Pages: 1 … 31 32 33 34 35 … 47

 

2011-07-28 03:18:47
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6802|Nårvei

Your ignorance is amazing ...

Q:What have the US achieved after making its choice after 9/11?
A:Worse for the entire western hemisphere and definitely worse for its own population!

How many Americans have lost their lives in the war on terror, what is the result of the war on terror?

Those are the real questions lowing, more and more Americans are asking themselves these questions ...

To the population of Norway it wouldn't have mattered if a lonely Muslim or AQ was behind it ... we don't give in to their threats, we don't let them scare us into lessening our democratic system ... if we did that it would have meant the terrorists win like they won a major victory after 9/11, they wanted you to react and you did ... you played into their scheme just like they wanted ... Spain didn't!
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-07-28 03:27:28
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6643|USA

Varegg wrote:

Your ignorance is amazing ...

Q:What have the US achieved after making its choice after 9/11?
A:Worse for the entire western hemisphere and definitely worse for its own population!

How many Americans have lost their lives in the war on terror, what is the result of the war on terror?

Those are the real questions lowing, more and more Americans are asking themselves these questions ...

To the population of Norway it wouldn't have mattered if a lonely Muslim or AQ was behind it ... we don't give in to their threats, we don't let them scare us into lessening our democratic system ... if we did that it would have meant the terrorists win like they won a major victory after 9/11, they wanted you to react and you did ... you played into their scheme just like they wanted ... Spain didn't!
my ignorance is amazing? appreciate that, I'm always a fan of liberal "open mindedness" regarding others comments and opinions in this forum. 

What the US did, was take the fight off of American soil and put it in the ME where the terrorists originated. Many attacks have been thwarted because of anti-terrorist incentives both in Europe and the US.

Not as many have lost their lives in 8 years on the war of terror than have lost their lives storming the beaches of Normandy in one day.

We have a tiger by the tail Varegg, I can not deny that, and I can not tell you what we should do about it at this point. I don't know.

Are you saying Norway would jut sit back and succumb like they did in WW2 all in an effort to protect itself? Ya see the problem is, all that is doing is letting everyone else fight and die for you. Claiming peace at any price did not work for you in the past, ( unless you claim having your country occupied by a foreign nation as working) how do you figure it would work for you today?

and yes Spain did make a choice, they choose to cower, even had their elections influenced by AQ. So you tell me, who really lost in that?

Last edited by lowing (2011-07-28 06:03:25)

2011-07-28 05:10:41
Ty
Mass Media Casualty
+2,398|6766|Noizyland

The US attacks on terrorist groups in Afghanistan and even Iraq have been valuable to curbing terrorist activities, it is even possible that they have stopped further 9/11-style attacks simply because terrorist groups have been concentrating more on attacking the Americans, (and others,) on their own soil than staging elaborate attacks in other countries.

Now yes, this meant that it is easier for terrorists to kill Americans, (and others,) as killing somone in your own backyard is obviously easier than having to travel for it. It's almost a matter of keeping the terror groups distracted by military targets to prevent attacks on civilians. This represents a huge cost, both in lives and money, and whether it is worth it is open for debate. It certainly shouldn't be discounted though.

I do admire Norway's reaction to the Breivik attack, it does represent and understanding of freedom and democracy that the US lacked post 9/11. Thing is I would argue that the US lacked the luxury to be able to take such a stance. It's a completely different situation, you simply can't compare an internal attack on a country of less than five million to an external attack on a global superpower - that's not even considering the scale difference. I would like to expand on this but I'm drunk and if I've learned anything it's to not try to make comprehensible points while drunk.
[Blinking eyes thing]
Steam: http://steamcommunity.com/id/tzyon
2011-07-28 05:15:29
Macbeth
Banned
+2,444|5577

The Norway attack is more like the Oklahoma City Bombing than 9/11. Comparing the response of 9/11 to this or Oklahoma is comparing apples to oranges.
2011-07-28 05:31:30
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5991|...
Not to mention that 9/11 was of a completely different scale, it's incomparable imo.
inane little opines
2011-07-28 06:08:31
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6802|Nårvei

Shocking wrote:

Not to mention that 9/11 was of a completely different scale, it's incomparable imo.
I partially agree ... it was a sidestep answer to a sidestep comment from lowing.

