Extended Discussion on Personal Views

Discussion in 'Off Topic' started by DÛke, Apr 2, 2003.

  1. train The Wildcard!!!...

    Sheet Happens... and the difference between the U.S. and terrorists is that we're brave enough to not go behind someone's back to get the job done... we do it in front of them...

    Terrorists operate on the threat, and the fear it instills in order to achieve their objective... We're just downright doing what we said and getting the job done... We're not wanting fear instilled, we want heads, and we're getting them...

    Terrorists will negotiate to get what they want... if you got the cajones to put a knife or gun to someone's throat... you might as well use it... kind of like we're doing...

    But as for whether terrorist acts are justified... everything is justified is some mind...:rolleyes:
  2. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    See, I can smell the inversion beginning.

    So you say the U.S. is "brave" in that it is openly spiteful, correct? Well of course! That is a no-brainer. We agree that the U.S. is a "major power," alright. Now, we agree that terror groups are not exactly as powerful as a nation, so of course they will use other tactics.

    You come into my house with a gun, and I have no gun. You should count on it that I will grab the nearest knife, and play the stealthiest tactics in order to, yes, induce psychological fear, and maybe even squash you all over.

    Could it be that terror groups cower to "dishonorable" tactics because they lack the fire power, the open fire power that is, so they need to play a different game?

    Or do you suppose that it would be good and just for you to have a great gun, and commit spiteful acts with it...yet you call me evil and unjust when I commit my spite with lower means, with not a gun, say, but witha knife?

    Does that not sound foolish to us?

    Verily, it seems that you justify the U.S.'s spite, but you are unwilling to justify any other spite. May I ask why that is?
  3. train The Wildcard!!!...

    But this is not the terrorists home(country).

    Yes... and...

    The first one to deal a lethal wound, that incapacitates the other, is the victor...

    I didn't justify any spite, other than what the world has agreed upon in the majority, this world will be better off without Saddam, no matter how he's gotten rid of...

    And I said everything is justified in some mind... Not once did I say something was not justified...
  4. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    But train, we can't talk about what the entire world had agreed on. You know why? Because if we do, we will ALSO have to recall how the SAME world did not exactly agree with the U.S.'s method. Or did you forget that?

    If you are willing to argue what the world agreed on, than I am willing to argue with you via the same method.

    The U.S.'s war is spiteful. Alright.

    Some individuals are, because of this war, will lose some family members and their homes. Ok. They want to do spite back in return.

    You say they are not exactly justified, and you hint at this by saying "well everything can be justified in some minds!"

    But then again...

    Do you consider the U.S. justified? Do you think it can be justified "in some minds"?

    If you do, then I would want to hear your reasons why these individuals which will be called "terrorists" are NOT justified.

    If you don't agree that the U.S. is justified, then, there is nothing to argue with here. In fact, that is the heart of the argument: whether the U.S. is justified or not.

    If this spite is justified, all spite is justified. Or is there a such thing as a good and bad spite, but spiteful and avenging, hateful nevertheless?

    If it is not justified, then...you seem to have many conflicts within your own self, so many negations and contradictions, that you are willing to say the U.S. is "not exactly justified," yet they have the right to the war...

    ...which, at the end, sounds cute and rather funny.
  5. train The Wildcard!!!...

    The world agreed that it would be better off without him, however, that same world could not agree on how to do it... so if the end means was to be rid of him, and that's what we're doing... explain how this is not the outcome the world agreed should be...

    can be and is are 2 different things... I said is... both times...

    Yep, on our own account - for not finishing the job the first time...

    never said they weren't...

    Already said they were...

    again... everything is justified in some mind...

    I haven't changed anything I've said yet...

    I'd agree... if only I had never changed what I said the first time...;)
  6. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...
    In here you were referring to so-called or would-be "terrorists." Again, I asked: why would they not be justified for their action? And, just to remind MYself, you said
    This means that they are justified. That is all I wanted to hear! :)

    See, you and I do not have to argue any more about this subject, and we have your honesty to thank for this. :)
  7. train The Wildcard!!!...

  8. EricBess Active Member

    I have some small peace to say about terrorists. Some might disagree with how much the US looks for a diplomatic solution before bringing to bare, but from what I've seen, it seems like the terrorists act first and talk later.

    I don't know everything that has happened, so I'm willing to concede that perhaps they did try a peaceful solution first and just encountered stone walling.

    But you have to look at their perspective toward human life.

    Now, without saying whether or not the war with Sadam was justified in the first place (or with Afganastan prior to that), the military effort was as controlled as possible. Effort was taken to not harm innocent people. When innocent people were injured and killed, we mourned, but realized that bad things happen in war.

    Meanwhile, the terrorist simple sets up a bomb (or an airplane), hoping to kill as many innocent people as possible. Like a controlled military effort, they also say "casualty of war", but they don't go out of their way to prevent it.

    Now, perhaps they feel that this is the only way to get attention to their issue. But that can't justify it.
  9. Mazzak Stylemongering Protodeity

    If my house was blown to bits by some cowards with bombs, I would seek revenge no matter whether the cowards with bombs said I was justified or not. :D
  10. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    In all honesty I think that we were too nice on the terrorist threat from 9/11. I think the logical thing would be to find their home base and bomb it down to beaded glass...the actions of 9/11 were nothing short of absolute evil.

    -Ferret

    "Nuke 'em 'til they glow then shoot them in the dark"
  11. Thallid Ice Cream Man 21sT CeNTuRy sChIZoId MaN

    Why?? Because we weren't prepared for them?

