Pages: 1 2 3

 

2007-05-28 01:29:27
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6580
So, Abu Ghraib was about saving lives?  Which explains why the tormenters weren't asking them questions?

The US doesn't torture prisoners to get information, because they know it isn't reliable.  They do it to scare their enemies.  At least the suicide bombers are willing to lose their lives for their cause.

Further, the wrong thing to do is the wrong thing to do, whether you feel it is necessary or not.  If they had their druthers, suicide bombers wouldn't kill anyone.  The justify it by saying that it's necessary.  You're more like them than you're willing to admit.

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-05-28 01:30:50)

2007-05-28 01:34:07
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6790|PNW

Bubbalo wrote:

So, Abu Ghraib was about saving lives?
Don't you mean Grab-an-Arab?
2007-05-28 01:51:52
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6424|North Carolina

Bubbalo wrote:

So, Abu Ghraib was about saving lives?  Which explains why the tormenters weren't asking them questions?

The US doesn't torture prisoners to get information, because they know it isn't reliable.  They do it to scare their enemies.  At least the suicide bombers are willing to lose their lives for their cause.

Further, the wrong thing to do is the wrong thing to do, whether you feel it is necessary or not.  If they had their druthers, suicide bombers wouldn't kill anyone.  The justify it by saying that it's necessary.  You're more like them than you're willing to admit.
Abu Ghraib was just a completely botched operation.  We had contractors in there that didn't know what the fuck they were doing.  Apparently, some of the soldiers were equally clueless.

So no, Abu Ghraib was just a demonstration of just how ineffective some of our military's management really is.  If it had been done correctly, no contractors would have been involved, plenty of interpreters would be available within the military, and no one would have pulled the stunts there that went on (and wouldn't have released it on the internet for fuck sake).

Why would we want to scare our enemies?  Because it works.  They've been quite effective at scaring us, but we occasionally bite back.  When we do bite back, we usually aim it at the people who fight us -- which I have no qualms with.  If you side with a force that treats human lives like they're worth nothing, then yes, I hope you get tortured, because you fucking deserve it.  I have no sympathy for suicide bombers or their accomplices.  I only have sympathy for the wrongly accused.

The fact that we've tortured innocent people is the problem, not the practice of torture itself.  We should never torture an innocent person, but torturing a terrorist or someone who aids terrorists is fair game in my book.

Finally, yes, I can hate in a remotely similar capacity to theirs, but the key difference here is that we don't just blow up people arbitrarily.  We're fighting a guerrilla war in Iraq in order to maintain some semblance of order, but our enemy's limitless ability to create chaos is what makes our fight futile.  You can't win against an enemy that is purely and nihilistically insane.  This is why I want us to leave Iraq.  It's beyond all hope, but you can't say we didn't try to work things out....
2007-05-28 01:55:32
devildogfo
Member
+32|6341|Camp Lejeune

sergeriver wrote:

How many people do support Israel around the World, from any country and religion?  Well, all those millions also support the killing of civilians.
And palestinians dont kill civilians? Please.
2007-05-28 02:02:34
devildogfo
Member
+32|6341|Camp Lejeune

CameronPoe wrote:

DBBrinson1 wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Muslims make up 0.02% of the US population.  Those idiots that make up the 13% are in a very very very very small minority.  You will always have a small extremist minority.

All your law enforcement/intelligence people have to do is keep an eye on them.

There you go context.
So how many people does it take to become a suicide bomber? 


1
Call the marines.
And what does that mean? Granted, I have been drinking a bit, I may be completely missing the point as i sometimes do, but are you implying that the US Marines are suicide bombers? If i have completely misunderstood this than i promise i will slap myself for it. Otherwise, well...
2007-05-28 02:03:31
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6580
You fail to understand what I'm saying.

Both the US army and it's foes engage in activities which are immoral.  Therefore, they are both as bad as each other.  The US army engages in them less often and in activities which are, arguably, less immoral, but they are also more powerful and therefore able to maintain power without engage in said activities as often or to as high a degree.

In short:

There is one primary difference between the US and it's foes: that the US has more conventional power.  This explains all other differences.  If roles were reversed, the US would be doing exactly what their foes are doing now.
2007-05-28 02:09:44
devildogfo
Member
+32|6341|Camp Lejeune

Bubbalo wrote:

You fail to understand what I'm saying.

Both the US army and it's foes engage in activities which are immoral.  Therefore, they are both as bad as each other.  The US army engages in them less often and in activities which are, arguably, less immoral, but they are also more powerful and therefore able to maintain power without engage in said activities as often or to as high a degree.

