I can only judge you by your words, and looking at war as a sport where one team plays another team is about as bnlack and white as you can get.
I don't think bomb them all and let God sort them out is something the most free, advanced, and open-minded civilizations in the world would do, do you?
How is it not like a sport? People are fighting to win. They will play until the the opponent is defeated (in this case, the 'game' goes on forever, I don't think anyone will ever be defeated, but as long as our score is always higher than theirs, the game will stay in their zone).
I'm quite sure most metaphors used by sports reporters are taken from war terminology. It's an easy connection to make. Sorry if it's not complicated enough to carry any merit.
To answer your question, I am not supporting the bombing off them ALL. I said I disagree with the funeral bombing... I was responding to that YouTube video which is suggesting that Western occupation of these countries could end the hate for the West by simply ending the occupation.
All that will do is give those stone-age cultures a chance to bring the fight to our soil in a decade or so.
As selfish as it sounds... I would rather it be somewhere else.
I'm comfortable in my selfishness because the compassionate options carry too much risk to a lifestyle that I enjoy a little too much.
okay. consider the scenario. A house blows up. Who is going to try and get in that house? Honestly, as much as you would think that a burning and exploding house would attract random strangers to enter the house, my bet is that the majority of strangers would not do a random act of kindness. These acts are rarer than society likes to think. The vast majority of people would likely leave. The people who would most likely go back in would be those that are related to individuals in the house or live in the house. This is a social psych perspective. So.. to re-bomb...from a utilitarian view....is totally justified.
.
Your social psych perspective does, of course, take account of the fact that tribal Pakistani society differs entirely from your suburban Albertan one, right? You don't live in a village in the mountains of Pakistan and go outside on your way to work each day with your only contact with neighbours being a wave as you drive off.
The village is the family. You are related to every single person in it, if not by blood, by tribal custom and law.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
However, when you have people that are nuts and are hell bent to just cause destruction, you have to do your utmost to prevent that. If that means taking them out then it's fair in my book.
I hate the fact that there are people out there that do require this kind of response. If it wasn't for the fact that they are religious zealots, and instead chose to live their life according to the non crazy aspect of their religion, then there would not be a problem.
I wish that there was another way, but the best and most effective way is to kill them, and then kill their replacements and then kill their replacements. Eventually you will see people less enthusiastic to join and perhaps understand that maybe being a zealot is not the way to go and might figure out that there is more to life than dying for a cause that has no benefit other than mutual destruction.
No, you're not.
A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong. The whole theory is based on the idea that the end does not justify the means.
The Following User Says Thank You to Gozer For This Useful Post:
Your social psych perspective does, of course, take account of the fact that tribal Pakistani society differs entirely from your suburban Albertan one, right? You don't live in a village in the mountains of Pakistan and go outside on your way to work each day with your only contact with neighbours being a wave as you drive off.
The village is the family. You are related to every single person in it, if not by blood, by tribal custom and law.
You have demographics and census information? Also, what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that these civilians then have terrorist ties?
Interesting to try and make it about Obama. Your contention is that a Republican administration would be more compassionate?
Strawman?
Considering he is the President, I would say its pretty tough to not make it about Obama.
I'm not trying to be positive/negative here. I posted an article from a reputable source that talks about something a lot of people would see as a problem.
I think the fact Obama continues to obliterate Muslims, both terrorists and not, should pretty much end the whole "He's a Muslim" claim.
As to the story itself, I mean I know this is gonna sound heartless but this is war, and this is the cost of war. It sucks but innocents die in every war.
__________________
"Think I'm gonna be the scapegoat for the whole damn machine? Sheeee......."
okay. consider the scenario. A house blows up. Who is going to try and get in that house? Honestly, as much as you would think that a burning and exploding house would attract random strangers to enter the house, my bet is that the majority of strangers would not do a random act of kindness. These acts are rarer than society likes to think. The vast majority of people would likely leave. The people who would most likely go back in would be those that are related to individuals in the house or live in the house. This is a social psych perspective. So.. to re-bomb...from a utilitarian view....is totally justified.
Sometimes, civilians are killed in the crossfire between armed forces and terrorists. Killing a terrorist saves many civilian lives. Therfore, if you have a high probability of nailing a terrorist with a second strike, you essentially save lives that would have likely been taken away by that terrorist. I guess i'm attempting to apply ethics to the situation.
My own opinion -> i'm not sure. My own opinion needs some time to ponder. I honestly do not know if I would say it justifies it enough or not.
Valid point for sure.
I agree with you. Civilians die all the time in war. That is why we all hate it, but I don't think the US is intentionally targeting civilians here. I would venture a guess that they had boots on the ground that confirmed that a large number of the people going back to these places are a drone attack are terrorists and that is why they bomb the same places again.
But, I could be wrong and they just bomb because they 'think' the people there are terrorists. Which indeed would make the Obama administration ruthless.
A pacifist rejects war and believes there are no moral grounds which can justify resorting to war. War, for the pacifist, is always wrong. The whole theory is based on the idea that the end does not justify the means.
I am though.
War though is not always wrong. Starting a war is wrong. Defending yourself from attacks though is not, otherwise you get destroyed. I hated the war in Iraq and was against that from day 1. Just like I was against Iraq 1, and against the pretense for Vietnam.
You cannot let yourself get destroyed. Your response must be in kind to what was inflicted. They can rig together attacks on a shoestring budget, but if you eliminate them they can't do anything. It is not preferential by any means I wish there was an alternative, but they are determined to attack whenever and however possible. You wouldn't allow random local nutjobs do stuff like that. They get thrown in jail. It's somewhat hard to arrest though when they are in a country that you cannot have soldiers in. Only one other alternative is to do what they have been.
