. Here is a group of 30 people. Two are terrorists, do you take out 28 innocents to get those two terrorists? No matter your intentions, it is the action that is getting backlash. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you? Yes, and others will understand what I am talking about. Quote
Argus Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Oh, of course I do. I also get the difference between legitimate states acting with presumption of moral authority and terrorists. But, again, this was the statement I was commenting on: "We're bombing them, because they're killing innocent people." You're being pedantic. You could have taken the same position about us attacking the Nazis. After all, we killed innocent people during WW2, as well. Should we have left them alone? 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Yes, and others will understand what I am talking about. Okay. I guess I just don't operate at such esoteric levels. 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 You're being pedantic. You could have taken the same position about us attacking the Nazis. After all, we killed innocent people during WW2, as well. Should we have left them alone? There is a difference between nation states at war with each other, and trying to win a war against an ideology that is not restricting itself via borders. WWII had clearly defined state players. You don't get that with asymmetrical warfare against guerrillas tactics. Quote
Michael Hardner Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 You're being pedantic. You could have taken the same position about us attacking the Nazis. After all, we killed innocent people during WW2, as well. Should we have left them alone? You're getting hysterical, apparently because somebody from "your side" posted a mission statement that was full of holes. Now you're tearing around the place digging up fresh new points to discuss. I was pointing out the fallacy of that statement, that's all. If you want to discuss WW2 with me, base it on an opinion that I actually hold. Quote Click to learn why Climate Change is caused by HUMANS Michael Hardner
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Okay. I guess I just don't operate at such esoteric levels. Which I think is part of the problem with some on this board. They cannot see bigger pictures or how other things connect. Compartmentalized thought process allows most here to not think esoterically which contributes them to not being able to see the bigger picture. Stuck on one level and buying whatever the government wants to feed you. Think for yourself. Quote
On Guard for Thee Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 I have no idea what you're talking about. Do you? I suspect you understand what he is saying, but just dont want to accept it. Quote
Argus Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 There is a difference between nation states at war with each other, and trying to win a war against an ideology that is not restricting itself via borders. WWII had clearly defined state players. You don't get that with asymmetrical warfare against guerrillas tactics. What difference does that make? The point is that in order to attack the Nazis, in order to engage in warfare, we had to accept that many innocent civilians were going to be killed along the way by our bombing, our shelling, our fighting. 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 You're getting hysterical, Huh? I simply posted a fairly obvious and unemotional reply to your rant about innocent civilians being killed. How is that hysterical? I was pointing out the fallacy of that statement, that's all. And I was pointing out how simple minded complaints about civilian deaths are. 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Which I think is part of the problem with some on this board. They cannot see bigger pictures or how other things connect. You mean we're sane? 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
Rue Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 (edited) Ghost: I have no friggin clue what you are saying but you know I don't care Big Guy: when you come back from Thailand I will be waiting for you WWT: you do realize your government entered into a military agreement with Israel you better revise your scripts Argus: one potential explanationfor what you are dealing with is schizophrenia, it causes delusions,disjointed statements, and in its paranoid version it can make people feel morally righteous and out right cryptic BC: the point is these 3 girls gave up on Taylor Swift as a role model Edited March 15, 2015 by Rue Quote
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 What difference does that make? The point is that in order to attack the Nazis, in order to engage in warfare, we had to accept that many innocent civilians were going to be killed along the way by our bombing, our shelling, our fighting. In terms of war the population was a legitimate target. Meaning they were the support structure to keep the war machine going. Someone had to make the bombs. Dresden is a good example of deliberately targeting civilians. So are the rocket attacks on the UK. Civilians were targeted. Quote
GostHacked Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 You mean we're sane? No, I would not go that far. Willingly blissful ignorance would be a more appropriate term. Quote
Argus Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 In terms of war the population was a legitimate target. Meaning they were the support structure to keep the war machine going. Someone had to make the bombs. Dresden is a good example of deliberately targeting civilians. So are the rocket attacks on the UK. Civilians were targeted. Do you know how many Frenchmen we accidentally killed booting the Germans out of France? Same goes for everywhere else. You ever see pictures or videos of some of those towns that got flattened? You think they were emptied out in advance? 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 No, I would not go that far. Willingly blissful ignorance would be a more appropriate term. Not everyone can embrace kooky conspiracy theories. 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 March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Not everyone can embrace kooky conspiracy theories. Yes, this kind of rhetoric works too. Attack attack attack!! Quote
Smallc Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Of course we do. It's called collateral damage. We purposefully bomb innocent people? I think you're about 40 years behind in terms of military doctrine. Quote
Smallc Posted March 15, 2015 Report Posted March 15, 2015 Which is exactly what they say. But they happen to be liars and murderers. I know you have a hard time telling the difference though. 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.