Total Posts:47|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Can someone clear up what Osama did wrong?

Dagolas
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 10:52:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I'm serious here.

I'm not American or from the Holy Land so I'm unbiased.

So, let's get this straight: he was fighting a civil war, coolio, then America decided to help him, give his men military training and have him be specially trained by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?

Then, they invade a country he holds sacred, mistreat the people there, and then when he isn't happy he shoots them up. Then, he gets labelled a terrorist, gets hunted down and shot in his own home by a bunch of brutes.

Did I miss something misunderstand something, or did the US just pull another Hussein...?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:30:45 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 10:52:53 AM, Dagolas wrote:
I'm serious here.

I'm not American or from the Holy Land so I'm unbiased.

So, let's get this straight: he was fighting a civil war, coolio, then America decided to help him, give his men military training and have him be specially trained by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?

The enemy of my enemy is my friend, even if he is normally not my friend,
I dislike him less than the others.

Then, they invade a country he holds sacred, mistreat the people there,

If this is true - not sure what you mean by 'mistreats the people', I may not agree,- it was predictable, so he took the gifts, knowing there were strings attached, and knowing he would not like what followed the gifts. He took the gifts under false pretenses.
There was nothing surprising about U.S. action, that I can remember.

and then when he isn't happy he shoots them up.
I believe he knew this was going to happen, before he accepted the gifts.
He knew he would be using the weapons against his benefactors.

Then, he gets labelled a terrorist, gets hunted down and shot in his own home by a bunch of brutes.

Are you suggesting he was not a terrorist?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk...
Well this is what he wanted, martyrdom.
He got what he wanted on all counts.

Did I miss something misunderstand something, or did the US just pull another Hussein...?
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:32:44 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 10:52:53 AM, Dagolas wrote:
I'm serious here.

I'm not American or from the Holy Land so I'm unbiased.

So, let's get this straight: he was fighting a civil war, coolio, then America decided to help him, give his men military training and have him be specially trained by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?

No. I doubt that he was ever actually 'liked.' He was the lessor of two evils and he was selected / supported at that time because he was the lessor threat to U.S. interests.

Then, they invade a country he holds sacred, mistreat the people there, and then when he isn't happy he shoots them up.

"Bin Laden wanted US to invade Iraq, author says" - http://www.abc.net.au...

Then, he gets labelled a terrorist, gets hunted down and shot in his own home by a bunch of brutes.


LOL, So much for being unbiased.

Did I miss something misunderstand something, or did the US just pull another Hussein...?

These things happen when you keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. They either become a proven ally or they go for a power grab and have to be taken out.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Dagolas
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:43:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
I respect US Soldiers, but have you read some of the disgusting things the Navy SEALS (why send in navymen for land ops by the way?) have said? "I really just wanted to f-ing kill the f-ing dicksucking son of a b-tch"(SIC) and "everyone erupted into cheer when we learned what we were going to do.

It wasn't a silent but necessary murder, they were reveling in murder, in blood. Murder of a single man should do to humans what it did to Macbeth (if you're familiar with the play), not have a bunch of soldiers getting hard-ons at the prospect of ending people's lives (they also killed arguably innocent people during the raid "for being there". If they had only killed Ben Laden and people who tried to defend themselves sure, but you can't kill innocent people "for peace". That's also the main reason I'm against the A-bomb in 1945)
Double_R
Posts: 4,886
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:48:28 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 10:52:53 AM, Dagolas wrote:
I'm serious here.

I'm not American or from the Holy Land so I'm unbiased.

So, let's get this straight: he was fighting a civil war, coolio, then America decided to help him, give his men military training and have him be specially trained by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?

Then, they invade a country he holds sacred, mistreat the people there, and then when he isn't happy he shoots them up. Then, he gets labelled a terrorist, gets hunted down and shot in his own home by a bunch of brutes.

Did I miss something...

Clearly. If Osama was "defending" the country he holds sacred he would have mounted a defense aimed at attacking their military targets who were involved. He instead targeted innocent men woman and children who had nothing to do with it, and lead a massive effort for others to do the same. That's not defending his sacred country, its intentional slaughter.
Dagolas
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:50:53 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
Have the US not done this too? I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong (killing innocents), but I'm just saying that it's not exactly something they didn't do too. The latest example is the Israliean-Palestinian conflict, as far as I'm aware the US have been bombing Palestine, and not military zones but innocent people. Also in their bombings of the ISIS they've killed thousands of innocent people and probably just a few ISIS members.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:55:29 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 10:52:53 AM, Dagolas wrote:
I'm serious here.

He orchestrated the killings of tens of thousands of civilians.

I'm not American or from the Holy Land so I'm unbiased.

