If it is ok to kill Afghani civilians if you intend to kill the few hundred operatives of al Quaewda in Afghanistan, why is it not ok to kill 3000 civilians that just happened to be in the same buildings as bureaus of the federal government of the US?
Is it al Quaedas fault that the US federal government cowardly hides behind civilians?
I am assuming of course that there is a rational and coherent explanation and not just glaringly obvious double standards, hypocrisy and propagdanda.
Go fuck yourself.
[quote]orion wrote:
If it is ok to kill Afghani civilians if you intend to kill the few hundred operatives of al Quaewda in Afghanistan, why is it not ok to kill 3000 civilians that just happened to be in the same buildings as bureaus of the federal government of the US?
Is it al Quaedas fault that the US federal government cowardly hides behind civilians?
I am assuming of course that there is a rational and coherent explanation and not just glaringly obvious double standards, hypocrisy and propagdanda.[/quote]
Besides, were not most of the alleged hijackers saudi?
While our ROE are in place to protect civilians, their primary goal is to inflict maximum civilian casulties in order to spread fear; so yes theres no reason to compare. If one wants to frame his words and base his views on what the mass media portrays certain events, then he might conclude that an american citizen’s life is more important than an Islamic life.
[quote]orion wrote:
I am assuming of course that there is a rational and coherent explanation and not just glaringly obvious double standards, hypocrisy and propagdanda.[/quote]
Perhaps you should ask your countrymen, you know the ones popping the jews in the ovens, maybe they will have a answer for you.
Attempt at controversy = FAIL.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
Go fuck yourself.[/quote]
Good point, I would definitely recommend.
[quote]aussie486 wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
I am assuming of course that there is a rational and coherent explanation and not just glaringly obvious double standards, hypocrisy and propagdanda.[/quote]
Perhaps you should ask your countrymen, you know the ones popping the jews in the ovens, maybe they will have a answer for you.[/quote]
Yes, the Nazis were bad people.
So?
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Attempt at controversy = FAIL. [/quote]
When you lay your finger on the lies people tell themselves, especially those lies where they tell themselves why they are better than other people, there will be controversy.
Trust me on this.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
While our ROE are in place to protect civilians, their primary goal is to inflict maximum civilian casulties in order to spread fear; so yes theres no reason to compare. If one wants to frame his words and base his views on what the mass media portrays certain events, then he might conclude that an american citizen’s life is more important than an Islamic life.[/quote]
Well I concluded THAT a long time ago.
Osama Bin Laden however stated quite clearly why he attacked the US, and it comes down to actions of the US government.
So I think it is a convenient assumption that he attacked them to spread fear, but a plausible one.
That however does not adress whether federal installations and bureaus are legitimate targets for retaliatory strikes, especially after attacks against military installations have failed to deter his opponent and he tried that for a long time before going after the WTC.
ALso, why is the US armies “shock and awe” different from his “terrorism”. Both try to illicit an emotional response that is considered to be beneficial by the aggressor through violent means.
Now even if I might concede that deliberately going after civilians is different from accepting collateral damage, if that is what he was in fact going for, the line is a blurry one and that distinction will probably not be appreciated by the relatives of “collateral damage”.
Furthermore, the US claims to be a governmnent by the people, through the people, for the people, which is a claim I highly doubt alQuaeda ever made. So, US civilians actually do have at least some influence when it comes to their governments actions and they choose ignorance and indifference whereas it cannot be said that the same applies to Iraqi and Afghani civilians regarding al Quaeda.
Arguably that makes US civilians a much more legitimate target than Afghani civilians.
edited.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Attempt at controversy = FAIL. [/quote]
When you lay your finger on the lies people tell themselves, especially those lies where they tell themselves why they are better than other people, there will be controversy.
Trust me on this. [/quote]
Tell yourself whatever you must, but don’t let your own biased perceptions of Americans convince you we are any different than you. You also seem to be displacing your anger toward events that Americans cannot control onto American citizens that despite what you’ve been taught are more like-minded than different from you.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
While our ROE are in place to protect civilians, their primary goal is to inflict maximum civilian casulties in order to spread fear; so yes theres no reason to compare. If one wants to frame his words and base his views on what the mass media portrays certain events, then he might conclude that an american citizen’s life is more important than an Islamic life.[/quote]
Well I concluded THAT a long time ago.
Osama Bin Laden however stated quite clearly why he attacked the US, and it comes down to actions of the US government.
