Innocence Riots

Those old enough may well remember the period when US cities were burning. It's not really a cultural or societal characteristic but rather a pretty universal reaction to perceived oppression, poverty and ignorance.

The thread "So let's look at why the Islamic world might be annoyed by the West?" tried to look at some of the history that lead to today's situation.

Do you have any evidence that the US targeted children for drone attacks or is this simply more of your unsupported assertions?

So once again you have no evidence and are just making shit up?

I don't see that at all.The subject of collateral damage is essential, and tragic.The goal should be to minimize collateral and unintended damage and I think drone attacks are a step towards that.It would be nice and IMHO the smart thing to do to try different paradigms than those in the past. Most recently, invading Iraq and Afghanistan were examples of an old paradigm that hopefully we will move away from. They were both pretty much an example of terrible and stupid responses to 9-11 and I would go so far as to say the two invasions succeeded beyond the wildest dreams of Bin Laden.Terrorism goal is not to kill the enemy but rather reduce the public opinion of the enemy and to provoke an excessive and more costly response.Unfortunately the US played exactly by the terrorists script.And we are left with the fact that we are stuck in Afghanistan and Iraq as well as the bill.So far the terrorists have won and the US has screwed itself.The question is now that we stepped in the shit, how do we get out of it?

I don't base my perception of the future on hope really. Rather if we keep running down the same paradigm path reality will intervene in the form of bankruptcy. We simply can't afford any more Afghanistans or Iraqs yet I too expect we will try it again. And the bill will get paid, one way or another.If instead we had invested 10% of what we wasted in invading Afghanistan and Iraq into creating jobs, education, infrastructure, health care in the Middle east and used part of the rest here At home would we be any better?

I don't see how his example is even relevant and sure I see where he is coming from, but I find his constant use of falsehoods and misrepresentation simply renders his position untenable.And of course I can see that children killed in drone attacks are collateral damage, unfortunate but perhaps justified. Drone strikes and drunk driving are two totally different situations and to try to compare the two is just silly.I'd answer his question by pointing out that is another false analogy. Edited by Adminnemooseus, : Off-topic banner.

One of the most powerful weapons available to terrorists are Weapons of Mass Hysteria.The goal of a WMH is to provoke a response that is totally out of proportion to the damage done by the WMH itself.The attack of 9-11 was such a weapon. While the deaths due directly to the 9-11 attack were tragic, it was not really a threat to the continuation of the US or even a really major economic disaster.Our response to that attack though was totally out of proportion to the actual damage done and does constitute a real threat to the US, to our freedoms, our economy, our culture. The damage done to the US was not the attack itself but rather the result of our overreactions.The movie "Innocence of Muslims", if it even really exists, is another example of a Weapon of Mass Hysteria.The resulting riots are but the least of the potential disturbing results from this attack.The Western World lately has shown concern over the possibility of Iran developing nuclear weapon capabilities even though the risk from that is relatively small and limited in scope.However there is another country, one that has nuclear weapons and and also the missile capabilities to deliver those weapons AND currently has a some what shaky government AND is located in a strategically sensitive and important area.That nation is Pakistan.If Pakistan overreacts as the US did there is a high probability of the current Government falling and suddenly the US and the West will be faced with a nuclear armed Nation State that also has the capability of delivering those weapons run by a quite frankly crazy Government.Now that should be cause for concern.

Being seen as "not doing something" wasn't an option, even though that would have been the far wiser choice.But that is one of the great weaknesses of the US system of government.

I don't think a non Nation State can conduct a war.

We should not have gone after them by invading with the military.The problem is that the US voters are not educated enough to understand there is a difference between taking action and being seen taking action.Invading Afghanistan and Iraq did little to disrupt the terrorists that could not have been accomplished without the invasion.It is intelligence, patience and stealth that is needed.

We, the US, is a Nation State and so it can conduct a war against anyone; another Nation State or any other organization or even individual that the Nation State selects.

It is a one way war, correct. What those who the US is currently at war with is simply murder at best.To be at War requires that you are a recognized Nation State.

Since Northern Ireland is part of the UK, the UK would not likely be at war with the IRA in those Nations that are part of the UK. There it would be a Police action. However, if the UK took military action against the IRA in the Republic of Ireland then there it would be at war with the IRA.Another example would be the Colonies Rebellion against England in 1774.Until there was a US, until there was a formal agreement between the twelve colonies to form a Union, a Nation, and before there was a formal Declaration of Independence and until there was a formal Government and before the fact of it's existence was recognized by other Nation States as in fact existing, all there was was rebellion. The British Government was simply putting down an internal rebellion and what the Continental Militias were doing was in fact terrorism and rebellion.Only after the Second Continental Congress and the recognition by other Nation States that in fact there was a Nation State could the conflict be described as a war.

No, not t all. It says absolutely nothing about whether or not some action is justified, it simply defines what is and is not war.