So, let's get this straight: he was fighting a civil war, coolio, then America decided to help him, give his men military training and have him be specially trained by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?

Then, they invade a country he holds sacred, mistreat the people there, and then when he isn't happy he shoots them up. Then, he gets labelled a terrorist, gets hunted down and shot in his own home by a bunch of brutes.

Did I miss something misunderstand something, or did the US just pull another Hussein...?
Dagolas
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:56:58 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
As has Israel, as has the US, as did the British Empire (Billions of deaths of indians in under a hundred years). Your point is?
Welfare-Worker
Posts: 1,157
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 11:57:39 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:50:53 AM, Dagolas wrote:
Have the US not done this too? I'm not saying what he did wasn't wrong (killing innocents), but I'm just saying that it's not exactly something they didn't do too. The latest example is the Israliean-Palestinian conflict, as far as I'm aware the US have been bombing Palestine, and not military zones but innocent people. Also in their bombings of the ISIS they've killed thousands of innocent people and probably just a few ISIS members.

Your credibility has now dropped below zero.
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:01:16 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:56:58 AM, Dagolas wrote:
As has Israel, as has the US, as did the British Empire (Billions of deaths of indians in under a hundred years). Your point is?

These things happen when you keep your friends close and your enemies even closer. They either become a proven ally or they go for a power grab and have to be taken out. Bin Laden made his choice and his choices were met with consequences.
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
Chuz-Life
Posts: 1,788
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:31:42 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:02:08 PM, Dagolas wrote:
So essentially "US is stronger so they're right"?

Who was claiming that?
"Sooner or later, the Supreme Court of the Unites States is going to have explain how a 'child in the womb' is a person enough to be recognized as a MURDER victim under our fetal homicide laws but how they are not persons enough to qualify for any other Constitutional protections" ~ Chuz Life

http://www.debate.org...
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 12:36:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:02:08 PM, Dagolas wrote:
So essentially "US is stronger so they're right"?

The US does not hide its military or fighting forces in civilian enclaves. The US does not use its military from behind civilian shields. The US does not specifically target solely civilians for attack, lest it would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty, but it has demonstrably worked.

"by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?" -- No. They don't.

" Also in their bombings of the ISIS they've killed thousands of innocent people and probably just a few ISIS members. " --- 'just a few'? Are you sure you aren't biased, in the least? Would you like to know why there is a civilan casualty?

The individuals in question specifically hide there, and specifically use the civilian populace as the tool de jour for accomplishing their -militaristic- goals.

While I disagree with the method employed, the Pentagon, and the USS Cole could easily be construed as a military target, however I can see no strategic value in the WTC, the London Tube stations, and randomly mailing bioagents. If that is the variety of campaign such a fighter would like to fight, then it would be incumbent upon the US to employ the same variety of tactic, correct?
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 2:05:26 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 12:36:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:02:08 PM, Dagolas wrote:
So essentially "US is stronger so they're right"?

The US does not hide its military or fighting forces in civilian enclaves. The US does not use its military from behind civilian shields.

Yes, the US does not hide its military operating in a foreign country behind its domestic population, which would a miraculous feat.

The US does not specifically target solely civilians for attack, lest it would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty, but it has demonstrably worked.

This is a funny paragraph, because you start off all proud about how they don't target civilians, and then you admit that they do, and then even say that it's okay. What point are you trying to make?


"by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?" -- No. They don't.

Correct. They used him, but he was a bit like Frankenstein's monster.

" Also in their bombings of the ISIS they've killed thousands of innocent people and probably just a few ISIS members. " --- 'just a few'? Are you sure you aren't biased, in the least? Would you like to know why there is a civilan casualty?

The individuals in question specifically hide there, and specifically use the civilian populace as the tool de jour for accomplishing their -militaristic- goals.

The alleged ambiguity between fighter and citizen is actually the relevant point here, because it means you can kill whoever you want. This 'human shield' delusion of your is pretty amusing... please do explain how anyone would consider this 'human shield' tactic effective when the US and its allies clearly has no problem turning everyone into chunks? Jihadists often complain that the US slaughters innocents. It seems doubtful that they'd then seek to rely upon this 'human shield' which does nothing to protect a Pakistani from a drone attack, and they seem to be very aware of that.

While I disagree with the method employed, the Pentagon, and the USS Cole could easily be construed as a military target, however I can see no strategic value in the WTC, the London Tube stations, and randomly mailing bioagents.

Good thing you didn't mention mailing bombs or you'd have mentioned a white, right-wing terrorist... Anyway, terrorists believe that by blowing such things up, their actions would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty...

If that is the variety of campaign such a fighter would like to fight, then it would be incumbent upon the US to employ the same variety of tactic, correct?

