Yemen and the War on Terrorism

[piscator]

Political differences? That's all terrorism is, political differences? Are you joking?

No.

I see.

In accordance with your succinct response, you'll understand if I skip a more elaborate post and go right on to saying that I judge your definition of terrorism to be utterly, monumentally stupid. And I think that under the surface, you really do know better.

Don't you see? Terrorists are just normal guys. And the mean 'ol US just goes out and blows them up for spite with drones. Drones!

Who does the US think it is?!!

[Cormac]

Political differences? That's all terrorism is, political differences? Are you joking?

No.

I see.

In accordance with your succinct response, you'll understand if I skip a more elaborate post and go right on to saying that I judge your definition of terrorism to be utterly, monumentally stupid. And I think that under the surface, you really do know better.

Don't you see? Terrorists are just normal guys. And the mean 'ol US just goes out and blows them up for spite with drones. Drones!

Who does the US think it is?!!

Yep. The good ol' US of A, where ideals are reflected in reality, intentions are always benevolent, human interpretations are infallible, and noone asks too many awkward questions about foreign policy from 1947 to date that might possibly have something to do with why terrorist attacks are happening, and thank goodness they don't because if they did we might alter our foreign policy which might in turn reduce our risk of terrorist attack, which might in turn lead to a reduction in authority for the secret police at home and abroad, for the military, and consequently from companies like Halliburton who make vast profits from mayhem and the death of US children sent out to fight "terrorism".

[colubridae]

Skewed thinking on drones.

Piloted aircraft over third world countries are 'virtually' immune from ground attack.

That the pilot uses sensors and electronic equipment whilst on-board his attack vehicle seems little different to me from a drone operator. Whatever precision you assign to the mark-one eyeball, long range sensors are now the primary targeting device. Even if you disagree with that now, eventually it will be the case.

OTTOMH downsides for pilots in such combat zones (compared to drone operators). Mechanical/electronic malfunction. Loss of comfort. Some (though small) fear of a successful attack against his aircraft.

AFAICC drones have an emotional 'anti' tied up with them, and the word itself is rapidly becoming a major pejorative.
I just think that ‘drone’ is the latest buzzword replacing the old buzzword ‘airstrike’. Is it now ok to perform an airstrike provided it’s not a ‘drone’?

[Audley Strange]

Yes I was involved in a discussion with Ian. He chose not to continue it and your contribution added nothing. Hence, needless. A pop as in an insult. Since you stated that I should feel immature because your child says some words sometimes, I'd say that you were implying I was acting like a 9 year old child. It never occurred to you (nor to Ian I may add) that I was simply answering his question. It was straightforward enough and given that I am someone who is often joking I thought no was succinct enough, I was not attempting to be dismissive or obtuse.

Since I knew what my intentions were and have now stated them twice it would seem that your "pointing it out" was of little value since I don't care what you think of what I said and your words are actually detrimental to the discussion that is ongoing by being an erroneous, pointless, unpleasant derail about me.

Next time you think about "pointing something out" ask yourself if it's of any value to anyone other than you eh? Save us all a lot of time.

To me, and probably Ian, it did seem dismissive. I stand by my observation that you were using the communication skills of a child during that exchange. The forum is dead and no one else is posting in this thread right now, so it's not disrupting any conversation. People can simply scroll past the last several posts, quite easily actually. I like to voice my opinions, so I probably will not be stopping myself from doing so just because you are not interested.

Yeah I had no illusions that you would be self aware enough to admit you might have been needlessly rude and wrong. Rather even after explaining what I did prior to your prattle and then explaining further you choose to consider me dishonest. That's cool, your not the only one whose modus operandi in many threads is to just pop in to insult people. I'll go back to consider you just about capable of content free noise and scroll up in future.

Problem solved.

[colubridae]

Political differences? That's all terrorism is, political differences? Are you joking?

No.

I see.

In accordance with your succinct response, you'll understand if I skip a more elaborate post and go right on to saying that I judge your definition of terrorism to be utterly, monumentally stupid. And I think that under the surface, you really do know better.

Don't you see? Terrorists are just normal guys. And the mean 'ol US just goes out and blows them up for spite with drones. Drones!

Who does the US think it is?!!

