US forces kill 7 inside Syria - Page 14

Eric5273 · #**131** 10-29-2008, 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primetime

This one is too funny!

Sponsored Links

primetime · #**132** 10-29-2008, 06:25 PM

Eric...again..let me be clear...As I stated above..I'm not disputing if the CIA was or wasn't involved...If they were great..if they weren't great...AGAIN...what I'm saying is that books aren't the end all, cure all....And "book" is not synonmous with "Fact"....
I'm not going to read some books and when I'm done say "wow..so thats what really happened" Well lets read some more books and see if they match up..."oh they do..wow thats really what happened"...Get it? Understand? I'm a little more skeptical than that..and rightfully so... You're going to tell me that everything you've read up there (if you even read them) is 100% true right? Or hell, even 90% true? 80%? Some may be..I'm not disputing that....Some might not be...And for every book you throw out there saying one thing, there's always going to be another book or source saying something else on the same matter.....Get it? My point is if you believe everything you read...You're the fool...Not me...

Read what you want to read..Read as much as you can. or don't....Then draw your own conclusions..as will I.....And its clear (once again, if you read them) that you've stated your drawn conclusions after stating book after book after book...And thats good for you...Knock yourself out...And lets just pretend they are all 100% true and we jump on your bandwagon...So what did we learn? That the CIA is shady? That the US gov't is shady? (like every other gov't isn't? ) Ok..great...what next captain? We're run by the Shady's, so we shouldn't go into Syria to take out some terrorists that are a threat to us? What are you trying to say?

Eric5273 · #**133** 10-29-2008, 06:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primetime

As I stated above..I'm not disputing if the CIA was or wasn't involved...If they were great..if they weren't great

I don't believe everything I read. But some sources are more credible than others. What bothers me is when you guys dismiss stuff our government does as no big deal, but when other governments do the same exact thing, you guys get all over them and call them terrorists. How about some consistancy in your labels?

If Iran is a state sponsor of terror for giving support to Hezbollah, then the United States is just as guilty for giving support to Alpha 66 during the 1960s. Yes, Cuba was our enemy, just like Israel is Iran's enemy. And yes, whether we like it or not, that is what enemies do to eachother. But trying to justify when we do it and demonize it when they do it is simply the pot calling the kettle black.

Sometimes you just need to take a step back and see the world for what it really is, instead of getting caught up in the whole propoganda of "good guys vs. bad guys". There are no good guys and bad guys, just different sides to the economic and resource war that the world has gotten itself into the last hundred years.

Quote:

Originally Posted by primetime

so we shouldn't go into Syria to take out some terrorists that are a threat to us? What are you trying to say?

I am trying to say that there is no excuse for killing innocent civilians. I don't care who is hiding where. When you attack a civilian target, that is called terrorism. Bombing a village where women and children live to kill a single person is no different than a suicide bomber blowing himself up on a crowded city street in Tel Aviv because an Israeli soldier --the target -- is standing on the corner. Call it "colateral damage" if you want, but I call it terrorism. I highly dislike when my own government does it, and will never vote for a politician that supports actions such as that as I think they make our country less safe.

primetime · #**134** 10-29-2008, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I don't believe everything I read. But some sources are more credible than others. What bothers me is when you guys dismiss stuff our government does as no big deal, but when other governments do the same exact thing, you guys get all over them and call them terrorists. How about some consistancy in your labels?

If Iran is a state sponsor of terror for giving support to Hezbollah, then the United States is just as guilty for giving support to Alpha 66 during the 1960s. Yes, Cuba was our enemy, just like Israel is Iran's enemy. And yes, whether we like it or not, that is what enemies do to eachother. But trying to justify when we do it and demonize it when they do it is simply the pot calling the kettle black.

Sometimes you just need to take a step back and see the world for what it really is, instead of getting caught up in the whole propoganda of "good guys vs. bad guys". There are no good guys and bad guys, just different sides to the economic and resource war that the world has gotten itself into the last hundred years.

I am trying to say that there is no excuse for killing innocent civilians. I don't care who is hiding where. When you attack a civilian target, that is called terrorism.

Eric..I hear ya..and for the most part good guys vs bad guys thing is a little over blown...But I don't think you can convince me (or others) that those who kill thousands of innocent people and actually intend to kill innocent people (9/11) that they (terrorists) aren't inherently evil...They ARE evil... and thats what makes them the bad guys.. When the US kills innocent people its on accident, or because of bad intel, or they were caught in the line of fire while we were trying to kill "bad guys"...Its not the same thing...Why? because we didn't intend to kill innocents..Is it bad? Of course its bad..its terrible..But that is an unfortunate product of war...Innocents die..Thats been happening since the begnining of civilization...No one's saying its not bad...Thats not what we're saying..We're saying it happens...