This principle just ends up justifying aggression against US citizens.
Dagolas
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 2:47:40 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
"the US to employ the same variety of tactic, correct?"

No!! That's why most sensible countries don't have the death penalty, or why we didn't start a holocaust of german people. If you start doing what others do, what makes you better than them?

Which means you just admitted the US are terrorists. Not a bad thing (Mandela, Gahndi) but still, they are.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 5:27:53 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 2:05:26 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:36:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:02:08 PM, Dagolas wrote:
So essentially "US is stronger so they're right"?

The US does not hide its military or fighting forces in civilian enclaves. The US does not use its military from behind civilian shields.

Yes, the US does not hide its military operating in a foreign country behind its domestic population, which would a miraculous feat.

Doesn't on its home turf, either. Forts, Camps, bases, all strung up with barb wire around them, and check points. I

The US does not specifically target solely civilians for attack, lest it would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty, but it has demonstrably worked.

This is a funny paragraph, because you start off all proud about how they don't target civilians, and then you admit that they do, and then even say that it's okay. What point are you trying to make?

Because the arms manufacturing plants generally don't have service folk working in them. Halting the enemy's ability to make arms and armaments stops a war just as fast and with less casualties than an actual battle.



"by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?" -- No. They don't.

Correct. They used him, but he was a bit like Frankenstein's monster.

" Also in their bombings of the ISIS they've killed thousands of innocent people and probably just a few ISIS members. " --- 'just a few'? Are you sure you aren't biased, in the least? Would you like to know why there is a civilian casualty?

The individuals in question specifically hide there, and specifically use the civilian populace as the tool de jour for accomplishing their -militaristic- goals.

The alleged ambiguity between fighter and citizen is actually the relevant point here, because it means you can kill whoever you want. This 'human shield' delusion of your is pretty amusing... please do explain how anyone would consider this 'human shield' tactic effective when the US and its allies clearly has no problem turning everyone into chunks?

And the fact that you think that is what has been going on is just as delusional. Were that the goal, 'turn everyone into chunks', they wouldn't hide in civilian populations, would they? Do you honestly believe drone strikes are indiscriminate?

Jihadists often complain that the US slaughters innocents. It seems doubtful that they'd then seek to rely upon this 'human shield' which does nothing to protect a Pakistani from a drone attack, and they seem to be very aware of that.

So a Jihadist honestly thinks the target strike in one location is the most destructive killing the American war machine can generate? I find it interesting that you are taking the targeted Jihadist's point of view on that one. Its almost like he has no clue as to what actually might could fall from the sky, or capacity of carnage that COULD be released, should his principles be applied to the armed forces.


While I disagree with the method employed, the Pentagon, and the USS Cole could easily be construed as a military target, however I can see no strategic value in the WTC, the London Tube stations, and randomly mailing bioagents.

Good thing you didn't mention mailing bombs or you'd have mentioned a white, right-wing terrorist... Anyway, terrorists believe that by blowing such things up, their actions would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty...

Oh? What strategic importance to the American warmachine was the WTC, as opposed to the Pentagon, Norfolk, NORAD, munitions plants, etc etc? How was the American Military crippled by that? They can -believe- what they want, that is sort of what makes them terrorists. The WTC attack was no more strategic in its belief or practice than robbing an ATM is a crippling blow to a bank.

If that is the variety of campaign such a fighter would like to fight, then it would be incumbent upon the US to employ the same variety of tactic, correct?

This principle just ends up justifying aggression against US citizens.

That can be manufactured just as easily as it to earn.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 5:44:21 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 11:43:58 AM, Dagolas wrote:
I respect US Soldiers, but have you read some of the disgusting things the Navy SEALS (why send in navymen for land ops by the way?) have said? "I really just wanted to f-ing kill the f-ing dicksucking son of a b-tch"(SIC) and "everyone erupted into cheer when we learned what we were going to do.
The NAVY SEALS are the most elite soldiers America has. That's why. And I'd be just as happy to have had the chance to tourture him. Not out of patriatism, but because he surrendered his right to live by killing civilians.

Personally, I feel Arabia and Palestine should have also been punished for their involvement with that pig.
It wasn't a silent but necessary murder, they were reveling in murder, in blood. Murder of a single man should do to humans what it did to Macbeth (if you're familiar with the play), not have a bunch of soldiers getting hard-ons at the prospect of ending people's lives (they also killed arguably innocent people during the raid "for being there". If they had only killed Ben Laden and people who tried to defend themselves sure, but you can't kill innocent people "for peace". That's also the main reason I'm against the A-bomb in 1945)
I'd be willing to debate the neccesity of the bombs.
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
1harderthanyouthink
Posts: 13,098
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 5:59:57 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
He was the founder of a group that carried out 6 major terrorist attacks between 1998 and 2003, along with a failed plot to kill Bill Clinton in 1996 in Manila.
"It's awfully considerate of you to think of me here,
And I'm much obliged to you for making it clear - that I'm not here."

