This is for the virgins!
New page.
You know what this page needs?
AMERICA, F$+~ YEAH!!!
And if that bothers you, bite me.
If you like that quote, how about "Don't get involved in a land war in Asia"?That's okay, Doodlebug. I am used to people getting hurt when I question government propaganda they like.You keep using that word, I do not think it means what you think it means.+100
In the future, all political debates should involve competing quotes from The Princess Bride.
And even though my mother's peoples were from Bari, I feel justified in adding
"Don't go up against a Sicilian when death is on the line."
EDIT: Frakkin' dark ninja EDIT: Frakkin' darth ninja!
I beg to differ, this is not a political debate, it is a Propaganda debate. One person feels it is all propaganda, and the rest suggest that person might need to adjust their tin foil hat.
Ok fine some politics have been discussed but not much. Just opinions about politics, which well how does one put this DC is much like "Camelot, a silly place, lets not go there."
Tomorrow you will all be wishing he had been given a globally broadcast show trial on the Carrier and deported to the South Pole for Life Imprisonment with all the other animals.Aw crap. Did I accidentally wander into the Yellow Dingo Wing of the boards again? I forget - do I need to sniff paint in order to make the experience tolerable or do I need to follow the trail of tin foil to find my way out?
There are two opinions on that matter. Houyhnhnms seems to think that paint sniffing is a much more dignified route, while most yahoos feel that is it a much wiser choice to go with the tin foil. I think they like the tin foil simple because you can use it to make clothing not just hats.
Wow...12 pages of people advocating violation of international laws and the commiting of crimes. Guess the Rules of Forum conduct dont apply to you loyalists.
Loyalist? We do not have a monarchy.
You can make your points against bin Laden without mocking this traditional Arabic garb.
Point taken. I came to that conclusion myself shortly after I posted, but had to put my son to bed. I am currently working out new rhymes.
Masterful rapper I am not.
EDIT: And apparently the electrons didn't reach Seattle fast enough, as now the post is gone. In case you missed it, I apologized for my words and changed the text. Hopefully I can learn if the new version was acceptable, or if I crossed the line there, too. I won't post that one until I find out.
Director of Brand Strategy
|
I've removed a post with some content that was undeniably over the line. I know it's a hot topic but remember that we have readers of all races, religions, and cultures on these boards and even community members sharing your exact same demographic breakdown may be offended by insensitive comments. I also removed a response quoting the original text.
Please think before you post, folks.
I've removed a post with some content that was undeniably over the line. I know it's a hot topic but remember that we have readers of all races, religions, and cultures on these boards and even community members sharing your exact same demographic breakdown may be offended by insensitive comments. I also removed a response quoting the original text.
Please think before you post, folks.
Yes, I'm sorry.
Manufactured by Heckler and Koch
The MP5 is never a joke.
I've made sure to make sure
I won't raise a furor.
I want to have fun not provoke.
As an American, the news of his death was kind of a 'meh' moment. A bit relieved perhaps, but the dude was just one cancer cell amonsgt many. Perhaps one of those cells that multiplies others faster but still.
A sad thing I notice in the debate about the ethics of the action taken is that there is not always a perfect solution to a problem in an imperfect world. In fact, the world can be really ugly sometimes. Nor are Americans perfect. Nor is anyone. To expect people to be so is delusional. To demand they be so is beyond ridiculous. To hope they that strive to be is reasonable, but that has to be tempered by reality. The same holds true for all nationalities. We're seeing hope in the protests of the younger people of the Middle East.
Set aside the trappings and his death was the result of his own actions. Long in the coming. This man set out to DELIBERATELY KILL INNOCENTS. And succeeded numerous times. To compare that with other scenarios is disingenuous. His death was justice. Guilty by his own testimony.
You can choose to weep over this. I won't.
That said, I was surprised at the celebrations. I don't believe those people were celebrating the death of a man as much as the death of a symbol. I was pleased, however, that our numerous local Middle Eastern population found reason to rejoice alongside other Americans. Again they seemed relieved at the news, and hopefully this will lead to a stronger sense of community amongst our immigrant brothers and sisters. And among truly peaceful global neighbors. You see dismay, I see the seeds of hope.
