DebateGate
General Category => 3DHS => Topic started by: sirs on September 24, 2015, 04:08:00 AM
-
(https://scontent-lax3-1.xx.fbcdn.net/hphotos-xaf1/v/t1.0-9/12019924_1008762005869002_1627372416753775358_n.png?oh=3e313da0f2adac8669a6ccd79493df33&oe=569F04A6)
-
The invasion of Iraq was "Shock and Awe", which was nothing at all like terrorism. The intent was to treat the Iraqis to an enjoyable fireworks display.
It resulted in far more people killed, wounded and driven from their homes and countries, but of course, it was not terrorism, because they were not Americans.
The Israeli attacks on Gaza of course, were not terrorism because the women and children killed and made homeless DESERVED it. The casualties of Gazans far surpassed those of the Israelis because they DESERVED IT.
And of course, because the Americans who were mostly Christians and the Israelis were mostly Jews and they did not mention their religions, it could not possibly be terrorism.
-
News flash...war does not = terrorism
Terrorism is the specfic effort by an individual or group, and not a government, to target and kill innocent men, women, and children, in the name of some ideological cause, religious cause, or simply hatred
Now, try again
-
The entire idea of "shock and awe" was to terrorize the Iraqis into surrendering.
The only difference is that the terrorism by the US military and the Israelis was that they were better organized. And lots more people go killed.
-
Terrorism is the specfic effort by an individual or group, and not a government, to target and kill innocent men, women, and children, in the name of some ideological cause, religious cause, or simply hatred
Now, try again
-
The results of war are the same as those for terrorism. The difference is that war kills more people.
-
Under your parameters, every war is a terrorist act...WWII was a terrorist act...our War in Bosnia, under Clinton, was a terrorist act....our Revolutionary war to gain our Independence was a terrorist act....our Civil war which brought about the end of legalized slavery was a terrorist act.....which is why I made it clear, and that the picture helps reinforce, that there IS a difference between war and acts of terrorism. And since 911, not one single terrorist act has been performed by any Christian group/organization or Jewish group/organization. Results aren't the point here....intentions are, and by whom
-
All wars involve terrorism since they stopped fighting as they did in Napoleonic times, with two armies facing one another on a predesignated battle field.
But the fact is that Christian Americans and the Israeli Defense Forces have killed more civilians than have the Muslim terrorists.
Terrorism is a tactic of those who are essentially too weak to fight a real war. The US Army and the IDF do not fit that description, and they do not shout religious slogans as they charge into battle. But they are far more murderous.
-
Like I just said, per your parameters, every war is terrorism. Since those aren't the parameters we're using here, and more along the lines of actual terrorist efforts, as in groups that target and kill innocent men women and children, in the name of some religion/ideolgy/or just plain hatred
-
So somehow, if 100 people are killed because some soldiers were told to kill them with a bomb, that is okay, but if some fanatic blows up ten people out of hate, that is worse?
So the body count is of no importance here?
-
Frankly I would rather fight 1200 terrorists armed with small bombs and rifles than one AC-130 or two A-10 aircraft.
Terrorists operate against such overwhelming forces by being hidden or surrounded by hostages .
-
So true
-
That pretty much proves my point. War is worse than terrorism.
-
And without war, we would have never become the U.S......meaning, sometimes war is a last but necessary resort. And this country in particular, does what it can to minimize innocent loss of life. Can't say the same now for terrorists, and their intentions....which is to inflict as much injury and death on innocent men, women, & children. And pretty much proving the point of the pic that started this thread, in that there are ZERO terrorist attacks by any Christian or Jewish organizations, in the name of God, since 911
-
Without war, we would be.... Canadians! The Horror! The Horror! I imagine had we been Canadians, there would not have been a need to have a horrible Civil War end slavery. I think Parliament did this by decree in 1833 with a minor amount of resistance in the entire Empire.
But seriously, the existence of the US has never depended on this country invading Iraq or Afghanistan.
