American soldiers aren't "defending their country"

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT
 

It's both. It is a war, it is a defense against terrorists, it is a profit-generating machine. Constant warfare makes a lot of money back home, but that doesn't mean a war is necessarily completely unjust thereby. Okay, Iraq was, but Afghanistan actually had a point in the beginning. It's just that when your profit motive ensures that occupation and fighting continues for years to come (isn't Afghanistan the USA's longest war in history by now?) without a clear goal, that even the best justification begins to slip. To make it short: I think American soldiers are defending the USA, it's just that they, the people in the countries they occupy and the taxpayers are being abused at the same time by the MIC and associated, bought politicians. I don't disagree with the latter aspect of what you're saying, OP, it's just that I disagree with your absolutist interpretation of the issue overall.

Skeleon:
that doesn't mean a war is necessarily completely unjust thereby. Okay, Iraq was

Hey, Colin Powell went to the UN with photographs that had yellow circles on them.

YELLOW CIRCLES.

If the US hadn't invaded Iraq the number of yellow circles in the Middle East could have multiplied exponentially! Your parents' house could have a yellow circle around it right now if the US hadn't taken matters in hand.

Also, US troops found a swimming pool buried in the desert. You want these sorts of people free to bury swimming pools at will? I bet they didn't even drain the pool in accordance to water conservation guidelines.

The US invasion of Iraq was a strike against the proliferation of unregulated geometry, a victory for the safety of recreational swimming, and marked a turning point in the public attitudes toward water management.

Pernese:
How many major attacks have Al Qaeda carried out on US soil since 2001? Wouldn't 11 years of quiet on the home front be pretty indicative of a successful policy of prevention?

By that logic, I'm one HELL of a dragonslayer in my area since you never hear of dragons causing trouble in Virginia, do you?

Allied troops bleed and die in the sands of the Middle East every day, waging a decade long war of horrific attrition to exhaust the resources and capabilities of fanatics whose dearest wish is the utter destruction of you and every facet of the culture you hold dear

Given the primarily right wing Christian cultural bend of the military as an insitution, they want to see me destroyed anyway.

Men and women return home from years of overseas service maimed and disfigured, their psyches shattered by a war that drags on and on and on, and you sneer at their sacrifices and ignore their pain.

Maybe they shouldn't be sneering at me for a multitude of reasons.

I'm not going to say you are less of an American for not serving in the armed forces, but I would recommend you volunteer a day at a VA hospital and see the actual people you look down on before passing judgement.

I actually did use to do that in high school. I got all sorts of stories about how "we never should have let n!ggers in the army" and "it was all over when we let the jews take over..." from the old coots.

GunsmithKitten:

Pernese:
How many major attacks have Al Qaeda carried out on US soil since 2001? Wouldn't 11 years of quiet on the home front be pretty indicative of a successful policy of prevention?

By that logic, I'm one HELL of a dragonslayer in my area since you never hear of dragons causing trouble in Virginia, do you?

Allied troops bleed and die in the sands of the Middle East every day, waging a decade long war of horrific attrition to exhaust the resources and capabilities of fanatics whose dearest wish is the utter destruction of you and every facet of the culture you hold dear

Given the primarily right wing Christian cultural bend of the military as an insitution, they want to see me destroyed anyway.

Men and women return home from years of overseas service maimed and disfigured, their psyches shattered by a war that drags on and on and on, and you sneer at their sacrifices and ignore their pain.

Maybe they shouldn't be sneering at me for a multitude of reasons.

I'm not going to say you are less of an American for not serving in the armed forces, but I would recommend you volunteer a day at a VA hospital and see the actual people you look down on before passing judgement.

I actually did use to do that in high school. I got all sorts of stories about how "we never should have let n!ggers in the army" and "it was all over when we let the jews take over..." from the old coots.

