What do you expect in a world in which money and those in power with money is everything?

I say meh.

------------------
-Blessed Be-
A solid challenge will bring forth your finest abilities.
DBZ: The Destruction is Real

I'm not going to bother and read everyone's posts from the past 3 pages, so let me just say this:


Accidents happen. Yes, 9 children dying is bad. Anyone who doesn't think so is an idiot. But, were the children targets? No. It was an accident, and in war, bad things and accidents happen. Just because 9 children died accidently is no excuse for you people to demand we pick up and leave Afghanistan right now or impeach Bush or whatever the hell else you guys want.

------------------
A fast white guy is like a unicorn....neither one of them exist.

Call me closed minded if you want but "accidents happen" and "collateral damage" is a bull**** reason for people to die.
Start using those terms for Americans dieing and I'll let it go.

When people refer to Americans ideing as "murder" and the other people dieing as "accidents" and "collateral damage" it's almost a racism and a superiority complex all smashed into one.

When a group of people that now reside in a liberated Afghanistan (I don't care what anyone says, no one is at war with Afghanistan), buys a plane and starts to drop bombs on US military instalations in the US, you can bet 100% sure that the media and everyone else will call it an act of cowardess, terrorism and murder.
------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

[This message has been edited by Darth Evad (edited December 08, 2003).]

I like how you don't have a point. Really, I do. It fits in great with this thread.

Does the word "intent" mean anything to you? As in, Muhammad Atta's "intent" was to kill civilians, while the pilot of that A-10's "intent" was to kill Mullah Wazir?

Why not say outright it was a mistake and be sorry for it?
Why play it down by stressing it was not the intention?

Innocent humans' lives were ended by tragedy; don't try to calm your own conscience, try to soothe the grief of the others?

------------------
I hate kids.

[This message has been edited by Common Sense (edited December 08, 2003).]

Who me?

My point is, supposedly America is at war with Afghanistan (which they're not because they ahve already put a puppet in power over there). If someone in Afghanistan flies a plane over here and bombs a US military instalation and kills people, it will be reported as an act of cowardess, terrorism and murder.
What makes it so different when America does it elsewhere? Why is it collateral damage and an unfortunate accident? Why is the death of those civilians an accident where an attack on Edwards Airforce base by an Afghani would be terrorism?

How is this not part of this thread?
Some people are saying it's part of what's going on when children die. I would start quoting but it would make this post way too long if I quoted everyone that said 9 dead children are collateral damage. I responded with

, which is a direct and clear statement that is well pointed to this thread.
If Americans die in an attack on a US base in Iraq or Afghanistan, it's called terrorism. Isn't eh US at war with Afghanistan, Iraq and anyone who didn't side with them when they went into Iraq?

------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

If your intent is to kill civilians it is an act of cowardess. I don't care what nation you are from or who your enemy is.

If you kill civilians when trying to kill an enemy it is still tragic and awful but I do not consider it an act of cowardess. It is just something bad that happens in war.

If a civilian is killed due to someone not doing their job those responisble should be brought to justice of course but I still don't consider them a terrorist.

So yes you are right. If a person from Afghanistan attacks something with the intent to kill children they are terrorist and cowards. If the intent is just to take out military targets then that is different and just as tragic as if a US strike misses its target.

------------------
Think Them Skimpy thoughts!!!

[This message has been edited by Skrompy (edited December 08, 2003).]

Sine: There are more than enough inarticulate angry white males ranting about percived offenses against "their culture". They don't need your help.

...and you used to be such a good kid, too. Did your liberal guilt fester too long? Got tired of worrying about all that complexity?

Prior to the first Gulf War and the imposition of sanctions that eventually killed a million Iraqis, Iraq had one of the highest literacy rates and best medical systems in the Middle East. Hussein's abuses were limited to disliked minorities and political enemies: the vast majority of Iraqis were never knew anybody who was fed into a wood chipper. Hussein made the trains run on time. Part of the US failure in Iraq was its idiotic assumption that most Iraqis were being active oppressed. The US troops weren't greeted as liberators because, for much of the population, they weren't.

