By all accounts I've read, OBL and SH don't get along. Remember: OBL is a Islamic fundamentalist; SH is really a secularist who pays lip-service to Islam to keep the masses in line.
At any rate, you've just asked us to prove a negative, just as the US asked Iraq to prove a negative (i.e. "Prove to us that you don't have WMD!")
Cheers
Scott
Are you implying you cannot prove a negative?
Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.
Oh, are you saying a secularist and a fundamentalist can't get along enough and work toward a common goal?
Was not Iraq involved in the first WTC bombing? I think they were.
Anyway there is enough circumstantial stuff to reasonably arrive at some kind of friendly connection.
Well that was to be expected. Trying to understand what's going on in Iraq being equated to sympathy for the devil.
"They're all evil" Isn't an argument. You're just assuming all these connections... when there's no proof.
Islamic extremism. Baathist Nationalism. Angry Iraqi Opportunism. All motivations for fighting American trrops. And not necessarily connected.
Winning the peace is a complex problem... compounded by the administration's oversimplification of it.
Let' be honest here. You are trying to defame and impute the current residents of the white house. You may personally be trying to understand what is going on. But from what I have read in these posts you and others are just politicizing everything that is happening. You quote liberal sources and consistently criticize this you have limited knowledge about.
But hey, that is cool. This IS America, right?
As far as evil, are you suggesting any of the parties in play fighting against the US right now are not evil?
I am saying that it is generally to be avoided, and that in some cases it is a rhetorical fallacy that shifts the burden of proof away from the claimant.
Quote:
Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.
And so are some neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacists up in Idaho. You think they'd get together with OBL? Jerry Falwell and Bishop Gene Robinson are both devout Christians. You think they might team up?
This kind of guilt by association doesn't work.
Quote:
Oh, are you saying a secularist and a fundamentalist can't get along enough and work toward a common goal?
I'm saying that sometimes people disagree so violently that even if they desire a common goal (which OBL and SH *don't*, so far as I know) they will still not team up.
Quote:
Was not Iraq involved in the first WTC bombing? I think they were.
I have heard this, too, but I haven't seen anything definitive about it beyond the claim that they "sheltered" one of the guys who was responsible.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that they were behind it.
Anyone know anything about this?
Quote:
Anyway there is enough circumstantial stuff to reasonably arrive at some kind of friendly connection.
Well, you could also say that Iraq and Afghanistan are both in the same geographical region and come to that conclusion.
Not at all. Terrorists are evil. Baathists were the party of the fascist regime... some were probably just doing their jobs (beauraucrats, civil servants)... most were evil. Angry Iraqis... while their killing of Soldiers is wrong... their motivations... not clear. Attempting to kick out an occupying force could be seen by some as in their own best interest... while I think it's abhorrent and self defeating. I think they are the Military's biggest problem... those are the hearts and minds you need to win the peace.
I was supporting the war before it started... was hoping every day that it would all go well... that I would see the celebrating Iraqis... that the UN would move in quickly to help... that the oil would flow and the country rebuilt... that we could prove we could do the right thing in the face of world dissention.
But the reasons I supported the war on... I no longer think existed. The world support that I had hoped would come later... should have been gained by now. And the oil won't flow for years in the amounts needed to pay for the nation building. And the adminstration does nothing but ignore the realities... They managed the american public, the media, congress and the ground war very well. But that was the easy part.
While I am a partisan... I had always hoped for the best. and hoped the intentions and motivations were honorable.
Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.
OBL and his followers are possesed with a religious idea that they are willing to sacrifice all earthly goods, including their own lifes, for. To attack USA is live out this religious idea and is in their eyes a rational thing to do to in the quest for their goal.
SH and his followers were possesed with a lust for power and survival, which they were ready for sacrifice all principels, including religion and socialism. To avoid a real confrontation with USA was to live out these principles (since SH surely knew he couldn´t win that) and would have been the rational thing to do in the quest for their goal.
Everything point to the fact that while OBL cheered in his cave 911 Saddam must have known what was ahead and knew it was the beginning to the end.
Thats not the same as to say Saddam wouldn´t do something very desperate in the end of the war or now when he has nothing to lose.
On the Iraq/Al Qaeda/'93 WTC Bombing from USA Today:
"The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established."