So I think it is a convenient assumption that he attacked them to spread fear, but a plausible one.
That however does not adress whether federal installations and bureaus are legitimate targets for retaliatory strikes, especially after attacks against military installations have failed to deter his opponent and he tried that for a long time before going after the WTC.
ALso, why is the US armies “shock and awe” different from his “terrorism”. Both try to illicit an emotional response that is considered to be beneficial by the aggressor through violent means.
Now even if I might concede that deliberately going after civilians is different from accepting collateral damage, if that is what he was in fact going for, the line is a blurry one and that distinction will probably not be appreciated by the relatives of “collateral damage”.
Furthermore, the US claims to be a governmnent by the people, through the people, for the people, which is a claim I highly doubt alQuaeda ever made. So, US civilians actually do have at least some influence when it comes to their governments actions and they choose ignorance and indifference whereas it cannot be said that the same applies to Iraqi and Afghani civilians regarding al Quaeda.
Arguably that makes US civilians a much more legitimate target than Afghani civilians.
edited.[/quote]
lol nice. I gotta go and I think I can agree with alot of the stuff you’re saying. It sure is alot of bullshit but overall its politics and we, the individual, are just pawns waiting to be told what to do by our leaders be it christians or muslims - everyone is justifying mass murders.
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Attempt at controversy = FAIL. [/quote]
When you lay your finger on the lies people tell themselves, especially those lies where they tell themselves why they are better than other people, there will be controversy.
Trust me on this. [/quote]
Tell yourself whatever you must, but don’t let your own biased perceptions of Americans convince you we are any different than you. You also seem to be displacing your anger toward events that Americans cannot control onto American citizens that despite what you’ve been taught are more like-minded than different from you.[/quote]
I do not think that Americans are any different from us. We did the same and far worse, as I am constantly reminded.
It is absolutely fair to suspect or point out my ignorance and/or self righteaousness, but then I would like to point out that my ignorance, indifference and self righteousness does not get people killed thousands of miles away.
The other point is that I know that the average American has little or no control over his or her government as was clearly demonstarted by the bailouts if we needed any further proof, however, why would we accept al Quaedas propaganda at face value whereas when I do take American propaganda at facew value someone immediately points out that real life is a bit more complicated .
There are people on this board who want to bomb Iran because a figurehead uttered some nonsense that has an ambigous meaning when translated into English, but when official represantatives in the US are rattling their sabers noone would accept that as a justification for an attack on the US, including a few million dead civilians.
So, back to my original question:
Double standards?
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
While our ROE are in place to protect civilians, their primary goal is to inflict maximum civilian casulties in order to spread fear; so yes theres no reason to compare. If one wants to frame his words and base his views on what the mass media portrays certain events, then he might conclude that an american citizen’s life is more important than an Islamic life.[/quote]
Well I concluded THAT a long time ago.
Osama Bin Laden however stated quite clearly why he attacked the US, and it comes down to actions of the US government.
So I think it is a convenient assumption that he attacked them to spread fear, but a plausible one.
That however does not adress whether federal installations and bureaus are legitimate targets for retaliatory strikes, especially after attacks against military installations have failed to deter his opponent and he tried that for a long time before going after the WTC.
ALso, why is the US armies “shock and awe” different from his “terrorism”. Both try to illicit an emotional response that is considered to be beneficial by the aggressor through violent means.
Now even if I might concede that deliberately going after civilians is different from accepting collateral damage, if that is what he was in fact going for, the line is a blurry one and that distinction will probably not be appreciated by the relatives of “collateral damage”.
Furthermore, the US claims to be a governmnent by the people, through the people, for the people, which is a claim I highly doubt alQuaeda ever made. So, US civilians actually do have at least some influence when it comes to their governments actions and they choose ignorance and indifference whereas it cannot be said that the same applies to Iraqi and Afghani civilians regarding al Quaeda.
Arguably that makes US civilians a much more legitimate target than Afghani civilians.
edited.[/quote]
You’re an idiot.
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
While our ROE are in place to protect civilians, their primary goal is to inflict maximum civilian casulties in order to spread fear; so yes theres no reason to compare. If one wants to frame his words and base his views on what the mass media portrays certain events, then he might conclude that an american citizen’s life is more important than an Islamic life.[/quote]
Well I concluded THAT a long time ago.
Osama Bin Laden however stated quite clearly why he attacked the US, and it comes down to actions of the US government.
So I think it is a convenient assumption that he attacked them to spread fear, but a plausible one.
That however does not adress whether federal installations and bureaus are legitimate targets for retaliatory strikes, especially after attacks against military installations have failed to deter his opponent and he tried that for a long time before going after the WTC.
ALso, why is the US armies “shock and awe” different from his “terrorism”. Both try to illicit an emotional response that is considered to be beneficial by the aggressor through violent means.
Now even if I might concede that deliberately going after civilians is different from accepting collateral damage, if that is what he was in fact going for, the line is a blurry one and that distinction will probably not be appreciated by the relatives of “collateral damage”.
Furthermore, the US claims to be a governmnent by the people, through the people, for the people, which is a claim I highly doubt alQuaeda ever made. So, US civilians actually do have at least some influence when it comes to their governments actions and they choose ignorance and indifference whereas it cannot be said that the same applies to Iraqi and Afghani civilians regarding al Quaeda.
Arguably that makes US civilians a much more legitimate target than Afghani civilians.
edited.[/quote]
You’re an idiot.
[/quote]
Well, if that is the conclusion of someone with such awesome debating skills and devastating arguments I guess I must accept it.
Say, do you have at least some rudimentary education on how to conduct a civilized discourse in your schools and colleges and if so may I ask how you did in those courses?
[quote]Sloth wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
While our ROE are in place to protect civilians, their primary goal is to inflict maximum civilian casulties in order to spread fear; so yes theres no reason to compare. If one wants to frame his words and base his views on what the mass media portrays certain events, then he might conclude that an american citizen’s life is more important than an Islamic life.[/quote]
Well I concluded THAT a long time ago.
Osama Bin Laden however stated quite clearly why he attacked the US, and it comes down to actions of the US government.
So I think it is a convenient assumption that he attacked them to spread fear, but a plausible one.
That however does not adress whether federal installations and bureaus are legitimate targets for retaliatory strikes, especially after attacks against military installations have failed to deter his opponent and he tried that for a long time before going after the WTC.
ALso, why is the US armies “shock and awe” different from his “terrorism”. Both try to illicit an emotional response that is considered to be beneficial by the aggressor through violent means.
Now even if I might concede that deliberately going after civilians is different from accepting collateral damage, if that is what he was in fact going for, the line is a blurry one and that distinction will probably not be appreciated by the relatives of “collateral damage”.
Furthermore, the US claims to be a governmnent by the people, through the people, for the people, which is a claim I highly doubt alQuaeda ever made. So, US civilians actually do have at least some influence when it comes to their governments actions and they choose ignorance and indifference whereas it cannot be said that the same applies to Iraqi and Afghani civilians regarding al Quaeda.
Arguably that makes US civilians a much more legitimate target than Afghani civilians.
edited.[/quote]
You’re an idiot.
[/quote]
Also, you may have noticed that I basically posted a string of questions, which can hardly make me an idiot.
But, even if that may be the case, my relentless pursuit of knowledge should at least give me a fighting chance that that problem should at least be somewhat kept in check.
Since you obviously know the answers and yet chose not to disclose them I must conclude that you are a very mean spirited person that would rather make fun of the cerebrally challenged than help them with their inquiries.
You obviously know nothing of the link between intentions and morality. There is NO comparison, however facile you want to be. No double standard.
Go fuck yourself. Seriously dude, if you can’t grasp the fundamental points that are invariably part of discussions like these, don’t start.
Since they seem all too cowardly, let me help America out.
How about this: since Al Quaida attacked without warning, one could argue that killing civilians and acting genocidal is just a way to ensure no one messes with US and A. Kinda like wiping out villages to flush out partisan irregulars.
“If you attack me from behind, expect to see your whole family slaughtered”.
That implies that a more polite attacker wouldn’t face shock and awe deluxe.
Historically, Germany wasn’t raped that bad once UStroops were over there. Hell they still are!
So I guess either them arabs should take out their Lederhosen and Beer and everything will work out just fine or the incompetent leaders didn’t read the manuals about “nation building in the middle and southern east”.
Assuming they can read at all.
[quote]orion wrote:
Say, do you have at least some rudimentary education on how to conduct a civilized discourse in your schools and colleges and if so may I ask how you did in those courses?
[/quote]
Sure, but I don’t waste it on idiots. I’m not interested in pointing out the obvious to Rockwell fangirls. You’ve always flirted with kookiness, but this post takes the cake. Posting quotes from Osama, from a statement for which his audience was dhimmi infidels such as yourself, and taking them at face value? I guess he’s an Eco warrior, too. Or, maybe he knows what to say to Rockwellian idiots AND leftist hippies.
"You have destroyed nature with your industrial waste and gases, more than any other country. Despite this, you refuse to sign the Kyoto agreement so that you can secure the profit of your greedy companies and industries."–Osama
…
They don’t hate us for our freedoms?
“When a group of Muslim scholars wrote to the Americans saying that there should be equality, justice, and freedom, between the West and Islam, bin Ladin had this to say about it:”
[The Muslims’ declaration] came supporting the United Nations and their humanistic articles, which revolve around three principles: equality, freedom, and justice. Nor do they mean equality, freedom, and justice as was revealed by the Prophet Muhammad [Sharia]. No, they mean the West’s despicable notions, which we see today in America and Europe, and which have made the people like cattle."
…
What do they say to other muslims, instead of gullible Rothbardians and Leftists?
We also extend our hands to every Muslim zealous over making Islam triumph till they join us in a course of action to save the umma from its painful reality. [This course of action] consists of staying clear of idolatrous tyrants, warfare against infidels, loyalty to the believers, and jihad in the path of Allah. Such is a course of action that all who are vigilant for the triumph of Islam should vie in, giving and sacrificing in the cause of liberating the lands of the Muslims, making Islam supreme in its [own] land, and then spreading it around the world.–Ayman al-Zawahiri
…
As to the relationship between Muslims and infidels, this is summarized by the Most High’s Word: You have a good example in Abraham and those with him. They said to their people: ‘We disown you and what you worship besides Allah. We renounce you. Enmity and hate shall forever reign between us–till you believe in Allah alone’ [Koran 60:4]. So there is an enmity, evidenced by fierce hostility, and an internal hate from the heart. And this fierce hostility–that is, battle–ceases only if the infidel submits to the authority of Islam, or if his blood is forbidden from being shed [a dhimmi], 9 or if the Muslims are [at that point in time] weak and incapable [of spreading Sharia law to the world]. But if the hate at any time extinguishes from the hearts, this is great apostasy; the one who does this [extinguishes the hate from his heart] will stand excuseless before Allah. Allah Almighty’s Word to His Prophet recounts in summation the true relationship: ‘Prophet! Wage war against the infidels and hypocrites and be ruthless. Their abode is hell–an evil fate!’ [Koran 9:73]. Such, then, is the basis and foundation of the relationship between the infidel and the Muslim. Battle, animosity, and hatred–directed from the Muslim to the infidel–is the foundation of our religion. And we consider this a justice and kindness to them. The West perceives fighting, enmity, and hatred all for the sake of the religion as unjust, hostile, and evil. But who’s understanding is right–our notions of justice and righteousness, or theirs? [p. 43]–Osama
…
As for the word ‘oppression,’ those addressed [Americans] take it to mean being placed under the authority of Islam by the sword, as the Prophet did with the infidels. They think that something that denies them [the freedom] to pursue obscenities, atheism and blasphemy, and idolatry is an ‘oppression.’ They think that an attack launched against their ground, as in an Offensive Jihad, is an ‘injustice.’ And so forth. Then come the [intellectuals] declaring that justice is a right while oppression is forbidden. If they mean justice and oppression, as understood by those addressed then this is a great calamity, and a blasphemous conversation. As for oppression, the only oppression is to forsake them in their infidelity, and not use jihad as a means to make them enter into the faith–as the Prophet did with them. [pp. 45-46]–Osama
…
Regarding which shared understandings, exactly, is it possible that we agree with the immoral West?.. What commonalities, if our foundations contradict, rendering useless the shared extremities–if they even exist? For practically everything valued by the immoral West is condemned under sharia law. [T]he issues most prominent in the West revolve around secularism, homosexuality, sexuality, and atheism [p. 37]. As for this atmosphere of shared understandings, what evidence is there for Muslims to strive for this? What did the Prophet, the Companions after him, and the righteous forebears do? Did they wage jihad against the infidels, attacking them all over the earth, in order to place them under the suzerainty of Islam in great humility and submission? Or did they send messages to discover ‘shared understandings’ between themselves and the infidels in order that they may reach an understanding whereby universal peace, security, and natural relations would spread–in such a satanic manner as this? The sharia provides a true and just path, securing Muslims, and providing peace to the world.–Osama to Saudi intellectuals who proposed opening up a conversation with the west.
…
When the above referenced intellectuals wrote, “It’s imperative that we bid all to legitimate talks, presented to the world, under the umbrella of justice, morality, and rights, ushering in legislations creating peace and prosperity for the world…”, Osama responded:
Surely there is no power save through Allah alone! We never thought that such words would ever appear from those who consider themselves adherents of this religion. Such expressions, and more like them, would lead the reader to believe that those who wrote them are Western intellectuals, not Muslims! Those previous expressions are true only by tearing down the wall of enmity from the infidels. They are also expressions true only by rejecting jihad–especially Offensive Jihad. The problem, however, is that Offensive Jihad is an established and basic tenet of this religion. It is a religious duty rejected only by the most deluded. So how can they call off this religious obligation [Offensive Jihad], while imploring the West to understandings and talks ‘under the umbrella of justice, morality, and rights’ The essence of all this comes from right inside the halls of the United Nations, instead of the Divine foundations that are built upon hating the infidels, repudiating them with tongue and teeth till they embrace Islam or pay the jizya [tribute] with willing submission and humility. Muslims, and especially the learned among them, should spread sharia law to the world–that and nothing else. Not laws under the ‘umbrella of justice, morality, and rights’ as understood by the masses. No, the sharia of Islam is the foundation.
…
[i]Whenever the Messenger of Allah appointed someone as leader of an army or detachment, he would especially exhort him to fear Allah and be good to the Muslims with him. Then he would say: 'Attack in the name of Allah and in the path of Allah do battle with whoever rejects Allah. Attack!.. If you happen upon your idolatrous enemies, call them to three courses of action. If they respond to any one of these, accept it and stay yourself from them. [1] Call them to Islam: If they respond , accept this and cease fighting them… [2] If they refuse to accept Islam, demand of them the jizya: If they respond, accept it and cease fighting them. [3] But if they refuse, seek the aid of Allah and fight them.’ [u]Thus our talks with the infidel West and our conflict with them ultimately revolve around one issue–one that demands our total support, with power and determination, with one voice–and it is: Does Islam, or does it not, force people by the power of the sword to submit to its authority corporeally if not spiritually? Yes. There are only three choices in Islam: either willing submission; or payment of the jizya, through physical though not spiritual, submission to the authority of Islam; or the sword–for it is not right to let him [an infidel] live.[/u] The matter is summed up for every person alive: Either submit, or live under the suzerainty of Islam, or die. [pp. 41-42]—Osama, reaffirming that Offensive Jihad, submitting the world to Islam, is his and every Allah fearing muslim’s duty.
And, much, much more besides what I’ve taken the time to quote.
http://www.meriajournal.com/en/asp/journal/2008/december/ibrahim/6.pdf
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]spyoptic wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]Gregus wrote:
Attempt at controversy = FAIL. [/quote]
When you lay your finger on the lies people tell themselves, especially those lies where they tell themselves why they are better than other people, there will be controversy.
Trust me on this. [/quote]
Tell yourself whatever you must, but don’t let your own biased perceptions of Americans convince you we are any different than you. You also seem to be displacing your anger toward events that Americans cannot control onto American citizens that despite what you’ve been taught are more like-minded than different from you.[/quote]
I do not think that Americans are any different from us. We did the same and far worse, as I am constantly reminded.
It is absolutely fair to suspect or point out my ignorance and/or self righteaousness, but then I would like to point out that my ignorance, indifference and self righteousness does not get people killed thousands of miles away.
The other point is that I know that the average American has little or no control over his or her government as was clearly demonstarted by the bailouts if we needed any further proof, however, why would we accept al Quaedas propaganda at face value whereas when I do take American propaganda at facew value someone immediately points out that real life is a bit more complicated .
There are people on this board who want to bomb Iran because a figurehead uttered some nonsense that has an ambigous meaning when translated into English, but when official represantatives in the US are rattling their sabers noone would accept that as a justification for an attack on the US, including a few million dead civilians.
So, back to my original question:
Double standards?
[/quote]
yes The west preaches their bullshit, Al qaeda preaches theirs. Our flags, our religions, our governments and economies are dividing the human race. Until we reformat all of them to teach equality and compassion there will always be two sides manipulating individual thoughts to fight and kill one another.