|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
EvC Forum active members: 65 (9164 total) |
| |
ChatGPT | |
Total: 916,915 Year: 4,172/9,624 Month: 1,043/974 Week: 2/368 Day: 2/11 Hour: 1/0 |
Thread ▼ Details |
|
Thread Info
|
|
|
Author | Topic: War and Morality. Al Qaeda v USA | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
Oh, right. i forgot the part where the Afghanistan army invaded our country, flew bombers over our weddings, killed us with unmanned aerial vehicles etc.
Tell me Coyote, what DOES Afghanistan have to do with 9/11? Or is this your hit and run and yell "socialist!" and not actually bring anything to the table? "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
As an American, I get outraged every time i see footage like that. How dare they? I feel no remorse over any casualties we cause...they should have picked their side.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
Al Qaeda is essentially an Islamic sect with an ideology that is a threat to not just the west but even more so to more traditional Muslims.
I think the trouble with our actions in both Iraq and Afghanistan is that we too often view the enemy in strictly human terms, so that killing bin Laden seems like a major victory. IMHO the enemy isn't the Taliban or Al Qaeda, but the ideology they espouse. The war then, in my view is about competing ideologies. We in the west want our ideology to be embraced by the majority of citizens of the countries we have become involved with. The method that they use to spread their ideology is one of intimidation and fear. I maintain that if we use intimidation and fear, (such as shock and awe), the we are going to be viewed in no better light than Al Qaeda, the Taliban or Hussein's regime for that matter. Sure we have the best weapons and just possibly we might win a physical war, (the jury is definitely out on that), but that will never defeat the real enemy. The only way to win this war is to challenge their ideology with our own in the real battle which is for the hearts and minds of the citizens of Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Libya and even some in the west. With this in mind, I’m not convinced that the military actions that we’ve embarked are actually going to make us safer in the long run. As long as we can be easily portrayed as a military force that threatens their homeland there will be no shortage of new recruits. I remember in the early seventies in Prague talking to a Czechoslovakian taxi driver who told me about the experience of the Russian soldiers in his city. He told me that they now stayed outside the city because they kept having accidents from things like falling bricks. The Czechs knew that there was a better ideology available than what the Russians had to offer. I think that there are a couple of things to take from that. One would be that occupiers are resented and will never be safe, so obviously we want Al Qaeda and the Taliban to be seen as the occupiers and not us, and secondly when the local population is able to understand and desire another ideology they will bit by bit take matters into their own hands. Ideologies aren’t changed overnight. If we are going to win this war we are going to have to realize that it will take a lot longer than we in the west are presently willing to wait. Each President or Prime Minister wants the results to be manifested in his or her term of office. This will have to be a generational thing and there will be no final military solution, or at least not one that will be to our liking. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Well im giving you an ultimatum your arian gangs have killed to many non whites you have 5 days to hand them all over to the european court in HAG or we will find them ourselves and bomb the shit out of America doing so.
And i will have no remorse for the civilian casualties if you do not comply you have chosen your side. Do you think such an ultimatum is reasonable?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Phat Member Posts: 18351 From: Denver,Colorado USA Joined: Member Rating: 1.0 |
War is never pretty. Seeing as how the terrorist organizations are not willing to sit down and talk with us about their differences, nor are we dealing with a nation....i think our response was in line with the outrage that we suffered.
If another nation was attacked by a gang that had its base within America, they would have a right to demand that we bring this gang to international justice. Of course, they couldn't demand it since we are stronger than they are...and history is written by the victors. Perhaps America could have won public relations points with the rest of the world by accepting the slap on the cheek without retaliation. I agree that it would have been cheaper and more rational to do so. But what do your tell the families of 3000 killed? Do you tell them that we are sorry that it happened but that we don't have the power to do anything about it?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
jar Member (Idle past 424 days) Posts: 34026 From: Texas!! Joined: |
Perhaps America could have won public relations points with the rest of the world by accepting the slap on the cheek without retaliation. I agree that it would have been cheaper and more rational to do so. But what do your tell the families of 3000 killed? Do you tell them that we are sorry that it happened but that we don't have the power to do anything about it? No one has ever said that the US should have done nothing after 9-11, what folk have been saying is that what we did do was really, really juvenile. What do the police tell folk after a robbery? What did the police say after Oklahoma City? Edited by jar, : find another way around the censoring that is now so common at EvC Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
GDR Member Posts: 6202 From: Sidney, BC, Canada Joined: Member Rating: 2.2 |
This column was in this morning's paper. It presents a perspective on how the military aspect can be combined with the battle for the hearts and minds of the people in Afghanistan.
quote: Here is the link to the article.
How the Taliban Ends Edited by GDR, : No reason given. Everybody is entitled to my opinion. |
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
onifre Member (Idle past 2981 days) Posts: 4854 From: Dark Side of the Moon Joined: |
In the real world, who conducts their wars with a higher regard for human rights and civilian casualties? WTF? We're always at war! How can we have ANY regard for human rights when we invade two countries FOR war? Have you read any of the Wikileaks on the US lies about civilian casualties?