Eric5273 · #**135** 10-29-2008, 07:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primetime

When the US kills innocent people its on accident, or because of bad intel, or they were caught in the line of fire while we were trying to kill "bad guys"...Its not the same thing...

I don't actually believe that. I believe they simply don't care. I believe they would bomb an orphanage if they suspected that Osama bin Laden might be there. I don't think they really give a crap about civilian casualties. They are more interested in their political objectives.

And the same can be said for those who committed the 9/11 attacks. How about this for an argument - BTW, this is an argument that is surely going to make your blood boil -- but I will argue that those who committed the 9/11 attacks made every effort to minimize casualties. But before you jump to conclusions, read my points below:

1. The attacks took place prior to 9am, when most people had not gotten to work yet, and the WTC towers were mostly empty. If the attacks had taken place one hour later, or any time later in the day, the death toll would have been 10 times greater.

2. Flight 77 crashed into the one tiny part of the Pentagon that was mostly unoccupied due to renovation. Therefore, very few Pentagon employees were killed or hurt. If they had crashed into any other part of the Pentagon, thousands would have been killed. Here is the flight path:

http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/flight77path.jpg

As you can see, they clearly made an effort to hit that exact part and did not just crash straight into the nearest or easiest section. Instead they did a crazy 270 degree turn so that they could hit just the right spot.

I would argue that the goal of the 9/11 attacks was simply to terrorize people, and not actually to kill civilians. Thus the term terrorism. The goal was to knock down these buildings and attack the Pentagon, all while minimizing casualties. Does this strategy sound a bit familiar? Remember Shock and Awe? Oh yeah, I guess we did the same thing to the Iraqis. And far more Iraqi civilians were killed during Shock and Awe than Americans were killed on 9/11/01. But with both events, killing civilians was not the goal. The goal was to terrorize them, and in both cases it succeeded.

Again, we are equating similar things. Living in the United States and using the American media as a source for your information, it may be hard to come to grips with these realities, but try stepping outside of your patriotism and looking at these events from a third party point of view.

Dannyell · #**136** 10-29-2008, 07:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primetime

Eric..I hear ya..and for the most part good guys vs bad guys thing is a little over blown...But I don't think you can convince me (or others) that those who kill thousands of innocent people and actually intend to kill innocent people (9/11) that they (terrorists) aren't inherently evil...They ARE evil... and thats what makes them the bad guys.. When the US kills innocent people its on accident, or because of bad intel, or they were caught in the line of fire while we were trying to kill "bad guys"...Its not the same thing...Why? because we didn't intend to kill innocents..Is it bad? Of course its bad..its terrible..But that is an unfortunate product of war...Innocents die..Thats been happening since the begnining of civilization...No one's saying its not bad...Thats not what we're saying..We're saying it happens...

Exactly but what makes it even worse is our government's behavior after...calling it a success....Thats what probably bothers me the most in this situation. We killed syrian civilians in their own country, our our gov is acting like 'no big deal' .

other countries are calling for us to apologyse when we should have done that from the beggining....

primetime · #**137** 10-29-2008, 07:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I don't actually believe that. I believe they simply don't care. I believe they would bomb an orphanage if they suspected that Osama bin Laden might be there. I don't think they really give a crap about civilian casualties. They are more interested in their political objectives.

And the same can be said for those who committed the 9/11 attacks. How about this for an argument - BTW, this is an argument that is surely going to make your blood boil -- but I will argue that those who committed the 9/11 attacks made every effort to minimize casualties. But before you jump to conclusions, read my points below:

1. The attacks took place prior to 9am, when most people had not gotten to work yet, and the WTC towers were mostly empty. If the attacks had taken place one hour later, or any time later in the day, the death toll would have been 10 times greater.

2. Flight 77 crashed into the one tiny part of the Pentagon that was mostly unoccupied due to renovation. Therefore, very few Pentagon employees were killed or hurt. If they had crashed into any other part of the Pentagon, thousands would have been killed. Here is the flight path:

http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/flight77path.jpg

As you can see, they clearly made an effort to hit that exact part and did not just crash straight into the nearest or easiest section. Instead they did a crazy 270 degree turn so that they could hit just the right spot.

I would argue that the goal of the 9/11 attacks was simply to terrorize people, and not actually to kill civilians. Thus the term terrorism. The goal was to knock down these buildings and attack the Pentagon, all while minimizing casualties. Does this strategy sound a bit familiar? Remember Shock and Awe? Oh yeah, I guess we did the same thing to the Iraqis. And far more Iraqi civilians were killed during Shock and Awe than Americans were killed on 9/11/01. But with both events, killing civilians was not the goal. The goal was to terrorize them, and in both cases it succeeded.