EDIT: And as a point, no news cameras were following around the millions of Americans not celebrating this.
All small arms aside from sniper rifles are a joke compared to the mighty AA-12. :PManufactured by Heckler and Koch
The MP5 is never a joke.
Not exactly the best choice for a covert CQB, though. Besides, I needed something familiar that got the limerick out with the requisite number of syllables. And there's not quite the right words to rhyme with 'Koch' and 'provoke.' "MP5SD" just wasn't cutting it.
You can make your points against bin Laden without mocking this traditional Arabic garb.Point taken. I came to that conclusion myself shortly after I posted, but had to put my son to bed. I am currently working out new rhymes.
Masterful rapper I am not.
EDIT: And apparently the electrons didn't reach Seattle fast enough, as now the post is gone. In case you missed it, I apologized for my words and changed the text. Hopefully I can learn if the new version was acceptable, or if I crossed the line there, too. I won't post that one until I find out.
Ain't none of us perfect; I've had my share of Filet of Leather Sole too. :)
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
Osama bin Laden was not "murdered." The WTC victims were murdered. If you cannot tell the difference between an active, hostile enemy combatant and an unarmed, non-hostile civilian, you are either unbelievably naive or willfully obtuse. Here's a hint: one's trying to kill you, the other isn't.
To call Osama bin Laden's death "murder" is tantamount to calling the courageous men who pulled it off "murderers." That is outright slanderous and offensive in the extreme.
Do you know how hard it is to put Arabic words into limericks? It's not like Riyadh is as easy as "Nantucket."
Osama killed many by bomb
All in the name of Islam.
Martyrdom he got
but his very next thought:
"Why is it hot as Jafannam?"
|
RPG Superstar 2015 Top 16, RPG Superstar 2013 Top 16
|
My beef with government propaganda is that there's not enough of it!
Why can't the evil cabal of omniscient bankers that runs the country and determines which scraps of information (if any!) that we get shield me from unpleasant facts?
Couldn't they tell me that Gitmo is a place that is so full of American awesomeness that the prisoners speak of their own free will?
Can't they quit bumming me out with tsunamis hitting Japan? Are you telling me no one in the uber-magic-government couldn't come up with a cover story in order to propel us into the conflict with China?!?!?
And what about the president! Roughly half the population didn't vote for the guy and doesn't seem to like him still. If I were in charge of the Minstry of Propaganda, I'd make sure we didn't have any of that useless political dissent. Everyone should love the president. If he becomes troublesome, assassinate him, say he left to visit the puppy farm in Gitmo, and get a new guy!!!
Stupid lazy conspiracy architects...why won't they give us the truth we want?!?!
Edit: Also, does the six fingered man really have six fingers? That seems like an attempt to cast aspersions on the differently abled mutant population. It's only a matter of time before Project Wideawake deals with them...
Why can't I flag a post as Awesome?
Contributor, RPG Superstar 2010 Top 8
|
The first couple minutes of this reminded me of the conspiracy theory stuff going on in this thread.
Charlie Bell: As I said, if you don't like being criticized for doing something bad, don't do it. Now, I know enough about the military not to have any delusions about how much soldiers can disobey orders. I say a healthy part of the responsibility for the murder does fall on the soldiers, though they are somewhat excused. "I was ordered to do it" only goes so far, doesn't it? However, the person or persons who gave the order to commit this murder, they do get all of it.
Military people like to use technical terms. There is no end to it. They don't say "kill", they say "neutralize", they don't say "assassination", they say "targeted strike", they don't say "mass murder", they say "a few regrettable casualties". The scary part is that they think their terminology changes anything.
And if you find this reasoning "slanderous and offensive in the extreme", well, I can't help you with that.
Wow, that is great. We should all be grateful that we have the government and the agencies to tell us what we need to know about what happens, and to classify everything the government doesnt think we need to know, is that it?
America f@~~ yeah...
Actually the classification of information is normally so the other people(enemies) don't know. I am not saying classification has never been misused, but there are times when "harmless" information has been used against governments. The problem is that there is no way to prove it(that the information is harmless) other than to release the information, and if it is the wrong information to release...,well I don't even need to explain that.