The War in Iraq was organized terrorism. "Shock and Awe" is terrorism. Arbitrary arrest of waterboarding of suspects is terrorism.
-
Without war, we'd be Nazi Germans......yea, the horror
But putting aside the ongoing effort of trying to conflate war and actual acts of terrorism, to this date, following 911, not one Christian led terrorist attack or Jewish led terrorist attack.
And terrorizing terrorists into telling us who & where they plan to kill their next group of innocent women & children is fully supported
-
That pretty much proves my point. War is worse than terrorism.
Depends on who you are and where you are, the worst of any sort of war is proximity.
Recently there was a kidnapping in the Philippines, this is not a big deal if you are not one of the hostages, or a Pilipino trying to make a living.
-
, not one Christian led terrorist attack or Jewish led terrorist attack.
Only because you refuse to admit that what the Christian Americans and the Jewish IDF did was far more murderous and terrifying.
-
, not one Christian led terrorist attack or Jewish led terrorist attack.
Only because you refuse to admit that what the Christian Americans and the Jewish IDF did was far more murderous and terrifying.
?
That is a strange thing to assert.
Is everyone that goes to war equally guilty?
The reasons mattering not?
-
To civilians killed in Iraq or New York or Gaza the result is the same: innocent people murdered through no fault of their own,
-
Again, trying to conflate war, in which we, the United States, make every effort to minimize, if not avoid civilian casualties, with acts of terrorism, which have every intention of killing as many civilian casualties as possible. In war, they are not murdered. In terrorist acts, they absolutely are
Good thing you were never in charge of anything, or we'd all be ruled under a Fascist Dictatorship
-
To civilians killed in Iraq or New York or Gaza the result is the same: innocent people murdered through no fault of their own,
What can be done to reduce war or eliminate it?
Every little bit counts.
Then same question about terrorism.
I bet my answer is different than yours.
-
................, or we'd all be ruled under a Fascist Dictatorship
Basically true.
Human nature being what it is , tyrants have advantage when freedom loving sorts are not organized to resist and pacifists want peace at any price.
But I would not accuse XO of a bad attitude at this point , wait for him to say.
-
If the US had never become independent, I hardly think that a unified British North America would have been any less powerful militarily than Canada and the US were together. The Indians might have gotten a slightly better deal, the Civil War would probably have been avoided, and it would have taken the Brits longer to have populated Australia.
The South was not much of a bastion of liberty even after losing the Civil War, and before it, it was a far more oppressive state than South Africa or British rule in Ireland at its worst.
WWI would surely have been won by the Brits much sooner, and the Germans might never have allowed it to begin at all.
When WWI began, none of the European countries thought that the US would get involved militarily. They all managed to convince their stupid people that they would enjoy a quick victiry and be home in time for Christmas. But I do not think the leaders shared this view.
-
Rationalizing and fantasizing are not too far separated in some folks. Plane nailed it again....Human nature being what it is , tyrants have advantage when freedom loving sorts are not organized to resist and pacifists want peace at any price.
-
Invading Iraq was not an act of "freedom loving people".
It was an act of a cadre of stupid, arrogant people brainwashing the citizens into providing huge profits for a few contractors, and suffering for millions.
Some people were duped into believing it was, but it is now clear that it has resulted in many, many people being less free than previously to the war, and thousands of them being dead, of whom only a small minority were Americans.
-
Invading Iraq was not an act of "freedom loving people".
That make no sense. In what war did anyone ever act in a "freedom loving" manner??
It was an act of a cadre of stupid, arrogant people brainwashing the citizens into providing huge profits for a few contractors, and suffering for millions.
And one again, your opinion of the why, is duly noted......and discarded for facts and common sense, given the events of 911 and the global intel on Iraq's WMD program, that pretty much everyone agreed with
Unless of course, you're going to demonstrate how that Bush not only used some sort of global mind control to force everyone to believe Iraq's WMD program, but managed to coerce, nearly every other country's intelligence agencies to fabricate their own intel to "go along"
Good luck with that
-
In what war did anyone ever act in a "freedom loving" manner??
