The Great Game, another loss

[Kadagar_AV]

So when someone does something you dont agree with they are immediately a rouge authoritarian state hell bent on world conquering? All you seem to do is insult America and then say you aernt anti-american.

Anti-american is a way to general label...

I am anti-US-foreign-politics though... Not all of it of course, but the more general guidelines of it.



Brenus,

The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers.

What a interesting comment... Now, as a student of history myself, could you enlighten me what you compare this to?

I mean, 3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.

No need to de-rail this topic though, but pretty please PM me with the list the other "greatest crimes in history" just for laughs

[Brenus]

“I mean, 3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.”
I think it deserved better than private debate.
Compare with the massacre of the St Valentine, the twin towers are really one the biggest crime in crime history.
Never a Mafia succeeded in so much kills in one day.
Your mistake (and laugh) comes from the fact you think in term of genocide when I consider Al Quaida and consorts as criminal organisations.
You are giving too much credit to people who are just criminals.
The question you would have ask could have been can we attack a country because the refuse to extradite? My opinion is yes in this particular case.
So perhaps I am “one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society”, if you means by that the ability to think by myself, and not following the trend.
And for the list, well, Dr Petiot, Landru, perhaps some gang war, go in Google in greatest crimes or watch History channel…

“Now, as a student of history myself, could you enlighten me what you compare this to?” I think you’ve got your answer. However, to be sure to be understood, I compare them with Mafia, Camora and all other criminal organisations, not with Nazi, Pol Pot or others Stalin. Sorry.

[Kadagar_AV]

Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?

[Fragony]

As a student of history you should know that events cannot be compared unless they happen in the same context. It took one murder to get the european stalemate leading to WW1, the ripple effect; and 11/9 september is a major stone.

[CountArach]

As a student of history you should know that events cannot be compared unless they happen in the same context. It took one murder to get the european stalemate leading to WW1, the ripple effect; and 11/9 september is a major stone.

The world was headed towards the First World War long before the bullet was fired.

[Fragony]

The world was headed towards the First World War long before the bullet was fired.

linuistical screwup, meant ended the stalemate

[CountArach]

linuistical screwup, meant ended the stalemate

Oh in that case you are right.

EDIT: Oh no... I just realised that within the last month I have agreed with CR, Frag and I believe TuffStuff at some point. I'm scared...

[Brenus]

"Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?": Yep. It should be done with law enforcement methods and anti-terrirism legislation, like the Mafia was delt with in its times.
Special frces can give a hand, but all should follow the rules of law
Of course, you can point out my contradictions in this, but I think USA and the rest of the world should deal with terrorism and crimes for what it is and not how they wanted be seen.
It is to give too much honour to Bin Laden. He is a mass criminal, just that. Not a Sheir, not a leader, just a gang leader.

[Jolt]

Well, IF you compare it to crime, by your own reasoning, the police should handle it, no?

No, for very simple facts. Mafias don't commit criminal acts against foreign countries, they commit against individual or organizations, mostly inside the countries which under they operate. Terrorrist factions commit crimes not against those generally implicated in destroying them but against innocent civilians of targeted nations, for a myriad of purposes. The fact that Afghanistan has no "police" (Which doesn't really matter) and protected the terrorrists, forcibly obliges the U.S.A. to invade the former country.

Furthermore, mafias are a blight and a cancer for the countries they are located in, incentivating corruption and the curbing of the laws of one's country, therefore detrimental to the development of the said country, therefore if the country wishes to develop and enforce it's law, it must crush the mafia, which is a criminal organization. Terrorrist groups, however, at least in Afghanistan's case (Which is directly linked to it's invasion), remained inside Afghanistan, without causing any detriment to the Taliban plans for the country, and didn't violate any Afghani law (Since I'm not an expert in Afghani law, I'll say "at least enough") to enforce a Taliban crackdown.

Bottomline: If the Taliban militias started fighting Al-Qaeda in Afghanistan (Which wouldn't happen since both follow the same basic guidelines: Islamic Fundamentalism), then I doubt the country would be invaded.

[Kadagar_AV]

Jolt,

Terrorrist factions commit crimes not against those generally implicated in destroying them but against innocent civilians of targeted nations, for a myriad of purposes

From their point of wiev, civilians are not innocent.

Look, if the US was a dictatorship then yes, you would be right... However, the US is a democracy, meaning in effect that the people, the civilians, are the one making the decisions, no?

So, attacking the people responcible for US foreign policies would make sence, would it not?

Look at what got attacked at 9/11, it wasnt a kindergarten, was it? It was the building representing the economy of the US, an economy many believe are built on blood of the innocent.

I think very few kids were in this building, am I right? But a lot of grownups working with world trade, would make sence, building was named world trade center.

The also attacked the pentagon, do I have to explain what pentagon symbolises? Again, this can in no way be seen as an innocent target.





Do not get me wrong, I am strongly against idiocy and killing in any way and/or form. I am trying t explain their mindset, and why they reason as they do.

