[ IMAGES: Images ON turn off | ACCOUNT: User Status is LOCKED why? ]

O.T. War in the middle East...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum
Page 3 of 34 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4  5 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
Author Thread
firefly
Posts: 23223
Alba Posts: 17
Joined: 7/26/2004
Member: #721
United Kingdom
7/14/2006  11:25 AM
Posted by smackeddog:

So in order to erradicate terrorism its okay to kill an infinite number of civilians as long as each of those deaths is accidental? If the fight against terrorism ended up killing 5 million children would it not be barbaric because they got in they way of the real targets?

clorfl1- if during the night an army from another country 'accidentally' dropped a bomb on your house and killed your family and blew off your legs- would you honestly think "its okay, it was an accident!" or would you see it as a barbaric act?

The kidnapping of the two Israeli soldiers was horrible- I fear for them and their families. But in response israel bombs Lebanon and kills 50 people including 7 children. Why is that not a barabric act?

If you honestly don't see anything uncivilised about it then equip the 'terrorists' with a mighty top of the range army and I guaranatee overnight they would stop targetting civilians and carrying out suicide bombs etc.

Its so easy for you rationalise it like that.

The children who were sadly killed in th Israeli bombing were in the same house as a man who has been responsible for hundreds if not thousands of terrorist casualties. What were they doing there. It was their families choice to harbour a know murderer, and that IS acceptable casualties to me.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not?
AUTOADVERT
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/14/2006  11:29 AM
(''); that is very warped logic...
an infinite amount of casualties will never occur by accidently hitting civilians...
and if it does it is tragic, but it is not inhuman and barbaric like terrorism.
smackeddog
Posts: 38386
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/30/2005
Member: #883
7/14/2006  11:40 AM
See I'm sat here secretly thinking you're the one with the warped logic!

But Firefly is basically saying that terrorists are evil (which they are) because they kill civilians but that on the other hand it was okay for an army to kill civilians (in this case children) in order to kill him and that is not barbaric. i mean come on- how could children possibly 'harbour' their dad or whatever their relationship was?
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/14/2006  12:04 PM
You are obfuscating the issue...J('');

We all agree that it is tragic whenever innocents die...

BUT we reserve unique condemnation and no tollerance for parties that intentionally plot to target innocents in order to achieve their aims. They are called terrorists and their incidious practices need to be confronted and removed from the face of the earth before they destroy all of civilization...
It is only a matter of time before terrorists achieve the capacity to bring mass destruction on civilzation... their behavior dictates that they would not hesitate using such weaponry once they aquire it... the world has no choice but to confront and root out barbaric practice of terrorism.
firefly
Posts: 23223
Alba Posts: 17
Joined: 7/26/2004
Member: #721
United Kingdom
7/14/2006  1:18 PM
I really didn't want to get into a debate about this, and this will be my last post on the matter. You asked about children casualties. We all of course agree that it is always sad when children die, doubly so in war. These terrorists would not think twice about strapping a suicide bomb onto their own children, and thus sadly these children become as much a danger as the animals who use them in this fashion. Sadly we do not have the luxury of trying to educate them in the morals of humanity, as so we find ourselves in the horrible situation of having to take the risk that there might be children being used as a human shield by terrorists. Noone, noone is targeting these children, and the first, second and third choice must be to try an remove them from the picture. But in the sad instances like this one, these children's deaths was a necessary and unavoidable byproduct of saving hundreds more by killing the terrorists. I don't like it either, but sometimes you have to do things like that with the greater aim in mind.

Terrorists don't bother with thought processes like that. They eliminate the middle ground by just targetting the women and children themselves. They are TRYING to kill innocent women and children. We are trying NOT to, and we regret it immensely when it is unavoidable.
Some men see things as they are and ask why. I dream things that never were and ask why not?
smackeddog
Posts: 38386
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 3/30/2005
Member: #883
7/14/2006  1:23 PM
Just out of genuine interest- If you define terrorists and barborism as being those parties "that intentionally plot to target innocents in order to achieve their aims" would you then define the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as acts of terrorism?

I don't believe there is as clear a moral distinction between terrorism and what is considered 'civilised' warfare as you do, and in fact I think the latter can be more barbaric simply because of the more powerful weaponry used. But i respect your opinion, though I don't think we'll ever agree with each other on this issue!
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
7/14/2006  1:45 PM
The Israel always had a capacity to destroy the Arab countries in the region and has even more capacity now.
The Syria, Iran, and others know this and their goal is to provoke Israel on occupation agin.
They know that Israel war machine can be stopped only after France, Russia, Britain, and US will ask Israel to back up. And this was this way in the past.

The governments of Islamic countries can hold their power indefinitely only in the condition of war. Their power is immediately eroding when things are go back to normal and the advantages of life for the people in Europe, US, and Israel itself became crystal clear for all population of this countries. It also will eventually erode the Islam religion itself.

They are the last remains of middle ages western civilization and we are witnessing the painful death of it.

The best thing we can do for them and for us to leave them alone and let this civilization die in peace. The only problem they hold the oil. When the oil will be over so the Middle East problem will be over and we will care about it even less that about millions killed in oil-less Darfur.
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
OasisBU
Posts: 24138
Alba Posts: 4
Joined: 6/18/2002
Member: #257
USA
7/14/2006  2:00 PM
Posted by arkrud:

They are the last remains of middle ages western civilization and we are witnessing the painful death of it.

The best thing we can do for them and for us to leave them alone and let this civilization die in peace. The only problem they hold the oil. When the oil will be over so the Middle East problem will be over and we will care about it even less that about millions killed in oil-less Darfur.

Ever see Syriana? The movie basically states exactly what you are talking about. The world is pimping the middle east of its oil and when the oil runs out, they will be left holding the bag with no real infrastructure built because of the radical islamic regimes.
"If at first you don't succeed, then maybe you just SUCK." Kenny Powers
arkrud
Posts: 32217
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 8/31/2005
Member: #995
USA
7/14/2006  2:19 PM
I agreed Oasis.
The people in these countries are slipping and I don't want to be in the shoes of their rulers when they will wake up...
But are we also asleep in US?
Why we cannot see how our own government making our soldiers a security guards for oil companies paid by our money? Is it worth 2500 dead young kids and all our taxes to keep Exxon-Mobil and others happy? They are not even a US companies any more and are not investing in US economy.
This is a shame...

"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, Than are dreamt of in your philosophy." Hamlet
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/14/2006  2:27 PM
Terrorism is how we float debt at 10mm a day to pay for this stupid war. That's direct terror to the financial well-being of our children.

The US should only intercede militarily if it's in it's own interests or allies are in jeopardy--i.e 1990 Iraq into Kuwait. Otherwise we should NEVER put soldiers into harm's way and spend the ludicruos amounts of money we are spending.

the guys who make the rules--they don't want to increase minmum wage--although it's well below poverty line, but it's OK to spend multi -billions in Iraq?



Next President
A-we are OUT of Iraq OUT
B -We will spend the money we save on Iraq and double/triple efforts into finding ways to eliminate the need for oil.
C-Ammend relationships around the world.
D Keep advancing our military as the world changes. No need to have 1 million troops- speed technology and strategic locations
E Start an arm of the military that protects the US borders and ports--no not the US Homebody etc.. or whatever that is called---change half the army into border port transportation[plane and train] patrol units.


im not voting for any more war hawks--i want to keep on my toes and advance the military, but the money burning has to stop---we dont need any more strained relationships, we need to keep out of other peoples business because we have our own problems.

Only supercede if need be, controlled by UN.
RIP Crushalot😞
TMat614
Posts: 20037
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/6/2006
Member: #1148
USA
7/14/2006  3:36 PM
Posted by smackeddog:

Just out of genuine interest- If you define terrorists and barborism as being those parties "that intentionally plot to target innocents in order to achieve their aims" would you then define the dropping of nuclear bombs on Hiroshima and Nagasaki as acts of terrorism?

That was war not terrorism. civilians will die in war unfortunately.

The Japanese had a history of fighting until death that goes back to the way of the samurai. The Japanese would refuse to surrender even though they were losing in World War 2. That is why towards the end of the war the Japanese trained Kamikaze pilots and civilians to fight (so even the women and children were sometimes not even innocent). The 2 atomic bombs were the last chance to make the Japanese surrender, or we would have to invade Japan, where millions of American and Japanese lives would be lost. Japan wouldn't surrender even after the first Atomic bomb. It was after the 2nd that Japan waas so destroyed that if they didn't surrender, the civilians would turn on the government.

Terrorism is killing innocent people to send a message of fear to achieve a goal. The Atomic bomb was a last resort weapon used in effort to win a war against a country that would fight to the death.

[Edited by - TMat614 on 07-14-2006 3:43 PM]
Killa4luv
Posts: 27768
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
7/14/2006  3:50 PM
Posted by firefly:

Democratic countries dont target ordinary people on the street. Terrorists do.

tell that to the over 100,000 dead Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were killed by democratic bombs.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 07-14-2006 3:54 PM]
Solace
Posts: 30002
Alba Posts: 20
Joined: 10/30/2003
Member: #479
USA
7/14/2006  3:56 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by firefly:

Democratic countries dont target ordinary people on the street. Terrorists do.

tell that to the over 100,000 dead Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were killed by democratic bombs.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 07-14-2006 3:54 PM]

You can't really be calling those two things the same, are you? A suicide bombing is with the intent of killing civilians. A directed attack at terrorist headquarters is risky and poses the risk of collateral damage. I'm not saying that we're perfect in any way, but you can't refute his argument with what you just said.
Wishing everyone well. I enjoyed posting here for a while, but as I matured I realized this forum isn't for me. We all evolve. Thanks for the memories everyone.
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/14/2006  4:07 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by firefly:

Democratic countries dont target ordinary people on the street. Terrorists do.

tell that to the over 100,000 dead Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were killed by democratic bombs.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 07-14-2006 3:54 PM]

The difference is that those same amount of people would have died if they were subjected to the terratorial ambitions of war lords in Afganastan or if Sadaam was let loose to go after the Kuatis and Kurds again...

At least with the current context the goal is to try to create a better life for the future for all these people based on the ideals of liberty.
Killa4luv
Posts: 27768
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
7/14/2006  4:12 PM
Posted by Solace:
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by firefly:

Democratic countries dont target ordinary people on the street. Terrorists do.

tell that to the over 100,000 dead Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were killed by democratic bombs.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 07-14-2006 3:54 PM]

You can't really be calling those two things the same, are you? A suicide bombing is with the intent of killing civilians. A directed attack at terrorist headquarters is risky and poses the risk of collateral damage. I'm not saying that we're perfect in any way, but you can't refute his argument with what you just said.

Ok well how about with this argument:
When you bomb a water filtration plant, is this plant only supplying water to terrorists? The US did this in Iraq.

You enforce an embargo that doesn't let in medicine, and all kinds of other supplies that people need to live. Between 500,000 to 1,000,000 CHILDREN dies as a result of the embargos. This is a well known fact. When Clinton was pres. Madeline ALberight (his sec. of defense ) was on 60 minutes and asked if she thought a half a million Iraqi kids was too high a price to try to force Sadaam out. She said in a nutshell "yes we think the price is worth it."

These are facts. Destroying the infrastructure of a country hurts a society's weakes members; children, the elderly, and the sick. The U.S. did this in Iraq.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 07-14-2006 4:17 PM]
Killa4luv
Posts: 27768
Alba Posts: 51
Joined: 6/23/2002
Member: #261
USA
7/14/2006  4:16 PM
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by firefly:

Democratic countries dont target ordinary people on the street. Terrorists do.

tell that to the over 100,000 dead Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were killed by democratic bombs.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 07-14-2006 3:54 PM]

The difference is that those same amount of people would have died if they were subjected to the terratorial ambitions of war lords in Afganastan or if Sadaam was let loose to go after the Kuatis and Kurds again...
This isn't true at all. Iraq was a secular state, with a large middle class. Sadaam was a dictator, but to say 100,000 of people would have died anyway is really ridiculous. Are people any safer in Iraq or Afghanistan now?