Okay, on the previous page, I gave a list of reasons that 9/11 being an isolated incident was highly unlikely. On top of that, if we look at what organisations like AQ and JI need to operate, ( funding, troops, morale, access, motivation, leadership and training to name a few) and we then combine that with the outcomes of the war on terror-
- Funding has been attacked by removing a lot of corporate and govt elements friendly to the enemy (eg the Afghan govt circa 2000)
- Their troops have been depleted trying to wage, if not a conventional war, then a conventional insurgency, which has a much higher loss to effect ratio than a terror campaign
- Their morale has been damaged by seeing the West refuse to give up and indeed ramp up its own offensives in line with any operational increase by terrorist orgainasations.
- Their access to our nations has been denied not only by increased homeland security efforts, but also by their own people seeing Afghanistan as the epicenter of the jihad and going to fight there instead of in say, Darwin.
- Their motivation is mostly intact, but the build part of take hold build is starting to make inroads in ensuring that people are less motivated to Jihad. A lot of work to still be done in this area though
- Leadership, well as you can see by raids against Bin Laden and his succsession of no. 2s, the leadership of AQ has taken a pounding and this ensures that the quality of leadership for organisations like these is decreasing.
- training, Most major terror training camps have been destroyed and the friendly lands that sheltered them have been heavily depleted.

So those are some of the ways that the war on terror has decreased the likelyhood of mass-casualty terror attacks on western nations. If you can point to the ways that your dragon slaying skills have prevented dragon attacks, then you can continue to use the analogy, but right now it is inaccurate.

On top of that the comments that soldiers want to 'see you destroyed' and are 'sneering at you' well I have never met a soldier that wants to 'destroy dem athiests' (I assume that's where you are coming from) and most don't give enough of a damn about politics to sneer at you for not sharing theirs.

I don't know, it seems like most of this site got their perception of the military from a combination of Op ed pieces, video games and movies.

But on the old folks being racist, well, old folks are racist, that's not really a military thing.

CpT_x_Killsteal:

So what are your thoughts? Am I right? Am I wrong? Am I a terrorist? Or am I just some brat who isn't a "real man" just because he hasn't been in the army?

Two points of order here.

{1} Iraq never even had anything to do with the terrorism problem, nor did it even have the WMDs they were 'looking for'. Regardless of what anyone THINKS of the country, it was not attacked for any decent reason.

{2} Terrorism is an idea, not destroyable by force. The War on Terror was a looong protracted bullshit parade. No amount of force can actually predict and prevent what will happen anywhere from tomorrow to ten years from now.

That said, let's not blame the soldiers in entirety. Plenty of 'em don't want to be sent to a fucking desert on this shit, even though the US decided to go into a decade-long revenge kick over it. Don't paint it any other way. They were sent in there specifically murder some faces over the shit. Situations having been taken well past the point of redundancy, I do what any decent American citizen does on these occasions and blame the government.

Not for the stuff leading up to WHY the army was sent out, but HOW it was handled (poorly). But then, these guys aren't exactly knowledgeable on how to handle idealogies. I mean, look at SOPA and all of its cousins. Same strategy: Try to stamp out something that won't go away with force by using excessive force. This is a problem which I wish some people would just do away with or at least TRY to think alternatively on.

To make ANYTHING go away, you have to think of what makes it happen and remove the reason for it to happen or make the act not worth it for those who want to do it. This is how you handle terrorism, piracy, drugs - ANYTHING. The question is the methodology. For war, excessive force to deter combatants from wanting to fight anymore IS correct, but that's IT. You can't use it to cover ALL the sins.

History is littered with trying to force things that are not combat-based down with excessive violence, strict laws, etc. Everything you try to outlaw that the people want goes black market. Every act that you try to prevent without solving the reason why goes behind closed doors. Every new bit of knowledge that others try to conceal or ignore gets out. YOu have to deal with these things differently.

I agree with the OP 100%, this "defending their country" mantra is just a means of silencing otherwise legitimate critisism of a war. Soldiers aren't sent overseas to 'defend their country'.. they are sent to kill... simple as that. Of course this isnt just the US we are talking about here. Any country that sends their soldiers overseas are not sending them to defend their own country but instead to either aquire resources/land or to make a regime change.

With these scenarios.. the reality is that the soldiers of the nations that are being invaded are the ones legitimately defending their country. If the roles were reversed and we see the US or any other developed nation being invaded by a hostile force then yes that would be a proper definition of defending ones country.

I'm an outsider so I can't comment too much on the worthiness of soldiers. I think the Iraq War was incredibly pointless and that those who ordered it are morons or liars.

That being said I would hesitate saying these soldiers are "defending the country". In some cases it might have increased hatred towards Americans and increased the chance of another terrorist attack, but that's hardly the fault of the soldiers is it?

the clockmaker:

I don't know, it seems like most of this site got their perception of the military from a combination of Op ed pieces, video games and movies.

The thing is, the soldiers are not sent there to "defend their country". They're there because some people in positions of power have a vested interest in having them there, have a vested interest in that conflict, and have the clout to force it.