WWII comes to mind.
The US military always indoctrinates the troops about how they are acting in defense of freedom.
-
Iraq was no different than WWII. ..... except of course that we used 2 atom bombs. Is that what was missing in Iraq, us using a atom to prove we were acting in a "freedom loving manner"?
-
News flash...war does not = terrorism
Terrorism is the specfic effort by an individual or group, and not a government, to target and kill innocent men, women, and children, in the name of some ideological cause, religious cause, or simply hatred
Now, try again
Bullshit. Killing innocent civilian men, women and children is terrorism, whether it is Islamic extremists, Israelis versus unarmed Arab civilians, or American gunners spraying Iraqi cars for following too close. This holier-than-thou-because-we're-by-god-americans crap doesn't hold up as an excuse anymore.
-
Killing them on purpose is terrorism. Dying in collateral damage while trying to kill the enemy, who largely hides among civilian men, women, and children, is hardly terrorism, in the standard definition of the term. If we're going to use it the term willy nilly, having to pay higher taxes to support Obamacare is terrorism
There's a specificity to the use of the word terrorism, H. It's much like racism. And if we just start using it anywhere that we personally want to apply it to, its meaning & importance becomes ever more watered down.
-
The Israelis killed far more people in "collateral damage" than Hamas has killed intentionally. I don't think the Israelis do much to prevent killing civilians. if they were in the right mood, they might refrain from bombing a kindergarten.
-
sorry...not going to play your game of trying to conflate war with acts of terrorism
-
Hamas shoots rockets at Israel and most of them hit nothing. And that is evil and baad because it is terrorism
The Israeli Army invades Gaza and destroys buildings and kills hundreds. But that's okay because it is war.
War is always okay.
-
Hamas, ISIS, Hezbollah, AlQeada, ALL shoot whatever they can with the hope of hitting and killing anyone and everyone
ISREAL SIMPLY DEFENDS ITSELF WHEN ATTACKED.
IN OTHER WORDS, IF HAMAS WERE TO LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS, THERE'D BE PEACE. IF ISREAL WERE TO LAY DOWN THEIR ARMS, THEY'D BE INVADED, AND EVERY MAN WOMAN & CHILD WOULD BE SLAUGHTERED
-
That does not change the fact that Israeli invasions of Gaza are acts of terrorism.
They are not much more effective than Hamas's stupid rockets. Neither side can win this with bullets, and everyone knows this by now.
Hamas cannot exterminate Israelis, Israelis cannot exterminate Gazans. Partial attempts have only served to make the opponents more fanatical.
-
Your opinion that they are acts of terrorism, has been weighed, measured, and found severely wanting
-
Hamas cannot exterminate Israelis, Israelis cannot exterminate Gazans.
You are correct Hamas can not exterminate Israelis....but they would if they could.
You are wrong about Israelis being able to exterminate Gazans, because they could, but they don't.
Just like all the bluster we hear from Iran.
Iran does not have the capability to make the United States cease to exist.
The US DOES have the capability to make Iran cease to exist.
If the US so chose, Iran would cease to exist this weekend.
-
The US DOES have the capability to make Iran cease to exist.
If the US so chose, Iran would cease to exist this weekend.
===================================================
This is simply not true.
We could never kill all Iranians or make the entire nation uninhabitable.
The Israelis would suffer serious repercussions if they tried to exterminate the Gazans. Nuclear weapons would be a very bad idea, being as Gaza is so close to Israel.
No one is exterminating anyone.
-
The point being that if Israel layed down their arms, as in stopped defending themselves, they would indeed be exterminated by the likes of Hamas & co. If the U.S. layed down their arms, and we didn't defend ourselves, those that did not convert or agreed to be sujegated, would be exterminated by the likes ISIS & co.
-
Israel does not have to invade Gaza and destroy it to defend themselves. Netanyahu probably does need to do this to get reelected, but that is not the issue.
