So all you’re saying is, kill them all, let God sort it out.
Git 'r done.
You really can’t understand anything but black or white, either/or can you. You really do seriously think the only alternative to blindly slaughtering anyone that gets in our way is doing nothing.
It would be funny, in an absurdist type of way, if the same sort of people weren’t running the USA.
There are none so blind as those that will not see.
I see. So the ‘nuanced’ position is that George Bush is ‘blindly slaughtering anyone who gets in the way’.
And I’m the one with the black-and-white thinking. Got it. Thanks for the update.
Yes, by all means, the slaughter should be thoughtful and careful and as compassionate as humanly possible.
Don’t see why. When “all you care about is killing people”, you might as well make it a bloody awful slaughter of a killing. Blow them raghead brats to smithereens. I’m loving it!
I’m just hoping tagos ain’t gonna git nuanced on my ass!
Or at the very least, confined to the swarthier parts of the world. Any suggestion that it is all right for dirty A-rabs to adopt the same callous approach, eg attack Bush in a Chicago hotel with a couple of aircraft as missiles is of course, just crazy talk.
That position is reserved for our own latter day Herod and his own armchair centurions.
We’re at war with them and that justifies any atrocity. They can’t use the same justification. That’s just ‘terrorism’.
Innocent dead foreigners = tough shit.
Innocent dead Americans = Never Ending War and God curse anyone who gets in our way.
Jesus. And people wonder why the American govt is so hated around the world. The arrogance, the breath-taking savagery of its cheerleaders as represented here is just stunning.
I hope none of you have the termerity to consider yourselves Christians. No - strike that - I hope you do 'cos some Judgement Day the look on your faces is going to be priceless.
Not that it will do much good…I’ll get better response talking to the wall obviously. But what the hell.
You are equating a military operation with terrorism. Ok, lets look at the two methodologies then.
We have a group of free range assholes who blow up embassies, car bomb civilians, bomb night clubs and just for kicks attempt to kick the greatest world power currently in residence squarely in the nuts by flying plane loads of its own citizens into building containing other civilian citizens from all over the world. Ok, thats one side.
On the other side we have a nation state that is trying to fight an asymetric conflict against the above group. They are targetting the leadership of the above group for military type strikes, but the leadership is pretty canny so targets appear and disappear fairly rapidly. If the nation state wants to do anything it has to act, and sometimes if will fuck up and accidentally kill civilians as it tries to get at these assholes. See, when WE kill innocent civilians its a fuck up…when they do so its a feature.
You get the distinction? Of course not…you just want to bitch and moan about how evil the US is, right? Yeah…we are just a pack of evil maniacs here.
-XT
If it walks like a duck and quacks like a duck - it’s a duck. Kids killed for a political or military objective are dead regardless of who did it.
Civilians were not accidentally killed. The houses they were in were deliberately targeted and deliberately bombed. The word ‘accident’ has no role to play. If Al-Q kill a few dozen people to get Bush they get no slack. Neither does Bush when he does the opposite.
If it’s a war then they have the same rights we do. If it’s okay for us to deliberately target and bomb innocents, even if it’s just going through them to get the enemy, so do they.
And if you put a pipper on a civilian house and pull the trigger you are targetting civilians and no amount of weasel-words alters that fact or washes the stain from your soul.
I’m done debating with moral cripples.
That we should hold ourselves to a higher standard than our enemy? Why is this such a foreign concept to you?
Um, its not a ‘foreign concept’ to me. Its self evident that in fact we do this already. Well, its self evident to anyone thats not totally delusional at least.
I swear, sometimes it seems like the majority of the folks on this board are from another planet or something. Either that or they are complete hipocrates argueing just for the sake of bashing Bush/the US.
-XT
A rather pathetic means of avoiding an actual rebuttal. That’s twice in a row.
Well, yes. Trying to eliminate terrorism by bombing people like this creates terrorists faster than you kill them. If you actually wish to stop terrorists, you either use the nice method ( police methods, plus undercutting the movement ), or the ruthless method ( massive killing / torture, especially of innocents; be the bigger terrorist ).
Dead is dead. Do you think our victims care, or their families ?
And yes, our leadership and much of the public are “evil maniacs”.
We’ve killed more innocent people than all the terrorists that ever lived. How is it “self evident” ?
Mostly, they are just incoherent and/or living in a fantasy world. The answer to the war on terror? Just arrest the bad guys, and put them on trial! No problem. We’ll just ask Pakistan, Saudi Arabia, Iran, Syria, and Yemen to get cracking. What could be easier?
Hypocrisy? No problem. Bush was bashed big time for not getting Europe involved in the Iraq invasion. It was unilateral, dont’cha know. He was a cowboy who didn’t care about building a consensus. John Kerry wanted the U.S foreign policy to pass a ‘global test’ before being enacted.
Now he’s trying to build a consensus on Iran, and Hillary Clinton gives a big speech to rousing applause accusing Bush of ‘outsourcing America’s security to Europe’.
There is no consistency or principle here, other than one thing - the devil Bush must be opposed no matter what he does.
The left simply isn’t a serious, credible alternative. It’s driven by blind hatred and nostalgia for Vietnam-era protest. Peace out.
Oh, and let’s not forget the new ‘hearts and minds’ solution. All we have to do is convince Osama and his buddies that we’re really nice guys and just want to sit around and sing Kumbayah with them, and they’ll go home and stop trying to kill us!
The only problem with this theory is that it ignores al-Qaida’s own stated reasons for attacking the west. It also ignores the fact that al-Qaida has attacked lots of countries who had not engaged in the ‘war on terror’. For that matter, it ignores the fact that the U.S. was attacked by al-Qaida on several occasions previous to 9/11, even with that peace-loving Bill Clinton in the White House.
So you are saying the only way to win the “war on terror” is adopt the methods of our enemy?
If you think that’s what we’re doing, then I’m not sure how to even have a discussion with you.
That’s exactly what I think we are doing; if that is an impediment to your arguments, perhaps you are in over your head.
Bulshit. I posted a quite lengthy answer to your question about our strategy.
Then start a thread about it. I have no clue what it has to do with killing innocent people of an allied nation, but feel free to enlighten.
Bullshit again. I don’t give a damned if its Kerry, Clinton, Bush, Gore, or Jesus pushing it. You and I both know that “collateral damage” would never be an acceptable excuse if we used it in our own countries. It shouldn’t be acceptable when used in our allied countries either. Remember, we’re not at war with Pakistan. Please, please, please, get your fellow conservatives to push Congress to pass a statute allowing collateral damage when dealing with terrorists within our borders. I have no fear of it actually passing, so it would make for some great laughs.
At least we’re not killing our friends for no fucking reason whatsoever.
You never did respond to my post about internalizing collateral damage. Up to it?
[
](http://www.debates.org/pages/trans2004a.html)
Bolding by CMC
But we can pretend that Kerry meant we had to get the world to approve of our actions instead.