In short:

There is one primary difference between the US and it's foes: that the US has more conventional power.  This explains all other differences.  If roles were reversed, the US would be doing exactly what their foes are doing now.
I completely agree with everything after "In short:", the US DOES have nearly unchallengable conventional power. BUT, the US is a very unconventional war. We go through painstaking measures to minimize civilian deaths. But in the end, its humans on the ground. When you are told you have to go through 5 steps of force escalation before you neutralize a target (as nearly all police/military organizations in a half-civilized country have), but a car pulls out 30 meters from you (well within range of killing you if it is a VBIED), you have one chance and one chance only to eliminate that threat before it kills you and the men you consider your family. Comes down to a decision made by a human, regardless of his national origin. Immoral things happen in war. Thats inherent to the concept of war. Get over it.
2007-05-28 02:13:25
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,053|6790|PNW

devildogfo wrote:

BUT, the US is a very unconventional war.
If there were a head-scratcher amongst the meager selection of smilies, I'd use one.
2007-05-28 02:15:54
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6424|North Carolina

Bubbalo wrote:

You fail to understand what I'm saying.

Both the US army and it's foes engage in activities which are immoral.  Therefore, they are both as bad as each other.  The US army engages in them less often and in activities which are, arguably, less immoral, but they are also more powerful and therefore able to maintain power without engage in said activities as often or to as high a degree.

In short:

There is one primary difference between the US and it's foes: that the US has more conventional power.  This explains all other differences.  If roles were reversed, the US would be doing exactly what their foes are doing now.
We are all human, so I agree with the "in short" part.  This still doesn't justify their actions.  Did the atrocities of Bloody Sunday justify the bombings done by the IRA?  No.

You see...  I measure morality in terms of escalation.  If your enemy is more powerful conventionally, does that justify killing random people for your own agenda?  Hell fucking no.

If our enemies only killed soldiers and government officials, I wouldn't see them as terrorists.  Instead, they kill anyone they can or feel like.

This isn't really a rebellion so much as it is a chaotic reaction of insanity.  They believe some great reward greets them in the hereafter, which is what fuels their insanity and complete lack of self-preservation.  I really don't see how you can defend such things.
2007-05-28 02:44:51
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6580

Turquoise wrote:

We are all human, so I agree with the "in short" part.  This still doesn't justify their actions.  Did the atrocities of Bloody Sunday justify the bombings done by the IRA?  No.
Except that I'm the one saying that if both parties do the wrong thing then both are just as bad.

Turquoise wrote:

You see...  I measure morality in terms of escalation.  If your enemy is more powerful conventionally, does that justify killing random people for your own agenda?  Hell fucking no.
Which isn't what I'm saying.

Turquoise wrote:

If our enemies only killed soldiers and government officials, I wouldn't see them as terrorists.  Instead, they kill anyone they can or feel like.
And what I'm saying is that you would do the same thing if you were in their position, as evidence by what you're doing in your position.

That is to say:

A person with the power to stop a crime without harming anyone who instead chooses to cause some harm but no death is just as bad as a person with the power to stop a crime with some harm and no death (and unable to do so without harm) who instead chooses to stop it with death.

More succinctly: morality is relative.  Those who do more extreme things in more extreme positions are comparable to those who do less extreme things in less extreme conditions.

Turquoise wrote:

This isn't really a rebellion so much as it is a chaotic reaction of insanity.  They believe some great reward greets them in the hereafter, which is what fuels their insanity and complete lack of self-preservation.  I really don't see how you can defend such things.
I don't.  I just don't defend the US' actions either.
2007-05-28 03:02:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6424|North Carolina

Bubbalo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

We are all human, so I agree with the "in short" part.  This still doesn't justify their actions.  Did the atrocities of Bloody Sunday justify the bombings done by the IRA?  No.
Except that I'm the one saying that if both parties do the wrong thing then both are just as bad.

Turquoise wrote:

You see...  I measure morality in terms of escalation.  If your enemy is more powerful conventionally, does that justify killing random people for your own agenda?  Hell fucking no.
Which isn't what I'm saying.

Turquoise wrote:

If our enemies only killed soldiers and government officials, I wouldn't see them as terrorists.  Instead, they kill anyone they can or feel like.
And what I'm saying is that you would do the same thing if you were in their position, as evidence by what you're doing in your position.

That is to say:

A person with the power to stop a crime without harming anyone who instead chooses to cause some harm but no death is just as bad as a person with the power to stop a crime with some harm and no death (and unable to do so without harm) who instead chooses to stop it with death.

More succinctly: morality is relative.  Those who do more extreme things in more extreme positions are comparable to those who do less extreme things in less extreme conditions.

