U.S. again bombs mourners

[Caged Great]

Originally Posted by Gozer

How would you define pacifism?

Instigating a battle.

Attacking another without cause, or for a bs excuse (WMD)

I don't view defending yourself after getting attacked as a problem though, as long as there is a continued threat of additional attacks. People should not have to live in fear of getting attacked randomly when they did not do anything to instigate getting attacked in the first place.

If that doesn't mean I'm a pacifist, then that's fine by me. Definition pacifists then are stupid though because they are living in the clouds. The real world does not work that way. You can't turn stand by and get destroyed just because you won't stand up to those that are going to destroy you.

Ideally, you would not have people attacking you for no reason, and would have no cause to attack anyone. However, since world peace has not, nor do I think ever will be attained then you have to be able to defend yourself in some manner.

[MarchHare]

Originally Posted by Gozer

I suppose one argument in favour of 'kill 'em 'till they quit' could be America nuking Japan.

That's an example of open warfare between nation states, not an insurgency fighting against an occupying force.

[Caged Great]

By the way here is a quote.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you,
it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

Guess who said that. Answer in white below.

The Dalai Lama

[Gozer]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

Attacking another without cause.

Only attacking people that deserve it is not pacifism.

Originally Posted by Caged Great

If that doesn't mean I'm a pacifist, then that's fine by me.

Ghandi and Einstein were pacifists - the word has meaning.

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Caged Great

By the way here is a quote.

"If someone has a gun and is trying to kill you,
it would be reasonable to shoot back with your own gun."

Guess who said that.

The Dalai Lama

Yes but in the case of the 'war on terror' someone with a gun was trying to kill us so we shoot a few hundred thousand guys and their families that lived down the road looked a bit like him, then we tried to take their ####. All the while continueing to give money and arms to 'the guy' trying to shoot us.

[HPLovecraft]

Originally Posted by krynski

No, I meant exactly what i said. I don't agree with your statement. I don't see how your claim of "families" and "communities" are much so different from us. I really don't. Do you think people don't work there? Because they do. Do you think people do not commute to work there? Because they do. Do you think people don't drive there? Because they do. How is it different? Do you really think people are that different? Have you ever been there? have you seen the cities and the towns and the countrysides?

Seriously, Demographics. who said anything about villages? The article didn't. 50% of the people in pakistan live in communities over 5000.

My fiancee is from Pakistan (1st generation), with a number of relatives that live, not only in Karachi, but further north. I have seen many, many pictures of the country, heard many stories from the country, and have met a number of people from the country. Have you?

Disagree all you want, it makes no difference. The majority of the fighting and insurgency within Pakistan takes place in the north and west of the country, in particular in the FATA, the tribal areas, along the boarders of Afghanistan, near Waziristan, etc.. These border regions have low population density. Do you believe they're doing drone strikes in Karachi? If you click the documentation in the article they state where the rescuers were hit.

Spoiler!

Some demographic information for you:The total population of the FATA was estimated in 2000 to be about 3,341,070 people, or roughly 2% of Pakistan's population. Only 3.1% of the population resides in established townships.[16] It is thus the most rural administrative unit in Pakistan.

Rural tribal customs differ from mainstream Pakistani culture, which is community-oriented enough. Do you want me to get that information for you, too?

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

When Hitler was running loose, would there have been a fight if we weren't there?

I'm not sure that's the same analogy at all.

I'm sure one of the primary reasons for Islamic discontent with the West has been our physical presence over there since 1990. Would the USS Cole have been bombed if they were not over in that region?

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

As long as that ideology is allowed to swell, hate for the West will only get more and more out of hand. We can either let them swell on their home soil and wait for them to come here so we can start fighting them then, or we can do some preventive maintenance at the source and protect our children from having to witness the realities of war in their backyards.

I'm not sure Islamic hatred for the West would 'swell' if we weren't over there. If you think the reason they want to inflict destruction on us if because certain individuals want to spread Islam across the world and North America lies in their path, I'm not sure I agree with that. If that were the case, would you not see Israel or other non-Muslim countries in that region attacked first? It's incredibly resource-heavy to send that type of message to the most difficult-to-access geopgraphical location first.