And don't get me started on how 9/11 was just a tragic demonstration of how fighting proxy wars comes back to bite you in the ass sooner or later.

And Iraq? Well, that's just a hornet's nest, not touching that topic right now.

One because the Afghan government at that time let the group be there in the first place, and because the group was there.

I think the reason we took over Afghanistan is because it's an easily controllable country (because of it's weak government) and it shares a border with China. Not many people know it shares a border with China. Also it helps us box in Iran. If you've ever played a game of Risk before and then took a look at a world map, intentions start to become clearer. You don't need to occupy an entire country because of a terrorist cell. And besides, 9/11 could have been prevented in my opinion because the CIA was tracking the people who was going to do it for a while, yet they let the attacks happen anyway.

Vegosiux:

the clockmaker:

I don't know, it seems like most of this site got their perception of the military from a combination of Op ed pieces, video games and movies.

The thing is, the soldiers are not sent there to "defend their country". They're there because some people in positions of power have a vested interest in having them there, have a vested interest in that conflict, and have the clout to force it.

And don't get me started on how 9/11 was just a tragic demonstration of how fighting proxy wars comes back to bite you in the ass sooner or later.

And Iraq? Well, that's just a hornet's nest, not touching that topic right now.

Well that has nothing to do with the part of my post that you quoted and completely ignores the rest. All I'm hearing is repeated denials with no real evidence, which is funny as the whole purpose of this thread was the OP going against repeated affirmations with no evidence.

I have put down quite a few points as to exactly how the war on terror is defending the west, but no one on your side seems keen to actually address them and seems content to shout the same slogans.

What on God's green earth. . .

Alright. Let me try to explain what the term "defending your country" means, and maybe it will put the phrase in perspective.

To defend your country means to defend your countries interests, ideas, beliefs, citizens, government, property and way of life. If something, anything, is a threat to any of those things I just listed, and armed forces have to be dispatched, those men and women are defending their country.

Please do not confuse government with regime. Thanks.

Hammartroll:
I think the reason we took over Afghanistan is because it's an easily controllable country (because of it's weak government) and it shares a border with China. Not many people know it shares a border with China. Also it helps us box in Iran. If you've ever played a game of Risk before and then took a look at a world map, intentions start to become clearer. You don't need to occupy an entire country because of a terrorist cell. And besides, 9/11 could have been prevented in my opinion because the CIA was tracking the people who was going to do it for a while, yet they let the attacks happen anyway.

That is. . . quite simple. Are you really saying that?

Witty Name Here:
You know, you don't need a full on military invasion to have your country be attacked.

September 11th was that attack, our invasion of countries like Iraq and Afghanistan was the response. Those soldiers are risking their lives to defend their country. They're working towards the dismantling of groups like Al Qaeda and the Taliban so we never have to face such a tragedy as the one that occurred on September 11th.

I can understand hating the war, and hating the politicians that caused the war; but once you start insulting the soldiers you crossed the line in my book. They're brave men and women who risk life and limb doing things that you better pray you never will have to do yourself. They deserve, at the very least, to be treated respectfully.

Disagree, nobody gets automatic respect due to their profession when that profession includes killing people. I don't care what spurious bullshit people tell themselves to justify it, killing another human being for any reason other than immediate, direct, personal, unavoidable threat to your own life or to the life of another individual in proximity to you who is incapable of self-defense is a sickening act.

Further, I fucking HATE this complete bullshit line that we should be grateful to soldiers for doing what we're unwilling to; it's self-serving crap. The OP is correct, most wars are not fought because they are necessary, but because they are profitable or politically convenient, so why should I have to thank someone and pray I never have to do something that was totally unnecessary in the first place?

When a nation's military limits itself strictly to the defense of its own borders, with their only duties abroad being the guarding of humanitarian efforts, then they'll be worth of respect. Until then, they're hired killers regardless of what they tell themselves or us, and while an individual soldier might earn my respect in spite of his or her profession, they will not have that because of it.

the clockmaker:
Okay, on the previous page, I gave a list of reasons that 9/11 being an isolated incident was highly unlikely.

...and where did the analytical conclusion appear that an invasion of Afghanistan was the best way of decreasing that probability?

the clockmaker:
On top of that, if we look at what organisations like AQ and JI need to operate, ( funding, troops, morale, access, motivation, leadership and training to name a few) and we then combine that with the outcomes of the war on terror-
- Funding has been attacked by removing a lot of corporate and govt elements friendly to the enemy (eg the Afghan govt circa 2000)

...and Saudi Arabia. Oh, wait, the US didn't touch them. Forget I said anything!