Yep. The good ol' US of A, where ideals are reflected in reality, intentions are always benevolent, human interpretations are infallible, and noone asks too many awkward questions about foreign policy from 1947 to date that might possibly have something to do with why terrorist attacks are happening, and thank goodness they don't because if they did we might alter our foreign policy which might in turn reduce our risk of terrorist attack, which might in turn lead to a reduction in authority for the secret police at home and abroad, for the military, and consequently from companies like Halliburton who make vast profits from mayhem and the death of US children sent out to fight "terrorism".

So that's a then?

Thank the maker no other country behaves like that, or trumpets its own munificence.
Or is a stupid, or as shortsighted etc...

[Coito ergo sum]

Yep. The good ol' US of A, where ideals are reflected in reality, intentions are always benevolent, human interpretations are infallible, and noone asks too many awkward questions about foreign policy from 1947 to date that might possibly have something to do with why terrorist attacks are happening, and thank goodness they don't because if they did we might alter our foreign policy which might in turn reduce our risk of terrorist attack, which might in turn lead to a reduction in authority for the secret police at home and abroad, for the military, and consequently from companies like Halliburton who make vast profits from mayhem and the death of US children sent out to fight "terrorism".

Any specific suggestions for policy alternations?

[Woodbutcher]

Some teaching of world history and geography would be a start...

[Kristie]

Some teaching of world history and geography would be a start...

Thee is some. Maybe not enough, but there is some.

[Coito ergo sum]

That's not a foreign policy change.

[Kristie]

Yes I was involved in a discussion with Ian. He chose not to continue it and your contribution added nothing. Hence, needless. A pop as in an insult. Since you stated that I should feel immature because your child says some words sometimes, I'd say that you were implying I was acting like a 9 year old child. It never occurred to you (nor to Ian I may add) that I was simply answering his question. It was straightforward enough and given that I am someone who is often joking I thought no was succinct enough, I was not attempting to be dismissive or obtuse.

Since I knew what my intentions were and have now stated them twice it would seem that your "pointing it out" was of little value since I don't care what you think of what I said and your words are actually detrimental to the discussion that is ongoing by being an erroneous, pointless, unpleasant derail about me.

Next time you think about "pointing something out" ask yourself if it's of any value to anyone other than you eh? Save us all a lot of time.

To me, and probably Ian, it did seem dismissive. I stand by my observation that you were using the communication skills of a child during that exchange. The forum is dead and no one else is posting in this thread right now, so it's not disrupting any conversation. People can simply scroll past the last several posts, quite easily actually. I like to voice my opinions, so I probably will not be stopping myself from doing so just because you are not interested.

Yeah I had no illusions that you would be self aware enough to admit you might have been needlessly rude and wrong. Rather even after explaining what I did prior to your prattle and then explaining further you choose to consider me dishonest. That's cool, your not the only one whose modus operandi in many threads is to just pop in to insult people. I'll go back to consider you just about capable of content free noise and scroll up in future.

Problem solved.

Someone's feeling holier than thou....

[piscator]

Political differences? That's all terrorism is, political differences? Are you joking?

No.

I see.

In accordance with your succinct response, you'll understand if I skip a more elaborate post and go right on to saying that I judge your definition of terrorism to be utterly, monumentally stupid. And I think that under the surface, you really do know better.

Don't you see? Terrorists are just normal guys. And the mean 'ol US just goes out and blows them up for spite with drones. Drones!

Who does the US think it is?!!

Yep. The good ol' US of A, where ideals are reflected in reality, intentions are always benevolent, human interpretations are infallible, and noone asks too many awkward questions about foreign policy from 1947 to date that might possibly have something to do with why terrorist attacks are happening, and thank goodness they don't because if they did we might alter our foreign policy which might in turn reduce our risk of terrorist attack, which might in turn lead to a reduction in authority for the secret police at home and abroad, for the military, and consequently from companies like Halliburton who make vast profits from mayhem and the death of US children sent out to fight "terrorism".

Are you British, or a citizen of one of the Commonwealth cannon fodder countries?

[Sean Hayden]

Yep. The good ol' US of A, where ideals are reflected in reality, intentions are always benevolent, human interpretations are infallible, and noone asks too many awkward questions about foreign policy from 1947 to date that might possibly have something to do with why terrorist attacks are happening, and thank goodness they don't because if they did we might alter our foreign policy which might in turn reduce our risk of terrorist attack, which might in turn lead to a reduction in authority for the secret police at home and abroad, for the military, and consequently from companies like Halliburton who make vast profits from mayhem and the death of US children sent out to fight "terrorism".