Brainwashed downtrodden killing themselves to give their family a better life and themselves a good afterlife is not evil. It is uneducated.
Ok, well that would all be fine except they are killing other and innocent people when they do. They do this knowingly and willingly. That is evil. I doubt you can bend the truth or philosophize enough to convince me otherwise.
If you would have said Saddam's army most of which were coerced into fighting I would agree they in themselves were not evil.
Words like "evil" really can´t be used as an argument in this debate as a common definator. Evil takes many forms and if you don´t see the difference between different evils then your not really arguing on an informed basis.
Quote:
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as evil, are you suggesting any of the parties in play fighting against the US right now are not evil?
Thats a circular argument. For the average american evil is when people attack their country (just like I would feel if anyone attacked mine). For some Afghanis evil comes in planes that attack weddings. There is a rational both over 911 and the misshots in afghanistan and Iraq but for those that suffered it was equal evil deeds.
On the Iraq/Al Qaeda/'93 WTC Bombing from USA Today:
"The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established."
Thanks, I knew there was some link, I just could not remember how.
Before you all knee-jerk, I conceded it is not a direct link.
Why is it that a drunk driver who has killed a family in an automobile collision would get a lesser sentence than a person who has killed an equal amount of people with an automatic?
Besides thats not a valid comparisment. They wanted to kill the wedding parties. They weren´t drunk and hit the fire button in an accident.
It was an calculated risk and the planners knew that innocent people would die and they were prepared to sacrifice the lifes of the civilians for the higher goal.
Words like "evil" really can´t be used as an argument in this debate as a common definator. Evil takes many forms and if you don´t see the difference between different evils then your not really arguing on an informed basis.
Thats a circular argument. For the average american evil is when people attack their country (just like I would feel if anyone attacked mine). For some Afghanis evil comes in planes that attack weddings. There is a rational both over 911 and the misshots in afghanistan and Iraq but for those that suffered it was equal evil deeds.
You are way wrong, the american government has no beef with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country it has defeated. The US immediately upon the defeat and often during the battles, helps the native people. They are all smart enough to figure that out. And even if for a short time they hold the US responsible for misfires, any reasonable person would conclude that it was the leaders that failed them.
The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.
You are way wrong, the american government has no beef with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country it has defeated. The US immediately upon the defeat and often during the battles, helps the native people. They are all smart enough to figure that out. And even if for a short time they hold the US responsible for misfires, any reasonable person would conclude that it was the leaders that failed them.
The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.
For those who lost a family member that is all moot points. Evil had been done to them.
Look its not the war in itself I am criticising here but the misuse of the word evil. I was for the war i Afghanistan, but they way we are ready to rationale out evil actions done by us while we won´t do it when its our enemy that does is. Evil is what people feel done to them. There is no higher moral ground to stand and say one killing is more or less evil than another. Or else you have to accept that Al Quada had a higher goal with 911 and this somehow justifices the 2000+ deaths because they served a higher purpose.
You'll have to explain that. The U.S. military was in a war in SE Asia with the VC and NVA, who located military bases, supply depots, and transportation in Cambodia. They attacked them...you know, the way we attacked Germans in Vichy France...
The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.
Did you really just say "The US military does not fire unless fired upon"? In a thread about a war where we invaded a country and overthrew its government?!?!
Did you really just say "The US military does not fire unless fired upon"? In a thread about a war where we invaded a country and overthrew its government?!?!
Cheers
Scott
Perhaps he meant that as a matter of doctrine, the U.S. does not target civilians, unless fired upon.
Actually, the war in Iraq was probably the most humane war (I can hear the protests over humane) in U.S. history, and certianly in modern times. Fast, precise, focused on breaking the will of the enemy before major combat...excellent.
Comments
Originally posted by midwinter
By all accounts I've read, OBL and SH don't get along. Remember: OBL is a Islamic fundamentalist; SH is really a secularist who pays lip-service to Islam to keep the masses in line.
At any rate, you've just asked us to prove a negative, just as the US asked Iraq to prove a negative (i.e. "Prove to us that you don't have WMD!")
Cheers
Scott
Are you implying you cannot prove a negative?
Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.