There is also the issue of the information leading to other questions. Information does not normally exist in a vacuum.
Wow, that is great. We should all be grateful that we have the government and the agencies to tell us what we need to know about what happens, and to classify everything the government doesnt think we need to know, is that it?
America f@~~ yeah...
Actually the classification of information is normally so the other people(enemies) don't know. I am not saying classification has never been misused, but there are times when "harmless" information has been used against governments. The problem is that there is no way to prove it(that the information is harmless) other than to release the information, and if it is the wrong information to release...,well I don't even need to explain that.
There is also the issue of the information leading to other questions. Information does not normally exist in a vacuum.
The most serious problem is that with classification, there is no way to know what the government is up to. And the more secrecy the government is allowed, the greater the need they will feel NEVER to let the people know. Lies beget lies.
Today, the world moves quickly. Even with a very short time of secrecy, say two years or so, few areas would have serious problems. The Cablegate documents were more than a year old, and there haven't been any cataclysms yet, right? Damn right, classification has been misused.
I don't quite understand how some people willfuly (seemingly) forget that he murdered thousands. Maybe not directly but certainly at his orders. He should've died much slower. I probably would've televised it for the benefit of his followers (and, admittedly, my own satisfaction).
I don't believe in showing mercy and kindness, or even fairness, to people like that. They're enemies of the United States. They should be treated that way.
David Fryer: If warning about men leading organizations who have killed 3000 people is the main criteria, then I guess the 100.000 or so casualties in Iraq by the american military makes the american president a more terrible bogeyman, right?
Fact of the matter is that the government has harped on and on about Al-Qaida and OBL to keep people in fear, more receptive to arguments designed to remove civil liberties. It has been going on for a decade now.
Aint nobody scared. You are assuming it would work because it would work on you. That is the common mistake people make when they think of plans.
"Well if X would work on me it must work on others."
Then the other person is not effected, and the tables are turned.
The real weakness is not that people are easily scared. It is that people allow themselves to be spoon fed information. "Do your research people", is something I hope to never have to tell anyone again.
As to the issue in Iraq I am still trying to find out the real reason why we were over there. Of course I have not really looked into it. There are not enough hours in the day currently.
It's not like Riyadh is as easy as "Nantucket."
Riyadh, jihad. On another note, chalk me up on the list of those who don't celebrate another's mortal demise, despite the evil they may have caused (though it should be said: for some, dyin's too good.)
Zo
Charlie Bell: As I said, if you don't like being criticized for doing something bad, don't do it. Now, I know enough about the military not to have any delusions about how much soldiers can disobey orders. I say a healthy part of the responsibility for the murder does fall on the soldiers, though they are somewhat excused. "I was ordered to do it" only goes so far, doesn't it? However, the person or persons who gave the order to commit this murder, they do get all of it.
Military people like to use technical terms. There is no end to it. They don't say "kill", they say "neutralize", they don't say "assassination", they say "targeted strike", they don't say "mass murder", they say "a few regrettable casualties". The scary part is that they think their terminology changes anything.
And if you find this reasoning "slanderous and offensive in the extreme", well, I can't help you with that.
With that earlier comment about classified information I am in much doubt of your knowledge of military protocol, and not every word is a code word.
Kill=neutralize. I agreeTargeted Strike=assassination. Sometimes yes, sometimes no. It is always a kill though. No I was not trying to rhyme.
regrettable casualties=mass murder. Nope. Mass murder is when I don't care who I kill. An example would be using an RPG to kill a single point target when I could have just used a rifle. Regrettable Casualties is then I go after a real enemy, and due to an error I accidentally shoot/kill a civilian.
The scary part is people who have no idea what the terminology means, and keeps assuming the worst. Trying being neutral when you post. It helps perspective a lot.
stuff
I very much agree with you, but you are talking to deaf ears with this person.
Wow, that is great. We should all be grateful that we have the government and the agencies to tell us what we need to know about what happens, and to classify everything the government doesnt think we need to know, is that it?
America f@~~ yeah...
Actually the classification of information is normally so the other people(enemies) don't know. I am not saying classification has never been misused, but there are times when "harmless" information has been used against governments. The problem is that there is no way to prove it(that the information is harmless) other than to release the information, and if it is the wrong information to release...,well I don't even need to explain that.
There is also the issue of the information leading to other questions. Information does not normally exist in a vacuum.The most serious problem is that with classification, there is no way to know what the government is up to. And the more secrecy the government is allowed, the greater the need they will feel NEVER to let the people know. Lies beget lies.
Today, the world moves quickly. Even with a very short time of secrecy, say two years or so, few areas would have serious problems. The Cablegate documents were more than a year old, and there haven't been any cataclysms yet, right? Damn right, classification has been misused.
I agree with you in theory, but people in power will misuse it. I am not saying all of them will, or that it is ok, but to say the "entire" government is out to get the citizens makes no sense because even the members are citizens and would be subject to the same laws they make. I know you did not say the entire government is up to something, but that is how things are coming across.
Lies do beget lies, but letting the enemy know what you are up to can lead to worse things. Right now I see it as the lesser of two evils.The Cablegate is a pretty big document from what I understand, and I would have to read it in order to see what may be abusive. Just because there has been no noticeable side affects, that does not mean there has been no harm.
What if the US basically says Country X needs to have their security weakened because they are against us so that we can ______. If the documents detail how we are doing so then the country will be able to counteract that, as an example.
edit last paragraph due to typos.
I don't quite understand how some people willfuly (seemingly) forget that he murdered thousands. Maybe not directly but certainly at his orders. He should've died much slower. I probably would've televised it for the benefit of his followers (and, admittedly, my own satisfaction).
I don't believe in showing mercy and kindness, or even fairness, to people like that. They're enemies of the United States. They should be treated that way.
There several political and moral reasons why that is a bad idea, not that I would feel sorry for him if he did suffer. I can accept a lot of things. If I was still in the military and one of my fellow soldiers died I would be upset, but I understand that war is what it is. If you torture one of my people though, then that makes it personal, and giving people that much motivation(what I know I would feel) to come back at you is not a good thing ever.
wraithstrike:
"regrettable casualties=mass murder. Nope. Mass murder is when I don't care who I kill. An example would be using an RPG to kill a single point target when I could have just used a rifle. Regrettable Casualties is then I go after a real enemy, and due to an error I accidentally shoot/kill a civilian."
The only noticable difference then according to you is that if you are trying to kill a "real enemy", your mass murder counts as "regrettable casualties". I am sure the military likes that concept, but I can't in good conscience accept it. You send in a drone and kill everyone at a wedding when you try to kill a "real enemy", you commit mass murder. You bomb a village trying to kill a "real enemy", you commit mass murder. You torture people to pieces trying to find and kill a "real enemy", you are a torturer.
The truth of the matter is that weapons today are far more powerful than they have ever been. They cause massive destruction, and kill many, many people when used. Sometimes, they kill the person they were aimed at, but you can be more or less certain that they will kill others. In an age where weapons are touted as "precision instruments" and such, why is that acceptable?
How you treat others is the key to what others think of your moral fiber, and that is as it should be. If you murder civilian men, women and children to "neutralize" your "real enemy", expect people to judge you for it.
I am not saying war cannot be just, or justified. This just ain't it.
stuffI very much agree with you, but you are talking to deaf ears with this person.
Maybe you are right. Is there any point in debating with someone who has already made their mind up?<--Rhetorical question.
wraithstrike:
"regrettable casualties=mass murder. Nope. Mass murder is when I don't care who I kill. An example would be using an RPG to kill a single point target when I could have just used a rifle. Regrettable Casualties is then I go after a real enemy, and due to an error I accidentally shoot/kill a civilian."
The only noticable difference then according to you is that if you are trying to kill a "real enemy", your mass murder counts as "regrettable casualties". I am sure the military likes that concept, but I can't in good conscience accept it. You send in a drone and kill everyone at a wedding when you try to kill a "real enemy", you commit mass murder. You bomb a village trying to kill a "real enemy", you commit mass murder. You torture people to pieces trying to find and kill a "real enemy", you are a torturer.
You either misunderstood me or you are trying to take my words out of context. Drones don't do single point targets at weddings. That is not even close to what I was saying. How about taking what I say as what I say.
