• Register
  • Help
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 36

Topic: Death to America

Share/Bookmark
  1. #1

    Death to America

    sponsored links


    ***Advertisments***
    http://abcnews.go.com/International/...ory?id=1509545

    You and I would be in the streets shouting "Death to America" if we lived in Pakistan too. It's just shameful and disgusting.

    We have no business killing civilians whether or not these people are hiding in a crowd. There's no excuse for what happened, nor is there any excuse for a foreign policy that puts us in a position where this is likely to happen. And this is supposed to help get rid of terrorism?!

    It's unbelievable how much moral stature our country has lost in such a short time.

  2. #2

    Re: Death to America

    Yeah..we probably would, but here is another way of looking at it.....

    "Death to America"????
    Don't these people have jobs to go to? Can we quit our jobs, head to the streets, start rioting, and also hold up signs? Our signs will say "Death to countries that support and produce terrorists." Then we'll burn their flags too.

    "Stop bombing innocent people"?????
    Is Ayman al-Zawahri innocent? Other "innocent" people might want to stop hanging around him when they hear bombs on their way.

    "Pakistan says it does not allow American forces on its soil to attack or hunt militants."
    Oh yeah? Well America does not allow other countries to harbor terrorists that seem to like crashing airplanes in to our buildings.
    Last edited by Danimal; 01-16-2006 at 11:21 AM. Reason: addition
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  3. #3

    Re: Death to America

    And my favorite quote from the article....

    "two top Pakistani officials one from the military, the other from the civilian administration said privately that the government was only informed of the strike after it happened."

    Holy cow!!! We forgot to tell someone before we bombed them??? No!!!! It can't be!! With policy like that, it could be the reason that the people who we are supposed to be bombing "failed to show up".
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  4. #4
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Death to America

    Really, Danimal, you are advocating this position? I hope it's hyperbole.

    Let's just say that I would agree with your proposition, that we should be trying to kill these people in other countries. Would it not at least make more sense to use a more useful weapon, say a sniper whose racial profile fits him into the surroundings, versus dropping a blunt-force weapon like a freaking missle onto an area which could sustain collateral damage?

    Or to put it another way...

    What if you were throwing a dinner party. What if you had invited a nice new couple down the street to your party. Only, unknown to you, the husband of the couple had masterminded a pizzaria bombing in Tel Aviv. As all of your guests are having a cocktail, an Israeli warplane drops a bomb on your house, and kills everyone there and several of your neighbors.

    But it turns out that your invited guest had a cold and didn't show up.

    Wouldn't your community have a little problem over Israel's clumsy execution of their mission? Wouldn't a sniper in the house across the street be a bit better plan?

    The problem sometimes is not that our policies are fundamentally flawed (although many are). It's not that we should not be seeking to undermine terrorist activity. But for f**ks sake, we're supposed to be the most innovative society on the planet. Is a blunt, clumsy approach to dealing with the problem really the best option we have?

    It's not that we're a bad country. It's that our leadership is not smart, and worse, it's arrogantly not smart. That is a woeful combination.

  5. #5

    Re: Death to America

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce A. Richardson
    Let's just say that I would agree with your proposition, that we should be trying to kill these people in other countries. Would it not at least make more sense to use a more useful weapon, say a sniper whose racial profile fits him into the surroundings, versus dropping a blunt-force weapon like a freaking missle onto an area which could sustain collateral damage?

    Or to put it another way...

    What if you were throwing a dinner party. What if you had invited a nice new couple down the street to your party. Only, unknown to you, the husband of the couple had masterminded a pizzaria bombing in Tel Aviv. As all of your guests are having a cocktail, an Israeli warplane drops a bomb on your house, and kills everyone there and several of your neighbors.

    But it turns out that your invited guest had a cold and didn't show up.

    Wouldn't your community have a little problem over Israel's clumsy execution of their mission? Wouldn't a sniper in the house across the street be a bit better plan?

    The problem sometimes is not that our policies are fundamentally flawed (although many are). It's not that we should not be seeking to undermine terrorist activity. But for f**ks sake, we're supposed to be the most innovative society on the planet. Is a blunt, clumsy approach to dealing with the problem really the best option we have?

    It's not that we're a bad country. It's that our leadership is not smart, and worse, it's arrogantly not smart. That is a woeful combination.
    Bruce,

    That's a good point. And is our leadership smart? No. Our leadership can't even spell or speak correctly.

    Here's the thing though. You're right in that using a different method of eliminating that terrorist might be a better idea. In fact, I'm still wondering why we haven't been able to snipe Bin Laden (assuming our leadership actually wants to, of course). Personally, I'm for using whatever method is effective, even if it causes collateral damage. Do I prefer that innocent people die? Absolutely not. Is it horrible? Yes. If we can avoid it, then we should. Quite frankly though, we, not being in the military don't know the exact logistics of that particular situation. So neither you nor I know what the best choice was. "War" and killing sucks either way.

    I found the article and the specific quotes that I listed from it, to be incredibly ridiculous though. Especially the final one that I listed.
    Last edited by Danimal; 01-16-2006 at 11:41 AM. Reason: typo
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  6. #6

    Re: Death to America

    Incidentally Bruce, while I think you made a good point, I bet you really don't think people that invited him over to dinner didn't know who he was.