Wikileaks lifts lid on official lies about civilian deaths in Afghanistan quote: More here:
Afghanistan leak exposes NATO's incoherent civilian casualty policy Urgent investigation needed into civilian deaths in Afghanistan And lets not forget our history! Hiroshima? Nagasaki? What's that yummy number of human civilian casualty? The fact that anyone can, in good conscience, suggest that the US has a higher regard for human rights and civilian casualties, just shows what a great job is done to mold the opinion of US citizens through news and media outlets.
Just because we are not perfect doesn't mean we should ignore the fact that the enemy is worse by magnitudes. Really? Ok, lets look at the numbers:
quote: 3600 1700 1000 1980 2118 2412 ------ total = 12810 Compare that to 19 hijackers not even from Afghanistan killing 3,000 people. So, 19 hijackers kill 3,000 civilians, and we retaliate by killing 12,810 civilians in Afghanistan -- and that you consider a high regard for human rights and civilian casualties? I'm actually shocked the you got hoooah to agree. - Oni Edited by onifre, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
dronestar Member Posts: 1417 From: usa Joined: Member Rating: 7.0 |
from a declassified Eisenhower Administration memo:
President Eisenhower, in an internal discussion, observed to his staff, and I'm quoting now, "There's a campaign of hatred against us in the Middle East, not by governments, but by the people." The National Security Council discussed that question and said, "Yes, and the reason is, there's a perception in that region that the United States supports status quo governments, which prevent democracy and development and that we do it because of our interests in Middle East oil. Furthermore, it's difficult to counter that perception because it's correct."[59] Bernard Lewis - Wikipedia The NSC concluded that is precisely what we should be doing.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
hooah212002 Member (Idle past 832 days) Posts: 3193 Joined: |
I'm actually shocked the you got hoooah to agree. I agreed insofar as that we don't openly and admittedly target civilians. Yes, civilians are a large part of who we kill, but that is because the "bad guys" hide amongst them. And no, I do not say that to imply that I think they are just "casualties of war". The U.S. has not exactly been discriminatory about singling out the operatives. "Why don't you call upon your God to strike me? Oh, I forgot it's because he's fake like Thor, so bite me" -Greydon Square
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 336 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
Do you tell them that we are sorry that it happened but that we don't have the power to do anything about it? Instead of invading you could pressure the country for a co op hunt for these terrorists invading with a large force to hunt down 100 people sent the wrong message to the people in that coutntry and the world. Means of pressure embargoes, cutting aid ..... they would be singing to your tune and you would need to get the guys would be a few hundred possibly a thousand men and some intel. with the whole war thing they got allot more recruits alot more support and its easy to fight a guerrilla ware. Its not like the majority wants to harbor terrorists down there its about the same as the us harboring the crips, or the bloods, or the kkk. Edited by frako, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
As an American, I get outraged every time i see footage like that. How dare they? I feel no remorse over any casualties we cause...they should have picked their side. "They" who? Average Afghani families? Not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers was from Afghanistan. To my knowledge, hardly any of them had ever even been there. Phat, what should the average Afghani family be doing to "pick their side" and thus avoid being bombed by drones?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
Not a single one of the 9/11 hijackers was from Afghanistan. To my knowledge, hardly any of them had ever even been there. Phat, what should the average Afghani family be doing to "pick their side" and thus avoid being bombed by drones?
We are in Afghanistan because Al Quida was being hosted there by the Taliban. The people allegedly didn't like the Taliban. They should have done something about them. Now, as we are trying to leave, the people are saying "If you leave the Taliban will come back". It's RIDICULOUS. When the French left, we didn't revert to back to the British Monarchy. If the Afghanistanis don't want the Taliban, then they should do something about it. If they don't care about the Taliban, then we shouldn't be there at all. We got Bin Laden. Time to go home.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Nuggin Member (Idle past 2523 days) Posts: 2965 From: Los Angeles, CA USA Joined: |
And lets not forget our history! Hiroshima? Nagasaki? What's that yummy number of human civilian casualty? Not nearly the number of casualties that would have had to have happened if we had to go door to door killing every man woman and child in Japan. Remember, they were swearing total war. Those two bombs put an end to a war that could have dragged on almost as long as it has taken us to effect no real change in Iraq
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||
crashfrog Member (Idle past 1497 days) Posts: 19762 From: Silver Spring, MD Joined: |
We are in Afghanistan because Al Quida was being hosted there by the Taliban. The 9/11 hijackers lived in Florida longer than they ever lived in Afghanistan. When we bagged bin Laden he had been living in Pakistan for almost a decade. Should we therefore invade?
The people allegedly didn't like the Taliban. They should have done something about them. Done what? Die in front of AK-47's? How about the fact that the Taliban were the only force in Afghanistan that could keep the narcotics trade down?
If they don't care about the Taliban, then we shouldn't be there at all. We got Bin Laden. Time to go home. Hey, now you're thinking. But that's kind of the problem, isn't it? There's no basis for saying we "won" in Afghanistan, so any time we leave it looks like a "defeat." And who is going to be the guy who gives the order and, by doing so, becomes the Man who Lost Afghanistan? Who is going to commit political suicide in order to bring our troops home? I'm not sure I blame a guy for not having that kind of courage. Politicians, after all, think they're there to have the opportunity to do good. So, bagging bin Laden becomes an excuse for more commitment to the war, because now they're really going to be after us. It certainly drives home the importance of not fucking starting wars. Hello, Libya!
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024