Warlord
Slave
"Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom." -General George Patton
Posts: 27
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 14:37:57 GMT -5
Post by Warlord on Nov 5, 2001 14:37:57 GMT -5
If we follow this logic of yours, Warlord, the US casualties the 11th also were their own fault. After all, Osama bin Laden has already declared war on the US a few years ago (remember the attacks on a couple of African embassies?), so it's the Americans own fault they didn't get away in time ? I hope you see the utter "wrongness" of your logic ? No "wrongness" I can see. And no the victims on the 11th wasn't their fault because there was no warning or chance to evac. There is a difference. The US even gave warning and time for them to leave.
|
|
Warlord
Slave
"Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom." -General George Patton
Posts: 27
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 14:43:33 GMT -5
Post by Warlord on Nov 5, 2001 14:43:33 GMT -5
Actualy no. Their targets were actualy the monuments themselves in a slap to the face at the US, the innocents were ust a bonus. They wanted to bring down the greatest symbols of the US's prosperity(WTC), military prowess(Pentagon) and government(White House, which the fallen plane was intended for). Regardless, innocents are innocents. And if you think about it innocents die on both sides in a war despite which side is wrong. I can accept that fact even though I feel for those innocents I also understand it happens in all wars.
|
|
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 14:46:23 GMT -5
Post by Diogenes on Nov 5, 2001 14:46:23 GMT -5
No "wrongness" I can see. And no the victims on the 11th wasn't their fault because there was no warning or chance to evac. There is a difference. The US even gave warning and time for them to leave. <br> What warning? And time for them to leave where? The whole friggin country? As has been stated above, Bin Laden did as much for the US population.
|
|
Lord Bane
Peasant
D?faitiste Extraordinaire
Posts: 63
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 14:48:38 GMT -5
Post by Lord Bane on Nov 5, 2001 14:48:38 GMT -5
Right.. have you seen any pictures of Afghanistan lately ? It's not that the Afghani can jump in their car and drive off to the next state or country, you know.
|
|
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 14:54:23 GMT -5
Post by Blizzard on Nov 5, 2001 14:54:23 GMT -5
And if you think about it innocents die on both sides in a war despite which side is wrong. I can accept that fact even though I feel for those innocents I also understand it happens in all wars. I thought that was the point I was making. You are the one whos brushing off the dead in Afghanistan as casualties of war while at the same time demanding that american dead be avenged. In other words *you're* the one dividing them into two different groups. And this is *by far* one of the *least* damaging wars *ever*. Other than the initial attack the US has suffered *no casualties* whatsoever on US soil. While the Afghans keep loosing daily.
|
|
Warlord
Slave
"Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom." -General George Patton
Posts: 27
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 14:57:19 GMT -5
Post by Warlord on Nov 5, 2001 14:57:19 GMT -5
Despite if you think my views are wrong or right there is one thing you cannot deny, innocent people die in all war despite how hard you try to avoid them. Other ways than war to deal with this? Well I have seen no proof of such and pacifist ways don't get things done. It might serve as an example but it is one that only welcomes you to be stepped on. Action is the only way to go.
LB, yes I have seen pictures. Heck I watch CNN about 10 hours a day when I am home. How could I of not seen a picture or two in that time. I've seen dozens. And no not the entire country, just those around potential military targets.
|
|
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 15:01:48 GMT -5
Post by Diogenes on Nov 5, 2001 15:01:48 GMT -5
Despite if you think my views are wrong or right there is one thing you cannot deny, innocent people die in all war despite how hard you try to avoid them. <br>Other ways than war to deal with this? Well I have seen no proof of such and pacifist ways don't get things done. It might serve as an example but it is one that only welcomes you to be stepped on. Action is the only way to go. Yes, war IS terrible. That is precisely the reason it should be entered into only as a last resort, not as the first friggin measure. As the ones advocating measures sure to kill lots of innocent life, the burden of proof is properly on YOU to show that war is necessary. That WAS NOT done in this case. George Bush owed humanity, and the innocents of Afghanistan, a duty to AT LEAST FRIGGIN SERIOUSLY TRY other approachs before starting war, but he didn't.
|
|
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 15:02:22 GMT -5
Post by Blizzard on Nov 5, 2001 15:02:22 GMT -5
I am not saying that you are wrong or right, Warlord. I am saying that you are contradictory. You stand up on your soap box, say how terrible it was that innocents died in the WTC, demand the US act in response, call those who dont un-patriotic; and then sit down and say Afghan innocents are 'casualties of war' and not give another hoot.
I am fully aware of the casualties of war, something few people wanted to believe when I said so when the bombings began.