But seriously, you seem to be under the impression that terrorism is all about throwing money at whatever problem the terrorists see. One question; are you shitting me? Look at the attacks on the World Trade Center, is that really something that requires a major budget of millions of dollars to carry out? They didn't actually have to pay for anything!

You seem to think terrorists stop because they run out of money. That's bullshit. Heck, even bankers won't give up just because they run out of money. Do you think religious fanatics are actually MORE likely to abandon their cause because of monetary concerns?!

the clockmaker:
- Their troops have been depleted trying to wage, if not a conventional war, then a conventional insurgency, which has a much higher loss to effect ratio than a terror campaign

Ah, troops.

...

Tell me, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, terrorist cells aren't some kind of regular fighting force operating from the wartime doctrines of the first world war?

The main flaw in your reasoning seems to be the misapprehension that terrorist cells are somehow good old armies fighting with supply lines, supporting corps and one single laid out strategic plan. You know, the opposite of reality.

the clockmaker:
- Their morale has been damaged by seeing the West refuse to give up and indeed ramp up its own offensives in line with any operational increase by terrorist orgainasations.

Allow me to present an alternative interpretation; their morale has been raised even further by seeing that the western devils are in fact eager to slaughter innocent Muslims en masse, and therefore the cause of the true believers is clearly just and follows the will of god.

These people we are talking about are willing to die in order to take out a few americans, do you seriously think an invasion will cause them to give up out of DISMAY? Really?

the clockmaker:
- Their access to our nations has been denied not only by increased homeland security efforts, but also by their own people seeing Afghanistan as the epicenter of the jihad and going to fight there instead of in say, Darwin.

So, you murder innocent afghani citizens so that the terrorists will have to fight to save their lives primarily?

What the hell kind of reasoning is that?! Murder people to distract the terrorists? That doesn't make the US strategically sound, it makes the US fucking evil!

the clockmaker:
- Their motivation is mostly intact, but the build part of take hold build is starting to make inroads in ensuring that people are less motivated to Jihad. A lot of work to still be done in this area though

Sounds fine. Except, you know, that, among the servicemen from other nations, the US forces are widely known as the dumb brutes who fuck up the good work that the others have been doing by showing the locals no respect whatsoever and waving guns in everyone's faces.

the clockmaker:
- Leadership, well as you can see by raids against Bin Laden and his succsession of no. 2s, the leadership of AQ has taken a pounding and this ensures that the quality of leadership for organisations like these is decreasing.

Again, we're back to WWI doctrines; try to bring down the quality of the leadership, as if there was some massive war cabinet at the top of any major terrorist organization that coordinated the actions of all the different cells.

the clockmaker:
- training, Most major terror training camps have been destroyed and the friendly lands that sheltered them have been heavily depleted.

So, the US has invaded Saudi Arabia, AKA the biggest backer of islamic terrorism in the world, without anyone noticing? Now THAT is covert operations!

the clockmaker:
So those are some of the ways that the war on terror has decreased the likelyhood of mass-casualty terror attacks on western nations. If you can point to the ways that your dragon slaying skills have prevented dragon attacks, then you can continue to use the analogy, but right now it is inaccurate.

I'm curious, how seriously do you think we should take your statements, given that you have provided exactly no supporting evidence whatsoever for your claims?

the clockmaker:
I don't know, it seems like most of this site got their perception of the military from a combination of Op ed pieces, video games and movies.

I think that still trumps getting all of your perception of warfare straight from the mouth of Field Marshal Douglas Haig.

GunsmithKitten:

Given the primarily right wing Christian cultural bend of the military as an insitution, they want to see me destroyed anyway.

Yup. It's in the contract when someone enlists. "You must destroy GunsmithKitten and any other homosexuals you come across. Exceptions made for Man-Love Thursdays in Iraq, not logistically possible."

so ....

