Page 17 of 19 FirstFirst ... 71213141516171819 LastLast
Results 321 to 340 of 377
  1. #321  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    We did just that after WWII. And don't play the moral equivalency card with me. There's a world of difference, and I'm shouldn't have to explain that to you.
    in YOUR EYES there is a world of difference... Heck, even in my eyes, but if your the 12 year old boy in Afghanistan who saw his mom and little sister blown up by American artilery, i'm sure it'll be alot easier to sympathise with the Taliba than with a 9/11 victim... The world isn't black and white...
  2. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #322  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    in YOUR EYES there is a world of difference... Heck, even in my eyes, but if your the 12 year old boy in Afghanistan who saw his mom and little sister blown up by American artilery, i'm sure it'll be alot easier to sympathise with the Taliba than with a 9/11 victim... The world isn't black and white...
    I said nothing about artillery. You can make all kinds of stuff up that I could have said, and then argue against it all you want. But it remains that I said nothing like that.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  3. #323  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    I said nothing about artillery. You can make all kinds of stuff up that I could have said, and then argue against it all you want. But it remains that I said nothing like that.
    i'm not sayin you mentioned artilery. But you did imply that there is a 'world of difference' between them killing our innocents, and us killing theirs. I'm simply showing you that 'difference' depens on who's shoes you're wearing.

    no matter how you choose to attack, it's impossible to fight a faceless enemy without civilian casualties. And those casualties will continue to be fuel for terrorist recruiters...
  4. #324  
    there is a slight difference...we don't hide behind and among our innocents. Just sayin.
  5.    #325  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    there is a slight difference...we don't hide behind and among our innocents.
    And THAT's what makes them less than human.
    Last edited by dbdoinit; 12/01/2010 at 07:11 PM.
  6. #326  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    we don't hide behind and among our innocents. Just sayin.
    I don't disagree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that the death of their innocents increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks against americans...

    we feed right into their recruitment tool
  7.    #327  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    I don't disagree with that. But that doesn't change the fact that the death of their innocents increases the likelihood of terrorist attacks against americans...
    That's why they do it. To use as an excuse to attack us. We've come full-circle now, haven't we.
  8. #328  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbdoinit View Post
    That's why they do it. To use as an excuse to attack us. We've come full-circle now, haven't we.
    right, so lets stop giving them an excuse to attack us...
  9.    #329  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    right, so lets stop giving them an excuse to attack us...
    This is your answer?
    This will solve the whole thing?
  10. #330  
    Quote Originally Posted by dbdoinit View Post
    This is your answer?
    This will solve the whole thing?
    who know's we haven't tried it... I think we all know that more of the same won't work.

    I just don't see how ending US military presence there would make an attack on americans more likely... at worst, threat levels would stay the same.
  11. #331  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    right, so lets stop giving them an excuse to attack us...
    by that logic, those stupid banks shoild stop keeping money on hand because that makes people become robbers and steal from them...
  12. #332  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    by that logic, those stupid banks shoild stop keeping money on hand because that makes people become robbers and steal from them...
    this my friend is an extreme example of logical fallacy. the two concepts aren't remotely similar. banks form an integral and fundamental part of our modern society, our presence in the middle east is not.

    believe it or not, terrorists actually have grievences against the US. what grievences would this robbers have against banks? they just want easy money...
  13. #333  
    the similarity is that you are falsely mitigating the terrorist behavior. There is no mitigation. That's the point.

    the fallacy is trying to connect American behavior (good or bad) with terrorist behavior. And you are correct that my example contains that fallacy, as does yours. That's why I said 'by that logic' as pointing out your logic was flawed.

    that was my point exactly.
  14. #334  
    Quote Originally Posted by Cantaffordit View Post
    the similarity is that you are falsely mitigating the terrorist behavior. There is no mitigation. That's the point.

    the fallacy is trying to connect American behavior (good or bad) with terrorist behavior. And you are correct that my example contains that fallacy, as does yours. That's why I said 'by that logic' as pointing out your logic was flawed.

    that was my point exactly.
    i'm not mitigating terrorist behavior. I'm saying that our approach to ending it has been making it worse. When we stop bank robbers, we don't inadvertently encourage more people to rob banks. Innocent people aren't harmed in our attempts arrest bank robbers. 'bank robber recruiters' don't gain any leverage. In contrast, our attemps to thwart terrorism have been spawning more terrorists because of the collateral damages. It's a fact that they use civilian fatalities to stregthen interest in their cause. Trying to compare what i've been saying to a bank robber is totally ineffective.