-
Yes, they did. They were attacked, and as a result of defending thesmelves, took lands to better defend themselves.
The point being that if Israel layed down their arms, as in stopped defending themselves, they would indeed be exterminated by the likes of Hamas & co. If Hamas & Co were to lay down their arms, there'd be peace
-
The US DOES have the capability to make Iran cease to exist.
If the US so chose, Iran would cease to exist this weekend.
===================================================
This is simply not true.
We could never kill all Iranians or make the entire nation uninhabitable.
It is totally true.
Depending on what you mean.
There is no technical problem , we have the means to kill almost the whole population of them in minutes, and cleanly .
There is no real problem with the opprobrium of other nations, once we demonstrated willingness to be that sort of ruthless , we would receive practically no criticism at all.
There is a real problem with the American people , who would need a lot of motive to support such an action, much more than the ordinary outrages that we are getting accustomed to.
It might even be smart of us to destroy Iran. That is the backbone of terrorism , and we owe then a hit for all the backstab we got in Iraq. Waiting till they have a lot of atomic weapons increases the cost to us of the fight, sooner is better.Remember the choice that President Truman had , he could have won that war with a conventional invasion of Japan, and held a super secret weapon in reserve. He had also the choice of exploding the bomb in the sight of a city , but not near enough to cause so much damage, a demo.
Truman had a lot to consider , one of the things he considered was that holding the weapon back would cost the US a lot of lives , and refraining from using it on a populated area would cost the US a lot of credibility.
How different is now? Using WMD to halt their WMD program seems hypocritical , but it has advantage in every other respect.
-
There is no technical problem , we have the means to kill almost the whole population of them in minutes, and cleanly .
No, we don't. We just don't. And we would never do it if we could, but that point is moor, because we can't.
It might even be smart of us to destroy Iran. That is the backbone of terrorism , and we owe then a hit for all the backstab we got in Iraq. Waiting till they have a lot of atomic weapons increases the cost to us of the fight, sooner is better.Remember the choice that President Truman had , he could have won that war with a conventional invasion of Japan, and held a super secret weapon in reserve. He had also the choice of exploding the bomb in the sight of a city , but not near enough to cause so much damage, a demo.
Iran the "backbone of terrorism" There were no Iranians involved in 9-11. Al Qaeda and the Taliban arte all Sunnis, Iranainas are Shia.
Iran has not engaged in terrorism against anyone in the US.
They did not stab us in the back in Iraq. There was no agreement that they supported the US invading Iraq. Iran was allied with Reagan for a brief time in bringing down Carter, but other than that, Iran has been seen as an enemy mostly because they dislike Israel.
The idea that somehow Japan had to be invaded is also bogus. We had a navy, Japan could have been blockaded.
But Truman did not try to eradicate all Japanese from the planet. He did not even nuke Tokyo.
-
Actually we do.......Professor literal though is trying to use the likelyhood that perhaps a few dozen or more might survive a mass carpet nuking. The point Plane was making though, is while we could, we wouldn't. While Isreal could seriously bring an end to Iran, they wouldn't. While if the likes of Hamas and iran had their ways, they would seriously try, starting with Israel, and working towards the U.S.
Nor is this about Iran and 911. That'd be Dr deflection yet again trying to argue a point, no one is making. Presently, Iran is sponsoring/supporting terrorist actions across the globe, specifically aimed at Israel and anything associated with U.S. interests. This isn't about Iran directly attacking the continental U.S. It's about Iran attacking anything associated with the U.S., in which case, they are attacking the U.S.
And while hypothetically a "blockade" of Japan may have eventually brought about the end of WWII, it could have also dragged on the war many more years, and would have been at the cost of thousands upon thousands of more American lives. Invasion was the only other viable option, however another option presented itself. Enough American lives had been lost, and there was an avenue to bring it to a abrubt end, using the 2 nuclear weapons that were dropped. And America is better for having done it
-
There is no technical problem , we have the means to kill almost the whole population of them in minutes, and cleanly .