9/11 does count as an attack now? or the similar attacks on US warships as well as other targets groups like the Taliban and Al Qaeda have made? really? you sure you wanna base your argument on that?

cause its wrong. a group does not have to invade to attack. small groups sneaking in to cause damage are also attacks on that country. just cause a standing army wasn't involved is moot.

as for the rest, eh ... i don't believe any one joins the military does so to kill people specifically, from what i've heard it really is just about serving their country, and for that they have my respect, cause i apparently was unfit to serve :/

NOW, politicians on the other hand, IE the people that send our troops off to war, i highly doubt the majority of them view the lives lost on ether side as anything other then number on a sheet of paper

newfoundsky:

Hammartroll:
I think the reason we took over Afghanistan is because it's an easily controllable country (because of it's weak government) and it shares a border with China. Not many people know it shares a border with China. Also it helps us box in Iran. If you've ever played a game of Risk before and then took a look at a world map, intentions start to become clearer. You don't need to occupy an entire country because of a terrorist cell. And besides, 9/11 could have been prevented in my opinion because the CIA was tracking the people who was going to do it for a while, yet they let the attacks happen anyway.

That is. . . quite simple. Are you really saying that?

Yes. The world can be divided up between the east (China, Russia, Iran) and the west (The US, Europe, Israel) and we are essentially in a cold war. I'd wager that everything that's going on is just an expanding and contracting of spheres of influence. Take Syria for example: Syria is a strong strategic location because of it's access to the Mediterranean and boarder with Israel. It's currently run by a pro Russian government which gives the Russia access to the Mediterranean and splits pro western Turkey from pro western Israel, which is important because now ground forces can't go straight from Europe to Israel and Russia as the ability to create blockades from out of Syria's ports. And so, Russia is sending weapons to the Syrian government to fend off the rebels, and the CIA is sending weapons to the Syrian rebels to take over the Syrian government. I'm not saying we have total control over the rebels, but maybe they would be easier to make deals with?

With Afghanistan, we have a back door entrance to China. We can literally mass our whole army on Afghanistan (which we're pretty much doing anyway) and just walk right into China. That seems like a strong advantage to me. In addition, we can perform a pincer on Iran, since Iraq shares a major boarder with them in the west and Afghanistan the same in the east. That and we can have greater control over sanctions by not allowing goods to pass through those nations' boarders, though that doesn't seem to be working very well.

I'm not saying we're intending to go marching into China, but the point is that the Chinese know we can and owning that land is a way of demonstrating our power to the east. With all that said, I don't see how expressing our sphere of influence affects me as an American and I wish it would stop.

LetalisK:

GunsmithKitten:

Given the primarily right wing Christian cultural bend of the military as an insitution, they want to see me destroyed anyway.

Yup. It's in the contract when someone enlists. "You must destroy GunsmithKitten and any other homosexuals you come across. Exceptions made for Man-Love Thursdays in Iraq, not logistically possible."

More in the attitude and dominant culture of the military; go ahead, see which political and religious bend most personnel are. G'head.

Hey, Hammar. Did you say "take over Afhganistan"?

Even the Afghani's can't take over Afghanistan. You think it's got the nickname "graveyard of Empires" because it sounds cool?

Elcarsh:

...and Saudi Arabia. Oh, wait, the US didn't touch them. Forget I said anything!

Saudi arabia who is waging its own war against its wahabi militants, I mean, yes they are doing a shit job but we can't go to war against them for that. Their government, as in the thing that commands the nation is working to curb terrorism, so we can work with them. Compare this with the government of Afghanistan, which was working with the terrorists and so we worked against them.

But seriously, you seem to be under the impression that terrorism is all about throwing money at whatever problem the terrorists see. One question; are you shitting me? Look at the attacks on the World Trade Center, is that really something that requires a major budget of millions of dollars to carry out? They didn't actually have to pay for anything!

The attacks on the WTC, funding requirements : the basic flight training for the men on the ground, their living and travel arrangements, bringing them into the country. Keeping them fed and watered while they were indoctrinated, cost of the tickets, cost of keeping mid level command elements (cell leaders/ multi cell coordinators) fed and watered. Everything costs.

Do you know why Bin laden was able to get into his position in the first place, hint it starts with H and ends with Is fathers money.

You seem to think terrorists stop because they run out of money. That's bullshit. Heck, even bankers won't give up just because they run out of money. Do you think religious fanatics are actually MORE likely to abandon their cause because of monetary concerns?!

They may not give up, but when the cost of operations exceeds their available funds, they are reduced in effectiveness. They won't give up, but they also won't be able to accomodate their personel in target regions, feed their men, pay for ammo etc etc. Where do you think this shit comes from anyway, their faith in allah?

Ah, troops.

...