Cormac, I think given the time, opportunity and desire to do so that you could make a good argument against what we are doing. I may not agree with it, but you could. But this isn't it, and I wanted to say a few things about something you've said here because it is so often repeated and I don't think it is true.

We ask all the tough questions. When others claim Americans aren't asking the tough questions and then go on to point out what are the tough questions we should be asking, they are very often repeating the talking points of Americans. They are often even just repeating our news back to us.

Relatively speaking our intelligence community is very transparent. Any American can learn a great deal about what our various agencies have been up to since WW2, and in case you haven't noticed the most popular of such information is usually the mistakes and abuses. Can the same be said about most other agencies around the world? What is the process to obtain information from the agencies in your country? Are there laws that require them to give out information?

How many Americans are unaware of the CIA abuses under Reagan? Enough to make the claim that we don't know about bad intentions? Enough to say that the reason we are in Afghanistan now is because not enough of us know about our prior involvement there? Ignoring that that would be a terrible reason to not do something anyway, think about how much of that has been in our news for a long time.

I think we should focus on what are the actual reasons for our involvement elsewhere. That is not to say that the reasons are good, just that I doubt they have much to do with the ignorance of Americans.

[Warren Dew]

Since you stated that I should feel immature because your child says some words sometimes, I'd say that you were implying I was acting like a 9 year old child.

I'd take it as a compliment. This whole neurotypical thing about reading between the lines and answering questions that weren't asked is quite irrational.

It's called 'having a conversation'. Which is what most people around here try to do. Simply saying 'no' isn't conducive to furthering a conversation. Saying 'no' and then explaining why, is.

Well, that's what most people in the pub are trying to do, anyway.

[Kristie]

Since you stated that I should feel immature because your child says some words sometimes, I'd say that you were implying I was acting like a 9 year old child.

I'd take it as a compliment. This whole neurotypical thing about reading between the lines and answering questions that weren't asked is quite irrational.

It's called 'having a conversation'. Which is what most people around here try to do. Simply saying 'no' isn't conducive to furthering a conversation. Saying 'no' and then explaining why, is.

Well, that's what most people in the pub are trying to do, anyway.

That's what all the threads here are.
The back and forth. Someone says something, someone else replies with their opinion, someone else asks a question or two, someone else offers a differing opinion, someone else jumps in and tries to answer the previous questions....conversations. They're everywhere!!!

[MiM]

Yep. The good ol' US of A, where ideals are reflected in reality, intentions are always benevolent, human interpretations are infallible, and noone asks too many awkward questions about foreign policy from 1947 to date that might possibly have something to do with why terrorist attacks are happening, and thank goodness they don't because if they did we might alter our foreign policy which might in turn reduce our risk of terrorist attack, which might in turn lead to a reduction in authority for the secret police at home and abroad, for the military, and consequently from companies like Halliburton who make vast profits from mayhem and the death of US children sent out to fight "terrorism".

Cormac, I think given the time, opportunity and desire to do so that you could make a good argument against what we are doing. I may not agree with it, but you could. But this isn't it, and I wanted to say a few things about something you've said here because it is so often repeated and I don't think it is true.

We ask all the tough questions. When others claim Americans aren't asking the tough questions and then go on to point out what are the tough questions we should be asking, they are very often repeating the talking points of Americans. They are often even just repeating our news back to us.

Relatively speaking our intelligence community is very transparent. Any American can learn a great deal about what our various agencies have been up to since WW2, and in case you haven't noticed the most popular of such information is usually the mistakes and abuses. Can the same be said about most other agencies around the world? What is the process to obtain information from the agencies in your country? Are there laws that require them to give out information?

How many Americans are unaware of the CIA abuses under Reagan? Enough to make the claim that we don't know about bad intentions? Enough to say that the reason we are in Afghanistan now is because not enough of us know about our prior involvement there? Ignoring that that would be a terrible reason to not do something anyway, think about how much of that has been in our news for a long time.

I think we should focus on what are the actual reasons for our involvement elsewhere. That is not to say that the reasons are good, just that I doubt they have much to do with the ignorance of Americans.

Just as a matter of text recognition. Where do you get the notion that Cormac would think that you are a people misled by bad government and not in on the killing all through?