That's not really what it seems like you said earlier.
I am not sure if you are (rightfully) backpedaling, or just guilty of not being able to fully form or express an idea.
Ok, Darrin you seem not to believe this is how terrorists justify mass killings of civilians."Those deaths don't matter, because we are fully justified in our actions" is EXACTLY what the wagons with the bombs strapped to their chests think, when they wander into a crowded area, or dive bomb an office building with a passenger jet.
How do you think they rationalize it?
Give me your in-depth analysis of the average Al Qaeda's worldview. Do tell.
The difference is, the mass killings of civilians is their GOAL, not some unfortunate consequence.
Do you think the families of the dead care if the U.S. meant to kill their loved one?
"and now we can see the internet poster has deployed the "but we didn't mean to" defense... let's see how it works out"
Obviously is not their goal, seeing that there's a mul ude of civilians living in many of those countries. Much like any other extremist group, the murdering of civilians is a way for them to call attention to their cause, which is their ultimate goal (an abhorrent way to do so, obviously).
Going back to collateral though, when 'unfortunate consequence' includes your wife and children dead under a pile of rubble that you used to call home, right or wrong can change very rapidly.
Being comfortable with 'collateral' implies you're aware and comfortable also with said collateral's side effects.
If, by their "cause", you mean going to heaven, then I agree with this statement.
I'm comfortable that the US military goes to extraordinary measures to minimize collateral damage.Going back to collateral though, when 'unfortunate consequence' includes your wife and children dead under a pile of rubble that you used to call home, right or wrong can change very rapidly.
Being comfortable with 'collateral' implies you're aware and comfortable also with said collateral's side effects.
By the way, why do you guys want to keep comparing our military with jihadists? That's pretty sad.
Call it dumb if you want. It's one of the few ways I exercise control sometimes over people I hate. Seeing how much I can piss someone off. It's fun to see them lose control.
That depends. The only reason why I would burn the Koran would be if I wanted to piss off a radical. I don't know of anyone that would take burning the cons ution or bible as a blow against his god that needed justice with a killing.
True. Don't you at times like to just piss someone off? You seem to like to piss me off at times!
What can I say. We all have our bad sides. Maybe I should have gone to church Sunday. Wait... I haven't been to church in more than 30 years! I no longer like Organized religion. Use to go for the girls. Church girls can be so naughty, but acts so pure...
No actually it isn't their goal. They very clearly outline what their goals are, and that is most definitely not one of them. That is pretty much provably and factually incorrect.
People like to believe this, because of some infantile emotional need to simplify problems to a level that can be easily understood.
It is like trying to model something with computers and putting in bad starting assumptions. Yeah, I went there.
They utilize mass killings to acheive their goals, and aren't at all squemish about it. That is what I meant by the statement.
You want to draw a much more clear good guy/ bad guy line in rationalization of action, and the world just isn't that black/white.
Once *again*, reality is just not as simple as you want it to be.
The 'cause' can be many, but it's frankly irrelevant.
That's not what you said. You said you were comfortable with collateral damage. Nothing wrong with changing or clarifying your stance though.
I'm realistic and understand that collateral damage happens, but I'm also realistic that there's side effects to said collateral.
We're comparing motives that drive both to do what they do. They're not necessarily the same motives or moral la udes, but that doesn't mean certain facets are not comparable (ie: that they have certain drives for doing good/bad). Why do you think that's sad?
You outlined the important distinction, in tactics. The US military does not use mass killings of civilians to achieve strategic goals.
This gives the military a lot more moral authority to people, and that is, by any senior officer account I have read, highly important in the type of war we are fighting.
Let's get to brass tacks and be perfectly clear.
Do you admit that we, in the course of our military operations, kill innocent civilians? yes or no will do.
Are you comfortable with those deaths? yes or no.
What kind of control you think you're exercising? What happens if they don't lose control?
Anyone radical? I can see where they would take that as an offense punishable by death.
I also have to take from this that when you see a demonstrator somewhere burning an american flag you're overjoyed and proud we live in a country free to do that, correct?
I enjoy pushing the issue when I suspect the other person is lying. That sometimes can cause the other person to get pissed off, but it's really a side-effect.
I think trolling can be entertaining, but at the end of the day it's still dumb. You're not going to be taken seriously by doing dumb things obviously.
Dresden just called and said you've lost your mind.
I think Hiroshima and Nagasaki disagree as well.
Which just illustrates how plastic the definitions of terrorism and warfare actually are.
Good points both.
Perhaps I should have inserted the words "currently" in there.
Dresden was still shameful and unethical, IMO.
Hiroshima and Nagasaki... erk. Hard calls. Given the overall level of Japanese fanaticism, that is not as easy to fill in.
I am comfortable that the US military goes to great lengths to minimize those.
What were the "strategic goals" of islamic terrorists?
So you think it's justified because we didn't mean it? That seems a rather interesting take.
I mean, if my brakes fail and I accidentally hit a kid, should I just go to the parents and say, "Hey, my brakes failed, but I didn't mean it, so don't blame me."?
To mire us in unwinnable, unaffordable wars in Muslim countries, for one.
You probably wouldn't go to jail for that, would you?
Why is that?
Q: What is Sharia?
Man holding anti-sharia sign: "um... uh...."
Do your own work. I am a bit tired of doing it for you.
If you want to try the burden of proof card, feel free to provide some first-hand statements that say that "killing innocents" is a primary goal of Al Qaeda.
Didn't really answer either question, did you?Let's get to brass tacks and be perfectly clear.
Do you admit that we, in the course of our military operations, kill innocent civilians? yes or no will do.
Are you comfortable with those deaths? yes or no.
You are such a god-damned ing weasel sometimes. .
Well, the guy was obviously there to provoke them, based on what it said on the back of his jacket.
"I witness that there is no God but Allah, and Mohammed is a messenger...on[ obscured -rg]
Allah"
Even so, they acted like jackasses.
If a group of muslims had done that to a Christian who was praying, we all know we would never hear the end of it from Fox "news" and company.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote