Suicide bombers. Split from Obama/armed forces thread

[Bob Hubbard]

"What business was it of the Europeans?"

Because the Muslims, who believe in a different "invisible man in the sky" were living where the Christians "invisible man in the sky's son" was supposedly from and where he supposedly died. Mind you, this was not the same "invisible man" that the Jews were waiting for. It's a sake of people comparing imaginary friends, and since their imaginary friends have more sence than they do, they decide to kill each other, all in the name of their own individual imaginary friends. Mind you, these imaginary friends, should that actualy exist, most likely think that everyone involved are a right bunch of nutters.

In any event, my imaginary friend can kick all their asses, cuz she's got 4 arms and all of them are swinging steel. :rofl:

 

[Flying Crane]

The threat from radical Islam is REAL, no matter which countries refuse to admit it or deal with it.
That is a fact.

Just curious to know, what would you suggest is the answer to this problem?

 

[Andy Moynihan]

"What business was it of the Europeans?"

Because the Muslims, who believe in a different "invisible man in the sky" were living where the Christians "invisible man in the sky's son" was supposedly from and where he supposedly died. Mind you, this was not the same "invisible man" that the Jews were waiting for. It's a sake of people comparing imaginary friends, and since their imaginary friends have more sence than they do, they decide to kill each other, all in the name of their own individual imaginary friends. Mind you, these imaginary friends, should that actualy exist, most likely think that everyone involved are a right bunch of nutters.

In any event, my imaginary friend can kick all their asses, cuz she's got 4 arms and all of them are swinging steel. :rofl:

First thing that made me smile all day.

 

[elder999]

Just curious to know, what would you suggest is the answer to this problem?

Probably something along the lines of "Caedite eos. Novit enim Dominus qui sunt eius"*.

*"Kill them all, let god sort them out"-sort of....

Arnaud himself was appointed as military leader of the crusaders during the first stages of the war in 1209. This was a perfectly normal occurrence at this time, but Arnaud's love of terror and killing was perhaps above average, even for a senior churchman. It was he who was responsible for the mass burning alive of "many heretics and many fair women" at Casseneuil", for the massacre at Béziers, where some 20,000 men, women and children were killed in an "exercise of Christian charity", and for the immortal words "Kill them all. God will know his own". He was also responsible for the siege of Carcassonne, and for the seizure of Raymond-Roger Trencavel, Viscount of Carcassonne, Béziers, Albi and the Razès during a truce - leading to the fall of Carcassonne. He arrived at Minerve just in time to engineer the deaths of 140 people whose lives would otherwise have been spared.

 

[Twin Fist]

Flying Crane,
It is a complex issue, no doubt, and I am not sure what the "perfect solution" is, or if such a thing even exists.

On one hand, I know that there are some people with whom you cannot reason, you cannot negotiate, all you can do is kill them or let them kill you. The radical elements in Islam are like this. They think they are on a mission from God, You cant scare them, you cant negotiate, you can only kill them. Or die.

On the other hand, I am hesitant to endorse such harsh measures. Plus, you really cant toss out the "baby with the bath water" when you are talking about human populations.

Interestingly, reports coming from Iraq now show that the people are getting more and more secular, and less radical everyday. So what we are doing now? it IS working. In fact, if the Iranians would stop sending their fanatics to Iraq, Iraq would be a pretty danged nice place to call home these days.

Elder,
Dont assume, you are not very good at it. And it comes across as snarky.

 

[Flying Crane]

Flying Crane,
It is a complex issue, no doubt, and I am not sure what the "perfect solution" is, or if such a thing even exists.

On one hand, I know that there are some people with whom you cannot reason, you cannot negotiate, all you can do is kill them or let them kill you. The radical elements in Islam are like this. They think they are on a mission from God, You cant scare them, you cant negotiate, you can only kill them. Or die.

well, there are certainly those who seem to fit this description. The question is, how did they reach this point? What lead them to such extreme feelings, particularly when it comes to the hatred of the US?

I think the answer is much more complex than simply that Islam tells them so.

As has been pointed out, there are many different factions in Islam, and only a small number are dangerous radicals. Once upon a time, the US gave Osama Bin Laden backing, against the Soviets. Then, when he was no longer convenient for us, we cut him off. Now, with the Soviets out of Afghanistan, he has focused his anger towards us for cutting him loose.

