[quote]lixy wrote:
I maintain that had those “terrorists” had F-16s, tanks and bombs, they wouldn’t be targeting civilians either. But that’s conjectural.[/quote]
Bullshit.
[quote]hedo wrote:
OneMoreRep wrote:
orion wrote:
SkinAndBones wrote:
orion wrote:
Really.
Only those that chose to pick up arms. The percentage of civilian casualties in modern asymetric warfare is what?
You are right there are civilian causalities, but how many times has the US military chosen civilian targets, attempted to and intended to kill civilians in retribution for past attacks or as a way to spread fear.
Intention is key here, there have been many reports of U.S. friendly fire. One example being the killing of Pat Tillman, but does this mean that this is the goal, or intention of the U.S. military of even that specific unit? No those are unforeseen and unintended consequences.
The U.S. and I hope any military should take every precaution to prevent and avoid civilian causalities, but they will happen. The difference is that the U.S. does not intended for them, terrorists aim for them.
One more,
It’s lost on them. Some ignorance but mostly fear and contempt.
You are spot on by the way.
[/quote]
Exactly, they don’t get it and never will.
[quote]Makavali wrote:
lixy wrote:
I maintain that had those “terrorists” had F-16s, tanks and bombs, they wouldn’t be targeting civilians either. But that’s conjectural.
Bullshit.[/quote]
Exactly.
[quote]lixy wrote:
OneMoreRep wrote:
You are right there are civilian causalities, but how many times has the US military chosen civilian targets, attempted to and intended to kill civilians in retribution for past attacks or as a way to spread fear.
Nukes, dioxin-laden Rainbow Herbicides, cluster bombs, etc.
Intention is key here,
Yes. But let us please distinguish between the propagandized official line and the more elusive (but closer to the truth) intent.
there have been many reports of U.S. friendly fire. One example being the killing of Pat Tillman, but does this mean that this is the goal, or intention of the U.S. military of even that specific unit? No those are unforeseen and unintended consequences.
That could make sense had the US not been engaged in wars of aggression.
You can’t really claim “unforeseen and unintended consequences” when you are the one starting the fight. Responsibility must be acknowledged at some point.
The U.S. and I hope any military should take every precaution to prevent and avoid civilian causalities, but they will happen.
Not if you don’t go around bombing and invading countries, they won’t.
The difference is that the U.S. does not intended for them, terrorists aim for them.
So the US military is better than “terrorists”? Glad we cleared that up.
I maintain that had those “terrorists” had F-16s, tanks and bombs, they wouldn’t be targeting civilians either. But that’s conjectural.[/quote]
They already have bombs and use them against civilians all the time. If your friends had F-16’s and tanks they’d soon be in disrepair and unusable.
They would ,however, make fine targets in the interim.
I generally hate most civilians and would not allow them the priviledge of shining the shoes of even the most junior troops I train, so it’s all good.
[quote]lixy wrote:
So the US military is better than “terrorists”? Glad we cleared that up.
I maintain that had those “terrorists” had F-16s, tanks and bombs, they wouldn’t be targeting civilians either. But that’s conjectural.[/quote]
By putting typing terrorists as “terrorists” you are implying that you don’t believe that they are.
Terrorism, is commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. -Oxford English Dictionary
Hezbollah, Al-Qaeda, Abu-Sayyaf, FARC, all fit this, and other definitions of terrorism to a T. Can you stretch it to claim the U.S. is a terrorist state, sure, but I think that’s a stretch. You can also stretch it to claim these groups are freedom fighters, but that’s also a stretch.
By stating that you maintain if they had tanks, bombs etc. you are saying that because these terrorists (no quotation marks)are at a technological disadvantage then its OK for them to attack civilians, use suicide bombs etc.
I mean if they had tanks too then we can fight, but because they don’t well i mean they’re just forced to commit acts like Mumbai right? they had no other choice…if only we gave them f-16s we’d solve this problem
Listen I am the first to acknowledge the mistakes the U.S. has made in military AND economic policy throughout history and across the globe. I openly advocate through voting, donating and communicating changes i think we should make, such as stopping what I believe is torture committed by the U.S.
BUT
the U.S. has also done a lot both militarily AND economically throughout history and across the globe. For every instance of wrongdoing I can name an instance of aid and help.
Ultimately I think we are at a net positive, but like EVERY nation we have blemishes.
I also strongly disagree that the U.S., its military, its leaders or its people are somehow intrinsically evil or that this is black and white and we are so far in the black that its justified to kill Americans by any means necessary.
I think some people are looking through a lens that nothing the U.S. can do will be right, that every action will always be construed as negative, that they will consistently highlight the bad and disregard or minimize the good. Admittedly there are some that go in the other direction as well, but for our purposes here it seems as though there are some who are fitting into the first category.
But for some here, critical and honest analysis has been replaced with what seems to be (I hope I am wrong) but at least seems to be a visceral hatred of the U.S.
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
lixy wrote:
So the US military is better than “terrorists”? Glad we cleared that up.
I maintain that had those “terrorists” had F-16s, tanks and bombs, they wouldn’t be targeting civilians either. But that’s conjectural.
By putting typing terrorists as “terrorists” you are implying that you don’t believe that they are. [/quote]
Nope. You are the one inferring that.
Terrorism, is commonly understood as an act which (1) is intended to create fear (terror), (2) is perpetrated for an ideological goal (as opposed to a materialistic goal or a lone attack), and (3) deliberately targets (or disregards the safety of) non-combatants. -Oxford English Dictionary
Hezbollah, [/quote]
Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, Canada, and the Netherlands.
To the rest of the world, they’re a legitimate political party and a resistance movement.
No argument there.
But this thread is about “the US military”. If anything, the latter’s actions gave a boost to Al-Qaeda. I really don’t see Al-Qaeda falling with military action.
Technically, they fit the bill. But they’re first and foremost a separatist group.
Depends on where you stand, I suppose.
To me, they’re certainly not any worse than the Colombian army.
Why do you consider it a stretch?
I won’t.
Suffice it to say that the two are interchangeable, as Reagan demonstrated.
[quote]By stating that you maintain if they had tanks, bombs etc. you are saying that because these terrorists (no quotation marks)are at a technological disadvantage then its OK for them to attack civilians, use suicide bombs etc.
I mean if they had tanks too then we can fight, but because they don’t well i mean they’re just forced to commit acts like Mumbai right? they had no other choice…if only we gave them f-16s we’d solve this problem[/quote]
Not all “terrorists” were created equal. Some are scum. Others, resort to terrorism after exhausting all alternatives.
[quote]lixy wrote:
OneMoreRep wrote:
lixy wrote:
So the US military is better than “terrorists”? Glad we cleared that up.
I maintain that had those “terrorists” had F-16s, tanks and bombs, they wouldn’t be targeting civilians either. But that’s conjectural.
By putting typing terrorists as “terrorists” you are implying that you don’t believe that they are.
Nope. You are the one inferring that.
Hezbollah,
Hezbollah is considered a terrorist organization by the United States, Israel, Canada, and the Netherlands.
To the rest of the world, they’re a legitimate political party and a resistance movement.
Can you stretch it to claim the U.S. is a terrorist state, sure, but I think that’s a stretch.
Why do you consider it a stretch?
You can also stretch it to claim these groups are freedom fighters, but that’s also a stretch.
I won’t.
Suffice it to say that the two are interchangeable, as Reagan demonstrated.
Not all “terrorists” were created equal. Some are scum. Others, resort to terrorism after exhausting all alternatives.[/quote]
Your quotation marks, and then stating that freedom fighters and terrorists are interchangeable seems that YOU and not I are implying that they are not Terrorists but “terrorists” as if it is a misplaced moniker.
Here is my difference, I don’t think there is ever a point where you have exhausted all other alternatives so that you must resort to terrorism. Guerrilla warfare, nonviolent demonstration, protest etc. I don’t think it ever comes to a point where terrorism is justified.
Well then the discussion on Hezbollah is settled. When you say “the rest of the world” lets not pretend everyone else is loudly supporting them, most are probably indifferent, nominally against, nominally in favor or have too much shit to worry about in their own country to be nominally anything.
Listen it seems like you know a lot when it comes to IR, especially when you have an intelligent response to the FARC and Abu-Sayyaf, some lesser known groups that a casual observer wouldn’t know. So, I respect you for that,
BUT when you say this
"Can you stretch it to claim the U.S. is a terrorist state, sure, but I think that’s a stretch.
Why do you consider it a stretch?"
When you believe that the U.S. is a terrorist state, or at least are open to the idea, and all the implications that come with that conclusion…see posts above
[quote]amphibian wrote:
I generally hate most civilians and would not allow them the priviledge of shining the shoes of even the most junior troops I train, so it’s all good. [/quote]
If I didn’t hate civilians so much I’d join back up.
mike
The military is only a tool. It makes no more sense to “hate the military” (which few people do) than it makes sense to hate a screwdriver for turning a screw.
The problem comes from the people that are holding the tool… after all, you can use a screwdriver to stab a motherfucker too, but you can’t blame the screwdriver for that.
[quote]OneMoreRep wrote:
Your quotation marks, and then stating that freedom fighters and terrorists are interchangeable seems that YOU and not I are implying that they are not Terrorists but “terrorists” as if it is a misplaced moniker. [/quote]
Some are. Others aren’t.
In times when everyone shooting at American soldiers in Iraq is labelled a terrorist, I sure hope you have enough sense to not abuse the term.
I am not one to interchange terrorist with freedom fighter depending on how useful somebody is to me. I’ll leave that to governments and brainwashed drones.
And the “quotation marks” are just a way to show that I’m merely quoting you.
Guerilla warfare (and war, in general) will always have components of terrorism.
Besides that, I totally agree with your statement.
If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists?
I kid, I kid.
It’s a tough call to make. It depends on whether we’re talking (more or less representative) governments or people.
You’d think the USA would be in this category.
[quote]BUT when you say this
"Can you stretch it to claim the U.S. is a terrorist state, sure, but I think that’s a stretch.
Why do you consider it a stretch?"
When you believe that the U.S. is a terrorist state, or at least are open to the idea, and all the implications that come with that conclusion…see posts above [/quote]
Your argument above’s that, since you “can name an instance of aid and help” for every wrongdoing, the US should get a pass.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you can stick that “aid and help” up the Capitol’s ass! All it does, is reinforce US-friendly dictators’ power and subsidizes overpopulation. If you really want to help, do something that the locals can then use to create value.
You’re free to think that no matter what the US does (or doesn’t do), I will be critical of it. But if you were keeping your troops in your natural sphere of influence (i.e: natural borders), people wouldn’t be accusing you so much of being a terrorist state.
Take China for instance. Many people are bashing it for Tibet, Or Russia for last year’s beef with Georgia. And rightly so. Well, what the US has done in Iraq is not even on the same level because there was no possible justification for an invasion. The US and Iraq are so far apart, it’s not even remotely comparable. If China had 700 military bases overseas, invading and bombing people on the other side of the globe willy-nilly, you can bet your ass that I’ll be on them like hair on soap. But they’re not (yet?).
Bottomline, the case can be (and is) made that the US uses terrorism. It may not be as bad as Al-Qaeda or the Contras, but it’s terrorism nonetheless.
Obama: Same as Bush?
“Any doubt that the Military Industrial Complex is as strong as ever should be removed after examining Obama?s 2010 budget just put forth. It calls for 26% more in spending on Defense than President Bush spent in 2006. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, leaving the United States as the only remaining superpower on earth. Since 1990, the United States has depleted the U.S. Treasury of $7 trillion for spending on Defense. With no military on earth capable of challenging us why would there be a need to spend this much on the military? Over this same time frame the U.S. spent $360 billion on science, space & technology and $52 billion on energy, a mere 6% of the spending on killing machines. Military expenditures benefit humanity in no way. If these trillions had been invested by the private sector or devoted to energy and scientific research, our economy might not be a hollowed out shell dependent on China and oil exporting countries. Nationalists argue that the Defense industry employs millions and benefits the country. These companies employ brilliant engineers and scientists who spend their days developing things that kill people more efficiently. If they had been employed developing electric cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, an efficient electric grid, infrastructure upgrades, or finding a cure for Alzheimer?s, would the United States be better off today?”
http://theburningplatform.com/economy/war-pigs---cost-of-a-global-empire-1
We know its going to be a ‘National Socialist’ type world, heavy on the Socialism with powerful militaries to back it up. Its going to happen whether anyone here likes it or not. May as well join up NOW, you young gents, and be part of those who rule.
[quote]Headhunter wrote:
Obama: Same as Bush?
“Any doubt that the Military Industrial Complex is as strong as ever should be removed after examining Obama?s 2010 budget just put forth. It calls for 26% more in spending on Defense than President Bush spent in 2006. The Soviet Union collapsed in 1989, leaving the United States as the only remaining superpower on earth. Since 1990, the United States has depleted the U.S. Treasury of $7 trillion for spending on Defense. With no military on earth capable of challenging us why would there be a need to spend this much on the military? Over this same time frame the U.S. spent $360 billion on science, space & technology and $52 billion on energy, a mere 6% of the spending on killing machines. Military expenditures benefit humanity in no way. If these trillions had been invested by the private sector or devoted to energy and scientific research, our economy might not be a hollowed out shell dependent on China and oil exporting countries. Nationalists argue that the Defense industry employs millions and benefits the country. These companies employ brilliant engineers and scientists who spend their days developing things that kill people more efficiently. If they had been employed developing electric cars, solar power, wind power, nuclear power, an efficient electric grid, infrastructure upgrades, or finding a cure for Alzheimer?s, would the United States be better off today?”
http://theburningplatform.com/economy/war-pigs---cost-of-a-global-empire-1
We know its going to be a ‘National Socialist’ type world, heavy on the Socialism with powerful militaries to back it up. Its going to happen whether anyone here likes it or not. May as well join up NOW, you young gents, and be part of those who rule.
[/quote]
OK, so let me get this straight- when Clinton dropped the military budget, he was a douchebag and destroyed the military. When W. got us into two wars and increased military spending heavily, he was a saint sent to destroy islam. Now that Obama is raising the budget (which I don’t really know because I don’t trust your bullshit website, but let’s just say it’s half-true) he’s a national socialist bent on world domination.
Moron.
Join the army? Nah Headhunter, I think I’ve got a nasty case of asthma flaring up. They still let you out for that, don’t they?
[quote]lixy wrote:
OneMoreRep wrote:
Your quotation marks, and then stating that freedom fighters and terrorists are interchangeable seems that YOU and not I are implying that they are not Terrorists but “terrorists” as if it is a misplaced moniker.
Some are. Others aren’t.
In times when everyone shooting at American soldiers in Iraq is labelled a terrorist, I sure hope you have enough sense to not abuse the term.
I am not one to interchange terrorist with freedom fighter depending on how useful somebody is to me. I’ll leave that to governments and brainwashed drones.
And the “quotation marks” are just a way to show that I’m merely quoting you.
Here is my difference, I don’t think there is ever a point where you have exhausted all other alternatives so that you must resort to terrorism. Guerrilla warfare, nonviolent demonstration, protest etc. I don’t think it ever comes to a point where terrorism is justified.
Guerilla warfare (and war, in general) will always have components of terrorism.
Besides that, I totally agree with your statement.
Well then the discussion on Hezbollah is settled. When you say “the rest of the world” lets not pretend everyone else is loudly supporting them,
If you’re not with us, you’re with the terrorists?
I kid, I kid.
most are probably indifferent,
It’s a tough call to make. It depends on whether we’re talking (more or less representative) governments or people.
or have too much shit to worry about in their own country to be nominally anything.
You’d think the USA would be in this category.
BUT when you say this
"Can you stretch it to claim the U.S. is a terrorist state, sure, but I think that’s a stretch.
Why do you consider it a stretch?"
When you believe that the U.S. is a terrorist state, or at least are open to the idea, and all the implications that come with that conclusion…see posts above
Your argument above’s that, since you “can name an instance of aid and help” for every wrongdoing, the US should get a pass.
Don’t take this the wrong way, but you can stick that “aid and help” up the Capitol’s ass! All it does, is reinforce US-friendly dictators’ power and subsidizes overpopulation. If you really want to help, do something that the locals can then use to create value.
You’re free to think that no matter what the US does (or doesn’t do), I will be critical of it. But if you were keeping your troops in your natural sphere of influence (i.e: natural borders), people wouldn’t be accusing you so much of being a terrorist state.
Take China for instance. Many people are bashing it for Tibet, Or Russia for last year’s beef with Georgia. And rightly so. Well, what the US has done in Iraq is not even on the same level because there was no possible justification for an invasion. The US and Iraq are so far apart, it’s not even remotely comparable. If China had 700 military bases overseas, invading and bombing people on the other side of the globe willy-nilly, you can bet your ass that I’ll be on them like hair on soap. But they’re not (yet?).
Bottomline, the case can be (and is) made that the US uses terrorism. It may not be as bad as Al-Qaeda or the Contras, but it’s terrorism nonetheless.[/quote]
Good post.
Fact is, there are millions upon millions of American dollars and thousands upon thousands of American guns that went to supporting the Irish nationalist cause from the years in the middle 19th century when it was the Irish Republican Brotherhood to the modern incarnation of the IRA.
That cause, of course, I believed in. But that does it make the IRA any less of terrorists because I believed in their cause?
I also agree that some degree of terrorism is inherent in every war ever fought. It’s just the way it goes.
[quote]lixy wrote:
Take China for instance. Many people are bashing it for Tibet, Or Russia for last year’s beef with Georgia. And rightly so. Well, what the US has done in Iraq is not even on the same level because there was no possible justification for an invasion. The US and Iraq are so far apart, it’s not even remotely comparable. If China had 700 military bases overseas, invading and bombing people on the other side of the globe willy-nilly, you can bet your ass that I’ll be on them like hair on soap. But they’re not (yet?).
Bottomline, the case can be (and is) made that the US uses terrorism. It may not be as bad as Al-Qaeda or the Contras, but it’s terrorism nonetheless.[/quote]
As far as spheres of interest go, is the US in Afghanistan’s sphere of interest? They attacked us.
You feel that Russia sticks to it’s sphere of interest? Is Russia or America closer to South and Central America?
Is China close to Canada or Nigeria or Sudan?
Is Argentina in Lebanon’s sphere of interest, or at least Hezbollah’s or Iran’s.
If not for Russia, where would all these terrorists get weapons? Show me some terrorists using American manufactured weapons and I’ll believe you. I’ve yet to see one pic.
And Hezbollah. They are a resistance group, hun? What exactly are they resisting?
So if Bin Laden sets up hospitals and community service organizations, he would not be considered a terrorist?
That’s a page right from Timur-lenk’s book buddy.
Good to see attitudes do not change in 700 years.
The military doesn’t choose their battles. That’s the politicians, and I mostly agree with Kurt Vonnegut, “Don’t vote, you will only encourage the bastards”. I will admit that Bush was so bad I considered voting straight democrat as an act of self defense.
I have no respect for the republican party at this point. Fact is, on 911 we were attacked by Saudi Arabia. Not only were most off the attackers Saudi’s, there state sponsored religion preaches jihad on America and funded the attack. The Saudi’s are still exporting that shit world wide, and the majority of suicide bombers in Iraq have been Saudi. I puked in my mouth a little bit during the axis of evil speech…and I projectile vomited when he was holding hands with Fahd in the rose garden. And seriously, if the republican party got a pass on national security until 9-12-01, how in the hell do they criticize Obama now?
[quote]GDI Inc wrote:
I have no respect for the republican party at this point. Fact is, on 911 we were attacked by Saudi Arabia. Not only were most off the attackers Saudi’s, there state sponsored religion preaches jihad on America and funded the attack. [/quote]
Saudi Arabia is definitely more to blame for Al-Qaeda and similar groups than Afghanistan. They have been flooding the world with Wahabism for decades (thanks to oil money).
Well…he did vote for the extension of the “PATRIOT” act.