    by my logic, banks keeping money on hand in no way equals occupying a foreign country, and killing thousands of innocent civilians in an attempt to kill terrorists, and inadvertently stregthening the organizations we're trying to destroy... If our policy was to arrest robbers, then beat up their family, friends, and neighbors, your analogy would make a little more sense... (but still would be inaccurate)

    Our efforts to 'uproot the tree of terrorism' have amounted to nothing more than knocking off a few branches, then watering it and adding fertilizer.

    My approach is more like taking the water and fertilizer away from it for good and letting it die.
    Last edited by Mhunterjr; 12/02/2010 at 07:25 AM.
  15. #335  
    He (Mhunter)does have a point, even if you disagree with it
  16. Micael's Avatar
    Posts
    736 Posts
    Global Posts
    739 Global Posts
    #336  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    i'm not sayin you mentioned artilery. But you did imply that there is a 'world of difference' between them killing our innocents, and us killing theirs. I'm simply showing you that 'difference' depens on who's shoes you're wearing.

    no matter how you choose to attack, it's impossible to fight a faceless enemy without civilian casualties. And those casualties will continue to be fuel for terrorist recruiters...
    Walking a known terrorist into a dark alley and putting him down avoids this. Disrupting their supply lines and communications avoids this. Interceeding with the misinformation about America and opening channels of communications with the good people in those countries, avoids this. You consistently take the worse possible scenario as your hammer.
    The Law of Logical Argument: Anything is possible if you don't know what you are talking about.
  17. #337  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Walking a known terrorist
    now that's an amusing statement.

    isn't that what makes the war on terrorism so hard? We don't know?

    btw,has anyone told you that you look like The Dude?
  18. #338  
    Quote Originally Posted by Mhunterjr View Post
    who know's we haven't tried it... I think we all know that more of the same won't work.

    I just don't see how ending US military presence there would make an attack on americans more likely... at worst, threat levels would stay the same.
    Your point cannot be discounted: that to some extent at least, our military presence in the middle east is essentially "playing into the extremists' hands"; but you are also implying as fact that the same military presence does nothing to curb terrorism, which I think is a huge assumption. Whether you believe that American military activities help recruit new terrorists, you can't dispute the fact that while they are there, they are taking the war to current active terrorists. At the very least, we are making them attack us over there and attack our military rather than coming over here to attack our citizens.

    I cannot say as fact that your strategy would be less effective, but you also can't state as fact that it wouldn't be harmful (less effective)
  19. #339  
    Quote Originally Posted by Micael View Post
    Walking a known terrorist into a dark alley and putting him down avoids this. Disrupting their supply lines and communications avoids this. Interceeding with the misinformation about America and opening channels of communications with the good people in those countries, avoids this. You consistently take the worse possible scenario as your hammer.
    i'm not opposed to most of your ideas. But I doubt we'll be able to isolate and kill known terrorist without unintended consequences...
  20. #340  
    no matter how you choose to attack, it's impossible to fight a faceless enemy without civilian casualties. And those casualties will continue to be fuel for terrorist recruiters...

    Ummm long before there were American Troops in the middle east, there was attacks by this faceless enemy. This faceless enemy directly attacked civillians, Isreali and western.
    Again I point to Munich Olympics, and a host of other little murders. All this well before American troops were in the middle east. I point to the murder of a wheel chair bound cruise line passeger, heck I can point to a lot of them.
    Yes, American since about 1972 supported Isreal with money and arms, both ended in 2007. Now they buy, just like any other nation. Yes they still receive loans, but they are required to pay them back, they are loans after all. During this whole time, military and monetary support went to numerous middle east countries. Again, in the form of loans and purchasing of equipment. As far as I can tell, any nation that was bent on wiping out Isreal got nada, ohhh wait, even Palestine got money and aid and continues to do so to this very day.
    so to counter your "who know's we haven't tried it... I think we all know that more of the same wont work." statement, ya it has been tried over an over again for decades. That didnt work either..
    Life is short, Play hard, and enjoy every moment as if it was your last.

Posting Permissions