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by Gozer

Very appropriate post right next to a video of Bush, but I have a question.

What did Osama Bin Laden claim was his motive for 9/11 ?
Do you think it was "Islamization of the planet" ?

No I don't think that was Bin Laden's personal motive... but I would guess that radical Islamization was the narrative behind the message he preached to his followers in order to get them amped up with purpose.
Basically, his rhetoric was to rid the Muslim world of non-Muslims and expand. Also, given the U.S. support for Israel, taking out the U.S. or taking it over would allow them to carry out the dream of radical Islamists and sink Israel into the Mediterranean Sea.

I mean, Hitler had his own personal motives for War... he thought Jews and anyone else not of the Aryan Race to be equal to sewer rats, but preaching that certainly wasn't the focus of his famous speeches.
Instead of calling them sewer rats in his speeches, he just convinced the Germans that Jews were at fault for the poor economic conditions at that time, and in people's need to have a scapegoat to blame for their misery, they ate it up.


Anyways... Islamization shouldn't be the reason the enemy continues to fight. The Libertarian culture that seems to rule among young people in the Western world today is going to hand over our freedoms to a world dominated by Sharia Law. If not because we are dangerously too kind, then because we have such small families and they have families bigger than small towns. We'll go extinct, in comparison, without having to go to war at all.

Yea you know what... let's just give up.

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, that was entirely the work of the Saudis.

Yes, I meant to say "Al Queda"... not Taliban.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Anyways... Islamization shouldn't be the reason the enemy continues to fight. The Libertarian culture that seems to rule among young people in the Western world today is going to hand over our freedoms to a world dominated by Sharia Law.

Wow.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by MarchHare

That's an example of open warfare between nation states, not an insurgency fighting against an occupying force.

The Taliban was essentially a nation state within Afghanistan, the fact that they have been removed and are now fighting against forces occupying their formerly controlled land doesn't change that. Their are plenty of areas in which the Pacific front was quite similar, with Japan facing an 'occupying force' on islands that they once controlled.

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm not sure that's the same analogy at all.

I'm sure one of the primary reasons for Islamic discontent with the West has been our physical presence over there since 1990. Would the USS Cole have been bombed if they were not over in that region?



I'm not sure Islamic hatred for the West would 'swell' if we weren't over there. If you think the reason they want to inflict destruction on us if because certain individuals want to spread Islam across the world and North America lies in their path, I'm not sure I agree with that. If that were the case, would you not see Israel or other non-Muslim countries in that region attacked first? It's incredibly resource-heavy to send that type of message to the most difficult-to-access geopgraphical location first.

Why was the USS Cole there in the first place?


I'm sure the US' existence is the only reason Iran hasn't wiped Israel off the map yet.
Similarly, China's existence is the only reason the US, Japan and South Korea hasn't wiped North Korea off the map yet.

Working towards getting the US off their 'Worry List' will allow them to run rampant all over that part of the world doing whatever they want.
IF they would stay in that part of the world, doing whatever they want, then I would be all for getting out of there. I am a horrible person in that I only give a crap about what goes on in my own backyard. I rarely shed a tear for things going on 20,000kms away, nor do I give to charities that are not within the borders of Canada. But that's just my personal choice that my freedoms provide for me.

I'm not a super nutbar Pro-US person, but I recognize that their (and any other Super Power) existence influences a lot of what goes on elsewhere in the world.

Also, given Al-Quedas methods of attack (using radical Muslims already living within our borders), it's not resource heavy at all.
Look at the Toronto 18 and their plans to behead Harper. They were ready to wreak havoc all over Ontario... some of these idiots were born in Canada too... the resource burden was on Canada in this case. That's scary.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by Muta

I'm not sure that's the same analogy at all.

I'm sure one of the primary reasons for Islamic discontent with the West has been our physical presence over there since 1990. Would the USS Cole have been bombed if they were not over in that region?