-Syd Barrett

DDO Risk King
ford_prefect
Posts: 4,138
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 6:23:31 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 5:44:21 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:43:58 AM, Dagolas wrote:
I respect US Soldiers, but have you read some of the disgusting things the Navy SEALS (why send in navymen for land ops by the way?) have said? "I really just wanted to f-ing kill the f-ing dicksucking son of a b-tch"(SIC) and "everyone erupted into cheer when we learned what we were going to do.
The NAVY SEALS are the most elite soldiers America has. That's why. And I'd be just as happy to have had the chance to tourture him. Not out of patriatism, but because he surrendered his right to live by killing civilians.

Personally, I feel Arabia and Palestine should have also been punished for their involvement with that pig.
It wasn't a silent but necessary murder, they were reveling in murder, in blood. Murder of a single man should do to humans what it did to Macbeth (if you're familiar with the play), not have a bunch of soldiers getting hard-ons at the prospect of ending people's lives (they also killed arguably innocent people during the raid "for being there". If they had only killed Ben Laden and people who tried to defend themselves sure, but you can't kill innocent people "for peace". That's also the main reason I'm against the A-bomb in 1945)
I'd be willing to debate the neccesity of the bombs.

So I hope for consistencys sake you'd be just as eager to torture Truman and the pieces of excrement who crewed the Enola Gay? Because they also surrendered their right to live by killing civilians? Doesn't sound like it though
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 6:30:28 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 5:27:53 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/15/2015 2:05:26 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:36:31 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
At 2/15/2015 12:02:08 PM, Dagolas wrote:
So essentially "US is stronger so they're right"?

The US does not hide its military or fighting forces in civilian enclaves. The US does not use its military from behind civilian shields.

Yes, the US does not hide its military operating in a foreign country behind its domestic population, which would a miraculous feat.

Doesn't on its home turf, either. Forts, Camps, bases, all strung up with barb wire around them, and check points. I

Yes, and if the US was ever invaded by a mysterious foreign power with a vast advantage in terms of fire power, I'm sure you guys would continue to honourably insist on assembling your military forces in convenient locations to blow up.

The US does not specifically target solely civilians for attack, lest it would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty, but it has demonstrably worked.

This is a funny paragraph, because you start off all proud about how they don't target civilians, and then you admit that they do, and then even say that it's okay. What point are you trying to make?

Because the arms manufacturing plants generally don't have service folk working in them. Halting the enemy's ability to make arms and armaments stops a war just as fast and with less casualties than an actual battle.

You're saying America never targets civilians to lower morale?



"by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?" -- No. They don't.

Correct. They used him, but he was a bit like Frankenstein's monster.

" Also in their bombings of the ISIS they've killed thousands of innocent people and probably just a few ISIS members. " --- 'just a few'? Are you sure you aren't biased, in the least? Would you like to know why there is a civilian casualty?

The individuals in question specifically hide there, and specifically use the civilian populace as the tool de jour for accomplishing their -militaristic- goals.

The alleged ambiguity between fighter and citizen is actually the relevant point here, because it means you can kill whoever you want. This 'human shield' delusion of your is pretty amusing... please do explain how anyone would consider this 'human shield' tactic effective when the US and its allies clearly has no problem turning everyone into chunks?

And the fact that you think that is what has been going on is just as delusional. Were that the goal, 'turn everyone into chunks', they wouldn't hide in civilian populations, would they? Do you honestly believe drone strikes are indiscriminate?

But that is what you acknowledge that America does when confronted with ambiguity between civilian and combatant, so no, you do not think that people would attempt to use human shields as a strategy. What did Kissinger say about... I think it was Cambodia? 'Everything that flies on everything that moves'. It's hardly a delusion when supported by a direct quote from a top official. I don't know what 'indiscriminate' would entail, but I see no reason to think that the US refrains from killing civilians with drone strikes.

Jihadists often complain that the US slaughters innocents. It seems doubtful that they'd then seek to rely upon this 'human shield' which does nothing to protect a Pakistani from a drone attack, and they seem to be very aware of that.

So a Jihadist honestly thinks the target strike in one location is the most destructive killing the American war machine can generate? I find it interesting that you are taking the targeted Jihadist's point of view on that one. Its almost like he has no clue as to what actually might could fall from the sky, or capacity of carnage that COULD be released, should his principles be applied to the armed forces.

What are you saying? America could just kill everyone? Well yes, that's what thousands of nuclear missiles are for. I'm saying that it's incredibly obvious to anyone, particularly one of America's enemies, that hiding around civilians isn't going to prevent you from being blown up.