At least with the current context the goal is to try to create a better life for the future for all these people based on the ideals of liberty.
The US is in Iraq because of Iraq has the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves. It has nothing to do with liberty, democracy, or a better life for anyone except Haliburton, ExxonMobil, and the rest of Bush's buddies.
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/14/2006  4:18 PM
Posted by BRIGGS:

Terrorism is how we float debt at 10mm a day to pay for this stupid war. That's direct terror to the financial well-being of our children.

The US should only intercede militarily if it's in it's own interests or allies are in jeopardy--i.e 1990 Iraq into Kuwait. Otherwise we should NEVER put soldiers into harm's way and spend the ludicruos amounts of money we are spending.

the guys who make the rules--they don't want to increase minmum wage--although it's well below poverty line, but it's OK to spend multi -billions in Iraq?



Next President
A-we are OUT of Iraq OUT
B -We will spend the money we save on Iraq and double/triple efforts into finding ways to eliminate the need for oil.
C-Ammend relationships around the world.
D Keep advancing our military as the world changes. No need to have 1 million troops- speed technology and strategic locations
E Start an arm of the military that protects the US borders and ports--no not the US Homebody etc.. or whatever that is called---change half the army into border port transportation[plane and train] patrol units.


im not voting for any more war hawks--i want to keep on my toes and advance the military, but the money burning has to stop---we dont need any more strained relationships, we need to keep out of other peoples business because we have our own problems.

Only supercede if need be, controlled by UN.

You need to comprehend the subtext and context here... it is clear that the West believes that the Rogue Islamic regime of Iran is intent on developing nuclear tech. in order to control the world's oil supply and bring the world to its knees... that is why the US needs a force in their backyard...
The rulers of Iran are on a mission to bring about the final clash of civilizations in order to trigger revelation with their prophet's return. These fundamentalists really believe that they are forcing destiny...

You cannot hide under a rock and hope it all goes away.. they are plotting to rock your world...
the US has the responmsibility to assess and meet this threat before we all get blown to kingdom come...
BRIGGS
Posts: 53275
Alba Posts: 7
Joined: 7/30/2002
Member: #303
7/14/2006  4:23 PM
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by BRIGGS:

Terrorism is how we float debt at 10mm a day to pay for this stupid war. That's direct terror to the financial well-being of our children.

The US should only intercede militarily if it's in it's own interests or allies are in jeopardy--i.e 1990 Iraq into Kuwait. Otherwise we should NEVER put soldiers into harm's way and spend the ludicruos amounts of money we are spending.

the guys who make the rules--they don't want to increase minmum wage--although it's well below poverty line, but it's OK to spend multi -billions in Iraq?



Next President
A-we are OUT of Iraq OUT
B -We will spend the money we save on Iraq and double/triple efforts into finding ways to eliminate the need for oil.
C-Ammend relationships around the world.
D Keep advancing our military as the world changes. No need to have 1 million troops- speed technology and strategic locations
E Start an arm of the military that protects the US borders and ports--no not the US Homebody etc.. or whatever that is called---change half the army into border port transportation[plane and train] patrol units.


im not voting for any more war hawks--i want to keep on my toes and advance the military, but the money burning has to stop---we dont need any more strained relationships, we need to keep out of other peoples business because we have our own problems.

Only supercede if need be, controlled by UN.

You need to comprehend the subtext and context here... it is clear that the West believes that the Rogue Islamic regime of Iran is intent on developing nuclear tech. in order to control the world's oil supply and bring the world to its knees... that is why the US needs a force in their backyard...
The rulers of Iran are on a mission to bring about the final clash of civilizations in order to trigger revelation with their prophet's return. These fundamentalists really believe that they are forcing destiny...