    We don't even know that the military was purposely targeting him there either. It could very well have been a distraction (an effective yet deadly one). The point is. We don't know.
    Last edited by Danimal; 01-16-2006 at 11:50 AM. Reason: addition
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  7. #7
    Senior Member Bruce A. Richardson's Avatar
    Join Date
    Sep 1999
    Location
    Dallas, Texas
    Posts
    5,755

    Re: Death to America

    Quote Originally Posted by Danimal
    Incidentally Bruce, while I think you made a good point, I bet you really don't think people that invited him over to dinner didn't know who he was.

    We don't even know that the military was purposely targeting him there either. It could very well have been a distraction (an effective yet deadly one). The point is. We don't know.
    I would say that in a case where we don't know, and the job is to kill a single person, dropping a bomb is a supremely stupid idea.

    In your previous post you included a parenthetical--(assuming our leadership actually wants to, of course)--in reference to why it seems ludicrous that we have not quietly eliminated problems like Bin Laden with snipers, etc.

    I think you hit the nail on the head.

    We are like the idiot in a hole, who tries to solve his problem by continuing to dig. Bush and company desperately want just one single headline to go their way: We drop bomb and kill bad guy.

    Unfortunately, it only takes a retarded bad guy to take this desire on the administration's part and use it against us. One could, in fact, make a very good case that Bin Laden did exactly that. By executing one freak incident of terrorist bravado, he has caused us to ditch many of our domestic freedoms, caused us to kill literally hundreds of thousands of innocent people, and at a time when judicious restraint would have painted him a pariah, our clumsy leadership has managed to actually elevate his status among poor discontented Islamic populations. We managed to help fill his coffers and recruiting needs for years to come.

    Not bad for a day's work.

    A terrorist is exactly like a troll...the most sociopathic form of troll, granted, but still a troll. His single source of power exists when people respond to him in kind. Had we responded to 9/11 with restraint, we would still be enjoying the sympathy and support of every country on this planet. Instead, we squandered a moment in time when we could have changed the world.

    Nice.

  8. #8

    Re: Death to America

    Quote Originally Posted by Bruce A. Richardson
    In your previous post you included a parenthetical--(assuming our leadership actually wants to, of course)--in reference to why it seems ludicrous that we have not quietly eliminated problems like Bin Laden with snipers, etc.

    I think you hit the nail on the head.
    Yup. I still can't figure out why we haven't caught him. Now, I don't expect that we will be first to know about any plans of the CIA or whatever about where he might be, why we might be waiting to get him, etc.

    That aside, does anybody have any reasonable ideas as to why we (assumingly) haven't found him? I already know the theories about his oil involvement, waiting for our elections to catch him as a political ploy, etc., but does anybody have any other reasonable ideas? It amazes me that it was such a big deal to catch him and now we hear NOTHING about it. It seems as though our leadership doesn't even care if we catch him, and they don't even seem to care if we are trying to catch him. I understand that could be strategy, but I doubt it. Who wants to chime in?

    P.S. I also realize that the area he might be hiding out in is pretty rugged, but I don't feel that that is a good excuse for not finding him.
    "They get what they vote for." PaulR

  9. #9

    Re: Death to America

    "Death to America"????
    Don't these people have jobs to go to? Can we quit our jobs, head to the streets, start rioting, and also hold up signs? Our signs will say "Death to countries that support and produce terrorists." Then we'll burn their flags too.
    Dan, you'd be out in the streets in a rage too if someone dropped a bomb on your town and killed a bunch of people (including children). More importantly, the *state* of Pakistan isn't producing terrorists. But we are producing bombings of innocent civilians.

    And we're making the problem worse by this kind of terrible, terrible behavior. This goes way beyond just a hazard of war.


    "Stop bombing innocent people"?????
    Is Ayman al-Zawahri innocent? Other "innocent" people might want to stop hanging around him when they hear bombs on their way.
    He wasn't even there!

    "Pakistan says it does not allow American forces on its soil to attack or hunt militants."
    Oh yeah? Well America does not allow other countries to harbor terrorists that seem to like crashing airplanes in to our buildings.
    And Pakistan does? Musharref (spelling?) has had to survive two assassination attempts precisely because he's trying to cooperate in that way!

    Let's get rid of Affirmative Action. Why? 9/11, of course!

  10. #10

    Re: Death to America

    Quote Originally Posted by Danimal
    You're right in that using a different method of eliminating that terrorist might be a better idea.
    Ya think?
    In fact, I'm still wondering why we haven't been able to snipe Bin Laden (assuming our leadership actually wants to, of course).
    And presuming he's alive.
    Personally, I'm for using whatever method is effective, even if it causes collateral damage. Do I prefer that innocent people die? Absolutely not. Is it horrible? Yes. If we can avoid it, then we should. Quite frankly though, we, not being in the military don't know the exact logistics of that particular situation. So neither you nor I know what the best choice was. "War" and killing sucks either way.
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't "Know your target and what's behind it" a major rule amongst gun users?

    Might also help to take more than the immediate objectives into account.

    Americans basically discount the long term effects of their actions. If the government is going to take out terrorists this way it has to include all the side effects, military, political and social. It makes no sense to spawn future terrorists while you're taking out the current ones.

    This kind of strike works IF you have isolation from your enemy. Unfortunately, the message of 911 is that America is no longer isolated. Whatever violence America does to others, no matter how justified in it's own eyes, will come back to it. It'll be interesting to see if in all this flailing to protect itself, America is creating the animosity that will create the next 911.

    Ernie

Go Back to forum
Page 1 of 4 1234 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •