Don’t elect a Bush Clone in 2008. Go for someone who has intelligence, humanity, an understanding of the whole world and the ability to build bridges rather than tear them down.
This quote speaks for itself. Thank you.
So glad you agree. 
I agree with most of this. There are a couple of things I would like to point out, however. First of all, there is no “blanket bombing” going on. This was a couple of houses. There isn’t any large scale scorched earch bombing happening anywhere. If there were, we would know about it.
Second, I love the idea about UN troops. I think it would be even more effective if they were from places like Turkey or Egypt. However, most countries in the UN are like a lot of posters on this board. They’ll sit back and criticize, but not offer any viable alternatives. Once the new Iraqi government is established, I would love to see Bush go to the UN and say “We wanted to bring Democracy and we have. Now we need help.” Nobody would bite. They would rather see the United States pay in blood and coin to fight the terrorists than actually contribute to the effort themselves. If other countries would actually help, I think your solution would work.
More good ideas. Seriously. I’m often sarcastic with you, Evil Captor, but these are good. I especially like the first one. If we can get muslim clerics to stop teaching three year olds to hate the western world it would help.
I repeat. Cause and Effect.
Muslim Clerics teach three year olds to hate America because America acts like it hates them Views like yours assure them that they are right.
I wasn’t meaning to imply that a large village or a couple of blocks are taken out every time a terrorist is spotted - more that bombs do not discriminate. They have a blast radius, and it’s a calculated risk that the terrorist in question will be within, and as few as possible innocents. I think we need to stop using bombs entirely. Far too causing of innocent losses.
Actually, I see a problem with this. I’m in no doubt that US troops should be underepresented, but if the UN contingent is filled with troops from the Middle-Eastern area it could look as if the UN is sending “muslims to fight muslims, and hope they all kill each other”. On top of that, it really won’t improve the UN’s standing in the Middle-East, either. It’s also possible that attacking their own neighbours would be more difficult for terrorists - but i’d be worried we’d just make them more pissed off if we sent a higher proportion of people from that area.
I think you’re right here - pride and a wish to spite Bush will keep a lot of countries from wanting to help. I think there’s a way to help improve the chances, though - Bush goes to them and says “We wanted to bring Democracy and we have - but we have made mistakes along the way. Now we need help - please do not judge your response by how we have acted, but on those that need that help”.
No. All that will do is engender more hate - and understandable hate, too. What right does America have to indoctrinate Iraqis? People will find this out, and they’ll continue to hate America and Bush. I’d suggest in fact that more people will be added to this dislike, because now you’d be directly trying to project your ideals on them (which is what many hardline and moderate Iraqis believe already), plus, every democratic country will start hating you, too, for trashing the principles of honour and freedom of expression. Add to that the larger proportion of Americans who would find this plan unacceptable - and that’s a large amount of domestic and foreign unhappiness, there, my friend.
If no-one found out about it? Effective tactic. Unethical, unconstitutional, but effective. But people **will ** find out.
They were careless people… – they smashed up things and creatures and then retreated back into their money or their vast carelessness or whatever it was that kept them together, and let other people clean up the mess they had made.
It seems a little premature to be able to rule one way or the other. Is this story based on one AP reporter’s interaction with the villagers? What was his question, “Are you associated with Al Qaeda?” What do you think the response would be?
It could have very well been a miss and instead hit innocent people and if that’s true it certainly is a disaster. However, due to the Region’s close ties to Al Qaeda I’ll withhold my judgement until a more thorough investigation takes place.
Why do you keep asking this question? The CIA was targeting Al-Zawahri. It has said as much. The target of their mission was not there. Period. Saying “Well, the people we DID kill probably deserved it” is both unjustified by the evidence and speaks of a lack of compassion for a genuine tragedy. Children died in this accident–were they potential terrorists too?
I never said that they acted maliciously or were acting on intelligence they knew was shoddy. So you’re not adding anything to the discussion by insisting this point.
That’s a question we need to ask the president. He has committed us to a war that will never end. When we anihilate Al-Zawarahri, there will be another to take his place. When we anihilate Al-Queda, there will be “Al-Queda The Sequel” to take its place. We will bomb the hell out of Iraq, Afghanistan, and Pakistan, then move on to Iran, Syria, Lebanon, and Jordan. What’s stopping us from bombing some random street in London where we suspect Al-Zawarahri Junior to be hiding? Will you have any pity for the murdered neighbors who didn’t know he was a terrorist? Or will you assume they were fellow terrorists who deserved to die?
There you go again. Assuming that we only have two choices: act like brutal animals or give up. You have not explained why you think the status quo is working. Maybe if you could construct a cogent argument for why the US must act like terrorists to stop terrorists we can have a more productive debate.
What absolutes are you talking about? You mean it’s a “dreamworld of absolutes” to hope that our country conducts warfare fairly and effectively? It’s bad enough that many Americans were forced to watch the country go into war against their will. It’s even worse that these Americans are being told that the fighting happening in their name is going to be dirty and endless. Endless because the war is never going to end.
I’d have more respect for the pro-war faction if they were in support of following the rules and modern conventions of civilized war. But the most vehement hawks seem to be the ones who couldn’t care less for doing things the right way. They are nothing but gang leaders, no different than the thugs we’re fighting against.
