Worst US loss of life in Afghan war as helicopter crash kills 38

Discussion in 'Politics' started by Limecat, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. This is the most hypocritcal shit I've ever read. Do you even realize that you're talking about deterring terrorism by using terrorism?
     

  2. Killing people is murder, there is only one justification for murder and thats self defense.

    Most of the people dying in this war are incapable of, and have no interest in attacking us. How does that make us killing them a self defense measure?

    War IS murder, its murder on a massive scale. It does not stop being murder just because its happenning frequently.

    It scares me that people seem to be so content with murder in the context of war.
     
  3. No you should listen to him, anytime a government kills someone its not murder and obviously justified. Anytime someone else kills someone there either a terrorists or a murderer THERES A BIG DIFFERENCE ;)
     



  4. When people commit crimes and are armed, the police must be armed with guns as well and sometimes have to use them. They are not "criminals", any more than we would be terrorists if we responded to a threat in the manners to which the terrorists will be most affected - and that includes types of warfare not generally used by "civilized" countries. Yeah, I know it's not nice, or "Chirst like", but that's the only way to end violence by people who are more barbaric than yourself - pinpointing the enemy and devastating them by methods that they hate is a better choice than warfare that results in civilian casualties. The recent demise of bin laden was a pretty good example of how to dispose of his type of garbage, but he should not been given the muslim funeral - he should have been buried under a pig trough in New Jersey. :hello:
     
  5. #85 garrison68, Aug 9, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 9, 2011

    A LOT of things scare me, but I've never let it get to me - I live less than 9 miles from, and worked in the immediate proximity of, Ground Zero. The purpose of 9/11 was not to kill thousands of people, that was done in order to scare and weaken us. It would be dishonest to say that to some extent their strategy didn't work, and it did, but we've come a long way since then - through some rocky times, and now we are more secure than before 2001.

    Many of the people affected in EVERY war were not interested in killing anybody on the other side - but their government acts on their behalf, which makes them responsible. If we had not entered World War II, the Axis would probably have won control of Europe and Asia. Many innocent people died as a result of our actions, but a lot more were killed by the enemy.

    I respect those who differ from my views, there's a case to be made for refraining from violence in all but the most personal circumstances, and there's always room for tolerance in my mind for pacifists that are opposed to all warfare. If everybody thought that way, we'd have a utopia, but they do not.
     
  6. Ok, so since "terrorists" seem to be your enemy. Let us look at what the dictionary definition of 'terrorism' is:
    "The systematic use of terror especially as a means of coercion." (From Merriam-Webster.)
    Terror is defined as:
    "Violent or destructive acts (as bombing) committed by groups in order to intimidate a population or government into granting their demands." (Also from Merriam-Webster.)
    These definition fit your idea of what to do perfectly. What you describe as "types of warfare not generally used by "civilized" countries", is really terrorism. Your country was attacked by a terrorist group. That was an atrocity, a terrible one. What good does it do to respond to that with far worse atrocities? You only create more enemies who also might use the same logic and respond with more terrorism.
    "Pinpointing the enemy and devastating them by methods that they hate is a better choice than warfare that results in civilian casualties." Yes, it is. But nuking Afghanistan for not handing over Bin Laden is warfare that results in civilians losses. It is terrorism, by its dictionary definition, and terrorism can be used as a weapon in warfare.
     
  7. I do not agree that using warfare crafted for certain enemies creates "more enemies". Like I said before, Japan surrendered immedicatly after we showed them who's boss, with the A-Bomb.
    It's just semantics at this point. Nuking the hills of Afghanistan, where the enemy was hiding, may have eliminated virutally the entire army of al qaeda and the taliban as well. Instead we bombed Kabul and other places where they were not located in great enough numbers. I did read an article, from a link posted here yesterday, by a person that was in the military with the American forces in Afghanistan after 9/11 and he said that his unit could have killed of captured bin laden near the border of Pakistan, but were not given the go ahead with support to do this. Who knows about that, but if we had nuked that area it would have probably killed bin laden, or at least many of the taliban and al qaeda. Pattern bombing combined with bunker busters may have sufficed, but I'm not an expert on explosives.
     