    The only special circumstances I really truly see about 911 in the annals of horrible events are that 1) it was done to a superpower 2) it was done to US.
    Neither of these reasons is really enough for me to consider it absolute evil.
    If you have a better reason, sure, give it, I supplied those so it can't be that fair.

    I'm not saying "We've done worse," that's not my point. People have done as bad and worse in terms of actual destruction.

    The event may be absolute evil but there's a hell of a lot of that going around, in that case.
  12. EricBess Active Member

    It's just as evil no matter where it happens. The difference is that the US refuses to put up with it. I'm pretty sure (though I could be wrong) that the US has never been asked to assist in defending against terrorists by another country.
  13. Apollo Bird Boy

    I agree that the U.S. is, at least, better than the terrorists. Nothing justifies what they did. And if it was the terrorists we found, I'd be more open to going after them. But they're not in Iraq, and we're not getting any closer to finding the real danger by romping through the oil fields.
  14. Astranbrulth New Member

    Greetings all!

    I've been following the thread, and I must say, it's great to have a debate on a very emotional subject without descending into namecalling and flames. I'm glad to say the CPA has mature and reasoning individuals that can hold a coherent discussion.

    I think that a great problem that people around the world have with the USA is the way in which it projects its image. If the US had said, "Well, we don't really care about WMD, we just want Saddam out, and you can hand over your oil while you're at it, because we are the strongest" I think that I'd feel better about the whole thing, because at least it would be the truth.

    What eats me up is the way that the US always paints itself as the knight in shining armour (White Knight ?!) irrespective of the truths or realities of the matter. The world opposed a war. So the US had to convince itself that actually, the world supported its own skewed paradigm of the situation by scraping together a list of people that supported it (islands in the Pacific? gimme a break!).

    The current US policymakers are a bunch of contradictory whiners that don't know what they're doing. Example: The UN is irrelevant, because it doesn't condone the war. Later on, the US expects Iraqi combatants to adhere to the Geneva Convention, a UN construct.

    So, the Geneva convention is in force then? No, it only applies when the participants are not "illegal combatants" (a term undefined by international law) fighting against the United States.
    I wonder what the US would have said if Iraq had called the invaders "illegal combatants".

    The history of the conflict is a typical track record of muddled US policy. At first, the US supported Saddam's rise to power. They later supported him when they saw that he was a natural counterpoint to Iran's inflammatory Shiite revolution, supplying weapons etc. No mention was made at this time of his brutality. Only later, when he got too big for his boots, did he "become" a brutal dictator.

    The US will use you to do its dirty work and dump you once you're through.

    Perhaps a dictatorship in the States would be better, at least US policy would remain constant.

    Well, that's it.

    Astranbrulth.
  15. Ferret CPA Founder, Slacker

    We do have a dicatatorship in the US. It's just the benevolent kind. We have two parties that are basicaly the same thing that control everything and they, themselves are controlled by large corporate special insterests. The people of the country are required to work for the large corporations or they will starve...

    -Ferret

    "...we just put up a nicer facade..."
  16. train The Wildcard!!!...

    I work for one of the largest industries in the US...

    Petroleum...
  17. arhar Member

    Hahaha, I come back to this board just this once feeling nostalgic, and lo and behold - I see a thread with Duke arguing about war, proclaiming Americans to be the Satan, and posting some of the most incredibly stupid things I have ever read. Wow, this is so nostalgic... it feels just like months following 9/11/01. Ho-ho-ho, so much to say, so little time! Expect me to come to this thread and post many interesting things as soon as I have more time. :)
  18. Apollo Bird Boy

    Welcome back, Arhar.

    This should be fun. ;)
  19. Spiderman CPA Man in Tights, Dopey Administrative Assistant

    Well, we basically did that with Afghanistan... drove the Taliban out of the one country that provided a haven for them. Except for the bombing down to beaded glass...

    Actually, the only special circumstance was that it was done on US soil. The US as a superpower already suffered terrorist attacks, namely the US Cole in Yemen and the African embassy bombings but the US had a "nominal" response to those.
  20. DÛke Memento Mori

    ...

    Oh...you're too late Arhar! But yes, this would have been fun. :)

    I give up.

    You guys are right.

    The war is justified. No. The war is perfectly justified.

    I finally see the "error" in my ways! Thanks be it to the most intelligent people in this board...no, not Spiderman! But the likes of train and Ferret. What? Of course they are intelligent!

    Ferret is a founder, it follows by necessity that he is intelligent, that he must be respected! And train is intelligent, it only requires certain, equally intelligent eyes to behold what he has to say! One has to step up to his level to begin to see the Light!

    So Arhar, no need to argue...I will agree with you: in fact, I will agree right now - you are justified. Yes, I was so stupid. Of course Americans are there to liberate! It seems to me that only idiots would believe otherwise. Well, alright, sure it is a little about oil as well, but...come on! They are clearly liberating the Iraqi people from a horrible regime, they are establish a beloved democracy, just like the successful democracy here in their homelands. Even then, we can justify their taking an innocent amount of oil - liberation is not free, but it is worthy of the cause.

    I think the United States needs to...liberate...many more peoples into Americanhood - I was thinking of France, Germany, Russia, the entirety of Arabian nations. It is no surprise that they, the Americans, of all people, care for the world that much! - they are the advocates of Christianity, the saviors of the world, the godsend, the heavenly!

    Today, I bow before you as one bows to a king, for surely: Americans are kings. O! Never mind that they are the least educated people in the world! It is not really about intelligence, but about the quantity of opinions. And therefore, where intelligence lacks, the quantity of opinions will be most...and therefore, the United States is inhabited by the most intelligent peoples!

    Free the world from its curse! Liberate!

    America is the second coming! :)

Share This Page