Also, I must mention, the rest of the world was not as surprised as the americans were about the 9/11, how many deaths are the US responcible for the last century?

Payback is a female dog, sure. But many kind of saw it coming, and this is not the end of it.

Many people, specially in countries where US bombs has blown children to mincemeat, think the 9/11 was a moderate attack, quite controlled and well thought out.

[Brenus]

“I'm sorry, but I don't think that's reason enough. To punish some murderers who killed 3000-4000 civilians, coalition launched an attack that murdered many more civilians, brought hundreds of thousands on the brink of poverty, created a suitable situation for growing and selling of narcotics etc...”
Sarmatian, it is a reason, and honestly quite good one. The aim was not to punish civilians for what happened but to catch Bin Laden. Sheikh Omar refused to give a fellow follower of Islam to the Infidel so in no way the mighty USA (and others less mighty) would allowed this.
Then the stupid policy determined and followed by Bush and Co and the War in Iraq made the reconstruction in Afghanistan more difficult, etc.
I do understand your feeling remembering what happen to Serbia and Kosovo (I metohija).

Kadagar AV I do fully agree. For a lot of people it was finally pay-back time, USA finally tasting their own medicine.
I was in Novi Sad at the time, Serbia, country which just few months before was at the receiving end of Cruise Missile, which is a pilotless plane. The only difference for some was that at least the murderers (and more ironic for some of them, the same one they were fighting in Bosnia) was at least killed with their victims.
And yes, the Twins Towers were the siege of the same company making money on the misery of others, ignoring the distresses and miseries created by them. It is how Globalisation and International Trade is seen.

[Sarmatian]

Sarmatian, it is a reason, and honestly quite good one. The aim was not to punish civilians for what happened but to catch Bin Laden. Sheikh Omar refused to give a fellow follower of Islam to the Infidel so in no way the mighty USA (and others less mighty) would allowed this.
Then the stupid policy determined and followed by Bush and Co and the War in Iraq made the reconstruction in Afghanistan more difficult, etc.
I do understand your feeling remembering what happen to Serbia and Kosovo (I metohija).

Kadagar AV I do fully agree. For a lot of people it was finally pay-back time, USA finally tasting their own medicine.
I was in Novi Sad at the time, Serbia, country which just few months before was at the receiving end of Cruise Missile, which is a pilotless plane. The only difference for some was that at least the murderers (and more ironic for some of them, the same one they were fighting in Bosnia) was at least killed with their victims.
And yes, the Twins Towers were the siege of the same company making money on the misery of others, ignoring the distresses and miseries created by them. It is how Globalisation and International Trade is seen.

I understand your point. I must admit that I didn't cry a river when it happened. After all, that same US just a short time before killed just as many, if not more of my countrymen, but I didn't see it as some kind of divine justice. Those people in WTC were innocent. Civilians without any real influence on politics or advanced political thought. I was afraid that it might be (mis)used in the similar way as Hitler used Reichstag fire. It turned out that I was mostly right. After so many years in Afghanistan, the country is in disarray, many people have lost their lives, God knows how many lost their homes, drug trade is flourishing and so on... At the same time, almost no one from the top of Al-Qaeda has been caught and certainly not Bin Laden, Talibans had not been defeated and the country hadn't moved an inch towards democracy. Until that happens, Afghanistan is a total failure. Maybe American presence there stopped another attack on US, it probably did, but for me Afghanistan civilian casualties are not less worthy than American. Americans probably think differently. For them, 5000 killed Afghan civilians are acceptable if it saves 5000 American lives, but for me they're the same. It used to really annoy me when some US official says casualties in Iraq are XXXX, and he includes only American casualties. At least acknowledge how many Iraqis died. At least show that you are aware of those people. You don't have to build monuments for them and carve every name into the stone, but show that you're not totally oblivious. They had families, friends, pets, jobs and hobbies, too. But understanding that would mean elevating them to the status of human beings, instead of collateral damage and/or statistics, and then conscience might have something to say.

Would the situation in Afghanistan been handled much better if it hadn't been for Iraq? Possibly, but that's no excuse. If the attack on Afghanistan was made to make the world a safer place (including US and Afghanistan) I could support it, but if it's done as punishment, or to save American lives at the price of Afghan lives, I really can't. I hope that Obama will turn things around there. He showed much more awareness than McCain, but time is passing, death toll is rising and nothing's happening. I wished that someone in the US take at least a moral responsibility for that.

[KarlXII]

Jolt,



From their point of wiev, civilians are not innocent.

They're terrorists man, terrorists.

Look, if the US was a dictatorship then yes, you would be right... However, the US is a democracy, meaning in effect that the people, the civilians, are the one making the decisions, no?

So TS to those who opposed the wars? TS to those who opposed Bush?

So, attacking the people responcible for US foreign policies would make sence, would it not?

No, it doesn't. The people do not say who we ally with, this is up to government. We do not get to decide if we want to invade Iraq, this is up to the President and Congress.

