State terrorism

Generally, people should be let go if people will die in doing so. If you kill people to get to him, then you become a criminal as well, because you are doing exactly what you are arresting that man for. Therefore, you must now be arrested, too, or else there was no reason to arrest the criminal to begin with. If you don't want people like Osama bin Laden or Sadam Hussein in this world, then why do you support the creation of more people like them to stop them? The U.S. created Osama and Saddam, and now that we can't control them we have to make more.

It reminds of the Simpson's episode when the Bolivian tree lizards escaped and they killed off all the pigeons, but then they had to release needlesnakes to eat the lizards, but then the snakes would overrun the city so they had to release apes to eat the snakes.

We trained Osama bin Laden to be a terrorist, and we helped Saddam take power in Iraq's then-democratic government and gave him weapons. We made them what they are today.

Helped very little? They only won because of us. It was our missiles that helped them win, and our CIA agents taught bin Laden how to be a terrorist. And I'm afraid Saddam does have caches of American weapons; he also has mounds of Russian weapons, which he ironically bought with U.S. military aid money.

What the hell? At what point did I mention that it was allright to kill innocents because they're somehow not human, as you seem to claim "nationalism" to be, even though your definition is completely fecked up.

Click to expand...

"We all know for a fact that it is nigh impossible to guarentee that no innocents will ever be harmed by military action. However, we still go forth for military action in situations where the positive affects a disproportionate number of people versus those the negative affects"

Your response to my accusation that it is not justifiable to kill innocents is above. You state reply that it is acceptable to kill them. Your justification is that we fight wars even though we kill people who are not involved. So either you did not address what I said at all, or you are saying that because it is done it is okay. Just because we fight wars doesn't mean the effects of the wars are ethical.

And btw, your definition verifies what I said, even your defintion concedes that nationalism centers around only the interests of ones own nation.

First off, what the hell is up with you and these "facts" of yours. Those numbers keep changing all the time, one time it's 2000, then it's 3000, then it's 4000

Click to expand...

I originally said over 3700, which is almost 4000. In both cases I made reference to the same number.

What the hell? How come only you seem and others who are well known for their bias in this situation, and have something to gain through outright lies such as this, are the only ones able to provide so called evidence that 4000 innocents have been killed?

Click to expand...

I assume, since you have now resorted to making stupid claims that the above posted report is nothing but lies, that you are giving up and only desperate to repond. You seem to have given up trying to refute it. But then again you never really tried, ever since you initually made the most poorly covered-up lie I ever heard when you said you researched the report and said it was from pro-Al Quaida sources, before the whole report had been posted.

Secondly, going after the Al Queda network is every bit the best strategy in reducing terrorist attacks against the United States, because every large scale terrorist attack against US interests, with the exception of the Oklahoma City Bombing, in the last decade, were on behalf of that organization.

Click to expand...

There have been 2 terrorists attacks on the U.S. that are related to them. Note that one of those was ONLY related, this is the only one they are directyl responsible for, ASSUMING that they actually did it even though there is not any evidence for that.

And even if they did do it, and did it repeatedly, attacking them and not stopping the source of their grievences only encourages more attacks.

So if a few hundred innocents (and even that number is pretty generous) lost their lives in an action which potects hundreds of millions of not only United States citizens, but citizens of other countries, then it's hardly the black and white "murder" issue you're trying to make it out to be.

Click to expand...

Exactly the point I am talking about with nationalism. Thousands have died, but they are apparently so subhuman to you that each is only a fraction of a man, meaning those thousands only count for hundreds. I suggest you actually read the report before making pitiful attempts to attack it.

Seriously guy, you really need to get out into the real world more often. Between these completely unfounded numbers of "innocents" being supposedly murdered, the rants about English torture, and any other number of baseless "facts" you like to bandy about, you'd do yourself good to travel around a bit and get exposed to how the world really works.

Click to expand...

Let's compare:
You claim very few people have been killed. Your source refuses to give you evidence. It assures you its there, though. Your source is the one doing the killing, and therefore has a stake in not looking bad. Once again, your source won't give any evidence.
My source claims many have been killed. His evidence was laid out in a report which cites 89 seperate verifiable eyewitness accounts.
In conclusion, I have 89 pieces of evidence you have 0. You therefore claim that LOGIC ITSELF is invalid, because logic implies that if a test's results are 89-0 on my side, then I am right.
Welcome to reality, don't let the door hit you on the way in.

And this whole idea that the world must be black or white, and that even one innocent's death makes the United States evil, shows how easy it must be to label the men and women of the US Armed Forces as murderers while you sit back, safe, in the middle of Indiana, enjoying all the fruits of other's labors, safe to waste time on video games and forums while screaming about how others are evil.

Click to expand...

Good point, I could never talk on this forum without the army killing children.

UDTSNAKE is making reference to how bin Laden was actually in the U.S. this summer. He came for medical treatment, and actually had contact with a CIA agent, yet was not arrested, killed, etc. He had already been convicted for the embassy bombings in Africa.

It's not as neon-pink as yours, I'm sad to say.

I think it's black and white? Who here claims that this is a us vs. them case? Who supports Bush's "you are with us or you are with the terrorists" policy?

"At the time Hitler was chosen(!) nobody in the world would have guessed what kind of evil that bastard could do."
I have essays from the WSM of Britain warning that he was a danger.

"At the time the USA decided to support Saddam, it looked like they were supporting the lesser of two evils."
Democracy vs. brutal dictatorship...I'd pick the former. We didn't care back then about what was right, only about what helped us. Here we are decades later it came back to haunt us. The lesson we should learn is to not try to suppress other countries' democracy.