No, they would be attacking other houses, for other reasons. The CIA has done some shitty, unjustifiable things. And I really don’t think the average Pakistani cares about Al-Queda right now. Al-Queda did not bomb these people out of life. The US did.
They bombed multiple homes. Either someone has horrible aim or the CIA didn’t care who they killed, as long as they got their man.
Where’s your proof that the current way is working?
And again, why do you insist that the only two options we have is to keep doing what we’ve been doing or give up? It is you, Evil One, who can’t relinquish the absolutes.
I understand that innocents were killed in Pakistan due to our actions. Killing of innocents, even accidently, is always bad.
I understand that a lot of people are justiably angry at the US.
I understand that pissed off people make great recruits for fanatics and terrorists.
I understand that we have not captured Al-Zawarhiri or Osama Bin Laden, even though we’re been working on it for over five years.
I understand that the Pakistan government has been working with us to catch the bad guys. I don’t think this incident will be good for relations.
I don’t like being condescended to, Evil One. I have just as much credibility as you do on this subject. I understand enough to know what’s right and what’s wrong.
Did we catch the guy or didn’t we? It’s not brain surgery.
And if we choose to act like AQ, then where’s our moral high ground? Maybe that’s not important. Maybe all that’s important is killing the guy before he kills us. But if that’s the case, we shouldn’t shed a tear when a dirty bomb spritzes us. Don’t weep when it’s your loved ones who are killed by a suicide bomber or an airline hijacking. If you can’t see how the US has perpetuated the violence directed towards it, then you become just as guilty as the terrorist sympathizers who you hate so much. You may not care about that guilt for yourself, but I do.
You don’t use bombs to kill one person if you’re trying to protect innocent people. And if we’ve been careful up to now and we’ve still killed 30000 people, I’d hate to see what wreckless looks like.
Interesting question, although I don’t see any reason that those villagers should be the ones who decide if it’s terrorism or not. The problem with your thesis is that in order to avoid killing or harming inocent people, it would be necessary to refrain from taking any action whatsoever. You can’t judge terrorism by the result, you have to judge it by the intent. Was it the intent of Bush to try and kill as many innocent people as possible? Was it his intent to strike fear in their hearts? Was it his intent to terrorize these people? Unless you answer “yes” to those questions, you can’t call this act terrorism. Foolish? Stupid? Wreckless? Possibly. We need to do an investation of the mission to determine that.
Not to minimize or trivialize this tragedy, but let’s look at the definition of terrorism:
Emphasis added.
Nope. Not terrorism.
Fear Itself: You do not add to intelligent debate about the rightness or wrongness of this action by screaming TERRORISM!!! There is a legitimate debate to be had about this action; about whether it was justified, whether it was wise, whether it was criminal even. But it was not an act of terror.
And they retreated to the shire and watched the sun set. The gentle breeze caressed their faces as the scent of newly mown grass filled the air.
We don’t know the circumstances yet. Therefore we cannot know whether it was a complete mistake or if someone else who needed killing was taken care of. I don’t think that someone like Al_Zawahri would be going to a house where he didn’t have colleagues or at least active sympathizers present.
Are you serious? If you really believe that this is part of some long term plan, then I’m wasting my time.
Again, I don’t know if you are employing hyperbole or if you think something like this could actually happen. I hope it’s hyperbole to make your point. If you are seriously envisioning missiles hitting houses in London, I can’t help you.
No terrorist attacks since 9/11 is good testimony that current policy is working. But many people can’t bring themselves to accept that. To them, the fact that there has been no attack since then is mere coincidence. To think otherwise would be to admit that the United States (and GWB) is doing something right.
Because when you capture or kill them, they can’t plan or carry out any more attacks.
Our opponents are not following those rules and conventions. To not use every advantage we have to protect American lives would be foolish.
Oh please. This isn’t the movies.
That’s pretty much the bottom line for me.
If you believe that, I have some tiger repellent to sell you. How many terrorist attacks on US soil were there in the year before 9/11? The year before that?
Well, let’s see. How about the 1st WTC bombing?
Of course it becomes terrorism once you start justifying mistaken carnage by claiming it may coerce others into cooperating with America. Like this:
Now the administration isn’t using that justification publicly now, but it’s pretty clear that there are some who feel that way.
That’s precisely the point. We don’t know if Al-Zawahri and Osama are choosing to hide among the civilian population. Last I head, they were hiding in caves. What you are really saying is “As long as the <i>US think</i> the baddies are hiding among civilians, these things will happen again.” Well, thats true, but that makes us bad guys.
Why should our enemies bother ? They can kill Americans in Iraq, rather than over here. Plus, we are doing far more damage to ourselves than they could in a thousand years.
But the new enemies we create can and will. Creating two or a dozen enemies for every one you stop is stupid.
In other words, Americans - and only Americans - are human; foreigners are subhuman scum who deserve death if they get in our way, or screw up. To a true American, killing a foreigner is no more signifigant than killing a cockroach.
So if we are no better than our enemies, why do we deserve to win ?
Yep.
Yep.