American Drone Attack in Pakistan Kills German

[sandinista]

Sorry, Robert, but your wrong. The US Army beats women who go out of the house without a man, or wear make-up or, Allah forbid, speaks to a man not her relative. Just like the Taliban.

Beside, the US military did something wrong once, somewhere, and so they're always wrong forever and ever and I won't hear anything different.

Keep the headphones on, you'll remain happy in your ignorant bliss. "did something wrong once, somewhere" understatement of the century. In fact, dumbest comment I've read yet on this forum. That is saying something for sure

[sandinista]

Oh FFS, I'm not arguing that the US military is squeaky clean. But there's a damn big difference between them and the Taliban.

It isn't the criticism of he US that pisses me off. It's the equivalence between the US and the Taliban/Al-Quaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

What equivalence? Where did you read that? Because I acknowledge that the US commits terrorist acts doesn't mean I think they are the SAME as the Taliban or some other nuts. There are differences for sure, no doubt....but that doesn't change the fact that the US is the biggest perpetrator of terrorism in the latter half of the 20th century.

[JimC]

sandinista wroet:

all you want, subtle or not, I speak the truth. Nice of you to try to take the "middle ground" here, but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid. The US has been the largest, most well funded terrorist organization of the last 50 years at least. Why, oh why would you not call Vietnam state terrorism? If that's not what it is, than what the fuck was it? "the vast majority of recent military actions by the US, whether they deserve criticism or not for other reasons, have not involved deliberate targetting of civilians." That IS bullshit, prove it. Vast majority? Not true. "inadvertant bombing of civilians" Hardly Inadvertent, man, your one small post is so full of inaccuracies (and spelling mistakes, but I need not go there) it's ridiculous. Like if you "claim" something it must be true, and your making fun of my nuanced and "subtle" view of US foreign policy. At least I've read books on the subject which, apparently you haven't.

Too vague, too general...

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Give me instances in Iraq or Afghanistan where American forces have deliberately targetted civilian populations.

Not just poor operational decisions which have killed civilians.

Coalition forces are in enough shit in that country, they are not crazy enough to target civilians and give the Taliban and the world's media a free serve...

This, by the way, is a separate argument from whether it is either sensible or ethical for foreign forces to be supporting a corrupt Afghani government...

[charlou]

Watching you guys is like watching a really bad pantomime.

And given their qualities I'd say that's an... "achievement".

Yep, boring as all fuck.

[Coito ergo sum]

coito:

and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right.

fuck, again, "either wit us or wit the terrorists". Man, that is fucking OLD...and wrong btw.

That's not what I said, and as usual you ignore the issue we're talking about.

It's not "either with us or against us." I don't give a flying rat's ass if you're "against us." I'm taking issue with what you are calling "terrorism."

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh FFS, I'm not arguing that the US military is squeaky clean. But there's a damn big difference between them and the Taliban.

It isn't the criticism of he US that pisses me off. It's the equivalence between the US and the Taliban/Al-Quaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

The ruling to kill the Americans and their allies -- civilians and military -- is an individual duty for every Muslim who can do it in any country in which it is possible to do it, in order to liberate the al-Aqsa Mosque and the holy mosque [Mecca] from their grip, and in order for their armies to move out of all the lands of Islam, defeated and unable to threaten any Muslim.

What doctrine does the US have that compares to this quote?

What was that statement GWB made after 911? ... I'll try to find it when I get home.

In the mean time OBL != Afghanistan, Al Qaeda, or militant Muslims. You're making an unfair comparison between the statement of a single person and the policy of a government. In fact, you've pulled a little sophistical trick out of your sleeve and asked for a US 'doctrine'.

You want to make sure we don't make blanket generalizations about the aims and goals of Al Qaeta members, lest we paint with a broad brush and ignore the many Al Qaeta members who bang drums and chant "All We Are Saaaaaaayyiiiing......is Give Peace a Chaaaaaaaaannnnncccee," and because not all Al Qaeta members are supportive of killing American civilians. OBL was just out of line when he spoke for "all Al Qaeta members" and issued his Declaration of War Against the United States, vowing to kill civilians, and issued his "Fatwa Against Jews and Crusaders." I get it.