Once upon a time, the US sold military equipment to Sadam Hussein, in the war against Iran, and we supported his regime. I've seen photos of a younger Donald Rumsfeld shaking Sadam's hand in Baghdad, after passing along some military equipment to him in the 1980s. As long as we could keep him on a short leash, we were willing to let him do as he pleased. But then he broke the leash and we couldn't control him anymore. He was no longer OUR tyrant, and he became our enemy. But in many ways, we set him up and supported him.

The point I'm trying to make is that often, we create our own problems, and our own enemies. The Middle East has a long and messy and bloody history. Europe and the US have been involved in that history, and our own actions and motives have been far from pure along the way.

Are there those in Radical Islam who perhaps manufacture extra reason to hate the US? Probably. And of course there are those who happily pour gas on the fire and look to keep it burning. But we are also far from innocent in the situation. We have poured plenty of gas of our own on the fire. There is plenty of innocence, and guilt, to go around, on all sides. It makes for a messy picture, and we cannot simply point and say "they are the bad guys, we are the good guys". It just isn't as clear as that.

An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind.

 

[Big Don]

The concept of the lesser of two evils evades, again.
Why did the US COVERTLY support the Mujahadeen in Afganistan in the 1980's? Because the congress, etc wouldn't allow OVERT support, nor was a rock pile like Afganistan worth really putting MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to the test.
At the time we gave some MINOR support to Saddam, Khomeni and his fun filled friends were chanting "Death to America" in the streets of Tehran, and had only recently released the hostages they had held in our embassy, despite all of Carter's diplomacy.

Yes, we actually can simply say "Those who willfully target civilians and non-combatants are BAD GUYS" Since every member of the US military is taught The Law of Land Warfare, which includes little gems like NOT targetting civilians and non-combatants, etc we can honestly claim to be "Good Guys".

 

[Flying Crane]

The concept of the lesser of two evils evades, again.
Why did the US COVERTLY support the Mujahadeen in Afganistan in the 1980's? Because the congress, etc wouldn't allow OVERT support, nor was a rock pile like Afganistan worth really putting MAD (Mutually Assured Destruction) to the test.
At the time we gave some MINOR support to Saddam, Khomeni and his fun filled friends were chanting "Death to America" in the streets of Tehran, and had only recently released the hostages they had held in our embassy, despite all of Carter's diplomacy.

Yes, we actually can simply say "Those who willfully target civilians and non-combatants are BAD GUYS" Since every member of the US military is taught The Law of Land Warfare, which includes little gems like NOT targetting civilians and non-combatants, etc we can honestly claim to be "Good Guys".

I'd put the same question to you, that I asked Twin Fist. What would you suggest as the solution to the problem?

 

[Big Don]

I'd put the same question to you, that I asked Twin Fist. What would you suggest as the solution to the problem?

Take the gloves off. A vastly disproportional response to acts of terrorism. Make the penalty for terrorism so freaking horrific no one would dare it.

 

[Twin Fist]

Flying Crane,
While what you say is true, I mean, we DID help Bin Laden fight the Soviets, and we DID help Saddam when he was at war with the Iranians, we cannot be blamed for their later actions.

Bin Laden isnt mad at the US because we cut him off. he HAD money, he didnt need ours. Most reports say that he started hating the US in 90 when he offered to fight the Iraqi invasion of Kuwait, and the Saudi royals told him to pack sand and called the US for help. he is more mad at the Saudi royals than at us.

Likewise, Saddam was pissed at us not for helping him, but because we stood up to him when he decided he might like an ocean front palace in Kuwait for the off season. Wether we helped him before that or not, he would still have invaded, and we would still have stopped him.

And, there are bad guys in the world. They strap retarded women with vests of plastique, and remote detonate them.They do this with kids too. And dogs. They flew planes into buildings. They blew up the marine barracks in 1984.They slaughtered Israeli athletes in Munich

The hate comes from the imams. They know their only power comes from the people having nothing else in thier life BUT islam. The imams depend of the sheep being miserable and angry.

The imams hate us because our lifestyle places less importance on faith, yet we all live like kings. Thats a threat to thier power. The good life? without Allah?

So what happens? the arabic people see us, see that we are NOT devoted to allah, yet we live great lives, so the imams tell their sheep that we are evil. That we are keeping them down. That we should die. And that by killing us, they will gain the favor of the prophet. For alot of them, the Koran is the only book they ever read. And it doesnt help that the koran is perhaps the most violent book ever written. It tells that that infidels are not even human, much less equal to themselves. It tells them that it is ok to lie to us, because we are infidels, deserving only of death.

So we cant trust them, we cant reason with them, we cant negotiate with them. All we can do, with the RADICALS is die, or kill them. This isnt our fault. We would happily leave them alone if they would stop trying to kill us all........

i agree with you that the US, with the best of intentions, does often create problems for itself, but i disagree that these two examples are good ones.

 

[FearlessFreep]

The point I'm trying to make is that often, we create our own problems, and our own enemies

I hear this often, or at least this line of reasoning, and regardless of any other parts of this discussion, this one aspect in particular has always bothered me.

Broken down simply, it's the idea of justification for committing certain acts. In very few normal social situations do we allow for this excuse to be used. Even in the world of martial arts, which is itself the study of committing violent acts against another person, we talk about both the legal and the moral compass of committing certain acts against others.

Are people angry as us for our foreign policy? Sure. Both our allies and our enemies often are, and vice versa. But the response is usually diploamtic, almost never militaristic.

I guess in my ethical economy, whether you commit murder because you "hate our freedom" or you commit murder because you "are pissed because we gave guns to your enemies"... it's still murder; the rest is just excuse making

 

[elder999]

Elder,
Dont assume, you are not very good at it. And it comes across as snarky.

Actually, there are manuals based on my assumptions. People at the highest level of government have relied upon my assumptions. By all accounts-except yours-I'm very good at assuming.

No matter, I'm the prince of "snarky" and proud of it.:ultracool

...I mean, I live on "Snark St."

 

[Big Don]

No matter, I'm the king of "snarky" and proud of it.:ultracool

That kind of distinction is ONLY good if it comes with a crown.

 

[elder999]

That kind of distinction is ONLY good if it comes with a crown.

No crown, but it comes with some really cool buttons. :lol:

 

[elder999]

Not to worry, Don., TwinFist. I take these topics very seriously......
......it's your opinions on them that I don't take seriously-seriously! :lol:

I mean...honestly, TF-snarky is exactly what I was going for, there-how could you think anything else?....thank you.....:lol:

 

[Bob Hubbard]

Ya'll watch the mud slinging....I ain't paid the water bill for the server yet.

 

[Twin Fist]

slacker

Ya'll watch the mud slinging....I ain't paid the water bill for the server yet.

 

[Bob Hubbard]

slacker

Naw.
Hacker.

 

[Andrew Green]

Yes, we actually can simply say "Those who willfully target civilians and non-combatants are BAD GUYS" Since every member of the US military is taught The Law of Land Warfare, which includes little gems like NOT targetting civilians and non-combatants, etc we can honestly claim to be "Good Guys".

You do realise that this idea of not targeting civilians is fairly new, and that both sides did a fair bit of it in WW1 and WW2, the last major wars between leading nations. Korea and Vietnam certainly had civilian targets hit, and the Iraqi civilian casualty count do to bombing, intentional or not is very high.

War is ugly, and when your side is losing, or in danger of losing it tends to take more and more desperate measures. The last time western powers fought a war they where in danger of losing, WW2, they most certainely did target civilians. The doctrine was that it would demoralize the civilian population and reduce support for the war politically, putting financial and political pressure on the country.

The War against Japan was largely effected by the US dropping Atomic bombs on targets that where not just military targets, but ones with large civilian populations as well to hit the country psychologically as well.

So, are you sure you want to make the claim that "Those who willfully target civilians and non-combatants are BAD GUYS"? Because that covers pretty much every country, and we didn't even cover the genocide of the Native Americans, just modern warfare...

Or is it just, those that "still do it"? In which case I would remind you about harping on about Democrats endorsing slavery a couple hundreds of years ago and claiming it to be relevant to todays issues.

 

[Tez3]

What's really unfair is the time difference that means when I'm up and posting you lot are in bed and when I get up in the morning I find hundreds of posts added! then I have to go to work for 12 hours so no hope of adding more ( sighs of relief form TF and Big Don there rofl).
Bob, the Crusaders aong with talk of gods and religion always bring me back to Monty Python, they've ruined most subjects really lol!