And now he even have acheived to bring WW2 into the discussion (with an obvious lack of knowledge by the looks of it) ... gg lowing
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-07-28 06:15:42
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6802|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

What the US did, was take the fight off of American soil and put it in the ME where the terrorists originated.
What the US did was presenting its soldiers as a giant smorgasbord on the other side of the world, just like AQ wanted them to do ... why go to the enemy when you can get the enemy to come to you ...

lowing wrote:

Many attacks have been thwarted because of anti-terrorist incentives both in Europe and the US.
And what attacks are that? ... and how do you know those attacks couldn't have been thwarted without intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Just think about for a little while lowing, you played right into their hands, sure you've killed heaps of terrorists and made them martyrs that again have helped the recruiting process ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-07-28 06:18:59
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6643|USA

Varegg wrote:

Shocking wrote:

Not to mention that 9/11 was of a completely different scale, it's incomparable imo.
I partially agree ... it was a sidestep answer to a sidestep comment from lowing.

And now he even have acheived to bring WW2 into the discussion (with an obvious lack of knowledge by the looks of it) ... gg lowing
Good god, Varegg, you were comparing your response to a single one time only domestic terror attack to the response of the US's 911 attack. I called you out on it. I did not side step shit.
2011-07-28 06:22:15
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6643|USA

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

What the US did, was take the fight off of American soil and put it in the ME where the terrorists originated.
What the US did was presenting its soldiers as a giant smorgasbord on the other side of the world, just like AQ wanted them to do ... why go to the enemy when you can get the enemy to come to you ...

lowing wrote:

Many attacks have been thwarted because of anti-terrorist incentives both in Europe and the US.
And what attacks are that? ... and how do you know those attacks couldn't have been thwarted without intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Just think about for a little while lowing, you played right into their hands, sure you've killed heaps of terrorists and made them martyrs that again have helped the recruiting process ...
Wow now I am supposed to prove attacks that never happened was a result of initiatives against terrorism? Sorry, I am pretty sure I can not prove that.

I also can not prove the clear coat on your car, helps your paint from oxidizing and fading, since cars with clear coat protection does not oxidize or fade.
2011-07-28 06:23:10
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5991|...
Going to Afgh was the right thing to do, Iraq wasn't about fighting terrorism.
inane little opines
2011-07-28 06:26:59
OrangeHound
Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...
+1,335|6641|Washington DC

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Many attacks have been thwarted because of anti-terrorist incentives both in Europe and the US.
And what attacks are that? ... and how do you know those attacks couldn't have been thwarted without intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Just think about for a little while lowing, you played right into their hands, sure you've killed heaps of terrorists and made them martyrs that again have helped the recruiting process ...
Most of the benefit has been in Iraq, simply because it had the effect of drawing a lot of terrorist-minded individuals into one place.  As a result, the US was able to capture leaders with both knowledge of terrorist tactics and terrorist plans.  This has aided anti-terrorist activities immensely.
2011-07-28 06:36:37
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5991|...
In Iraq you were fighting an insurgency, the actual external enemy has been in southern Afghanistan for 10 years.
inane little opines
2011-07-28 06:49:18
Hallvard
Member
+262|6514|North Norway

lowing wrote:

Not as many have lost their lives in 8 years on the war of terror than have lost their lives storming the beaches of Normandy in one day.
Oh yes, because an army of well trained soldiers using high tech bombs and drones and modern military power to slowly fight against not as well trained people armed with AKs and RPGs by most of the time just pushing a button, and a bunch of soldiers where most are fresh recruits storming a heavily fortified beach with no cover and no real armor or air support and the battle hardened enemy soldiers hiding in bunkers and spraying them down with machineguns and cannons are expected to have the same amount of casualties.
2011-07-28 06:52:18
OrangeHound
Busy doing highfalutin adminy stuff ...
+1,335|6641|Washington DC