[Coito ergo sum]

Oh FFS, I'm not arguing that the US military is squeaky clean. But there's a damn big difference between them and the Taliban.

It isn't the criticism of he US that pisses me off. It's the equivalence between the US and the Taliban/Al-Quaida in Pakistan and Afghanistan.

What equivalence? Where did you read that? Because I acknowledge that the US commits terrorist acts doesn't mean I think they are the SAME as the Taliban or some other nuts. There are differences for sure, no doubt....but that doesn't change the fact that the US is the biggest perpetrator of terrorism in the latter half of the 20th century.

You don't just "acknowledge that the US commits terrorist acts." You claim the United States is the largest terrorist organization ever, and commits more terrorist acts than any other person or group. You can only do that, though, by including things which are not terrorism within the definition of terrorism.

[sandinista]

sandinista wroet:

all you want, subtle or not, I speak the truth. Nice of you to try to take the "middle ground" here, but that doesn't make your opinion any more valid. The US has been the largest, most well funded terrorist organization of the last 50 years at least. Why, oh why would you not call Vietnam state terrorism? If that's not what it is, than what the fuck was it? "the vast majority of recent military actions by the US, whether they deserve criticism or not for other reasons, have not involved deliberate targetting of civilians." That IS bullshit, prove it. Vast majority? Not true. "inadvertant bombing of civilians" Hardly Inadvertent, man, your one small post is so full of inaccuracies (and spelling mistakes, but I need not go there) it's ridiculous. Like if you "claim" something it must be true, and your making fun of my nuanced and "subtle" view of US foreign policy. At least I've read books on the subject which, apparently you haven't.

Too vague, too general...

The burden of proof is on you, not me. Give me instances in Iraq or Afghanistan where American forces have deliberately targetted civilian populations.

Not just poor operational decisions which have killed civilians.

Coalition forces are in enough shit in that country, they are not crazy enough to target civilians and give the Taliban and the world's media a free serve...

This, by the way, is a separate argument from whether it is either sensible or ethical for foreign forces to be supporting a corrupt Afghani government...

Sorry, the burden of proof is on you as much as me.

Watching you guys is like watching a really bad pantomime.

And given their qualities I'd say that's an... "achievement".

Yep, boring as all fuck.

So? that's why you skip this thread. I find a lot of threads boring, who fucking cares?

coito:

and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right.

fuck, again, "either wit us or wit the terrorists". Man, that is fucking OLD...and wrong btw.

That's not what I said, and as usual you ignore the issue we're talking about.

It's not "either with us or against us." I don't give a flying rat's ass if you're "against us." I'm taking issue with what you are calling "terrorism."

You are so, read your own quote, here I'll highlight it for you to make it easier. "and suggest that the US is in the wrong, and the people that blow up civilians in cafes are in the right." One is WRONG the other RIGHT. So, that IS what you are saying, clearly. Because the US is a terrorist state does NOT mean that Islamic suicide bombers are somehow NOT terrorists or in the right. Its not one or the other. Take issue all you want, won't change the facts.

[Tigger]

I'm fucking pleased I never get as angry as this about anything.

[sandinista]

I'm fucking pleased I never get as angry as this about anything.

ohhh internet anger!

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm fucking pleased I never get as angry as this about anything.

ohhh internet anger!

Troll.

[sandinista]

I'm fucking pleased I never get as angry as this about anything.

ohhh internet anger!

Troll.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm fucking pleased I never get as angry as this about anything.

ohhh internet anger!

Troll.

So, you agree, of course. Maybe they should ban both of us.

[Tigger]

I'm fucking pleased I never get as angry as this about anything.

ohhh internet anger!

I don't understand.

[Gawdzilla Sama]

I'm fucking pleased I never get as angry as this about anything.

ohhh internet anger!

I don't understand.

He's trolling.