Is it even possible to have a civil debate on this forum? No really, is it?

------------------

Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

I'll debate with complete civility.

Evad... you're wrong for the same reason freelancer? was wrong.

the reason it's different if an enemy pilot comes over here and shoots up a suburb is that the victims.... the targets.... are civilians. If an enemy assault were to hit a military installation or staging point, it would not be referred to as cowardice. The attack in question was targeted at a dangerous enemy of US forces in Iraq (and potentially Iraqis themselves), not the civilians whose lives were lost.

------------------
saberopus
oh yeh wlel i jsut gots finesht wiht my morrwoind mod for teh JO An it takes up teh 900 gigabiets of spaec but i wlil not sowh yuo gyz teh scrnshoots becasue we dunat kare wut u gyz tihnk ne1 no wear i kan get ti hostad 4 dounlowd!!!!11!111 --Checksum

Then why do they call it cowardice and terrorism when a guy straps a bomb on himself and blows up American guards at a check point or at the entrance to a military base?


------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

Murder is purposeful. I have every right to call killing Americans murder because that's what the terrorists set out to do. Atta didn't accidentally fly a plane into the WTC. The Taliban fighters left in Afghanistan aren't accidentally killing troops and aid workers.

Now, when a plane bombs nine children with the intent to kill a terrorist, it is not good. I never said it was. But it cannot compare to purposely killing people. Cold-blooded murder is worse than accidental killings. No type of death is good, but intent plays a major factor, as others have already stated.

------------------
A fast white guy is like a unicorn....neither one of them exist.

/me actually understands what Evad is saying and sides with him.

The rest of you, re-read what Evad is saying. It's the same thing that you're trying to say, but you're still looking at terrorism as a black/white issue. "Terrorist" attacks against military targets are not "terrorist" attacks at all. Would you say that American Patriots in 1775 were terrorists? (no one from the Commonwealth answer )

------------------
~amor sui~
<< schming stout >>

But you see, the 'terrorists' are calling Americans terrorists. They are attacking the invaders with the weapons they have. When an aid worked gets killed by accident, why is it different?


------------------
To artificial life, all reality is virtual.

Prior to fighting, yes. When the colonials didn't want to pay the stamp tax, they used fear and terror to oust the enforcers of the stamp tax.

------------------
"LC Tusken: the idiot is the person who follows the idiot and your not following me your insulting me your following the path of a idiot so that makes you the idiot"
Jack Chick preaches it
NMGOH

what

I haven't ranted about percieved any offences against my culture--unless pointing out that arrogance and ignorance aren't exclusively American constitutes ranting. Also, who made you the arbiter of liberalism?



Abuses limited to disliked minorities? ... Saddam would have to have killed about six million Shi'a in order for them to be considered a minority. He only managed a few thousand. Maybe you're confusing dictators?

The Iraqi reaction to the invasion obviously wasn't exuberant, but beyond that we don't have a very reliable indicator of Iraqi public opinion. Except this.

Interesting analogy about the trains.

I found this ironic:



Not only was this ironic, but it shows Sine's ignorance in foreign diplomacy (U.S. diplomacy tactics to obviously be excluded...mainly due to them being restrained by the U.S. Government...this is why we had diplomats resign during the Iraq ordeal).

I don't expect many of you to understand this, but I think a few of you might...and that means that perhaps there is hope for humanity after all.