I'm not sure Islamic hatred for the West would 'swell' if we weren't over there. If you think the reason they want to inflict destruction on us if because certain individuals want to spread Islam across the world and North America lies in their path, I'm not sure I agree with that. If that were the case, would you not see Israel or other non-Muslim countries in that region attacked first? It's incredibly resource-heavy to send that type of message to the most difficult-to-access geopgraphical location first.

We've seen Israel attacked on numerous occasions

[afc wimbledon]

Originally Posted by Hans Landa

Yes, I meant to say "Al Queda"... not Taliban.

Except Al Queda was at that time a Saudi organization, funded and supported by the Saudi establishmnet, including the royal family, and yet we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by Muta

Wow.

I'm an atheist, but given one of the longest threads on this forum is one that is a flat out bashing of all religion, I get a kick out of when someone is shocked when someone slams a foreign religion.


It's not that shocking, nor is it offensive in a free country.

[valo403]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Except Al Queda was at that time a Saudi organization, funded and supported by the Saudi establishmnet, including the royal family, and yet we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.

Are you denying that there were links between Al Qaeda and the Taliban? Because those are pretty well documented. There were certainly Saudi ties as well, but I think we all know that going after the Saudi's is a much more complicated endeavor.

[krynski]

Originally Posted by HPLovecraft

My fiancee is from Pakistan (1st generation), with a number of relatives that live, not only in Karachi, but further north. I have seen many, many pictures of the country, heard many stories from the country, and have met a number of people from the country. Have you?

Disagree all you want, it makes no difference. The majority of the fighting and insurgency within Pakistan takes place in the north and west of the country, in particular in the FATA, the tribal areas, along the boarders of Afghanistan, near Waziristan, etc.. These border regions have low population density. Do you believe they're doing drone strikes in Karachi? If you click the documentation in the article they state where the rescuers were hit.

Spoiler!

Some demographic information for you:The total population of the FATA was estimated in 2000 to be about 3,341,070 people, or roughly 2% of Pakistan's population. Only 3.1% of the population resides in established townships.[16] It is thus the most rural administrative unit in Pakistan.

Rural tribal customs differ from mainstream Pakistani culture, which is community-oriented enough. Do you want me to get that information for you, too?

Yes. I do. I have strong relations with many individuals from Karachi, Lahore, and other places I do not remember. A few of them are there, actually. Like you, I have also seen many pictures and heard many stories.

No. I don`t think they would like to conduct bombings in a city with 13 or more million people. Thanks for the link, that helps quite a bit.

I don't doubt that rural customs differ from tribal customs.

And No. That would be much more difficult to accomplish.

So, yeah, basically they are not strangers and are in small communities. Individuals would be far more likely to attempt to assist. One may suggest that there may be an increased likelihood that the people attempting to assist would have terrorist ties. I personally think that if terrorists are residing in communities small enough to be isolated for bombings, the community would consist primarily of terrorists, their families, and those aiding them.

Good argument. Besides a few jabs thrown either way, I enjoyed this discussion.

[afc wimbledon]

Osama's sole beef with the US prior to 9/11 was the stationing of US troops in Saudi Arabia, the land that the whabbis consider holy land, had we had a little bit of common sense and not put several thousand beer swilling US troops, especially uncovered females on several vast bases on the Suadi Kuwait border we wouldn't be in this mess.

Not to say the majority of arabs would love us but it was the bases that ticked Osama off.

[Muta]

Originally Posted by valo403

We've seen Israel attacked on numerous occasions

I know, what I meant though is more frequently and for reasons other than occupying land - moreso about converting them them Islam, as Hans Landa has so eloquently prophesized.

[Hans Landa]

Originally Posted by afc wimbledon

Except Al Queda was at that time a Saudi organization, funded and supported by the Saudi establishmnet, including the royal family, and yet we invaded Afghanistan and then Iraq.

"We" didn't go to Iraq, or did we?

I have no opinion on the Iraq war. I don't think it was necessary, but who knows... if the US didn't kill Saddam, who would he be aligned with right now if left alone?
That's a stupid way to think though I know... you can't punish someone who didn't do what you're accusing them of.


Clearly more of the aspects of the war are corrupt than not... but it's the present reality the world is faced with. Unfortunately Emmett Brown isn't a real person.