Turquoise wrote:

This isn't really a rebellion so much as it is a chaotic reaction of insanity.  They believe some great reward greets them in the hereafter, which is what fuels their insanity and complete lack of self-preservation.  I really don't see how you can defend such things.
I don't.  I just don't defend the US' actions either.
If I was an insurgent, I would only target authority figures, not innocent people.  The insurgents in Iraq are not discrete at all in who they target.  This kind of recklessness is what I view as far more immoral than almost anything we've done.

EDIT: I realize you're saying that any killing is wrong as is any torture, but we really don't have the power to win this without causing some harm and death.  The insurgents do.  All the insurgents have to do is work with the system.  Until there are no insurgents left, our forces have no choice but to defend themselves by force and seek out the insurgents.

Last edited by Turquoise (2007-05-28 03:05:31)

2007-05-28 03:05:14
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6580
And that's the key difference between you and me: you're willing to settle for the lesser of two evils, whereas I believe there's no such beast.
2007-05-28 03:08:13
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6424|North Carolina

Bubbalo wrote:

And that's the key difference between you and me: you're willing to settle for the lesser of two evils, whereas I believe there's no such beast.
Let's take this to a different level.  Let's say America leaves Iraq completely.  The Iraqi government is now forced with the task of cleaning things up by itself.  The insurgents are still killing people by the hundreds.

If you are a high official in charge of law enforcement in Iraq, how would you go about quelling the insurgent threat without some death involved?
2007-05-28 03:12:24
necroyeti1612
Member
+6|6202|Vienna, AUT

thareaper254 wrote:

I hate religions, they're stupid and pointless. God is fake, period.
I second that!

Thanks for your attention!
2007-05-28 03:12:31
JahManRed
wank
+646|6646|IRELAND

The Majority of Americans blindly support Israel, who kill civilians. Man for man, that's allot more ppl.
2007-05-28 03:17:47
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6580

Turquoise wrote:

If you are a high official in charge of law enforcement in Iraq, how would you go about quelling the insurgent threat without some death involved?
Where have I ever said anything about avoiding death completely?

Turquoise wrote:

I realize you're saying that any killing is wrong as is any torture, but we really don't have the power to win this without causing some harm and death.  The insurgents do.  All the insurgents have to do is work with the system.  Until there are no insurgents left, our forces have no choice but to defend themselves by force and seek out the insurgents.
No, they don't.  The system is built to favour conventionally powerful forces (such as the US).  Their only chance to win is to fight via alternate means.  That's one of my points: the insurgents fight dirty because that's the only way for them to win, the US doesn't have to, it chooses to.
2007-05-28 03:21:59
Turquoise
O Canada
+1,596|6424|North Carolina

Bubbalo wrote:

Turquoise wrote:

If you are a high official in charge of law enforcement in Iraq, how would you go about quelling the insurgent threat without some death involved?
Where have I ever said anything about avoiding death completely?

Turquoise wrote:

I realize you're saying that any killing is wrong as is any torture, but we really don't have the power to win this without causing some harm and death.  The insurgents do.  All the insurgents have to do is work with the system.  Until there are no insurgents left, our forces have no choice but to defend themselves by force and seek out the insurgents.
No, they don't.  The system is built to favour conventionally powerful forces (such as the US).  Their only chance to win is to fight via alternate means.  That's one of my points: the insurgents fight dirty because that's the only way for them to win, the US doesn't have to, it chooses to.
The U.S. fights dirty because our enemies do.

The insurgents chose a path that is exceedingly murderous not because they had to in order to win, but because they are quick to use violence.  Our forces would not be killing people if our enemies were peaceful.  If they were using methods of civil disobedience, we'd eventually leave due to social pressures, so there is absolutlely no requirement for them to act so recklessly.
2007-05-28 07:21:44
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6580

Turquoise wrote:

The U.S. fights dirty because our enemies do.
Oh, right, so you're going to use the he started it argument?

Turquoise wrote:

Our forces would not be killing people if our enemies were peaceful.
Oh, right.  By that logic I could say that the political enemies who the Soviets killed had only themselves to blame: if they'd just shut up about freedom, Stalin wouldn't have had to kill them.

Turquoise wrote:

If they were using methods of civil disobedience, we'd eventually leave due to social pressures,
After you were done stealing their mineral wealth, I'm sure.

Turquoise wrote:

so there is absolutlely no requirement for them to act so recklessly.
And there was no requirement for the US to be there in the first place, yet you are.



And we've established that I don't expect the US to win the fight without killing anyone?  I may be a dirty CommuNazi bastard, but I'm not unreasonable.............

Last edited by Bubbalo (2007-05-28 07:22:36)

2007-05-28 07:23:50
Cerpin_Taxt
Member
+155|6221

Bubbalo wrote:

Oh, right, so you're going to use the he started it argument?

Oh, right.  By that logic I could say that the political enemies who the Soviets killed had only themselves to blame: if they'd just shut up about freedom, Stalin wouldn't have had to kill them.