While I disagree with the method employed, the Pentagon, and the USS Cole could easily be construed as a military target, however I can see no strategic value in the WTC, the London Tube stations, and randomly mailing bioagents.

Good thing you didn't mention mailing bombs or you'd have mentioned a white, right-wing terrorist... Anyway, terrorists believe that by blowing such things up, their actions would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty...

Oh? What strategic importance to the American warmachine was the WTC, as opposed to the Pentagon, Norfolk, NORAD, munitions plants, etc etc? How was the American Military crippled by that? They can -believe- what they want, that is sort of what makes them terrorists. The WTC attack was no more strategic in its belief or practice than robbing an ATM is a crippling blow to a bank.

Presumably they meant to make the point that if you continue doing whatever it is you are doing in the Middle East, you will be attacked, which I presume was meant to discourage continued action in the Middle East, which would entail stopping a conflict. Of course, they made the mistake of thinking that the American government places more importance on the lives of its citizens than it does its global hegemony. Clearly they could never cause damage of any importance to the largest military in the world, but that was not their intention. You say kill all the civilians you like to cripple a military - I imagine it would be quite crippling to the war effort if your politicians command you to withdraw.


If that is the variety of campaign such a fighter would like to fight, then it would be incumbent upon the US to employ the same variety of tactic, correct?

This principle just ends up justifying aggression against US citizens.

That can be manufactured just as easily as it to earn.

What? You stated that you can use tactics just as deplored as what your enemy is using, which in practice means you can do whatever you want.
YamaVonKarma
Posts: 7,570
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 6:30:54 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 6:23:31 PM, ford_prefect wrote:
At 2/15/2015 5:44:21 PM, YamaVonKarma wrote:
At 2/15/2015 11:43:58 AM, Dagolas wrote:
I respect US Soldiers, but have you read some of the disgusting things the Navy SEALS (why send in navymen for land ops by the way?) have said? "I really just wanted to f-ing kill the f-ing dicksucking son of a b-tch"(SIC) and "everyone erupted into cheer when we learned what we were going to do.
The NAVY SEALS are the most elite soldiers America has. That's why. And I'd be just as happy to have had the chance to tourture him. Not out of patriatism, but because he surrendered his right to live by killing civilians.

Personally, I feel Arabia and Palestine should have also been punished for their involvement with that pig.
It wasn't a silent but necessary murder, they were reveling in murder, in blood. Murder of a single man should do to humans what it did to Macbeth (if you're familiar with the play), not have a bunch of soldiers getting hard-ons at the prospect of ending people's lives (they also killed arguably innocent people during the raid "for being there". If they had only killed Ben Laden and people who tried to defend themselves sure, but you can't kill innocent people "for peace". That's also the main reason I'm against the A-bomb in 1945)
I'd be willing to debate the neccesity of the bombs.

So I hope for consistencys sake you'd be just as eager to torture Truman and the pieces of excrement who crewed the Enola Gay? Because they also surrendered their right to live by killing civilians? Doesn't sound like it though

I am.
Even for myself should I ever be called to take a life.
Karma is cruel... is it not?
People who I've called as mafia DP1:
TUF, and YYW
16kadams
Posts: 10,497
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/15/2015 8:43:49 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You know he attacked us before we invaded, lol.
https://www.youtube.com...
https://rekonomics.wordpress.com...
"A trend is a trend, but the question is, will it bend? Will it alter its course through some unforeseen force and come to a premature end?" -- Alec Cairncross
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 1:09:47 AM
Posted: 1 year ago

The US does not hide its military or fighting forces in civilian enclaves. The US does not use its military from behind civilian shields.

Yes, the US does not hide its military operating in a foreign country behind its domestic population, which would a miraculous feat.

Doesn't on its home turf, either. Forts, Camps, bases, all strung up with barb wire around them, and check points. I

Yes, and if the US was ever invaded by a mysterious foreign power with a vast advantage in terms of fire power, I'm sure you guys would continue to honourably insist on assembling your military forces in convenient locations to blow up.

Were would you plan on repairing, rearming, taking off and landing planes, tanks and other hardware from? Autozone? How many destroyers and frigates do you think can be sheltered at public marinas?

The US does not specifically target solely civilians for attack, lest it would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty, but it has demonstrably worked.

This is a funny paragraph, because you start off all proud about how they don't target civilians, and then you admit that they do, and then even say that it's okay. What point are you trying to make?

Because the arms manufacturing plants generally don't have service folk working in them. Halting the enemy's ability to make arms and armaments stops a war just as fast and with less casualties than an actual battle.

You're saying America never targets civilians to lower morale?

