Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Exactly. By the definitions employed here, everyone in the Twin Towers was nothing more than "collateral damage" - they weren't the main aim of the 9/11 attacks, the economy was; the people just happened to be in the wrong place at the wrong time, which is their own fault, because they should have known they were consorting with people who had enemies.

---

So that is why they did in on a weekend to limit casualties....oh wait.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians. And the validity of your reasons for fighting in the middle east and being okay with predator drone strikes in retaliation for American civilian deaths on 9-11 evaporated the moment you decided you were okay with muslim civilian deaths as "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses."

In short:

trololol

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians. And the validity of your reasons for fighting in the middle east and being okay with predator drone strikes in retaliation for American civilian deaths on 9-11 evaporated the moment you decided you were okay with muslim civilian deaths as "collateral damage" and "acceptable losses."

In short:

trololol

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians.

In short:

lol

---

Yes, because Al Qaeda loves all those muslim civilians. They would never kill an of them in terrorist attaks, right?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Congrats on putting yourself on the same level as Al Qaeda. Nicely done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:The fact is, you care less about muslim civilians than Al Qaeda terrorists care about American civilians.

In short:

lol

---

Yes, because Al Qaeda loves all those muslim civilians. They would never kill an of them in terrorist attaks, right?

---

Congrats on putting yourself on the same level as Al Qaeda. Nicely done.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Their actions constitute terrorism, our actions constitute terrorism, any military/militia based action that kills civilians and fosters fear in the local population is terrorism.

Using the same justifications as terrorists for said killing really does your PR no favours.

---

Quote:

---

American Citizens Split On DOJ Memo Authorizing Government To Kill Them

WASHINGTON — Following the release of a secret Department of Justice memo this week that outlines the administration’s legal justification for killing U.S. citizens, a new Pew Research Center poll has revealed that a majority of Americans are torn over whether they support the government’s right to kill them anywhere at any time without due process.

“On the one hand, I get it—it’s important for the government to be able to murder me and any of my friends or family members whenever they please for reputed national security reasons. But on the other hand, it would kind of be nice to stay alive and have, maybe, a trial, actual evidence—stuff like that,” said visibly conflicted 39-year-old Nashua, NH resident Rebecca Sawyer, who, like millions of other Americans, is split over whether secret federal agents should be allowed to target and assassinate her anywhere on U.S. soil.

“I wouldn’t mind if federal officials blew up other citizens and claimed it was in the name of my safety. But it’s just that when it comes to me, I guess I’d rather not be slaughtered by my own elected officials on charges that never have to be validated by any accountable authority. This is tough.”

While most Americans expressed conflicted feelings regarding the memo, the poll also found that 28 percent of citizens were unequivocally in favor of being obliterated at any point, for any reason, in a massive airstrike.

---

Quote:

---

Blowing up a coffee shop in a suicide attack is a terrorist act. Blowing up a house with rebel fighters is a military strike. There are differences but if you want to call them both terrorist acts fine.

---

Quote:

---

Common definitions of terrorism refer only to those violent acts which are intended to create fear (terror); are perpetrated for a religious, political or, ideological goal; and deliberately target or disregard the safety of non-combatants (civilians).

---

Quote:

---

The word "terrorism" is politically and emotionally charged,[5] and this greatly compounds the difficulty of providing a precise definition. Studies have found over 100 definitions of “terrorism”.[6][7] The concept of terrorism may be controversial as it is often used by state authorities (and individuals with access to state support) to delegitimize political or other opponents,[8] and potentially legitimize the state's own use of armed force against opponents (such use of force may be described as "terror" by opponents of the state).

---

Quote:

---

"Terrorism" comes from the French word terrorisme,[12] and originally referred specifically to state terrorism as practiced by the French government during the Reign of terror.