There's fine line a good diplomat must walk when dealing with issues in other countries. That fine line is understanding a funamental difference in wording. The difference I speak of is between "Supporting a Country of Negative Actions" and "Respecting a Countries Sovereignty, Despite Your Own Personal Objection to How it's Being Run (or what they're doing)." In these type issues, a GOOD diplomat knows to advice it's government to take a neutral stance on the issue. In THIS case, what Iraq was doing (right or wrong), was not effecting us. It was an internal affair ONLY. It wasn't even effecting any of our Allies. We had NO SOUND DIPLOMATIC GROUNDS FOR GOING TO WAR WITH IRAQ. Did I make myself clear enough? Yes, what Saddam was doing to the peopel of Iraq was terrible. After the first Gulf War, there were a large amounts of Iraqies who asked G.H.Bush for help...they were declined assistance. WHEN A LARGE GROUP OF PEOPLE OF ANOTHER COUNTRY COMES BEFORE YOUR COUNTRY AND ASKS FOR HELP, IT IS ACCEPTABLE GROUNDS TO GO TO WAR. Did I make myself clear enough on that point? After they were declined assistance, no (sizable...or otherwise for that matter) group ever looked for outside help in overthrowing Saddam. Thus, it is to be assumed ON A DIPLOMATIC LEVEL, that it is no longer the countries popular intrests to overthrowing their leader/government.

We may not of agreed with the ideals of Saddam while he was in power. I think anyone would be heartless to say that Saddam wasn't an evil man. But they're are international quide lines that MUST be followed. They are set up and established to help bring together countries in peace (dispite ideiology differences).

I highly doubt anyone here supported the actions of Saddam, they mearly understand this (apparently, not so simple) concept. It all boils down to wanting "respect as a soveriegn nation." We asked no less out of Britain, Texas asked no less of Mexico (before it bacame a state of the US), ect. This is absolutely no diffrent. To say the U.S. is not a bully, is to not understand the concept I have presented.

Back to the topic at hand. A number of you have seemed to have forgotten my earlier point.

Putting aside the fact that this man was only "suspected" and not a confirmed terroris:

I argued, not in the killing of a terrorist that was bad, but rather the process in which it took place. The U.S. had ample time and information for a Sniper to move in and eliminate "the target" (I use it loosely as I find titling a person in that way is nothing short of cold-heartedness) while doing four things:

A) Killing "the target" and "the target" ONLY. Preventing the deaths of those 9 children (and yes, despite what some believe, it WAS collateral damage...though, i feel it was unnecessary).

B) Saved the U.S. tax payers thousands of dollars (for deploying both the bomber and useing the bomb, vs cheap transportation for the sniper and the cost of the one round...maybe a few ration meals).

C) Provided the Sniper with extra combat pay (with, I'm sure, a sizable bonus and extended leave).

D) Avoided (even the chance of) bad press.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

For those that visit the site, make note that this is only ONE city in Iraq and only a sampling at that.

(yes, I know most all of these things are done by "sampling" areas. At the same time, however, you can't tell me that some of the responses might be a little more positive leaning due to the long opression of Saddam and common Iraqi ignorance of the the U.S., particularily during the current occupation.)

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

Sine: Pointing out that arrogance and ignorance aren't exclusively American, particularly when no one claimed they were, is a dead horse that angry white males resurrect and beat with some regularity. Sorry, I must have been mistaken.

Okay, largely limited to disliked minorities.

Interesting poll, but I don't think anybody claimed the contrary. I personally would be interested in the percentage of Iraqis who count the US presence as hardship.

[Admin: I'm tired of asking the last few days for name calling to stop...if you have nothing to add but calling everyone 'spazes' Kieran just don't post]

[This message has been edited by Jaiph (edited December 08, 2003).]

....I guess it's a 'no' to my question then.

------------------
Cantina Cloud | BCF | The Massassian & A Very Massassian Xmas
Corrupting the kiddies since '97

...wroar.

------------------
saberopus
oh yeh wlel i jsut gots finesht wiht my morrwoind mod for teh JO An it takes up teh 900 gigabiets of spaec but i wlil not sowh yuo gyz teh scrnshoots becasue we dunat kare wut u gyz tihnk ne1 no wear i kan get ti hostad 4 dounlowd!!!!11!111 --Checksum

Jaiph: I don't know. The civility of any one discussion seems more or less random. Like Russian Roulette.

Let's try this analogy.

Jewish man is given a home - Given, right or wrong - Does not steal said home. Is given it. 3 of his neighbors try to take it back by force, and he hands them their asses on a plate, with no help from anyone. Neighbors get pissy over this humiliating defeat, and won't let go of the house they feel is rightfully theirs because of a pre-existing anti-semitism. 40 years later, neighbors still spraypaint "DIE JEW" on jewish man's garage door.