Not as a primary means of waging war, and 'demoralization' usually sets in anyways when air power is uncontested. Unless you consider unprovoked acts through plane hijacking to use as missiles to fly into metropolitan areas as a 'warning' to be a militaristic en devour.



"by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?" -- No. They don't.

Correct. They used him, but he was a bit like Frankenstein's monster.

" Also in their bombings of the ISIS they've killed thousands of innocent people and probably just a few ISIS members. " --- 'just a few'? Are you sure you aren't biased, in the least? Would you like to know why there is a civilian casualty?

The individuals in question specifically hide there, and specifically use the civilian populace as the tool de jour for accomplishing their -militaristic- goals.

The alleged ambiguity between fighter and citizen is actually the relevant point here, because it means you can kill whoever you want. This 'human shield' delusion of your is pretty amusing... please do explain how anyone would consider this 'human shield' tactic effective when the US and its allies clearly has no problem turning everyone into chunks?

And the fact that you think that is what has been going on is just as delusional. Were that the goal, 'turn everyone into chunks', they wouldn't hide in civilian populations, would they? Do you honestly believe drone strikes are indiscriminate?

But that is what you acknowledge that America does when confronted with ambiguity between civilian and combatant, so no, you do not think that people would attempt to use human shields as a strategy.

Its not indiscriminate. You are insisting one particular civilian patch is just as good as another. Clearly, that isn't the case.


Jihadists often complain that the US slaughters innocents. It seems doubtful that they'd then seek to rely upon this 'human shield' which does nothing to protect a Pakistani from a drone attack, and they seem to be very aware of that.

So a Jihadist honestly thinks the target strike in one location is the most destructive killing the American war machine can generate? I find it interesting that you are taking the targeted Jihadist's point of view on that one. Its almost like he has no clue as to what actually might could fall from the sky, or capacity of carnage that COULD be released, should his principles be applied to the armed forces.

What are you saying? America could just kill everyone? Well yes, that's what thousands of nuclear missiles are for. I'm saying that it's incredibly obvious to anyone, particularly one of America's enemies, that hiding around civilians isn't going to prevent you from being blown up.

So, since you seem to know, then, where do specifically JUST the Jihadists congregate, then?




While I disagree with the method employed, the Pentagon, and the USS Cole could easily be construed as a military target, however I can see no strategic value in the WTC, the London Tube stations, and randomly mailing bioagents.

Good thing you didn't mention mailing bombs or you'd have mentioned a white, right-wing terrorist... Anyway, terrorists believe that by blowing such things up, their actions would serve a signifigant purpose to dismantle a war machine and thus end the conflict faster. Admittedly, that part is not pretty...

Oh? What strategic importance to the American warmachine was the WTC, as opposed to the Pentagon, Norfolk, NORAD, munitions plants, etc etc? How was the American Military crippled by that? They can -believe- what they want, that is sort of what makes them terrorists. The WTC attack was no more strategic in its belief or practice than robbing an ATM is a crippling blow to a bank.

Presumably they meant to make the point that if you continue doing whatever it is you are doing in the Middle East, you will be attacked, which I presume was meant to discourage continued action in the Middle East, which would entail stopping a conflict. Of course, they made the mistake of thinking that the American government places more importance on the lives of its citizens than it does its global hegemony. Clearly they could never cause damage of any importance to the largest military in the world, but that was not their intention. You say kill all the civilians you like to cripple a military - I imagine it would be quite crippling to the war effort if your politicians command you to withdraw.

"doing whatever it is you are doing". How specific. The last time we were in the mid East we restored Kuwait's sovereignty while stopping Hussein from using WMDs on the Kurds, and the Ethnic cleansing near Kosovo. Tomato, tomahto, I guess.


If that is the variety of campaign such a fighter would like to fight, then it would be incumbent upon the US to employ the same variety of tactic, correct?

This principle just ends up justifying aggression against US citizens.

That can be manufactured just as easily as it to earn.

What? You stated that you can use tactics just as deplored as what your enemy is using, which in practice means you can do whatever you want.

So then the Jihadists are doing whatever they want. But American isn't supposed. Because it will make the Jihadists angry. And the people the (don't) hide behind angry. Hm.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
wrichcirw
Posts: 11,196
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:52:19 AM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/15/2015 10:52:53 AM, Dagolas wrote:
I'm serious here.

I'm not American or from the Holy Land so I'm unbiased.

So, let's get this straight: he was fighting a civil war, coolio, then America decided to help him, give his men military training and have him be specially trained by the CIA. Right. So they like him, no?

Then, they invade a country he holds sacred, mistreat the people there, and then when he isn't happy he shoots them up. Then, he gets labelled a terrorist, gets hunted down and shot in his own home by a bunch of brutes.

Did I miss something misunderstand something, or did the US just pull another Hussein...?