Again, we are equating similar things. Living in the United States and using the American media as a source for your information, it may be hard to come to grips with these realities, but try stepping outside of your patriotism and looking at these events from a third party point of view.

Eric......I don't even know what to say as a response to what I just read...I'm still in shock... I'm appalled....

Eric5273 · #**138** 10-29-2008, 07:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by primetime

Eric......I don't even know what to say as a response to what I just read...I'm still in shock... I'm appalled....

Did you ever think that maybe Al-Queda has actual political goals just like our own government, and that killing innocent civilians on the other side of the planet from their home does not do anything to further their cause?

I know such ideas complicate the simplicity our politicians have given to the "good vs. evil" war on terror. But perhaps Al-Queda has actual political goals, and perhaps their actions are very well thought out and they believe those actions will help them to achieve their goals.

I know it's a hard concept to come to grips with, but the alternative theory is that there are tens of thousands of people who are all simply evil and want nothing other than to kill innocents for no reason whatsoever.

Which theory do you find more believable?

Lastly, how about some role reversal...

If you were a Middle Eastern group, and your goal was to get the United States to withdraw all of their military from the Middle East forever (Al-Queda's publicly stated goal), what steps would you take to achieve those goals?? Think about that one for a while, and maybe you will start to understand how they think. After all, they are actually real people. They have families just like we do, they wake up in the morning and go to sleep at night, they get married, have kids, pray to god, etc.

FSETH · #**139** 10-29-2008, 07:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

I don't actually believe that. I believe they simply don't care. I believe they would bomb an orphanage if they suspected that Osama bin Laden might be there. I don't think they really give a crap about civilian casualties. They are more interested in their political objectives.

And the same can be said for those who committed the 9/11 attacks. How about this for an argument - BTW, this is an argument that is surely going to make your blood boil -- but I will argue that those who committed the 9/11 attacks made every effort to minimize casualties. But before you jump to conclusions, read my points below:

1. The attacks took place prior to 9am, when most people had not gotten to work yet, and the WTC towers were mostly empty. If the attacks had taken place one hour later, or any time later in the day, the death toll would have been 10 times greater.

2. Flight 77 crashed into the one tiny part of the Pentagon that was mostly unoccupied due to renovation. Therefore, very few Pentagon employees were killed or hurt. If they had crashed into any other part of the Pentagon, thousands would have been killed. Here is the flight path:

http://guardian.150m.com/pentagon/flight77path.jpg

As you can see, they clearly made an effort to hit that exact part and did not just crash straight into the nearest or easiest section. Instead they did a crazy 270 degree turn so that they could hit just the right spot.

I would argue that the goal of the 9/11 attacks was simply to terrorize people, and not actually to kill civilians. Thus the term terrorism. The goal was to knock down these buildings and attack the Pentagon, all while minimizing casualties. Does this strategy sound a bit familiar? Remember Shock and Awe? Oh yeah, I guess we did the same thing to the Iraqis. And far more Iraqi civilians were killed during Shock and Awe than Americans were killed on 9/11/01. But with both events, killing civilians was not the goal. The goal was to terrorize them, and in both cases it succeeded.

Again, we are equating similar things. Living in the United States and using the American media as a source for your information, it may be hard to come to grips with these realities, but try stepping outside of your patriotism and looking at these events from a third party point of view.

Dude, you have lost your mind.

FSETH · #**140** 10-29-2008, 07:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Eric5273

Did you ever think that maybe Al-Queda has actual political goals just like our own government, and that killing innocent civilians on the other side of the planet from their home does not do anything to further their cause?

I know such ideas complicate the simplicity our politicians have given to the "good vs. evil" war on terror. But perhaps Al-Queda has actual political goals, and perhaps their actions are very well thought out and they believe those actions will help them to achieve their goals.

I know it's a hard concept to come to grips with, but the alternative theory is that there are tens of thousands of people who are all simply evil and want nothing other than to kill innocents for no reason whatsoever.

Which theory do you find more believable?

Lastly, how about some role reversal...

If you were a Middle Eastern group, and your goal was to get the United States to withdraw all of their military from the Middle East forever (Al-Queda's publicly stated goal), what steps would you take to achieve those goals?? Think about that one for a while, and maybe you will start to understand how they think. After all, they are actually real people. They have families just like we do, they wake up in the morning and go to sleep at night, they get married, have kids, pray to god, etc.

Seriously man, step away from the keyboard.

Sponsored Links