Tell me, did it ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, terrorist cells aren't some kind of regular fighting force operating from the wartime doctrines of the first world war?

The main flaw in your reasoning seems to be the misapprehension that terrorist cells are somehow good old armies fighting with supply lines, supporting corps and one single laid out strategic plan. You know, the opposite of reality.

You will see in my original post that I noted that they had moved from terrorist operations in our lands (eg 9/11 madrid etc) to fairly conventional insurgencies in their lands. Now insurgencies do not quite act like fully conventional armies, but they have command structures and supplies lines. Again, for ammo to get to Johnny Jihad in the Chora, in the Chora to be effective, he needs fellow fighters, he needs ammo etc.

Allow me to present an alternative interpretation; their morale has been raised even further by seeing that the western devils are in fact eager to slaughter innocent Muslims en masse, and therefore the cause of the true believers is clearly just and follows the will of god.

These people we are talking about are willing to die in order to take out a few americans, do you seriously think an invasion will cause them to give up out of DISMAY? Really?

You know what happened to those willing to die to take out a few americans? they died trying to take out a few americans. What they have been increasingly left with are 'soft' jihadis who will take the easy option rather than die engaging. They may not give up out of dismay, but they are that much more likely to stay in their hideout and film vidoes as opposed to a global intifada.

So, you murder innocent afghani citizens so that the terrorists will have to fight to save their lives primarily?

What the hell kind of reasoning is that?! Murder people to distract the terrorists? That doesn't make the US strategically sound, it makes the US fucking evil!

No, you do not murder Afghan civilians, you draw the enemy into an engagment in a territory that is not your own. And if you think that the taliban is fighting for the lives of Afghan civilians then you know so little about the conflict that there is likely no hope for you.

Again, we're back to WWI doctrines; try to bring down the quality of the leadership, as if there was some massive war cabinet at the top of any major terrorist organization that coordinated the actions of all the different cells.

And you are of the idea that only one leadership structure is being attacked. You know what the result of, for example, taking out the leadership of JI is, JI is weakened. You know what the result of taking out AQ leadership is? AQ is weakened. There is not some massive war cabinet, but there is the bloke in charge of finances, the bloke with connections in the ISI, the bloke who can see the big picture and removing those people has a serious effect on those organisations. Also, targeting the leadership, especially interdicting them where they live was not a WWI doctrine, so apparently you have as little understanding of previous wars as you do of this one.

So, the US has invaded Saudi Arabia, AKA the biggest backer of islamic terrorism in the world, without anyone noticing? Now THAT is covert operations!

While a large amount of terrorists are of Saudi origin, the largest backer is actually Pakistan. This is actually besides the point though as, as I have said, so long as the Saudi govt is notionally working with us, there is noting we can do.

I'm curious, how seriously do you think we should take your statements, given that you have provided exactly no supporting evidence whatsoever for your claims?

About as seriously as any anonymous person posting on the net, seriously man, if you want a footnoted and sourced essay you probably shouldn't be on a gaming site. Considering that you have not backed up any of your points, it seems a slightly incongruous point to be stuck on anyway.

I think that still trumps getting all of your perception of warfare straight from the mouth of Field Marshal Douglas Haig.

The fact that you are saying this shows that you know precisely bubkis about the war in Afghanistan besides what the cultural gestalt has given you. The idea that there exists only two kinds of conflict 'conventional and unconventional' shows a deep lack of understanding of the way war is waged in the modern world, you seem to think that if a strategy does not instantly solve a problem then it is not effective and all of your knowledge on terrorism seems more applicable to 2002 than 2012.

I am not going to call anybody crazy or a kook, less I get a warning, but I will call out these sorts of beliefs for what they are, which is "Illuminati conspiracy theories".

Now the world doesn't take someone seriously when they mention the word Illuminati, but I see so many people talk about how the rich corporations control the country, start wars for oil, and etc. But that is essentially the same theory.

Intelligent design doesn't pass muster simply because it avoids mentioning god, and the theories like this one shouldn't be taken more seriously because they avoid using the word Illuminati.

the clockmaker:
Do you know why Bin laden was able to get into his position in the first place, hint it starts with H and ends with Is fathers money.

Yeah and it certainly shows when you see interviews with former Soviet Invasion-era Mujahadin who had worked with bin Laden. Most of them saw him as being useful for his money and being able to acquire material but otherwise wouldn't have pissed on him if he was burning to death.