I see we need more examples. A "real enemy" is someone who is trying to kill you in case you need a more concrete example. If the person trying to kill you is out if the open for whatever reason and you kill him with an attack that is an area of affect attack, instead of one that is designed to only target one person when there is no reason to use the area of affect attack, then that is mass murder. That is what I was referring to last time when I compared the RPG to the rifle. I have no idea where you idea came from. If you did not understand "single point target" you should have asked.Seriously how did you even get mass murder out of that one? <--Yes I really do want an answer.
To my knowledge villages were not bombed. Buildings were at times. There is a big difference between bombing a building in an area, and bombing the entire area. When those bombings took place there were reasons for it. If civilian life was never a concern we could have just bombed the entire country and loss a lot less troops. Torture has happened. I won't deny that. See how I am not taking sides here, but being neutral.
The truth of the matter is that weapons today are far more powerful than they have ever been. They cause massive destruction, and kill many, many people when used. Sometimes, they kill the person they were aimed at, but you can be more or less certain that they will kill others. In an age where weapons are touted as "precision instruments" and such, why is that acceptable?]
A word does not make a truth. Not all weapons are the same either. Some are designed to cause less widespread destruction within limits.
How you treat others is the key to what others think of your moral fiber, and that is as it should be. If you murder civilian men, women and children to "neutralize" your "real enemy", expect people to judge you for it.
I agree that civilians should not have to die if it can be helped. Sometimes it can. Other times it can't. Many times the enemies will surround themselves with civilians because they know it makes a soldier's job harder which is a cowardly thing to do. I think people should expect to be judged no matter what they do. Someone will always be unhappy.
I am not saying war cannot be just, or justified. This just ain't it.
What can not be justified? If you mean the killing of civilians that has been a side affect of every way. That does not make it ok, any more than war itself is ok, but it will happen. As someone who was in the military I know how much we try to avoid hurting the wrong people, but things are not as easy as they seem from your living room.
A couple of years back some soldiers caught an enemy along one of their convoy routes. The man was nervous, but would not give up any information. The Colonel IIRC put a gun to the man's head. He gave up the information and a roadside bomb was found. The Colonel was denied a promotion and faced some other punishment.
Why?
We are supposed to treat out enemies with a certain measure of respect. Now were it up to me that paperwork would have gotten lost. Being punished for saving lives is the nonsense to me.
The point of me saying that was this. We(soldiers), yeah I know I am not in the military anymore, are often held to a high standard, and randomly killing people is not something that is allowed, even though you seem to think it is. If we can't even point a weapon at a prisoner how do you think we can get away with killing civilians due to just not caring?
I guess you never read about Gitmo either right?
I think the difference between us it that you are here to win a debate. This issue with Bin Laden has no winners no matter what anyone wants to believe.
wraithstrike: "To my knowledge villages were not bombed. Buildings were at times. There is a big difference between bombing a building in an area, and bombing the entire area. When those bombings took place there were reasons for it. If civilian life was never a concern we could have just bombed the entire country and loss a lot less troops. Torture has happened. I won't deny that. See how I am not taking sides here, but being neutral."
I find this an intensely interesting view of things. You end by claiming to be neutral in the issue of military casualties and reasoning, and yet everything you say before that is designed to defend current military practice.
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE villages were not bombed. The implication is of course that questioning this means I have to question your knowledge, which would make it a personal issue, right?
When those bombings took place THERE WERE REASONS FOR IT. Am I to infer that you knew about ALL the bombings and ALL the reasons for why those buildings were bombed?
Torture HAS HAPPENED. Passive forms are used when you want to downplay WHO did what was done.
Now we get to "If civilian life was never a concern we could have just bombed the entire country and loss a lot less troops." You're really putting "Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" as a serious argument. While I have a hard time believing anyone would do so, what it means is that you are trying to paint a false alternative: If we hadn't done it this way, we would have nuked them all, would you have liked that better, huh? The truth is, if you nuked and bombed every living thing in Afghanistan into a glass crater, there would be no chance of America surviving the bitter hatred you'd ignite, and the disgust the rest of the world would regard you with. It's not a serious alternative, and you know it.
"I think the difference between us it that you are here to win a debate." Yeah. See above.