I mean, say what you will of how Israel was formed, but to defend the actions and mentality of neighboring countries is ridiculous. Would you support british suicide bombings in Virginia? Over the course of history, land has changed hands millions of times. The Palestinians are the only ones petty enough to keep blowing up innocent people long after the fact.

Ictus, you have no room to talk. Just because you use civil words doesn't make you civil.

------------------
If there is a ((S)) in front of my post, it means I'm not being 100% serious.

I was not referring to John Brady Kiesling, and the fact that I supported this war for reasons other than the ones given by the Bush administration does not make me ignorant of "foreign diplomacy." I will admit that my knowledge of domestic diplomacy(?) is a little rusty.

...

... You know, I honestly want to reply to your post, but that's sort of contingent upon being able to understand it. "U.S. diplomacy tactics to obviously be excluded" What?

Maybe not, actually. Watching you second-guess the military is even worse than watching you share your theories on computer graphics and physics.

But... Sine! You mean clipping isn't rare? And the big band? WHAT ABOUT THE BIG BAND, SINE?

<3 Jon'C

------------------
saberopus
oh yeh wlel i jsut gots finesht wiht my morrwoind mod for teh JO An it takes up teh 900 gigabiets of spaec but i wlil not sowh yuo gyz teh scrnshoots becasue we dunat kare wut u gyz tihnk ne1 no wear i kan get ti hostad 4 dounlowd!!!!11!111 --Checksum

Obviously you didn't take note of where I quoted you from.



Proof of ignorance. For some reason people think being called ignorant is an insult. EVERYONE is ignorant in MANY things. So, don't feel insulted.



How about you finish reading the sentence...that might help.



"Second-quessing the military" is very broad. I did no such thing. I questioned the need for overkill. I'm sure the families of those 9 children question it as well.



Thanks for attempting to Poison the Well.
------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

lmao

diplomacy: 1 : the art and practice of conducting negotiations between nations



... Wait, did you *not* come up with an alternative plan for the military? Did we totally misread that?

Can't make an omellette without breaking a few eggs.

I, personally, prefer my Afghani children over-easy, but that's just me.

------------------
Life and death are equally jests
-Poe

Yes, and?



I asked why they didn't pursue another option, like a sniper. That's no less then a Senator or JAG Officer/Inquary will do, as I'm sure they will. And since my tax money is funding such things, I have a right to now why the screwed up (as do the famlies of the 9 children). That is not second-quessing the military as a whole, as you were implying. Just this one isolated incident.


------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

I'm happy to see that you learned how to Google for logical fallacies. Now, if only you can Google for Physics, Religion, Politics, 3D Graphics, and every other subject you try to talk about, we'll get somewhere.



"Domestic diplomacy"? You don't know the definition of 'domestic' and/or you don't know the definition of 'diplomacy', but you're at least 50% to 100% wrong.

[This message has been edited by Jon`C (edited December 08, 2003).]

I was asking what he was getting at.

Diplomacy
2. Tact and skill in dealing with people. See Synonyms at tact.

Tact:
1. Acute sensitivity to what is proper and appropriate in dealing with others, including the ability to speak or act without offending.

We can sit here and quote definitions all day, I don't think it'll get us anywhere...

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

...Should have seen that one coming. Nevermind that we were talking about international politics, Jon, he was referring to the second definition all along...

give it a rest

Friend, you've never won a debate on here. In fact, there has never been a thread where you didn't limp away like an embarassed dog. What makes you think this will be any different? Sine knows about 50 times as much about politics as you do.

Backpedal backpedal backpedal.

Both apply, actually. But that's pretty obvious if you had actually read my post.

------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]

Re-read my post. Baskpedal my *** . Do you even get the definition of Tact? Apparetnly not.

How about you stop BSing and actually address my points.


------------------
Try not, do; or do not.

[This message has been edited by Friend14 (edited December 08, 2003).]