Can I assume you don't live in a country that is a member of NATO?
Yessir. Although I like to think that my opinion is not defined by my location (or that I were hypocritical to criticize the US if and when my own country was involved).
Can I assume you don't live in a country that is a member of NATO?
Yessir. Although I like to think that my opinion is not defined by my location (or that I were hypocritical to criticize the US if and when my own country was involved).
Just curious....what non-NATO country do you reside in?
Can I assume you don't live in a country that is a member of NATO?
Yessir. Although I like to think that my opinion is not defined by my location (or that I were hypocritical to criticize the US if and when my own country was involved).
Just curious....what non-NATO country do you reside in?
Ha, I knew where this was headed. Most of Europe is involved in Afghanistan, NATO and non-NATO. All I'm saying: Osama had an agenda. Innocent people died. The US has an agenda. Innocent people die-- before Osama and after Osama.
It has emerged that Osama Bin Laden's youngest son, Hamza, who is 19 and dubbed the
'Crown Prince of Terror' escaped on the night of the U.S. raid. He is pictured here aged around 14, in a propaganda video.
This is like some classic kung fu storyline.
If he is not found and killed... he will surely return to seek revenge as an adult!
Can I assume you don't live in a country that is a member of NATO?
Yessir. Although I like to think that my opinion is not defined by my location (or that I were hypocritical to criticize the US if and when my own country was involved).
Just curious....what non-NATO country do you reside in?
Ha, I knew where this was headed. Most of Europe is involved in Afghanistan, NATO and non-NATO. All I'm saying: Osama had an agenda. Innocent people died. The US has an agenda. Innocent people die-- before Osama and after Osama.
This is a pretty simplistic view. The US's agenda is not to kill innocent people. OBL's agenda was. Intent has to mean something.
In effect, you're saying that the lives of the SEAL team were less important than bin Laden's.
dude. no I'm not.
but if the mission was to capture him (not saying it was; we don't know) and he resisted (not saying he did; we don't know), then it's absolutely within the SEAL job description to risk injury to capture him. the idea that no US lives should have been risked in capturing him is silly.
Any military operation in a hostile environment is going to risk people's lives. If your top priority is to bring bin Laden back alive however so that you can put him on trial you need to change the rules of engagment and make it more dangerous for the troops becuase they have to subdue him no matter what. You'd have to tell them that if bin Laden was shooting at them, chucking grenades, whatever, you have to take it so that you can capture him. Give me a different scenario if that's not true.
continually annoyed by people acting as if american foreign policy (as screwed up as it is) that ends in civilian death is the same as OBL and his peoples actively trying to kill civilians to scare the populace. that shit just doesn't mesh in my mind. not. the. same. (and again, i disagree with a shitload of US foreign policy). if you think the united states' plan is to kill muslim civilians, you are a fucking moron.
Some might point out (not me) that the policies are different, but the result is the same.
It is a fair argument.
Not really. It completely ignores the intent of the actor. How is that fair?
I get 10,000 people to leave a village by convincing them to move. You kill 10,000 in the village. The results are the same, lower population in the village. Fair?
I have seen the enemy. And it is dangerously facile comparisons..
[z_illa]I would not beat back an attacking horde of five year olds. Responding to brutality with brutality is barbaric.[/z_illa]
Great argument dude.
Just busting your balls. Despite out recent dust up, you seem like a good enough guy. A bit too idealistic, but so were most of us at some point.
Just so we're clear here i wouldn't hesitate for a second to kick the shit out of you and a hoard of your friends. There is a huge difference to me between what a government does and what an individual does. I think it is right to hold government to a much higher standard. Or at least the well documented standard of our laws and treaties.
Some might point out (not me) that the policies are different, but the result is the same.
It is a fair argument.
Not really. It completely ignores the intent of the actor. How is that fair?
It does not ignore the intent of the actor. "...policies are different..." means that there is an understanding that the intent of each actor is different.
Just because the argument is fair, does not mean we need to embrace it, or even that the point is correct.