---

Quote:

---

There is neither an academic nor an international legal consensus regarding the proper definition of the word "terrorism".[6][7] Many scholars believe that the actions of governments can be labeled "terrorism"; however others, including governments, international organizations, private institutions and scholars, believe that the term is only applicable to the actions of non-state actors. Historically, the term terrorism was used to refer to actions taken by governments against their citizens whereas now it is more often perceived as targeting of civilians as part of a strategy directed against governments.[8] Historian Henry Commager wrote that "Even when definitions of terrorism allow for state terrorism, state actions in this area tend to be seen through the prism of war or national self-defense, not terror.”[9] While states may accuse other states of state-sponsored terrorism when they support insurgencies, individuals who accuse their governments of terrorism are seen as radicals, because actions by legitimate governments are not generally seen as illegitimate. Academic writing tends to follow the definitions accepted by states.

---

Quote:

---

Rogue state is a controversial term applied by some international theorists to states they consider threatening to the world's peace. This means meeting certain criteria, such as being ruled by authoritarian regimes that severely restrict human rights, sponsor terrorism, and seek to proliferate weapons of mass destruction.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by 1kiki:
"They are killing American civilians ..."

Without constitutionally guaranteed due process.

"... who are overseas and helping terrorist organizations."

Who they CLAIM are helping terrorist organizations.

---

Quote:

---

"That is a far cry from killing militant groups inside the US as Kwicko described."

AFAIK drones are approved for use in border security and surveillance within the US. Militant groups have historically had armed army/ FBI operations mounted against them. It doesn't take a leap of the imagination to see the logical next step.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by RionaEire:
You have only been posting regularly just lately (I suspect you have posted frequently at other times in your life though). New people are fun. Time will tell if I would like the United States of Rouka. :)

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
I think I'm damaging your calm. TERRORISM!

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Interesting, so whether or not there are civilians hit doesn't really matter to you. We hit military targets, so it's legitimate. Like how they targetted the Pentagon and white house on 9-11.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:"Collateral damage" you say? So... I guess disregarding the safety of civilians is permissible in the pursuit of an ideological GOAL, is it? Such as a War on Terrorism, perhaps?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Kind of a double standard, considering how state terrorism was the original definition. Now it's all legitimate I suppose. Anything goes so long as you're a recognized state and a member of the UN, and so long as it's directed against non-member states. Hey, think maybe that's why Iran wanted in the club?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Civilians as collateral damage, jokes about target rich environments by soldiers... Tell me, Nick, do you think there is broad scale dehumanization in military forces? Do you think that some Americans hold the same dehumanizing attitudes about violence in the middle east? Do you believe that if the US acts in violation of International Rule of Law that it agreed to and even helped implement, that the US has been acting illegitimately, perhaps... Roguishly, in according to definitions that the US invented about rogue states?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Hmm! Which still-functioning state in the world has killed the most foreign citizens since the term rogue state was defined in the 1980s? Which country has the most nukes? Which country has the most involvement in proxy wars fought through insurgency fighters? Which country has such incredibly dysfunctional and irresponsible infighting that its leadership rarely if ever acts in the interests of its population and that infighting directly threatens the state of the global economy?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Then there's indefinite detainment, acknowledged torture, unwarranted surveillance, search, and seizure, brutality that doesn't differentiate between protesters and low-level terrorism. And targeted assassinations via predator drones of foreign targets that also kill civilians and rile their local population against us, thus recruiting more terrorists. All in the name of fighting terrorism. Wow! Don't you feel SAFE?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:And here's something really lol-worthy: even the TALIBAN wouldn't put naked body scanners in airports.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's not even a leap. It's more like a small shuffle-step to the right.

---

Quote:

---

Of course it is hard to get a stable country and get people out of poverty when you have Radical Islamist groups trying to take over part of countries.

---

Quote:

---

...but hey giver them a nice shiny party and everything will be all right!

---

Quote:

---

No, they just take women who commit adultery out and shoot them. Or throw acid in the faces of girls just trying to go to school.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:

And don't pretend to care about the girls or the women in the middle east either, they're collateral damage in your own words.