And you missed the point of wether or not youve seen the territory. Its rugged, its desolate, and it *hard to move across*.
|
|
Warlord
Slave
"Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom." -General George Patton
Posts: 27
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 15:17:04 GMT -5
Post by Warlord on Nov 5, 2001 15:17:04 GMT -5
Yes, war IS terrible. That is precisely the reason it should be entered into only as a last resort, not as the first friggin measure. <br> As the ones advocating measures sure to kill lots of innocent life, the burden of proof is properly on YOU to show that war is necessary. <br> That WAS NOT done in this case. George Bush owed humanity, and the innocents of Afghanistan, a duty to AT LEAST FRIGGIN SERIOUSLY TRY other approachs before starting war, but he didn't. If you go by some people we have been at war for a few years and other measures have been taken up till now so the bombings are not the first approach. Only now has actual meaningful steps being taken though.
|
|
Warlord
Slave
"Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom." -General George Patton
Posts: 27
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 15:20:47 GMT -5
Post by Warlord on Nov 5, 2001 15:20:47 GMT -5
I am not saying that you are wrong or right, Warlord. I am saying that you are contradictory. You stand up on your soap box, say how terrible it was that innocents died in the WTC, demand the US act in response, call those who dont un-patriotic; and then sit down and say Afghan innocents are 'casualties of war' and not give another hoot. I am fully aware of the casualties of war, something few people wanted to believe when I said so when the bombings began. And you missed the point of wether or not youve seen the territory. Its rugged, its desolate, and it *hard to move across*. Your point?
|
|
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 15:27:20 GMT -5
Post by Blizzard on Nov 5, 2001 15:27:20 GMT -5
If you dont see it by now, you're thicker than I thought.
|
|
Warlord
Slave
"Success is how high you bounce when you hit bottom." -General George Patton
Posts: 27
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 15:33:46 GMT -5
Post by Warlord on Nov 5, 2001 15:33:46 GMT -5
If you dont see it by now, you're thicker than I thought. Like the armor of an Abrams
|
|
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 16:05:29 GMT -5
Post by Billy_Yank on Nov 5, 2001 16:05:29 GMT -5
Warlord, That's why they call it Bezerkly. ;D
Personnally, I don't think there's anything non-patriotic about the protests. They just have different beliefs and have just as much right to make fools of themselves in public as any of us do.
BTW, I came across this on another BBS and thought you'd get a kick out of it.
A Method of Instruction ----------------------- What to do if you happen upon a peace rally by stupid naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiots, to teach them why force is sometimes needed:
1) Approach dumb rich ignorant student talking about "peace" and saying there should be, "no retaliation."
2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate.
3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?"
4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence."
5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can.
6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not want to cause more violence."
7) Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence.
8. Punch him in the face again, harder this time.
Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back. -------------------------
|
|
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 16:11:35 GMT -5
Post by Blizzard on Nov 5, 2001 16:11:35 GMT -5
Warlord, That's why they call it Bezerkly. ;D Personnally, I don't think there's anything non-patriotic about the protests. They just have different beliefs and have just as much right to make fools of themselves in public as any of us do. <br> BTW, I came across this on another BBS and thought you'd get a kick out of it. A Method of Instruction ----------------------- What to do if you happen upon a peace rally by stupid naive hemp-shirt-wearing college idiots, to teach them why force is sometimes needed: 1) Approach dumb rich ignorant student talking about "peace" and saying there should be, "no retaliation." 2) Engage in brief conversation, ask if military force is appropriate. 3) When he says "No," ask, "Why not?" 4) Wait until he says something to the effect of, "Because that would just cause more innocent deaths, which would be awful and we should not cause more violence." 5) When he's in mid sentence, punch him in the face as hard as you can. 6) When he gets back up to punch you, point out that it would be a mistake and contrary to his values to strike you, because that would, "be awful and he should not want to cause more violence." 7) Wait until he agrees that he has pledged not to commit additional violence. 8. Punch him in the face again, harder this time. Repeat steps 5 through 8 until they understand that sometimes it is necessary to punch back. ------------------------- Sure, as long as you punch the right guy. Make sure that youre not so dizzy that you swing at a bystander. But to begin with if there werent creeps who resorted to violence in the first place there wouldnt be any need to retaliate. Also, no ones killing anyone there. You can easily detain the individual and immobilize him and press charges. Theres not a lot any of these people can do when a bomb drops on them *killing* them, for no apparent reason. P.S. It takes *way* more guts to take it like a man, than to swing back.
|
|
|
Berkley
Nov 5, 2001 16:20:43 GMT -5
Post by Silmarillion on Nov 5, 2001 16:20:43 GMT -5
P.S. And no, no ones saving *my* life, since the Jihad is not against me nor my country. ROFLMAO.....funny, I don't think the terrorists are that discriminatory. If you're not Muslim, you should die. They attack in many countries, not just the US.
|
|