If you're serious here, then perhaps you can describe exactly which events you're talking about.

It sounds like what you're saying is that, according to you, America helped mujaheddin fighters in Afghanistan in the 80s thereby helping bin Laden out. Then the US invaded Iraq in the 1st Gulf War. According to you, that war was waged on "sacred land" where we "mistreated" Iraqis, which then led bin Laden to become vindictive, which manifested in 9/11. Then, you seem to think that our subsequent manhunt of bin Laden is reminiscent of what Saddam Hussein did.

Assuming the above is an adequate paraphrasing of whatever it is you've intended to say:

1) What constituted violating sacred land was a US troop presence in Saudi Arabia...that is what pissed bin Laden off. He didn't care much as to what was going on in Iraq.
2) How does our manhunt of bin Laden bear any similarity to anything Saddam did?
At 8/9/2013 9:41:24 AM, wrichcirw wrote:
If you are civil with me, I will be civil to you. If you decide to bring unreasonable animosity to bear in a reasonable discussion, then what would you expect other than to get flustered?
Dagolas
Posts: 81
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 12:39:52 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
You betrayed Saddam too. And no, I never mentioned Iraq, but the US put troops in Saudi Arabia and weren't exactly friendly there.
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 5:45:30 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 1:09:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Were would you plan on repairing, rearming, taking off and landing planes, tanks and other hardware from? Autozone? How many destroyers and frigates do you think can be sheltered at public marinas?

So you're accepting its not a moral issue but a practical one? lol, alright. Thank you for agreeing with me.

Not as a primary means of waging war, and 'demoralization' usually sets in anyways when air power is uncontested. Unless you consider unprovoked acts through plane hijacking to use as missiles to fly into metropolitan areas as a 'warning' to be a militaristic en devour.

'Everything that flies on everything that moves' is not a command to kill everyone?

Its not indiscriminate. You are insisting one particular civilian patch is just as good as another. Clearly, that isn't the case.
So, since you seem to know, then, where do specifically JUST the Jihadists congregate, then?

I'm attacking your belief that people use human shields against America, a bizarre assertion you don't seem keen to defend.

"doing whatever it is you are doing". How specific. The last time we were in the mid East we restored Kuwait's sovereignty while stopping Hussein from using WMDs on the Kurds, and the Ethnic cleansing near Kosovo. Tomato, tomahto, I guess.

You've decided to change the topic. I was arguing that by your principles acts of terrorism are legitimate. Also, when it's plainly accepted truth that the US claimed that Saddam's attacks on the Kurds were done by the Iranians while they supported him, it really isn't wise to start boasting about how you 'helped the Kurds'. In fact none of the things you talk about matter at all because, presumably, you would not argue that US foreign policy is based on righting all the wrongs in the world, but on protecting national interests.

So then the Jihadists are doing whatever they want. But American isn't supposed. Because it will make the Jihadists angry. And the people the (don't) hide behind angry. Hm.

Is there a reason why your English skills suddenly declined? 'Jeffrey Dahmer is doing whatever he wants, but the police aren't supposed to'. If you think America should do whatever it wants, stop trying to justify its behaviour and say that the American government simply does what it thinks is in its interests with no consideration for morality.
FaustianJustice
Posts: 6,205
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 7:47:13 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 5:45:30 PM, Wocambs wrote:
At 2/16/2015 1:09:47 AM, FaustianJustice wrote:
Were would you plan on repairing, rearming, taking off and landing planes, tanks and other hardware from? Autozone? How many destroyers and frigates do you think can be sheltered at public marinas?

So you're accepting its not a moral issue but a practical one? lol, alright. Thank you for agreeing with me.

If the question is during an invasion, where are they going to go, and your assertion is that they would hide in civilian groups, and my expample demonstrates that it would be impossible, I fail to see how that agrees with your premise.

Not as a primary means of waging war, and 'demoralization' usually sets in anyways when air power is uncontested. Unless you consider unprovoked acts through plane hijacking to use as missiles to fly into metropolitan areas as a 'warning' to be a militaristic en devour.

'Everything that flies on everything that moves' is not a command to kill everyone?

You are asking me to interpret a quote you produced for you? No thanks. You may draw your own conclusions.

Its not indiscriminate. You are insisting one particular civilian patch is just as good as another. Clearly, that isn't the case.
So, since you seem to know, then, where do specifically JUST the Jihadists congregate, then?

I'm attacking your belief that people use human shields against America, a bizarre assertion you don't seem keen to defend.

Yes, and your inability to answer exactly where said Jihadists congregate is enough of a defense. Where are all these upper level terrorists found? buried in civilian populations. Where was Osama found? Residential compound, despite having all of the tools he used to wage his war there. How are car bombs, suicide bombers etc, delivered? Civilian guise, civilian vehicles, and civilian convert.