No, we don't. We just don't. And we would never do it if we could, but that point is moor, because we can't.
Sure we can ,I don't think we will, but we can.
Practically no one wants to do that , but the capability is not moot just because we are not willing to open that can.
Unwillingness can be overcome .
-
Unwillingness can be overcome .
I cannot see that happening. We would airlift all of Israel to Miami Beach first.
The fight with Iran is nearly totally a war of words.
-
Their financially sponsored terrorist proxies, say otherwise
-
Unwillingness can be overcome .
I cannot see that happening.
So you think our unwillingness to fight dirty cannot be overcome?
I hope our worst enemies do not think that way, if so, we have wasted a lot of money and effort on weapons that gentlemen wouldn't use.
-
No country will use a nuclear weapon on a first strike, just as no nation will behead an enemy on prime time TV.
Isis can get away with this sort of crap because they are not a country and are appealing to a particular sort of audience.
There are 200 nations on this planet. we cannot afford to have 198 enemies.
-
With our current foreign policy, we're well on our way to that #. But good news. ... as we make more and more enemies, we're making nice nice with our current enemies, like Iran
-
I consider use of Atomic weapons undesirable . I think most of us do.
I can't fathom why you think their use is impossible , I can't see a physical obstacle .
The point would not be 198 enemies , after an first use of atom bombs the point would be 196 survivors, with new attitudes.
-
It does not work that way.
Did the Blitz convince the Brits to surrender?
It is foolish to believe that all the stiff upper lip was the work of Churchill alone.
There is no sane reason for the US to launch a first strike nuke at Iran.
And, no, we could never kill them all.
Hitler was very efficient, but his attempts to exterminate the Jews and the Gypsies were not successful.
-
It does not work that way.
Did the Blitz convince the Brits to surrender?
No .
But the bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki did work that way.
Not because the Japanese were any less resolute, but because the damage was that much greater.
Besides I was not mentioning surrender , I was speaking of killing, which is easer.
There is no need to make the dead surrender.
Right now there is a tiny minority that favors action so drastic as this , what would be the difference after the next 9-11 incident included Atomic bombs?
I don't think we have mutual assured destruction with Iran, their leadership is too stupid for it, and we are so much more equipped that there is not much "mutual" .
-
Right now there is a tiny minority that favors action so drastic as this , what would be the difference after the next 9-11 incident included Atomic bombs?
=========================================
I don't think that checking an atomic weapon on a scheduled airline is likely to work. Radiation is easily detected.
In the case that the US was attacked by nukes, then it would NOT be a first strike attack, would it?
The discussion was about the US launching a FIRST STRIKE attack on Iran and obliterating the entire country, just to teach 'em a lesson.
-
No, that's not been the discussion, especially in the supposed "teach 'em a lesson" rationale. It's always been about Islamic terrorists vs Christian or Jewish terrorist organizations. And that those countries with nukes, such as the U.S. and Israel, which are largely Christian & Jewish respectfully, that although we could practically eliminate a country like Iran, we wouldn't. While a country like Iran, a chief sponsor of terrorist activity across the globe, now having been given the green light by Obama to go full speed ahead in building their nuclear arsenal, would if they could, absolutely try to eliminate 1st Israel, and last U.S.
In other words, just because we dropped 2 atom bombs that brought an abrupt end to WWII, doesn't make any subsequent nuclear strike NOT a 1st strike. ANY ATTACK, without provocation is a 1st strike, which would include any nuclear attack
-
Ok good points.
It has long been the unwritten rule that the USA will not use a nuclear first strike.
McAuther really wanted to , but neither Truman, nor Eisenhower thought it a good idea , even though it would have saved a lot of trouble in Korea.
There may be some agreements written that define or imply that the US will not use an Atom bomb except in the case that the opposition is using them, but whether written or not , it is our national honor that prevents our not using atomic tools to solve our problems.
Is it passing strange that we have enemies that depend on our honor to live long enough to kill us?