As far as I'm concerned, not only are you amoral with no thoughts beyond your own self-interest, you don't even stand for anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Hard to get a stable country... Where? Where we funnel the poor into our cannon fodder ranks and send them off to some desert hole completely unrelated to us because FUCK 'EM, they aren't rich and that's unamerican?

Or do you actually think that 9-11 is an ongoing thing and Muslim extremists are here now, trying to take over THIS country?

We'll pay a couple billion for the next jet or bomb but can't be bothered to spend an equivalent amount of money on schools or infrastructure? I'm sure spending more money on predator drones will fix that.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Strawman.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Appeal to worse problems. OUR government is violating rights HERE, you're just too arsed to care. So long as you're living in your comfortable little world, it doesn't matter to you what happens outside it.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:And don't pretend to care about the girls or the women in the middle east either, they're collateral damage in your own words.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:As far as I'm concerned, not only are you amoral with no thoughts beyond your own self-interest, you don't even stand for anything.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
Nick is one of those whose only real concern is how to justify the killing of more and more people. He doesn't care about the "why", nor about who dies, just as long as it justifies in his mind the U.S. spending ever more money to make more dead bodies.

And as he's said, he's not the least bit concerned about who dies here, either.

---

Quote:

---

No more than your I worse than the Taliban BS.

---

Quote:

---

If you think women don't have it better in Afghanistan now than when the Taliban was in control you have your head in your ass.

---

Quote:

---

I wonder in your infinite wisdom how you would deal with Islamist Extremist and groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.

How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.

If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.

How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.

If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...

---

The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
Only in the urban areas. In the outlying areas it's worse than ever, because now you have warlords and the taliban doing their business there. And they're regaining ground in the cities, because our military couldn't find a coherent strategy if it bit them on the nose.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:None the less, you've represented that your primary goal in going into Afghanistan was your security. You wanted to go into Afghanistan for your own interests. It wasn't about the women for you. It's not about the women now. You know it, I know it, and so this whole side argument is you trying to divert attention from what your confirmed stance is.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:To help the women of Afghanistan, I would have focused on humanitarian aid and support groups. To stabilize the middle east, I'd elevate the concerns of Gaza strip and Palestine up with Israel and stop playing favourites. The Taliban and Al Qaeda go all the way back to American and Russian involvement in Kashmir and the immediate aftermath, and historically the two groups haven't exactly been friends. We probably could have pitted them against each other - though considering our success rate over there that probably would've led to yet more political bungling.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:Frankly the only reason Al Qaeda and the Taliban are problems is because our foreign policy in the middle east has been terrible and exploitative since the 1960s, maybe even since WWI.

Besides, the best that Al Qaeda has managed towards the US since 9-11 has been an underwear bomber and a shoe box bomber that our amazingly secure post-9-11 changes in security didn't even catch. The guys managed to get on the planes and their bombs didn't even work. You expect me to believe these guys are a threat? Considering how competent these guys seem, I have to start to wonder if 9-11 wasn't just a fluke.

And that's without looking at the history of Al Qaeda and it's involvement with our own intelligence agencies during the Russian-Afghanistan war and asking some serious questions.

I think y'all are chasing spooks. Either literally or figuratively.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:What is this all about anyway? Revenge? Security? None of that justifies our wars over there, and we've really fueled self-perpetuating cycles with both of those agendas. if we just want to make the middle east a nicer more stable place (considering the results, I doubt it), there are much better ways to do that.

We do still have a lot of work to do in the middle east and a RESPONSIBILITY, because we have been a guiding hand in how backwards a lot of the middle east countries have become. But that work shouldn't be war. Humanitarian aid and focusing on helping the women in the middle east will change the culture against theocratic groups like the Taliban far more than occupation and bombs ever would. The middle east needs to figure itself out, and we can't force them to do that at gunpoint.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I realize that no matter what happens to the U.S. military, the world will never be full of unicorns farting rainbows. That seems to be a major difference between the two of us.