I love the concept of thinking a politician/government/country should be held to a higher moral standard than one holds themselves to.
Indeed. The world is not a fair place and the enemy is not rational, and many eggs have been broken to make the Western omelette. But as I said much earlier... WHO WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE NUKES?
Hey, it's not his fault, a lot of these kids who are shunted from place to place when they're young have identity issues when they're older. Imagine what it must have been like, coming home from school and finding that you have to move caves once again because your dad has just released another video promising a world of pain on liberal society.
Dipping my toe in this thread, I thought that the traditional Western Government policy was to provide weapons and military guidance to interested third parties so that they could kill the innocent civilians for them.
Comments
thank the lord for that!
will you at least concede that OBL is "as evil" as the US?
gtfohwtbs. the comparison is absurd.
Now that I'm looking at the actual number of civilian casualties in Afghanistan, yeah--it's a pretty absurd comparison.
Can I assume you don't live in a country that is a member of NATO?
Yessir. Although I like to think that my opinion is not defined by my location (or that I were hypocritical to criticize the US if and when my own country was involved).
earthquakes is way more evil than either of those dudes.
malaria, too. I hate those guys.
I have seen the enemy. And it is old age.
Just curious....what non-NATO country do you reside in?
You forgot about old age, bro. EDIT: didn't see DB_Cooper's post.
Ha, I knew where this was headed. Most of Europe is involved in Afghanistan, NATO and non-NATO. All I'm saying: Osama had an agenda. Innocent people died. The US has an agenda. Innocent people die-- before Osama and after Osama.
[z_illa]I would not beat back an attacking horde of five year olds. Responding to brutality with brutality is barbaric.[/z_illa]
:icallbullshit:
Yeah, maybe that was a bit harsh on my part. I'll give you that.
This is like some classic kung fu storyline.
If he is not found and killed... he will surely return to seek revenge as an adult!
CRY HAVOC AND LET SLIP THE DOGS OF WAR!
Thank you, sir.
This is a pretty simplistic view. The US's agenda is not to kill innocent people. OBL's agenda was. Intent has to mean something.
Any military operation in a hostile environment is going to risk people's lives. If your top priority is to bring bin Laden back alive however so that you can put him on trial you need to change the rules of engagment and make it more dangerous for the troops becuase they have to subdue him no matter what. You'd have to tell them that if bin Laden was shooting at them, chucking grenades, whatever, you have to take it so that you can capture him. Give me a different scenario if that's not true.
They kidnapped his ass and took him downtown for questioning and/or waterboarding.
The guy has way too much valuable intel for them to kill him.
1 man with no army vs a bunch of helicopters and SEALS.
This buried at sea schitt is schitt.
It is a fair argument.
Just busting your balls. Despite out recent dust up, you seem like a good enough guy. A bit too idealistic, but so were most of us at some point.
Not really. It completely ignores the intent of the actor. How is that fair?
I get 10,000 people to leave a village by convincing them to move. You kill 10,000 in the village. The results are the same, lower population in the village. Fair?
It does not ignore the intent of the actor. "...policies are different..." means that there is an understanding that the intent of each actor is different.
Just because the argument is fair, does not mean we need to embrace it, or even that the point is correct.
you shouldn't have shared that picture of yourself in the prop 1 thread - the only thing your pasty ass is beating is his meat
RIDACKULOUS! WHERE'S THE FALSE RASTA GREMLIN!
Indeed. The world is not a fair place and the enemy is not rational, and many eggs have been broken to make the Western omelette. But as I said much earlier... WHO WOULD YOU RATHER HAVE THE NUKES?
Hey, it's not his fault, a lot of these kids who are shunted from place to place when they're young have identity issues when they're older. Imagine what it must have been like, coming home from school and finding that you have to move caves once again because your dad has just released another video promising a world of pain on liberal society.
Dipping my toe in this thread, I thought that the traditional Western Government policy was to provide weapons and military guidance to interested third parties so that they could kill the innocent civilians for them.