"This issue with Bin Laden has no winners no matter what anyone wants to believe." Now here I agree with you.
|
No, and if our government had said they were launching a full scale invasion into pakistan in response to intelligence that Osama may be hiding there, you wouldn't get that, but when we launch a minimal to no civilian casualties targeted strike to capture or kill a man who orchestrated the deaths of more than 3000 americans, one in which we were 100% succesful in our mission. Then we have both the privilege and IMO right to celebrate with America F@$% YEAH!!! If we choose to.
But seriously people... is "AMERICA F&%@ YEAH!!!" the best response to everything the government tells you?And again, it's this playing down of human deaths that cheapens your argument. Consider if chinese military ops assassi... sorry, "targeted" some enemy of theirs who happened to live near your house, wiping out five of your loved ones, and the chinese claimed it was okay because there were "minimal to no civilian casualties" and they were "100% successful" in their operation... would that sit well with you? Would you respect them for it?
In an age where uncounted billion dollars are spent every year for developing new ways to murder people, human life is cheap. For this we are all lessened. Civilian casualties are not numbers, they are people just like you and me. Murdering people is not something to be proud of, it is a return to "eye for an eye", one of the most nihilistic concepts ever to take root in humanity. No, there is no reason to celebrate.
His life was forfeit the second he committed mass murder, I'm not cheapening human life, I'm advocating for it. You're cheapening human life by calling an act of justice, one that was completely legal by international law, an assassination. And I didn't celebrate or say America F*+# YEAH, but I don't begrudge those who want to in this instance. And did a single neighbor die in this operation, no they didn't, only people killed were in the house. So if I had someone in my house who orchestrated a bombing of the high speed rail system in china when the train was full of passengers, oh wait, I would never allow someone like that knowingly in my house, so your argument is a strawman.
Considering America's track record regarding massacres in Vietnam, nukings of cities in Japan and so on, "His life was forfeit the second he committed mass murder" means there are a lot of bigshot military in the US whose lives would also be forfeit, right?
Or does that not pertain to americans?
|
|
Trials are not only to arrive at a sentence. Trials are also to make sure that the case has been well examined, to try to divine some sort of truth about what really happened.
So you think the government is nothing but a provoceteur that puts out misinformation and lies but you trust it to give him a fair trial?
Considering America's track record regarding massacres in Vietnam, nukings of cities in Japan and so on, "His life was forfeit the second he committed mass murder" means there are a lot of bigshot military in the US whose lives would also be forfeit, right?
Or does that not pertain to americans?
May 1st will be known as "Osama Dead Laden Day" from now on!
The Rock has posted a new video on Twitter thanking the Navy SEALs responsible for killing Osama Bin Laden. The video, which includes The Rock declaring the day "Osama Dead Laden Day," can be viewed at WhoSay.com.
Wow...12 pages of people advocating violation of international laws and the commiting of crimes. Guess the Rules of Forum conduct dont apply to you loyalists.
Given our country was founded on such notions YD I reckon we should just let that go :)
|
|
Wow...12 pages of people advocating violation of international laws and the commiting of crimes. Guess the Rules of Forum conduct dont apply to you loyalists.
Except it wasn't in violation of international law. I suppose it was breaking and entering, so I can't claim that they didn't commit a crime as they didn't have permission from the owners to be there, but violation of international law, nope, sorry, do not pass go, do not collect 200.
Trials are not only to arrive at a sentence. Trials are also to make sure that the case has been well examined, to try to divine some sort of truth about what really happened.So you think the government is nothing but a provoceteur that puts out misinformation and lies but you trust it to give him a fair trial?
I thought that the guilt was decided by a jury in civil cases? In international cases it would not be the American Government deciding. So are you saying that the American government would overrule the jury's verdict?
|
|
Do you know how hard it is to put Arabic words into limericks? It's not like Riyadh is as easy as "Nantucket."
Osama killed many by bomb
All in the name of Islam.
Martyrdom he got
but his very next thought:
"Why is it hot as Jafannam?"