How would I deal with the Taliban or al-Qaeda? Start by talking with them. It's pretty clear bombing them isn't working. All that's done is destabilize the entire region and diminish our influence in the area.

If your main goal was to give Iran, Russia, India, and China far more influence in Central Asia, congrats. Mission Accomplished! If your goal was to get more Americans killed since 9/11 than died on that day, again, congrats. If your goal was the wholesale murder of hundreds of thousands of innocent civilians, you're doing a heckuva job. Gosh, I wonder why I don't trust your methods or your thinking...

---

The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They offered to capture Osama bin Laden and try him. Our answer was lol nope your Sharia Law is too fair and not brutal enough for what we want to do to him. Bombs!

The Taliban had pretty much nothing to do with 9-11. The goal was to attack Al Qaeda. It only became about the Taliban after we decided to join up with the Northern Alliance.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I see you were asleep at the switch then, too.

How long, exactly, has your head been up your ass?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAC52

Quote:

---

The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.

---

Every few decades, another enemy to be destroyed. Japs, commies, drug runners, faggots, muslims, "terrorists".... How often do you have to keep pushing the military button before you realize that it doesn't work? All you get by killing innocents (and sometimes even not so innocents) is blowback. The real enemies are ignorance and injustice, and you don't beat those by being as bad as the force you claim to want to eliminate.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
I see you were asleep at the switch then, too.

How long, exactly, has your head been up your ass?

---

Rappy are you going to make an argument or...oh Kwicko I got you confused for a minute.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:
MAC52

Quote:

---

The goal was to remove the Taliban from power and to dismantle Al-Qaeda. The Taliban had a chance to turn over Al-Qaeda leaders after 911. Had they done that it would have been a whole different story.

---

Every few decades, another enemy to be destroyed. Japs, commies, drug runners, faggots, muslims, "terrorists".... How often do you have to keep pushing the military button before you realize that it doesn't work? All you get by killing innocents (and sometimes even not so innocents) is blowback. The real enemies are ignorance and injustice, and you don't beat those by being as bad as the force you claim to want to eliminate.

---

Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're being kept ignorant by force? How's that working out for you?

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by BYTEMITE:
They offered to capture Osama bin Laden and try him. Our answer was lol nope your Sharia Law is too fair and not brutal enough for what we want to do to him. Bombs!

The Taliban had pretty much nothing to do with 9-11. The goal was to attack Al Qaeda. It only became about the Taliban after we decided to join up with the Northern Alliance.

---

The Taliban gave Al Qaeda a safe haven. No one took the Taliban's offer seriously because these are the same type of radicals think it is okay to kill non-Muslims.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
You're being kept ignorant by force? How's that working out for you?

---

Your getting as bad as Rappy. That is why it is so easy to confuse the two of you.

You could try some type of argument but that maybe beyond you at the moment.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by m52nickerson:

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Kwicko:
It's not even a leap. It's more like a small shuffle-step to the right.

---

Well, wake me when that happens.

I do not fear God, I fear the ignorance of man.

---

Quote:

---

It's official: The drone war has come home to America. Wanted fugitive Christopher Dorner, the homicidal former cop currently at war with the LAPD, has become the first known human target for airborne drones on U.S. soil. Their use was confirmed by Customs and Border Patrol spokesman Ralph DeSio, who revealed the government's fear that Dorner will make a dash for the Mexican border. The fugitive has already killed three people, according to police, and has a $1 million bounty on his head. Dorner, who has military training, is believed to be hiding in the wilderness of California's San Bernardino Mountains, where locating him without air support may be all but impossible.

---

Quote:

---

Originally posted by SIGNYM:

Quote:

---

Hard to fight ignorance and injustice when you have groups dedicated to keeping populations ignorant and under there control by force.

---

Hard to fight ignorance by bombing people.

How about starting by helping to build schools, wells, houses, and roads. How about staffing medical clinics? Once there is something worth defending, people will defend it.

---