Another thing a lot of people don't know/realise is that prior to Sept 11, AQ's primary function was funding, training and material support for other terrorist (and muslim insurgent) groups. In military terms they were Training and Logistics not a front line combat unit. The Sept 11 attacks gave them the prominence/status to absorb a lot of the smaller groups they used to train and fund.

the clockmaker:
About as seriously as any anonymous person posting on the net, seriously man, if you want a footnoted and sourced essay you probably shouldn't be on a gaming site.

So, you're not interested in a serious debate, then. Well, that's a pity.

the clockmaker:
Considering that you have not backed up any of your points, it seems a slightly incongruous point to be stuck on anyway.

When in Rome. I was playing along. Anytime you actually want to discuss the issue instead of just pretending that saying something makes it true, you know where to find me. I would dig up sources right now, but apparently you think bringing sources into a discussion is somehow beneath you.

Elcarsh:

the clockmaker:
About as seriously as any anonymous person posting on the net, seriously man, if you want a footnoted and sourced essay you probably shouldn't be on a gaming site.

So, you're not interested in a serious debate, then. Well, that's a pity.

the clockmaker:
Considering that you have not backed up any of your points, it seems a slightly incongruous point to be stuck on anyway.

When in Rome. I was playing along. Anytime you actually want to discuss the issue instead of just pretending that saying something makes it true, you know where to find me. I would dig up sources right now, but apparently you think bringing sources into a discussion is somehow beneath you.

Mate, you claimed that financing was not important to terrorists, that they had no need of logistics to conduct an insurgency, that targeted interdiction of the enemies command element is a tactic from world war one and that morale is not an issue to the insurgency.

I have no interest in a serious debate with someone who is claiming that the sky is a fluro pink.

But what about 9/11! We never did anything to the middle east before 9/11! That attack was completely unprovoked! What choice did we have other than to go over there and start murdering the shit out of civilians? They only hate us because they hate freedom!!!

Hammartroll:
snip

And the fact that we're withdrawing in 2014 and "own" no land means absolutely nothing to you?

manic_depressive13:
But what about 9/11! We never did anything to the middle east before 9/11! That attack was completely unprovoked! What choice did we have other than to go over there and start murdering the shit out of civilians? They only hate us because they hate freedom!!!

What DID we do to the Middle East? Supported Afghan freedom from Soviet rule. Those same people then flew some planes into our buildings, killing our civilians. While it is unfortunate that some civilians in the Middle East (hundreds of thousands, but that is still some.) is unfortunate, but were your argument breaks down is basic facts. They actively targeted civilians. then they hid amongst them. Every civilian death on our part has been an accident while to them it is a goal.

So yes, you are right, WE are the true terrorists. Supporting democracy and shit.

newfoundsky:

What DID we do to the Middle East? Supported Afghan freedom from Soviet rule.

Remember folks, it's only freedom when the puppet government runing your country is on our side! Seriously, no, back in the Cold War neither of the sides cared much about "freedom" of anyone, and cared mostly about having one's own influence spread.

So yes, USA fought a proxy war by supporting Al Qaeda, and that came back and bit it in the ass.

Those same people then flew some planes into our buildings, killing our civilians.

17 kids/teenagers wrested Afghanistan from under USSR? Wow.

While it is unfortunate that some civilians in the Middle East (hundreds of thousands, but that is still some.)

Yes, it's "some" when it's happening half the world away.

Or look at it this way.

In the 9/11 attacks, some Americans were killed. How does that sound?

They actively targeted civilians. then they hid amongst them. Every civilian death on our part has been an accident while to them it is a goal.

Eh, they're not actually the main objective, the main objective of terrorists is, as the name would imply, terror. Intimidation. Sowing fear and panic. Forcing the hand of your government to cripple your society.

And they succeeded at that, to an extent.

So yes, you are right, WE are the true terrorists. Supporting democracy and shit.

That's why there was so much rage when the islamists were voted in in Egypt, yes? Because "Supporting democracy" apparently means "We don't give two fucks about your election results if you don't vote in somebody we like."

Vegosiux:

newfoundsky:

What DID we do to the Middle East? Supported Afghan freedom from Soviet rule.

Remember folks, it's only freedom when the puppet government runing your country is on our side! Seriously, no, back in the Cold War neither of the sides cared much about "freedom" of anyone, and cared mostly about having one's own influence spread.

So yes, USA fought a proxy war by supporting Al Qaeda, and that came back and bit it in the ass.