I hate that they are zealots that want to blow up things. I hate that the Americans have to blow them up. However it is necessary for them to do so. The world is not perfect.
War though is not always wrong. Starting a war is wrong. Defending yourself from attacks though is not, otherwise you get destroyed. I hated the war in Iraq and was against that from day 1. Just like I was against Iraq 1, and against the pretense for Vietnam.
You cannot let yourself get destroyed. Your response must be in kind to what was inflicted. They can rig together attacks on a shoestring budget, but if you eliminate them they can't do anything. It is not preferential by any means I wish there was an alternative, but they are determined to attack whenever and however possible. You wouldn't allow random local nutjobs do stuff like that. They get thrown in jail. It's somewhat hard to arrest though when they are in a country that you cannot have soldiers in. Only one other alternative is to do what they have been.
I hate that they are zealots that want to blow up things. I hate that the Americans have to blow them up. However it is necessary for them to do so. The world is not perfect.
Pacifists believe in turning the other cheek.
You can't possibly claim to be a pacifist and say that you are justified in defending yourself.
You have demographics and census information? Also, what are you suggesting? Are you suggesting that these civilians then have terrorist ties?
Do I have what? Do you mean societal and cultural information? I am suggesting that your quote, saying the only people that would "run back into a blown up house" would be those related to those inside or that already live inside, and that they are rarer than "society likes to think," means absolutely nothing when taken out of our society's (your word) context and applied to a society that differs entirely from our own.
If an entire village is considered family, or extended family, then an entire village would be likely to run into that house, and it would not be rare at all, and your logic would somehow justify the destruction of entire swathes of individuals.
__________________
"An adherent of homeopathy has no brain. They have skull water with the memory of a brain."
I question the need for this war in general. The whole nation building concept seems to always be flawed.
Are there any good success storys where a superior country went in, ousted the government, installed there own (democratic or otherwise), and propped them up militarily. And if there are successful operations like this would they have happened naturally like say the uprising in egypt and lybia without outside forces initaiting the conflict.
In order to "Free" people, people have to want to be "Free" and be willing to die for it. If the population hasn't made that step then I think it is hard for the attacking force to be looked at as liberators. More often than not they will be looked at as the enemy.
Why would the u.s. kill innocent people? What would that accomplish? The u.s. plans out all of their attacks to fight terror not be a random killing machine. If they were a random killing machine they would just bomb cities at random with a complete disregard for who is in them. It would be much much cheaper and quicker that way.
I have however seen terroists use women and children as human shields. I've also seen them walking in large groups of innocent bystandards to protect themselves from getting bombed or killed. How do you know some of these "mourners" were not terrorists? They wouldn't make it obvious.
Not to say the u.s. military doesn't have it's bad seeds that do things they shouldn't. However when they do they are quickly and publicly condemned.
Sorry, i'm with the u.s. on this one.
The US has consistantly shown itself to be utterly out of its depth in the 'war on terror' unable to really determine who are the enemy and who are their freinds, as such they have wildly veered from a policy of 'kill em all and let god sort them out' to handing guns, ammo, money and training the Taliban and then being suprised when they explode themselves in a CIA meeting.
The drone strikes have done a great job of killing top level taliban leaders, they have also undoubtedly recruited thousands to the Taliban flag and utterly destabalised Pakistan and turned them into a profound enemy of the US for generations to come.
The Following User Says Thank You to afc wimbledon For This Useful Post:
The greater question is, would there even be a fight if we weren't even there?
When Hitler was running loose, would there have been a fight if we weren't there?
That's where things start to get colourful (which HPL will appreciate).
Focusing on the War against the Taliban? Yes, I think there would still be a fight, regardless of who was occupying what.
The US and Canada wasn't occupying Afghanistan before 9/11, and those savage tribal freaks were able to bring a scene of dead corpses and burning buildings to North American soil.
I don't know what percentage of Islamic people are genuinely hellbent on the total Islamization of the entire planet, and while the percentage number might be small, the total number of individuals is extremely high and that ideology has clearly infected countries and people of power who control firepower.
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.
Do I have what? Do you mean societal and cultural information? I am suggesting that your quote, saying the only people that would "run back into a blown up house" would be those related to those inside or that already live inside, and that they are rarer than "society likes to think," means absolutely nothing when taken out of our society's (your word) context and applied to a society that differs entirely from our own.
If an entire village is considered family, or extended family, then an entire village would be likely to run into that house, and it would not be rare at all, and your logic would somehow justify the destruction of entire swathes of individuals.
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.
Focusing on the War against the Taliban? Yes, I think there would still be a fight, regardless of who was occupying what.
The US and Canada wasn't occupying Afghanistan before 9/11, and those savage tribal freaks were able to bring a scene of dead corpses and burning buildings to North American soil.
I don't know what percentage of Islamic people are genuinely hellbent on the total Islamization of the entire planet, and while the percentage number might be small, the total number of individuals is extremely high and that ideology has clearly infected countries and people of power who control firepower.
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.
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" ?
When Hitler was running loose, would there have been a fight if we weren't there?
That's where things start to get colourful (which HPL will appreciate).
Focusing on the War against the Taliban? Yes, I think there would still be a fight, regardless of who was occupying what.
The US and Canada wasn't occupying Afghanistan before 9/11, and those savage tribal freaks were able to bring a scene of dead corpses and burning buildings to North American soil.
I don't know what percentage of Islamic people are genuinely hellbent on the total Islamization of the entire planet, and while the percentage number might be small, the total number of individuals is extremely high and that ideology has clearly infected countries and people of power who control firepower.
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.
The Taliban had nothing to do with 9/11, that was entirely the work of the Saudis.
Strawman? 