Oh, are you saying a secularist and a fundamentalist can't get along enough and work toward a common goal?
Was not Iraq involved in the first WTC bombing? I think they were.
Anyway there is enough circumstantial stuff to reasonably arrive at some kind of friendly connection.
Originally posted by chu_bakka
Well that was to be expected. Trying to understand what's going on in Iraq being equated to sympathy for the devil.
"They're all evil" Isn't an argument. You're just assuming all these connections... when there's no proof.
Islamic extremism. Baathist Nationalism. Angry Iraqi Opportunism. All motivations for fighting American trrops. And not necessarily connected.
Winning the peace is a complex problem... compounded by the administration's oversimplification of it.
Let' be honest here. You are trying to defame and impute the current residents of the white house. You may personally be trying to understand what is going on. But from what I have read in these posts you and others are just politicizing everything that is happening. You quote liberal sources and consistently criticize this you have limited knowledge about.
But hey, that is cool. This IS America, right?
As far as evil, are you suggesting any of the parties in play fighting against the US right now are not evil?
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as evil, are you suggesting any of the parties in play fighting against the US right now are not evil?
Brainwashed downtrodden killing themselves to give their family a better life and themselves a good afterlife is not evil. It is uneducated.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Are you implying you cannot prove a negative?
I am saying that it is generally to be avoided, and that in some cases it is a rhetorical fallacy that shifts the burden of proof away from the claimant.
Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.
And so are some neo-Nazi skinheads and white supremacists up in Idaho. You think they'd get together with OBL? Jerry Falwell and Bishop Gene Robinson are both devout Christians. You think they might team up?
This kind of guilt by association doesn't work.
Oh, are you saying a secularist and a fundamentalist can't get along enough and work toward a common goal?
I'm saying that sometimes people disagree so violently that even if they desire a common goal (which OBL and SH *don't*, so far as I know) they will still not team up.
Was not Iraq involved in the first WTC bombing? I think they were.
I have heard this, too, but I haven't seen anything definitive about it beyond the claim that they "sheltered" one of the guys who was responsible.
But this doesn't necessarily mean that they were behind it.
Anyone know anything about this?
Anyway there is enough circumstantial stuff to reasonably arrive at some kind of friendly connection.
Well, you could also say that Iraq and Afghanistan are both in the same geographical region and come to that conclusion.
But that doesn't make it so.
Cheers
Scott
I was supporting the war before it started... was hoping every day that it would all go well... that I would see the celebrating Iraqis... that the UN would move in quickly to help... that the oil would flow and the country rebuilt... that we could prove we could do the right thing in the face of world dissention.
But the reasons I supported the war on... I no longer think existed. The world support that I had hoped would come later... should have been gained by now. And the oil won't flow for years in the amounts needed to pay for the nation building. And the adminstration does nothing but ignore the realities... They managed the american public, the media, congress and the ground war very well. But that was the easy part.
While I am a partisan... I had always hoped for the best. and hoped the intentions and motivations were honorable.
I hoped for too much.
Originally posted by NaplesX
Once again, criminal minds will cooperate to reach an end. OBL and SH are both murderous criminal types. I would suggest that they have more in common than we would like to think about.
OBL and his followers are possesed with a religious idea that they are willing to sacrifice all earthly goods, including their own lifes, for. To attack USA is live out this religious idea and is in their eyes a rational thing to do to in the quest for their goal.
SH and his followers were possesed with a lust for power and survival, which they were ready for sacrifice all principels, including religion and socialism. To avoid a real confrontation with USA was to live out these principles (since SH surely knew he couldn´t win that) and would have been the rational thing to do in the quest for their goal.
Everything point to the fact that while OBL cheered in his cave 911 Saddam must have known what was ahead and knew it was the beginning to the end.
Thats not the same as to say Saddam wouldn´t do something very desperate in the end of the war or now when he has nothing to lose.
Originally posted by BR
Brainwashed downtrodden killing themselves to give their family a better life and themselves a good afterlife is not evil. It is uneducated.
hmmm,..
To the contrary. They are VERY educated - in the Koran.
"The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established."
Originally posted by BR
Brainwashed downtrodden killing themselves to give their family a better life and themselves a good afterlife is not evil. It is uneducated.
Ok, well that would all be fine except they are killing other and innocent people when they do. They do this knowingly and willingly. That is evil. I doubt you can bend the truth or philosophize enough to convince me otherwise.
If you would have said Saddam's army most of which were coerced into fighting I would agree they in themselves were not evil.
Originally posted by NaplesX
As far as evil, are you suggesting any of the parties in play fighting against the US right now are not evil?
Thats a circular argument. For the average american evil is when people attack their country (just like I would feel if anyone attacked mine). For some Afghanis evil comes in planes that attack weddings. There is a rational both over 911 and the misshots in afghanistan and Iraq but for those that suffered it was equal evil deeds.
Originally posted by midwinter
On the Iraq/Al Qaeda/'93 WTC Bombing from USA Today:
"The World Trade Center bombing was carried out by a group headed by Ramzi Yousef, who is serving a 240-year prison term. Federal authorities say Yousef's group received financial support from al-Qaeda via Khalid Shaikh Mohammed, the alleged mastermind of the Sept. 11 attacks. But a direct al-Qaeda role in the 1993 attack hasn't been established."
Thanks, I knew there was some link, I just could not remember how.
Before you all knee-jerk, I conceded it is not a direct link.
Why is it that a drunk driver who has killed a family in an automobile collision would get a lesser sentence than a person who has killed an equal amount of people with an automatic?
Besides thats not a valid comparisment. They wanted to kill the wedding parties. They weren´t drunk and hit the fire button in an accident.
It was an calculated risk and the planners knew that innocent people would die and they were prepared to sacrifice the lifes of the civilians for the higher goal.
Originally posted by Anders
Words like "evil" really can´t be used as an argument in this debate as a common definator. Evil takes many forms and if you don´t see the difference between different evils then your not really arguing on an informed basis.
Thats a circular argument. For the average american evil is when people attack their country (just like I would feel if anyone attacked mine). For some Afghanis evil comes in planes that attack weddings. There is a rational both over 911 and the misshots in afghanistan and Iraq but for those that suffered it was equal evil deeds.
You are way wrong, the american government has no beef with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country it has defeated. The US immediately upon the defeat and often during the battles, helps the native people. They are all smart enough to figure that out. And even if for a short time they hold the US responsible for misfires, any reasonable person would conclude that it was the leaders that failed them.
The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.
Originally posted by NaplesX
The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.
Cambodia.
Originally posted by NaplesX
You are way wrong, the american government has no beef with the people of Iraq, Afghanistan, or any other country it has defeated. The US immediately upon the defeat and often during the battles, helps the native people. They are all smart enough to figure that out. And even if for a short time they hold the US responsible for misfires, any reasonable person would conclude that it was the leaders that failed them.
The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.
For those who lost a family member that is all moot points. Evil had been done to them.
Look its not the war in itself I am criticising here but the misuse of the word evil. I was for the war i Afghanistan, but they way we are ready to rationale out evil actions done by us while we won´t do it when its our enemy that does is. Evil is what people feel done to them. There is no higher moral ground to stand and say one killing is more or less evil than another. Or else you have to accept that Al Quada had a higher goal with 911 and this somehow justifices the 2000+ deaths because they served a higher purpose.
Originally posted by Harald
Cambodia.
You'll have to explain that. The U.S. military was in a war in SE Asia with the VC and NVA, who located military bases, supply depots, and transportation in Cambodia. They attacked them...you know, the way we attacked Germans in Vichy France...
What's the point?
Originally posted by NaplesX
The US military does not fir unless fired upon. The US military does not attack innocent people. Reasonable people can easily identify that.
Did you really just say "The US military does not fire unless fired upon"? In a thread about a war where we invaded a country and overthrew its government?!?!
Cheers
Scott
Originally posted by midwinter
Did you really just say "The US military does not fire unless fired upon"? In a thread about a war where we invaded a country and overthrew its government?!?!
Cheers
Scott
Perhaps he meant that as a matter of doctrine, the U.S. does not target civilians, unless fired upon.
Actually, the war in Iraq was probably the most humane war (I can hear the protests over humane) in U.S. history, and certianly in modern times. Fast, precise, focused on breaking the will of the enemy before major combat...excellent.
Post war, of course, we've been mutton headed.