Those same people then flew some planes into our buildings, killing our civilians.

17 kids/teenagers wrested Afghanistan from under USSR? Wow.

While it is unfortunate that some civilians in the Middle East (hundreds of thousands, but that is still some.)

Yes, it's "some" when it's happening half the world away.

Or look at it this way.

In the 9/11 attacks, some Americans were killed. How does that sound?

They actively targeted civilians. then they hid amongst them. Every civilian death on our part has been an accident while to them it is a goal.

Eh, they're not actually the main objective, the main objective of terrorists is, as the name would imply, terror. Intimidation. Sowing fear and panic. Forcing the hand of your government to cripple your society.

And they succeeded at that, to an extent.

So yes, you are right, WE are the true terrorists. Supporting democracy and shit.

That's why there was so much rage when the Islamist were voted in in Egypt, yes? Because "Supporting democracy" apparently means "We don't give two fucks about your election results if you don't vote in somebody we like."

It's really easy to take shit out of context when you break a post up like that. It's all one point, not multiple points. That's why it was all one paragraph.

Regardless of why two groups are fighting, in this case because we were attacked by people wanting to do jihad or whatever, and we wanted to bring them to justice. The 17 people you are on about were part of a larger organization that had the main goal of destroying our way of life. The goals they thought would help them reach the MAIN goal involved actively killing civvies. That is probably the main difference between a terrorist and a soldier, the purposeful killing of innocence. Even if the US killed 1,000,000 civvies, we are still better than Jihadists who make it their business to kill them, just because it was an accident when we did it.

The difference between the two is the intent, which is what matters. It still sucks that people died when they didn't need to, but it was never our intent to kill them. Does that make it okay? No. But it sure is a hell of a lot better than killing them because their women go to school.

The rest of your post contains pointing out some spelling errors of mine, running with some grammatical errors of mine, or just general stuff I don't care to discuss. I hope that's okay.

GunsmithKitten:

LetalisK:

GunsmithKitten:

Given the primarily right wing Christian cultural bend of the military as an insitution, they want to see me destroyed anyway.

Yup. It's in the contract when someone enlists. "You must destroy GunsmithKitten and any other homosexuals you come across. Exceptions made for Man-Love Thursdays in Iraq, not logistically possible."

More in the attitude and dominant culture of the military; go ahead, see which political and religious bend most personnel are. G'head.

So a certain political and/or religious bend = "Destroy them homosexuals!"? We're just going to bypass "I don't agree with it", "I don't like it", and "I'd rather get a spoon shoved up my ass" to "Let's destroy some people for it"?

Edit2: Btw, I know and understand the military has a majority who do not like homosexuality. That's not being contested. What is being contested is that they want to destroy said group and individuals within that group. There is a difference between not liking something, hell, even hating something, and trying to destroy it. If you want to show that the opinion is actually so strong that the majority of the military wants to actively pursue the destruction of the homosexual community and homosexuals themselves, then prove it. Otherwise admit it was a gross exaggeration and misrepresentation.

newfoundsky:
-snip-

It's okay if you don't care to discuss stuff, I mean, I'm not one to force you into it. What's not okay is trying to make it look like whether or not you want to discuss stuff is my decision to make.

Vegosiux:

newfoundsky:
-snip-

It's okay if you don't care to discuss stuff, I mean, I'm not one to force you into it. What's not okay is trying to make it look like whether or not you want to discuss stuff is my decision to make.

I genuinely didn't want to upset you :)

newfoundsky:

Vegosiux:

newfoundsky:
-snip-

It's okay if you don't care to discuss stuff, I mean, I'm not one to force you into it. What's not okay is trying to make it look like whether or not you want to discuss stuff is my decision to make.

I genuinely didn't want to upset you :)

'sokay, I'm not upser over this. Most people would say I've been cranky like this for a while now.

I get what you're saying, by the way, and I agree that intent does make an important distinction, but there are variables even there. Still, I think this is as deep as I'll go here, too. Maybe we'll continue this some other time, hm?

newfoundsky:

Hammartroll:
snip

And the fact that we're withdrawing in 2014 and "own" no land means absolutely nothing to you?

you should know that we never actually leave a country. I say the point is that we're creating a permanent base there and getting the government and civilians on our side, so that we can mobilize our army there in the future if we ever need to.

but as GunsmithKitten points out, it probably won't work for too long, but that doesn't stop our leaders from being idiots.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked