The Outhouse - The Greatest Comic Book Forum

[habitual]

I didn't mention France in that post. but the exact moment a French soldier, or an American or a Russian, put a foot in Germany, they were becoming targets, same with german soldiers getting everywhere else.

You mentioned it in a prior post, and it didn't apply.

In light of the provocation the former Afghani government enabled I don't think your point has any merit.

Hab

[Spidey-Man]

I didn't mention France in that post. but the exact moment a French soldier, or an American or a Russian, put a foot in Germany, they were becoming targets, same with german soldiers getting everywhere else.

I dont think anyone would dispute that a soldier is a target.

As is a police officer

or someone walking around a bad neighborhood with lots of money

That's factual.

the question was whether it was justified. That's an opinion.

[Spidey-Man]

[
Also, Versalles. If Versalles was not a form of terrorism, I don´t know what it was.

Well it was a treaty. not terrorism. harsh though it may have been.

But it's an interesting justification for nazi germany

[Benderbrau]

Now, if the KKK was a known worldwide terrorist organization. Which had pledged to kill Frenchman, and had indeed attacked French interests many times, and declared war on france, and the KKK membership and the US Government membership were intertwined and the US Government gave sanctuary to the KKK and protection, and if after the KKK attacked france in massive mass murder and the US Gov refused to renounce the KKK, and refused to hand them over for trial, and continued to offer them sanctuary, then the US government would be an accomplice, an aider and abetter under the law, and the French government would be justified in attacking the US government, particularlyw hen the US government had no standing under the law, had taken over the US by force, and was in violation of much law and human decency.

Then sure it would be similar

Publicly the Taliban didn't continue to offer Al Qaeda sanctuary after the attacks. They told the US government that they would investigate and prosecute as needed (or something to that affect). That's the same response the US would have given had our roles been reversed. There's no way the US would willingly or easily give over US citizens currently on US soil to another country for prosecution. Privately the Taliban may have (read as: most definitely) had other agendas but their public response was the same one the US would have given in the same situation.

[Nacmir]

Oh yeah, Shawn (HowAreWeToLive) was in the Peace Corps so shame on you for being ok with him being killed.

I find it paradoxical to have soldiers to get peace. So paradoxical that some phenomenon that repair that paradox are somehow ok. If you had said me that he was killed while being on Red Cross or Doctors without Borders, I wouldbe pretty much embarased right now...

[Spidey-Man]

Publicly the Taliban didn't continue to offer Al Qaeda sanctuary after the attacks. They told the US government that they would investigate and prosecute as needed (or something to that affect). That's the same response the US would have given had our roles been reversed. There's no way the US would willingly or easily give over US citizens currently on US soil to another country for prosecution. Privately the Taliban may have (read as: most definitely) had other agendas but their public response was the same one the US would have given in the same situation.

Both of your statements are untrue.

it's also interesting that AQ members were, many of them and the most prominent, not Afghani, as were many members of the Taliban. So now we are not even talking about citizens.

though you again make that mistake.

[Nacmir]

Well it was a treaty. not terrorism. harsh though it may have been.

But it's an interesting justification for nazi germany

You don't believe in state terrorism to start with, so it's a point we won't be able to discuss properly.
They elected the whacko that offered to end it, of course it's an interesting justification for nazi germany. It is the main antecedent for WWII, in my opinion.

[Chubbles]

I can see both sides, these people obviously hate us so we shouldn't be there...we need to give them their country back and let them do what they want with it. If they collectively decide to become a terrorist nation that threatens the safety of Americans worldwide then we go back in and attack. Staying there and trying to build schools and shit like that will achieve nothing. You can build 50 schools, dozens of hospitals and one quran burning will undo all of that in an instance. We need to get the fuck out.

[Nacmir]

I dont think anyone would dispute that a soldier is a target.

As is a police officer

or someone walking around a bad neighborhood with lots of money

That's factual.

the question was whether it was justified. That's an opinion.

There is some difference between those examples. I don't believe crime is a right, yet I believe self-determination is. So, defending self-determination makes it ok while defending crime makes it not.

[Spidey-Man]

I can see both sides, these people obviously hate us so we shouldn't be there...we need to give them their country back and let them do what they want with it. If they collectively decide to become a terrorist nation that threatens the safety of Americans worldwide then we go back in and attack. Staying there and trying to build schools and shit like that will achieve nothing. You can build 50 schools, dozens of hospitals and one quran burning will undo all of that in an instance. We need to get the fuck out.

well they dont collectively decide anything. One group, which has the most guns, will take over the country regardless of what the people want. It's not a collective decision or a vote. nor do the people even have the knowledge to make such a decision.

It's simply the biggest thug wins.

[Chubbles]

well they dont collectively decide anything. One group, which has the most guns, will take over the country regardless of what the people want. It's not a collective decision or a vote. nor do the people even have the knowledge to make such a decision.

It's simply the biggest thug wins.

so the USA should become the biggest thugs worldwide instead? We're supposed to protect people from those thugs, not become them. Occupying these countries does not prevent thugs from attacking. We've seen that all it does is breed hatred for the US and once we leave it all comes back out again.

[Benderbrau]

Both of your statements are untrue.

it's also interesting that AQ members were, many of them and the most prominent, not Afghani, as were many members of the Taliban. So now we are not even talking about citizens.

though you again make that mistake.

Oh yeah, well....your statements are untrue too!

See? I can play that game too.

[Benderbrau]

so the USA should become the biggest thugs worldwide instead? We're supposed to protect people from those thugs, not become them. Occupying these countries does not prevent thugs from attacking. We've seen that all it does is breed hatred for the US and once we leave it all comes back out again.

The idea is to occupy the country long enough to arm and train their own people to protect their own country. Except it doesn't work. I know a few military officers who were tasked with training in Afghanistan and they all told the same story: just about every local they recruited would show up drunk or high, never followed direction, never respected any chain of command and ran at the first sign of trouble. These people do not want to help themselves so why should we?

[Rockman]

There is some difference between those examples. I don't believe crime is a right, yet I believe self-determination is. So, defending self-determination makes it ok while defending crime makes it not.

So it's okay to kill people for burning a book?

[Chubbles]

Not all of those people protesting are terrorists. They simply hate that we occupy their lands and tell them what to do while insulting their beliefs and traditions (although inadvertently most of the time). They are looking for any excuse to rise up against us to leave them alone. I'm afraid that what we are doing is converting some of those non-terrorists and allowing them to be turned to hate and violence. The actual terrorists over there LOVE that we burned a quran by mistake bc it gives them a whole bunch of new converts who were previously on the fence.