You cannot hide under a rock and hope it all goes away.. they are plotting to rock your world...
the US has the responmsibility to assess and meet this threat before we all get blown to kingdom come...

The US already has a force in the ME--Israel. We need a better system to protect our borders ports +transportation systems. spend the money being wasted on Iraq to find alternative fuels for the future.
RIP Crushalot😞
TMat614
Posts: 20037
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 7/6/2006
Member: #1148
USA
7/14/2006  4:25 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:

This isn't true at all. Iraq was a secular state, with a large middle class. Sadaam was a dictator, but to say 100,000 of people would have died anyway is really ridiculous. Are people any safer in Iraq or Afghanistan now?

Suddam is responsible for approximately 2 million deaths. He has killed well more than 100,000 Iraqis. He also killed, tortured, raped, and terrorized the Iraqi people and his neighbors for over two decades. To even suggest life under Saddam was safer and better than it will be is ridiculous. And maybe Iraq had a large middle class, but the majority of people lived in poverty. Why? Saddam spent the money on himself building palaces.
[The US is in Iraq because of Iraq has the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves. It has nothing to do with liberty, democracy, or a better life for anyone except Haliburton, ExxonMobil, and the rest of Bush's buddies.

people blame Bush for being responsible for the high gas prices. so if he is supposedly taking all this oil out of Iraq wouldn't gas prices be lower.



[Edited by - TMat614 on 07-14-2006 4:56 PM]
colorfl1
Posts: 20781
Alba Posts: 0
Joined: 8/6/2004
Member: #731
Canada
7/14/2006  4:34 PM
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by colorfl1:
Posted by Killa4luv:
Posted by firefly:

Democratic countries dont target ordinary people on the street. Terrorists do.

tell that to the over 100,000 dead Iraqi and Afghani citizens who were killed by democratic bombs.

[Edited by - killa4luv on 07-14-2006 3:54 PM]

The difference is that those same amount of people would have died if they were subjected to the terratorial ambitions of war lords in Afganastan or if Sadaam was let loose to go after the Kuatis and Kurds again...
This isn't true at all. Iraq was a secular state, with a large middle class. Sadaam was a dictator, but to say 100,000 of people would have died anyway is really ridiculous. Are people any safer in Iraq or Afghanistan now?

At least with the current context the goal is to try to create a better life for the future for all these people based on the ideals of liberty.
The US is in Iraq because of Iraq has the worlds 2nd largest oil reserves. It has nothing to do with liberty, democracy, or a better life for anyone except Haliburton, ExxonMobil, and the rest of Bush's buddies.

that is just shamefully cynical and silly..
the US is in Iraq to attempt to stabalize the region for the world's future... its oil makes it of strategic importance and therfore the goal has become to try to stabalize this region by slowly spreading freedom and democracy throgh this gulf... by creating a better life in Iraq, other Islamic nations will be spurred onto revolt against their despots to also have similar rights and oppertunities... (see the Lebonese protest against Syria last year - those people would not have been inspired to hope if they had not wittnessed Iraqis risking their lives to vote freely).

Democracy is the most effective weapon the US has and in order for it take root we needed to start at the epicenter...

Because the world is dependant on this regions oil it is essential that the area becomes stabalized in a fashion that a meglamaniac can't keep rising to destablize the world's economys time and again...

It is a intricate issue... you cannot really believe taht US soldiers are risking their lives because they are trying to retain oil... they are doing it because the stabalization of the Middle East is intertwined with US security for the future...
Page 3 of 34 ‹ Previous 1  2  3  4  5 Next ›Last »
« Reply To Topic
O.T. War in the middle East...
Forum Index  ›  NY Knicks Forum

©2001-2025 ultimateknicks.comm All rights reserved. About Us.
This site is not affiliated with the NY Knicks or the National Basketball Association in any way.
You may visit the official NY Knicks web site by clicking here.

All times (GMT-05:00) Eastern Time.

Terms of Use and Privacy Policy