Look at what got attacked at 9/11, it wasnt a kindergarten, was it? It was the building representing the economy of the US, an economy many believe are built on blood of the innocent.

These buildings were full of parents, husbands, wives, grandparents, foreign nationals. You do not intentionally target civilians. This is what happened.

I think very few kids were in this building, am I right? But a lot of grownups working with world trade, would make sence, building was named world trade center.

So TS to those hate supporting children? And what of the children who lost family?

The also attacked the pentagon, do I have to explain what pentagon symbolises? Again, this can in no way be seen as an innocent target.

And yet again, there were people working there who were not a key part in foreign policy and who did not affect the terrorists.

Do not get me wrong, I am strongly against idiocy and killing in any way and/or form. I am trying t explain their mindset, and why they reason as they do.

Fanatics don't need reason, they have their religion and twisted thinking. Their mindset is that of intolerance and hate. You do not need to lecture us on how a terrorist works.

Also, I must mention, the rest of the world was not as surprised as the americans were about the 9/11, how many deaths are the US responcible for the last century?

So it justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents when a past government that these people had no involvement in? (I am assuming you are referring to the Korea-Vietnam-Latin America years)

Many people, specially in countries where US bombs has blown children to mincemeat, think the 9/11 was a moderate attack, quite controlled and well thought out.

Really?

[Strike For The South]

See this is where I have a qualm. I fully understand where the terrorists are coming from if I was poor destitute and hungry I would be angry at the people who were enabling my biggest enemy and lap up power politics thinly veiled as a religious war. Chances are I wouldn't really have a problem with these decadents being killed either. The US government has been ignoring the premise of blowback for years and it is now biting us. At the same time I must sit down and ask why must we fight this people with one hand tied behind our back? These people want us dead and we are sitting here fighting hog tied. Bound by these rules of engagement which our enemy will not follow. Past American policy has now put us between a rock and a hard place. I sympathize with the average Iraqi or Palestinian or Afghan but at the end of the day I sympathize with the average American more. It of course should have never come down to that choice but we can thank our father.

[Kadagar_AV]

Swedishfish>

They're terrorists man, terrorists.

One mans terrorist is another mans freedom fighter. You know, when Bin Laden ran around with CIA support, messing up Soviet targets, he was called freedom fighter... When he attacks you he becomes a terrorist?

Don't get me wrong, I am no fan of Bin laden. From my perspective he should spend the rest of his life in jail. However, there are lots of americans I can say the same thing about.

I just don't think the US has much right to claim moral highground. Again, CIA-sponsored freedom fighter one day, terrorist the other.

So TS to those who opposed the wars? TS to those who opposed Bush?

As an american you should be familiar with the term collateral damage?

Again, I am not defending this perspective, I am explaining it.

Are you saying US bombs has killed no one who wasn't saddam-friendly or Bin Laden-friendly?

Again, be careful about claiming moral highground.

The people do not say who we ally with, this is up to government. We do not get to decide if we want to invade Iraq, this is up to the President and Congress.

And who elects this said president?

And when he, by your own example, decided to invade Iraq, I didn't exactly see massive protests from the people... The white house wasnt exacly blockaded by angry voters, was it?

These buildings were full of parents, husbands, wives, grandparents, foreign nationals. You do not intentionally target civilians. This is what happened.

Again, they are not civilians in these peoples eyes.

First of all they are responcible since they vote.

Secondly, they wage economig warfare against other countries...

And yet again, there were people working there who were not a key part in foreign policy and who did not affect the terrorists.

Are you seriosly claiming the Pentagon is not to be considered a perfectly valid target?

Fanatics don't need reason, they have their religion and twisted thinking. Their mindset is that of intolerance and hate. You do not need to lecture us on how an American works.

Fixed it for you.

Geez, half your population see Iraq as a holy war, as a crusade.

They see you the same way you see them.

From my personal perspective, I believe both the americans and the fanatical muslims are about equally

So it justifies the killing of 3,000 innocents when a past government that these people had no involvement in? (I am assuming you are referring to the Korea-Vietnam-Latin America years)

I am referring to more than that...

Sucking money from the third world, manipulating regimes and so on... You can be responcible for deaths even though you don't drop bombs, you know.

Really?

Really.

[Louis VI the Fat]

The war in this country was raged for ONE reason: The “government” sheltered an criminal organisation which just committed one of the greatest crime in history and refuse to extradite the murderers.

Ah, my favourite voice of reason. How can I not love you, Brenus?

3000 people dead in historical terms... Let us say I find your reasoning well thought out, it also makes it evident that you are one of the greatest thinkers of the modern society.

No need to de-rail this topic though, but pretty please PM me with the list the other "greatest crimes in history" just for laughs

I'm sorry, Kadagar, but for some strange reason, I agree with Brenus that the murder of three thousand civilians is a criminal act of an unprecedented scale.

But then, I rather like Americans....