Shocking wrote:

In Iraq you were fighting an insurgency, the actual external enemy has been in southern Afghanistan for 10 years.
Whatever you want to call it and wherever you want to declare a terrorist presence,  the reality of gathering intelligence in Iraq was of great benefit.
2011-07-28 06:53:57
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX

Shocking wrote:

In Iraq you were fighting an insurgency, the actual external enemy has been in southern Afghanistan Saudi Arabia and Pakistan for 10 years.
Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-28 06:54:18
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5251|foggy bottom
i really hate it when you have peices of shit talk about a casualty count in war like its a fucking video game.
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-28 06:55:52
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6643|USA

Hallvard wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not as many have lost their lives in 8 years on the war of terror than have lost their lives storming the beaches of Normandy in one day.
Oh yes, because an army of well trained soldiers using high tech bombs and drones and modern military power to slowly fight against not as well trained people armed with AKs and RPGs by most of the time just pushing a button, and a bunch of soldiers where most are fresh recruits storming a heavily fortified beach with no cover and no real armor or air support and the battle hardened enemy soldiers hiding in bunkers and spraying them down with machineguns and cannons are expected to have the same amount of casualties.
Well, my point was, although all loss of life is tragic, the numbers are greatly diminished from wars past. Not sure what your point is, but if you are looking for an apology for having the technology to reduce the loss of American lives in this war, you are not going to get one.
2011-07-28 06:56:59
eleven bravo
Member
+1,399|5251|foggy bottom

lowing wrote:

Hallvard wrote:

lowing wrote:

Not as many have lost their lives in 8 years on the war of terror than have lost their lives storming the beaches of Normandy in one day.
Oh yes, because an army of well trained soldiers using high tech bombs and drones and modern military power to slowly fight against not as well trained people armed with AKs and RPGs by most of the time just pushing a button, and a bunch of soldiers where most are fresh recruits storming a heavily fortified beach with no cover and no real armor or air support and the battle hardened enemy soldiers hiding in bunkers and spraying them down with machineguns and cannons are expected to have the same amount of casualties.
Well, my point was, although all loss of life is tragic, the numbers are greatly diminished from wars past. Not sure what your point is, but if you are looking for an apology for having the technology to reduce the loss of American lives in this war, you are not going to get one.
said like a true bystander
Tu Stultus Es
2011-07-28 06:58:03
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5991|...

OrangeHound wrote:

Shocking wrote:

In Iraq you were fighting an insurgency, the actual external enemy has been in southern Afghanistan for 10 years.
Whatever you want to call it and wherever you want to declare a terrorist presence,  the reality of gathering intelligence in Iraq was of great benefit.
I'm sure it's been of help in devising tactics to deal with such enemies, but was it actually of benefit to the security of the US? Saddam and the Iraqis weren't the enemies you went after in response to 9/11, and as far as I know noone in Iraq was planning a similar attack.

Last edited by Shocking (2011-07-28 06:58:24)

inane little opines
2011-07-28 06:59:06
Dilbert_X
The X stands for
+1,810|6098|eXtreme to the maX

lowing wrote:

Well, my point was, although all loss of life is tragic, the numbers are greatly diminished from wars past. Not sure what your point is, but if you are looking for an apology for having the technology to reduce the loss of American lives in this war, you are not going to get one.
Looking for an apology for sending troops off to a pointless quagmire really, when airline security and proper intelligence work would have worked better, been cheaper and not involved any deaths of servicemen or civilians of an unconnected country.

Back on topic:

Who can Norway declare war on over this?
How about Korea?