"doing whatever it is you are doing". How specific. The last time we were in the mid East we restored Kuwait's sovereignty while stopping Hussein from using WMDs on the Kurds, and the Ethnic cleansing near Kosovo. Tomato, tomahto, I guess.

You've decided to change the topic. I was arguing that by your principles acts of terrorism are legitimate. Also, when it's plainly accepted truth that the US claimed that Saddam's attacks on the Kurds were done by the Iranians while they supported him, it really isn't wise to start boasting about how you 'helped the Kurds'. In fact none of the things you talk about matter at all because, presumably, you would not argue that US foreign policy is based on righting all the wrongs in the world, but on protecting national interests.

You are the one they sent us a warning. Please explain what that warning was. Then maybe I can craft a defense against it, how it doesn't apply, and in what context America has been in the mid east, and for what reasons. I can also demonstrate that said warning, for whatever purpose it was, doesn't apply to our foreign aid. What a happy coincidence that many times righting wrongs ALSO protects American interests.

So then the Jihadists are doing whatever they want. But American isn't supposed. Because it will make the Jihadists angry. And the people the (don't) hide behind angry. Hm.

Is there a reason why your English skills suddenly declined? 'Jeffrey Dahmer is doing whatever he wants, but the police aren't supposed to'. If you think America should do whatever it wants, stop trying to justify its behaviour and say that the American government simply does what it thinks is in its interests with no consideration for morality.

Yeah, I was typing it fast to head to bed, its been a long week for me. "So then the Jihadists are doing whatever they want. But America isn't supposed to, because if they do, it will make the Jihadists angry. These are the same Jihadists that you are insisting don't hide behind human shields, but are killed during drone strikes while imbedded in civilan populations.

If we did what we wanted, this would be over. We are using a military fighting force against a disgruntled populace whom is essentially fighting a civil war. Its not America's problem, but invariably it will become America's problem, along with a lot of other people whom would like not to admit it will also become their problem too. Right now, France is starting to realize it might be their problem, too.
Here we have an advocate for Islamic arranged marriages demonstrating that children can consent to sex.
http://www.debate.org...
Wocambs
Posts: 1,505
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
2/16/2015 8:22:22 PM
Posted: 1 year ago
At 2/16/2015 7:47:13 PM, FaustianJustice wrote:
If the question is during an invasion, where are they going to go, and your assertion is that they would hide in civilian groups, and my expample demonstrates that it would be impossible, I fail to see how that agrees with your premise.

If there was an invasion by, as I said, some strange force which had the ability to annihilate with ease military bases and installations, then obviously the Americans would not fight by having everyone, including all the civilians who tried to resist, assemble in conveniently targeted military bases. You seem to think that America proves itself to be morally superior because it doesn't launch airstrikes on Iraq from behind someone's house in Utah.

You are asking me to interpret a quote you produced for you? No thanks. You may draw your own conclusions.

Lol, don't be disingenuous. If that was a valid response then I could just dismiss any piece of evidence you care to cite.

Yes, and your inability to answer exactly where said Jihadists congregate is enough of a defense. Where are all these upper level terrorists found? buried in civilian populations. Where was Osama found? Residential compound, despite having all of the tools he used to wage his war there. How are car bombs, suicide bombers etc, delivered? Civilian guise, civilian vehicles, and civilian convert.

Exactly what point are you trying to make?

You are the one they sent us a warning. Please explain what that warning was. Then maybe I can craft a defense against it, how it doesn't apply, and in what context America has been in the mid east, and for what reasons. I can also demonstrate that said warning, for whatever purpose it was, doesn't apply to our foreign aid.

I already explained that. I was talking about how your statement that you can kill civilians to attempt to cripple war efforts is legitimate.

Yeah, I was typing it fast to head to bed, its been a long week for m

Aw.

These are the same Jihadists that you are insisting don't hide behind human shields, but are killed during drone strikes while imbedded in civilan populations.

As I've argued many times previously, the assertion that 'jihadists use human shields' appears to have no rational basis.

If we did what we wanted, this would be over. We are using a military fighting force against a disgruntled populace whom is essentially fighting a civil war. Its not America's problem, but invariably it will become America's problem, along with a lot of other people whom would like not to admit it will also become their problem too. Right now, France is starting to realize it might be their problem, too.

It's fairly obvious that going over to the Middle East and killing people increases the risk of terrorist attacks. Did blowing up the twin towers reduce Western activity in the Middle East? No, it had the opposite effect. Blowing up Muslims, insisting on the right to govern their affairs and continuing to demonise them will clearly just result in more terrorism. There is no distinct enemy to be destroyed here.