  8. Garrison i take it your one of the people who think we should've just nuked russia during the cold war?
     
  9. #89 garrison68, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2011

    Why would I have supported that? The USSR didn't do anything to the United States that warrented an attack with nukes, or even combat forces. It's the same with Cuba, they never did anything to us and I've always been against the embargo. Sure, Castro is a dictator and maybe even a butcher, but he's million times better than the Islamic extremists, and Cuba never used terrorism against us. Hey, we even tried to overthrow him with the Bay of Pigs invasion, and he's still alive and in charge of the country. Gotta hand it to him, I thought that without the million dollars or so a day he used to get from the former USSR, they'd be forced to switch to a capitalistic system, but he's still standing his ground as a Marxist or whatever he calls himself.

    Edit, Castro was clever enough to send criminally insane people here when Jimmy Carter allowed immigration from Cuba. Not that I blame Fidel, it was a good way to get rid of them, and that idiot Carter opened the doors wide to welcome them.

    I'd like to see what would happen if al qaeda fucked with Castro, I'd REALLY like to see that!
     
  10. They did. Al Qaeda would not have. They could have counted their losses and demanded one dead American for "martyr" killed.
    Imagine someone from America flew 2 planes in Chinese buildings, and they responded by nuking your rural areas. Imagine you lost one or both of your parents and some other relatives because of that. The people you loved are now dead because China wanted to take revenge for someone flying planes into their buildings. Would you then not regard China as your enemy? And if you wouldn't can't you see that many would?

    No, nuking the mountains of Afghanistan would never have eradciated the Taliban OR Al Qaeda. They are not a bunch of fools clinging together on the same mountain. Also, most of Afghanistan is mountainous. It's a HUGE area. Afghanistan is about twice as large as Japan and those "hills" you speak of make up a large percentage of that.
    And do you even realize what nuclear bombs do? They leave nasty shit EVERYWHERE that deformes people for generations later. It's 9/11 times one thousand in terms of how big an atrocity this would be.
     
  11. Not much, I bet. I don't see Castro waging decade-long wars in the Middle East because some guys from there murdered some of his people.
     
  12. The decade long war on terror was NOT revenge for the people who were killed, because the perps were killed in the process. It was supposed to reduce the possibility of large scale terrorism happening again, and seems to have been effective so far - even though we should have stayed out of Iraq - that was our single biggest mistake.

    Castro has never complained about GITMO being located on land we lease in Cuba, either.

    :wave:
     

  13. I'd imagine the blowback from our poor response will be even greater than the blowback from our previous failed policies (9/11).

    Given the current state of the economy and our approaching $4 TRILLION price-tag for our militarism...we are NOT "winning". ;)
     
  14. #94 Glassworks, Aug 10, 2011
    Last edited by a moderator: Aug 10, 2011
    umm how has it been effective? there hasn't been a terrorist attack in the us for 10 years? thats not exactly uncommon, lets see a few of the "major"terrorist attacks around the world since our invasion of afghanistan.

    Major terrorist attacks since 9/11 | World news | guardian.co.uk

    Damn, that was really a great deterrence to terrorism, gotta love that last one in russia where 300 children were killed, this war sure was a great success!

    :rolleyes:
     

  15. Most of the cost of this price tag was probably due to Iraq, and I agree that was a huge mistake. You can thank G.W. Bush, and everybody else who supported it, from both parties, for that.
     
  16. Calling him a dumbass because you don't agree isn't cool.
    I hope more -rep follows
     
  17. ^ actually i got + rep to go along with your -rep
     

  18. asswork chickened out and deleted the comment, lol. :hello:
     

  19. umm, first off I edited it, and of course i would, why would I intentionally allow myself to get further infractions due to disrespect.

    Nice try though at being clever with the "Asswork" thing though ;)
     
  20. Probably because he know he can get banned/infraction for it
     

Share This Page