Last edited by Dilbert_X (2011-07-28 07:00:05)

Русский военный корабль, иди на хуй!
2011-07-28 07:03:10
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6643|USA

Dilbert_X wrote:

lowing wrote:

Well, my point was, although all loss of life is tragic, the numbers are greatly diminished from wars past. Not sure what your point is, but if you are looking for an apology for having the technology to reduce the loss of American lives in this war, you are not going to get one.
Looking for an apology for sending troops off to a pointless quagmire really, when airline security and proper intelligence work would have worked better, been cheaper and not involved any deaths of servicemen or civilians of an unconnected country.

Back on topic:

Who can Norway declare war on over this?
How about Korea?
Well Dilbert, it has already been pointed out the benefits from this "pointless war", your opinion on that is just that your opinion.

No one, i mean I guess there are a few of you that insist this was a right wing christian attack but hey whatever.

The US didn't declare war on anyone after our domestic attack, and the Norway attack appears to be an exactly the same type of attack. It was not a 911 so stop trying to compare it as such
2011-07-28 07:06:41
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6802|Nårvei

OrangeHound wrote:

Varegg wrote:

lowing wrote:

Many attacks have been thwarted because of anti-terrorist incentives both in Europe and the US.
And what attacks are that? ... and how do you know those attacks couldn't have been thwarted without intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Just think about for a little while lowing, you played right into their hands, sure you've killed heaps of terrorists and made them martyrs that again have helped the recruiting process ...
Most of the benefit has been in Iraq, simply because it had the effect of drawing a lot of terrorist-minded individuals into one place.  As a result, the US was able to capture leaders with both knowledge of terrorist tactics and terrorist plans.  This has aided anti-terrorist activities immensely.
lowing was implying that attacks was thwarted and I asked what attacks, that theoretical attacks was thwarted is not a valid responce ... that there have been benefits I never doubted, what I question is if those benefits have been greater than the downsides ...

Today we have a clear front between the west and Islam and that is a clear downside non of the obvious benefits outweight ...

lowing wrote:

It was not a 911 so stop trying to compare it as such
Nobody have compared the action in Norway to 911 ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2011-07-28 07:11:00
Shocking
sorry you feel that way
+333|5991|...
If you're saying that you can't know the benefits how can you question wether the benefits outweighed the downsides? The wars aren't even over yet so I would argue it's a bit hard to figure "if it was worth it" at present. That the US & other NATO members did the right thing by going there is unquestionable, the question is did they do enough whilst there?
inane little opines
2011-07-28 07:16:04
lowing
Banned
+1,662|6643|USA

Varegg wrote:

OrangeHound wrote:

Varegg wrote:


And what attacks are that? ... and how do you know those attacks couldn't have been thwarted without intervention in Afghanistan and Iraq?

Just think about for a little while lowing, you played right into their hands, sure you've killed heaps of terrorists and made them martyrs that again have helped the recruiting process ...
Most of the benefit has been in Iraq, simply because it had the effect of drawing a lot of terrorist-minded individuals into one place.  As a result, the US was able to capture leaders with both knowledge of terrorist tactics and terrorist plans.  This has aided anti-terrorist activities immensely.
lowing was implying that attacks was thwarted and I asked what attacks, that theoretical attacks was thwarted is not a valid responce ... that there have been benefits I never doubted, what I question is if those benefits have been greater than the downsides ...

Today we have a clear front between the west and Islam and that is a clear downside non of the obvious benefits outweight ...

lowing wrote:

It was not a 911 so stop trying to compare it as such
Nobody have compared the action in Norway to 911 ...
Varegg, do some googling, plenty of examples world wide where terrorists plots have been uncovered and stopped. Attacks that probably would have taken place if not for the initiatives set out to gather information to stop them. You denying it, does not change that.


You made a DIRECT comparison to the response of the Norway attack to that of the 911 attack so please give me a break.
2011-07-28 07:18:45
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|6802|Nårvei

lowing wrote:

You made a DIRECT comparison to the response of the Norway attack to that of the 911 attack so please give me a break.
No I didn't ... if you read my post further up I said nothing like that at all, either your reading or comprehension is failing you ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................

 

Pages: 1 … 31 32 33 34 35 … 47

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2024 Jeff Minard