After you were done stealing their mineral wealth, I'm sure.

And there was no requirement for the US to be there in the first place, yet you are.

And we've established that I don't expect the US to win the fight without killing anyone?  I may be a dirty CommuNazi bastard, but I'm not unreasonable.............
2007-05-28 07:24:43
Bubbalo
The Lizzard
+541|6580
I'm glad that I amuse you.
2007-05-28 07:33:24
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6690|UK

Cerpin_Taxt wrote:

Bubbalo wrote:

Oh, right, so you're going to use the he started it argument?

Oh, right.  By that logic I could say that the political enemies who the Soviets killed had only themselves to blame: if they'd just shut up about freedom, Stalin wouldn't have had to kill them.

After you were done stealing their mineral wealth, I'm sure.

And there was no requirement for the US to be there in the first place, yet you are.

And we've established that I don't expect the US to win the fight without killing anyone?  I may be a dirty CommuNazi bastard, but I'm not unreasonable.............
A fancy pollux hallmark right there.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-05-28 12:07:44
iamangry
Member
+59|6664|The United States of America

m3thod wrote:

Deluded quote of the century:  We are exporting a conflict to save civilians lives. OUR civilians lives.
First, off topic... I'd prefer to have their people dying with them when they blow themselves up then have MY people dying when they blow themselves up.  I have no problem with making it so that Arab children are dying instead of my children when its a bunch of Arabs who are doing the exploding. 

Now, on topic... How can this be seen by so many of you as acceptable.  You say that this 13 percent would be found in any population.  Would it be found in African Americans?  They didn't blow themselves up for civil rights, they marched and got fire-hosed.  Would it be found in Latinos?  They aren't blowing up themselves for immigration (another subject altogether), they wave their flags and chant.  Would it be found in Asians?  They didn't blow themselves up when they were oppressed in California in the 19th century, or when they were interred during the second World War.  What about white people, surely they would do it.  Or maybe not, the French didn't have suicide bombers when they were occupied by Germany, nor did Italy or Belgium or even Russia.  I don't even think the IRA did suicide bombings.  What about Indians?  So close to the Middle East, surely they blew themselves up for political purposes, right?  No, they sat and refused to do anything when they wanted independence from the British.  So what other race is there?  What other group of people have chosen to express their political will through the use of bomb vests and car bombs?  I can't think of an example, but if someone has one, please prove me wrong.  I'm fairly sure that Muslims, and specifically Arabs are the only people who thing that its okay to strap 80 pounds of C4 to their chest and blow themselves up and a hundred of their neighbors in the market when they don't get their way.   
If my country ever gets invaded, I won't blow myself up to take out a few of them too.  Maybe its just because I have a MASSIVE superiority complex, but I wouldn't think I was worth 5 or 10 or even 100 of my enemy.  Because that's really what a suicide bombing is, an unbalanced trade of one from your side for a few from their side.  The fact of the matter is, its NOT ok for 13 percent of a population to think suicide bombing is acceptable.
2007-05-28 12:12:00
usmarine
Banned
+2,785|6780

"470,000 Americans think all Muslims should be in jail".......... Imagine that headline.  Would you people who blow this poll off accept that as no big deal?  No fucking way.  You all would have your panties in a bunch.
2007-05-28 12:16:52
m3thod
All kiiiiiiiiinds of gainz
+2,197|6690|UK

iamangry wrote:

m3thod wrote:

Deluded quote of the century:  We are exporting a conflict to save civilians lives. OUR civilians lives.
First, off topic... I'd prefer to have their people dying with them when they blow themselves up then have MY people dying when they blow themselves up.  I have no problem with making it so that Arab children are dying instead of my children when its a bunch of Arabs who are doing the exploding.
First and foremost THESE people were on no threat to you.  The freedom fighters are doing the exploding because your own inept leaders provided the necessary environment for the many freedom fighters the ability to carry out their many successful and unrestricted attacks. 

Secondly you just confirmed that your belief anyone that isn't American is Untermensch.  GG.
Blackbelts are just whitebelts who have never quit.
2007-05-28 12:22:19
ghettoperson
Member
+1,943|6668

While nearly 80 percent of U.S. Muslims say suicide bombings of civilians to defend Islam can not be justified, 13 percent say they can be, at least rarely.
One in four younger U.S. Muslims said in a poll that suicide bombings to defend their religion are acceptable at least in some circumstances
Way to go twist what the poll's saying Yahoo!... I do like how people select certain parts of data that appeals to them to use for exciting sounding opening lines. That's not to say that it's not a problem, but 1 in 4 does sound a lot more impressive than 13% say it can be used rarely.

 

Pages: 1 2 3

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard