Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

So called "terrorist attacks" are warranted.

page: 3
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join

posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Nihilist Fiend

Very good post!

Compromise, conflict resolution and empathy are lost arts from those currently 'leading' our country...

All, observing these various comments, pls think in your mind in the future...should (when?) another attack happens, the majority of the Amercian population will NOT sit back passively and trust, wait, etc...

We need to strongly encourage our current leaders to step up and lead...work together and solve this issue...

1) We need border security
2) We need a strong defense
3) We need to help those poorer countries with aid
4) We need to reach out to moderate muslims and support them


The 18th century French philosopher said, "AMERICA is great, because America is good."




posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 07:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by Weisheit
First Im American and not Islamic.


Now, I know a lot of you wont like that I said that, but we've been pillaging these people, their lands, and resources for decades. What do think their going to do? Fact is they have no other means of resistance

Now someone will say "but their targeting innocents". So long as we stand idly by while our government uses our money, our will, and our resources no one is innocent, not you, not me, not anyone.

Raped, pillaged, plundered, and murdered. What would you do?

When you push someone, eventually they will push back.


[edit on 26-6-2007 by Weisheit]

if you think ANYONE deserves to be terrorized you are part of the problem and not the solution.

starting with the first act if everyone took an eye for an eye the world would be blind.

would be? hmmmm it is for the most part, thanks to this logic.

perhaps you stand by idly. i myself do not. however, violence isnt always the best answer, in fact seldom is.

to say i deserve to be terrorized is borderline TOS violation. i would appreciate it if you reword your post or articulate your thoughts better. thank you.



posted on Jun, 26 2007 @ 10:07 PM
link   

Originally posted by jprophet420

starting with the first act if everyone took an eye for an eye the world would be blind.


So you are saying that Iraq was not an "eye for an eye" huh? If Im not mistaken, we went to Iraq because we were led to believe Saddam Hussein was supporting Osama Bin Laden and had Al-queda training camps in Iraq. We hit Iraq because we thought they were complacent in 9-11. If thats not "eye for an eye" what is? Or even better in your case what isn't an eye for an eye? Anything thats done by us doesnt count as eye for an eye?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 06:15 AM
link   

Originally posted by Weisheit

Originally posted by marg6043
The middle east like Africa are territories that are look upon with disdain in part because racial discrimination and also prejudices.

Even in our modern times this two subjects are very alive and well.

Top it with the disdain against their religions and you see why they will never be taken seriously as nations.

The only thing that is of interest is their natural resources.
This is wrong, their not taken seriously because their weak, poor, and hungry. Therefore their easy prey.



...Mostly, terrorists are disenfranchised peoples...

Many become terrorists because they are 'labled" and encapsulatede as above...

"they are weak" (They aren't supposed to be any threat)

"they are poor" (They don't count)

"they are hungry" (They are pathetic )


Terrorism like criminality is an inarticate form of expression...

Even if the have a legitamate gripe...

These actions are not the correct way to address them...

because they feel so marginalized they feel they have no other recourse...



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 10:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

We've taken them from nomads and made them some of the wealthiest nations on earth. We've given them the capacity to cripple our economy.

Pillaged? More like "bestowed riches".


No, US leaders have taken a handful of people, turned them into comprador leaders and dumped tonns of cash, arms, and support on them in turn to recieve more than generous returns on foreign investment opportunities.

The people of those countries still remain largely in great poverty and under the jackboot of oppression.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 11:49 AM
link   
Terror in the lowest forms. Can you sit there and tell yourself that they hate us just for hating us. C'mon thats just BS! We as a country have picked and prodded at these ppl, implimenting terror even at its lowest forms as i said above. here's some examples:

www.youtube.com...

www.youtube.com...

IMO this is just plain out wrong, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:37 PM
link   

Originally posted by jsobecky

Originally posted by Weisheit
First Im American and not Islamic.


Now, I know a lot of you wont like that I said that, but we've been pillaging these people, their lands, and resources for decades. What do think their going to do? Fact is they have no other means of resistance

Now someone will say "but their targeting innocents". So long as we stand idly by while our government uses our money, our will, and our resources no one is innocent, not you, not me, not anyone.

Raped, pillaged, plundered, and murdered. What would you do?

When you push someone, eventually they will push back.



[edit on 26-6-2007 by Weisheit]

Very poor choice of words, imo.



pil·lage /ˈpɪlɪdʒ/ Pronunciation Key - Show Spelled Pronunciation[pil-ij] Pronunciation Key - Show IPA Pronunciation verb, -laged, -lag·ing, noun
–verb (used with object) 1. to strip ruthlessly of money or goods by open violence, as in war; plunder: The barbarians pillaged every conquered city.
2. to take as booty.
–verb (used without object)
3. to rob with open violence; take booty: Soldiers roamed the countryside, pillaging and killing.
–noun
4. the act of plundering, esp. in war.
5. booty or spoil.

dictionary.reference.com...

We've taken them from nomads and made them some of the wealthiest nations on earth. We've given them the capacity to cripple our economy.

Pillaged? More like "bestowed riches".
Is your post a joke...PLEASE tell me it is. Why dont you read that definition I bolded.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 12:56 PM
link   

Originally posted by Xiamen
Terror in the lowest forms. Can you sit there and tell yourself that they hate us just for hating us. C'mon thats just BS!



The middle east has a right to be angry with the policies of many administrations throughout this nation's (United States) history, but that is not an excuse to attack innocent people who have no power in dealing with the issue.



Originally posted by Xiamen
We as a country have picked and prodded at these ppl, implimenting terror even at its lowest forms as i said above.
IMO this is just plain out wrong, and we should be ashamed of ourselves.



I am ashamed of the policies at work and also at the actions of some individual soldiers, but I am not ashamed in myself. I have not done anything to these people, so why should they have right to attack me?



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 01:13 PM
link   
Heres a thought.

Whats the difference between a suicide bomber setting themselves off in a street full of people, and an F-16 Pilot dropping a 2500lb smart bomb from 17,000 ft on a power distribution station next to homes in a residential area?

Which has the lesser civilian casualties from blast radius?

Which of the civilians knew it was going to happen?

In my book, neither can be justified.






[edit on 27/0607/07 by neformore]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 01:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore
Heres a thought.

Whats the difference between a suicide bomber setting themselves off in a street full of people, and an F-16 Pilot dropping a 2500lb smart bomb from 17,000 ft on a power distribution station next to homes in a residential area?
[edit on 27/0607/07 by neformore]


Answer: Intent

The suicide bomber is deliberately aiming to kill/mangle/terrorize the innocent civilians on that street. The suicide bomber could care less about who those people are and if they have caused him any harm. He is merely trying to make a statement in the most grotesque way possible.

The Pilot is working in conjunction with a uniformed military and is on a mission to destroy some part of the enemies infrastructure. His goal is not to terrorize and kill innocent life, it is to place that smart weapon on its target (warheads on foreheads is how I've heard it phrased). Furthermore this nation has developed "smart" weapons in hopes of decreasing civilian casualties. Do these smart weapons work 100% of the time, no. Does that mean that the F-16 Pilot is the same as the suicide bomber? Hardly.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 01:52 PM
link   
Nihilist Fiend: You are pretty spot on with your comments on not being responsible for the policies of US leaders and policy makers. However, when the US army destroies infastructure in another country with a smart bomb or whatever else, does the civilian population also not suffer "collarteral damage"?

For instance, when a power or water station is destroyed, water can no longer flow to any number of civilians, which in turn brings unsanitary conditions (and lots of typhoid), lack of drinking water, and the loss of the ability to cook (to some degree.)

I dont consider this as collarteral damage, i consider this as one of the intentions of the strike.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 01:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
The Pilot is working in conjunction with a uniformed military and is on a mission to destroy some part of the enemies infrastructure. His goal is not to terrorize and kill innocent life, it is to place that smart weapon on its target (warheads on foreheads is how I've heard it phrased). Furthermore this nation has developed "smart" weapons in hopes of decreasing civilian casualties. Do these smart weapons work 100% of the time, no. Does that mean that the F-16 Pilot is the same as the suicide bomber? Hardly.


OK. So....next question...

How do the ordinary people on the ground percieve that?

Do you think they experience it thinking "wow, these people are my friends"?

Or do you think they experience it thinking "I'd like to find the bastard that just blew up my neighbourhoods power supply, killed the three families across the street and maimed my neighbours children and do exactly the same to him."

How does "intent" matter then?


[edit on 27/0607/07 by neformore]

[edit on 27/0607/07 by neformore]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf
However, when the US army destroies infastructure in another country with a smart bomb or whatever else, does the civilian population also not suffer "collarteral damage"?


This is true, there are sever consequences to taking out infrastructure, especially if you are liberating the nation and not just destroying it. If you were to take Iraq as an example, what happened was that coalition forces rapidly destroyed the ability of the Iraqi army to fight (ie air-strikes against the infrastructure). This was then followed up by ground forces taking control of civilian population centers at a remarkably fast pace.

What should have happened was pre-planing enough to get those power stations back online after the initial conflict. This would decrease the civilian suffering due to lack of utilities. Post war these things did not occur or did so at a reduced speed.

I do not believe that the intention of any coalition air-strike is to cause long-term disease and disparity in a population that the coalition must now occupy and police. In conflicts of extermination though (ex. Hitler in WW2 where the goal was to destroy an entire people) then you may have a point.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:20 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
I do not believe that the intention of any coalition air-strike is to cause long-term disease and disparity in a population that the coalition must now occupy and police. In conflicts of extermination though (ex. Hitler in WW2 where the goal was to destroy an entire people) then you may have a point.


Though this may be true of the current war (i have my doubts) what of previous wars that have been lost? Such as the First Gulf War or Viet Nam? Infastructure leveled, housing leveled, farm land decimated, who should pick up the pieces then? Its easy to say our forces are justified in destroying a water pumping station to stop an enemy in its tracks, especially when our forces win but what happens when our forces lose and have to leave the country? Should this not be considered terrorism as well?

The ends are usually the same, what difference do the means make?

Edit to add: IMO, when you attack a countries water supplies and pumping stations, you are committing bacteriological warfare, or, terrorism.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by neformore

Or do you think they experience it thinking "I'd like to find the bastard that just blew up my neighbourhoods power supply, killed the three families across the street and maimed my neighbours children and do exactly the same to him."

[edit on 27/0607/07 by neformore]


Thats just it, get justice against those who committed the act. You have to take the military out of the responsibility equation for a second because they are only following orders (the time when you can hold individual soldiers accountable for their actions is when they break rules of engagement / codes of conduct and such). The people you can hold responsible are those that made the decision to go to war, and even then there are many things to consider when deciding if the war was justified.

Yes in all war there is horrible collateral damage inflicted against civilian populations. But you must understand that there is a disconnect between those planning the war versus those working in the buildings on 9-11. It is completely unjustifiable for a victim of collateral damage in war to turn around and bomb a civilian target in an act of terrorism.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:24 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend
It is completely unjustifiable for a victim of collateral damage in war to turn around and bomb a civilian target in an act of terrorism.


We are in total agreement here.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:44 PM
link   

Originally posted by InSpiteOf

Though this may be true of the current war (i have my doubts) what of previous wars that have been lost? Such as the First Gulf War or Viet Nam? Infastructure leveled, housing leveled, farm land decimated, who should pick up the pieces then?
[edit on 27-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]


If the nation that is decimated initiated the war then it should be left to that nation to recover. I don't think the US would be responsible to clean up Iraq after the First Gulf War because Iraq invaded Kuwait. Also North Vietnam invaded an ally of the United States(though they were as corrupt as the north) South Vietnam, so I don't feel we had any responsibility there either.

Here is the issue as well, too many times in history political and ideological constructs are the justification for war instead of the reality of the situation. If you get down to the meat and potatoes of each issue there is a clear way to solve the conflict. Problem is most conflicts today are muddied with nationalism, religion, or some other divisive human invention. This is why I have a problem with terrorists and nations killing innocent civilians in the name of some idea that the victim wants no part of (in other words, I don't want to die so some guy can get his 40 virgins).


Originally posted by InSpiteOf
Its easy to say our forces are justified in destroying a water pumping station to stop an enemy in its tracks, especially when our forces win but what happens when our forces lose and have to leave the country? Should this not be considered terrorism as well?

[edit on 27-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]


The issue there is that armies usually don't have a contingency plan for how they are going to help the civilians of a nation they were fighting if they lose. At that point they would be too concerned (and rightly so) for their own survival.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 02:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by Nihilist Fiend


If the nation that is decimated initiated the war then it should be left to that nation to recover. I don't think the US would be responsible to clean up Iraq after the First Gulf War because Iraq invaded Kuwait.

I can understand your position with your first line. As for the part i bolded, thats where we disagree. Though i believe the conversation stemming from this line needs a seperate thread, and i wont bother going into any specific points.



Here is the issue as well, too many times in history political and ideological constructs are the justification for war instead of the reality of the situation. If you get down to the meat and potatoes of each issue there is a clear way to solve the conflict. Problem is most conflicts today are muddied with nationalism, religion, or some other divisive human invention. This is why I have a problem with terrorists and nations killing innocent civilians in the name of some idea that the victim wants no part of (in other words, I don't want to die so some guy can get his 40 virgins).

To the first bolded line, that certainly is a relavent truth, but to ignore poltical, ideological, and even economical constructs as justification (strike that, reasoning) altogether i think is a mistake.

To the second bolded line, again, i have to agree with you.

[edit on 27-6-2007 by InSpiteOf]



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 03:30 PM
link   
In my opinion intent really doesn't matter, results do.

If a suicide bomber kills 20 civilians or an F-16 kills 20 civilians, the friends & families aren't going to care what the intent of the attack was. All they know is that the people they loved are dead, and the people who did it are the enemy and need to pay.

We can pretend to ourselves all we want that the intent is what's important, but the survivors aren't going to care.



posted on Jun, 27 2007 @ 03:48 PM
link   

Originally posted by xmotex
In my opinion intent really doesn't matter, results do.

If a suicide bomber kills 20 civilians or an F-16 kills 20 civilians, the friends & families aren't going to care what the intent of the attack was. All they know is that the people they loved are dead, and the people who did it are the enemy and need to pay.


I completely disagree, intent does matter. You can't judge a man who blows himself up in a crowded street corner the same as a pilot trying to guide a JDAM onto a target. The suicide bomber is specifically trying to kill and terrorize civilians, while the pilot is just trying to destroy the designated target.

Consider the hostage situation. A hostage is killed by the terrorist when his demands are not met. This is different from a hostage being killed on accident when SWAT storms the building in hopes of ending the situation. In both cases the victims family would still grieve the loss, but they would judge each man ( terrorist / SWAT) based on his intent.





new topics

top topics



 
4
<< 1  2    4  5  6 >>

log in

join