If you find yourself stuck in Riyadh
There isn't much fun to be hadJust jump in your Hummer
It won't be a bummer
Don't stop till you reach islamabad
wraithstrike: "To my knowledge villages were not bombed. Buildings were at times. There is a big difference between bombing a building in an area, and bombing the entire area. When those bombings took place there were reasons for it. If civilian life was never a concern we could have just bombed the entire country and loss a lot less troops. Torture has happened. I won't deny that. See how I am not taking sides here, but being neutral."
I find this an intensely interesting view of things. You end by claiming to be neutral in the issue of military casualties and reasoning, and yet everything you say before that is designed to defend current military practice.
You see it as defending. I see it as correcting errors. As an example you used the term mass murder. I gave my interpretation of what really happens not because I have an anti-conspiracy thing going, but because I know what I was told to do. If they had told me to disregard the safety of others then I would agree with you, but that was not the case. I have agreed with you on some points. If I was just playing defense I would never give you any credit. Not agreeing with you does not make me partial. I just need more than speculation or I need proof that all the soldiers I happened to meet got special orders to not be mass murders, while all the rest were told to fire on command/disregard civilian life. Technically it's possible but it is highly unlikely.
TO YOUR KNOWLEDGE villages were not bombed. The implication is of course that questioning this means I have to question your knowledge, which would make it a personal issue, right?
Bombings done by regular units would not be secret knowledge so that would be easy to prove. I was not able to find proof. If you can find proof I will gladly retract my statement.
Torture HAS HAPPENED. Passive forms are used when you want to downplay WHO did what was done.
I am not trying to downplay anything. If I tried to make it sound like ancient history that would be downplaying it. I honestly don't have an issue with torture, assuming it was effective. My issue is that it has been proven that people will say what you want to hear so it is often unreliable. I would prefer other means of interrogation though since they are often more humane.
Now we get to "If civilian life was never a concern we could have just bombed the entire country and loss a lot less troops." You're really putting "Nuke the site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure" as a serious argument. While I have a hard time believing anyone would do so, what it means is that you are trying to paint a false alternative: If we hadn't done it this way, we would have nuked them all, would you have liked that better, huh? The truth is, if you nuked and bombed every living thing in Afghanistan into a glass crater, there would be no chance of America surviving the bitter hatred you'd ignite, and the disgust the rest of the world would regard you with. It's not a serious alternative, and you know it.
My point was that you are trying to make it sound like there is no regard for human life so I basically said if that is true then X happens. If I have the option of sending mu troops in to die or I can solve the issue with minimum casualties on my side, and I don't care anything for the opposition, why would I not take the safe route and send in a clean up crew?
I said nothing about nukes. Conventional bombs would be good enough. There you go inferring again. Speaking of which you never answered my question of how you got mass murder out of my RPG vs rifle scenario when I clearly supported the rifle?
I am not saying war cannot be just, or justified. This just ain't it.
What's a "justified" war? War is hell. Innocents die. You can't just snap your fingers and make the bad guys go away. That's a sad fact.
For sake of argument, let's say WWII was a "justified" war. Millions of innocents died for the sake of stopping madmen. Was that worth the cost we all paid? If so, where do you draw the line?
Do you think these people were happy making the choices they had to make every day? Does a politician or general give orders to kill the enemy in that city or do they wait and give them time to reinforce hoping that they leave? Does doing that cost them more lives and treasure because of it? Will it prolong the war, costing more lives for all concerned?
Do you drop that bomb on a wedding fearing the enemy will melt back into the hills and cause more deaths? That's a grave decision not taken lightly in war and there's nothing "just" about it. All you can do is hope you make the right decision because the outcome either way is unthinkably inhumane.
Considering America's track record regarding massacres in Vietnam, nukings of cities in Japan and so on, "His life was forfeit the second he committed mass murder" means there are a lot of bigshot military in the US whose lives would also be forfeit, right?
Or does that not pertain to americans?
Are we discussing past allowances or current ones? Many atrocities were committed in Vietnam, but times have changed. If you only knew the pressure on us now to be "good little boys", but suddenly be able to kill someone the nonsense would confuse you as much as it does me.
As to the bombing of Japan the story of when they surrendered changes depending on the source. Do I think they wanted to drop the bomb? Sure. Can we prove it? Nope. Of course that is my personal opinion. I may be wrong, and Japan may not have wanted to surrender until after the bomb was dropped.