Warning

 

Close

Confirm Action

Are you sure you wish to do this?

Confirm Cancel
Member Login

Site Notices
Posted: 5/11/2004 7:05:27 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/11/2004 7:06:02 PM EST by 20iner]
Whenever there is a controversy against the U.S. in the Iraq war, people respond by basically saying they deserve / it's okay because of 9-11 and how many were murdered by terrorists. Or when a suggestion is made to using nuclear weapons on Iraq and killing everyone, many support and advocated it because of 9-11. I really don't understand the logic here and would love to have it explained to me by one of these people.

Link Posted: 5/11/2004 7:06:36 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 7:08:17 PM EST

Originally Posted By 20iner:
Whenever there is a controversy against the U.S. in the Iraq war, people respond by basically saying they deserve / it's okay because of 9-11 and how many were murdered by terrorists. Or when a suggestion is made to using nuclear weapons on Iraq and killing everyone, many support and advocated it because of 9-11. I really don't understand the logic here and would love to have it explained to me by one of these people.




Maybe they, muslims, want you dead?
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 7:09:43 PM EST
It didn't come from me.

I advocate the "Nuke their ass and take their gas" approach myself.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 7:10:13 PM EST
Nuke them all and who cares who separates them.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 7:12:57 PM EST
I think instead of advocating nuking every single person in the country because of 9-11 because they are the same religion, nuke them because:

1. I honestly don't care WHO gets nuked

2. the fucking gas prices are over $2.00

Link Posted: 5/11/2004 7:29:52 PM EST
Because it's kinda hard to separate the wheat from the chaff.

CW
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 8:41:40 PM EST
Because we are at war. Watch one of the beheading videos, any of them... Iraq, Chechnya, etc. and you will get the worse feeling in your stomach you willl ever feel. There is no word that can even come close to describing it except "demonic."

Many in the Arab world support this type of culture, even those that are not with the terrorists... but the terrorists are dug in deep in the population, and they are hard to get, and so that is why some say nuke 'em all.

We're not talking about weeding Nazi's out of Germany or occupied France... we're talking about weeding an enemy out of many nations filled with people who may not be with the terrorists, but an awful lot of 'em dance in the streets when these atrocities are committed against us.

After recent events, I believe the reason for going into Iraq or wherever, is only more clear than ever.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 8:55:12 PM EST
Maybe if you and your fellow Muslims, especially the Clerics, would denounce these attacks we would be more willing to believe you are a religion of peace.

Until then,

Sgtar15
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 9:17:25 PM EST

Originally Posted By sgtar15:
Maybe if you and your fellow Muslims, especially the Clerics, would denounce these attacks we would be more willing to believe you are a religion of peace.

Denouncements are not enough.

They need to ACT against those who supposedly "hijacked" their religion.

The "moderate" Muslims, the silent-majority of Muslims need to stand up, point fingers and expose the terrorists among them and run them out like the grave-robbing ghouls they are.

They need to name names, grab the rats, pull them out of the mosques by their tick-infested beards and run them out of their towns on a rail. We'll do the rest.

They need to stop prancing and dancing in the streets by the thousands waving the hacked-up hands, feet and entrails of Isrealies they just killed.

They need to stand up in their mosques and beat the SHIT out of any cleric who demands they strap bombs to their children "for the glory of allah".

They need to stop believing women are chattle and infidels are subhuman.

They need to stop hacking their babies heads with a knife until they are bathed in blood year-after-year calling it a "religious rite".

In short - they need a Muslim Renessiance and cultural revolution throughout the entire Muslim world.

They need to start acting like humans, not savages.


But.......... I just don't see that happening at all.

Oh yeah, one more thing - they need to bathe once in a while too.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 9:47:29 PM EST
You're looking for logic and thinking on a site that prides itself on emotional ranting and name calling in 75% or so of the threads?

Notice all the calls for using WMDs too. If it's good enough for them it's good enough for us. How low can we go? Like it or not we should be the good example in the world. Remember, truth, justice and the American way, or hey if they can be barbaric we can out-barbaric them


War being an extension of politics, I do think we are going to see some additional political extensions soon. And we can do it the good old fashioned conventional way.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 9:50:29 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 9:51:33 PM EST
[Last Edit: 5/11/2004 9:51:57 PM EST by mattja]
I can think of no major religion in the world that would allow these scumbag clerics to be in charge. The fact Islam allows it is to me, an indication that the entire lot of them are screwed up. Who in their right mind would want their name associated with such a religion?
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 9:58:58 PM EST

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
You're looking for logic and thinking on a site that prides itself on emotional ranting and name calling in 75% or so of the threads?

Notice all the calls for using WMDs too. If it's good enough for them it's good enough for us. How low can we go? Like it or not we should be the good example in the world. Remember, truth, justice and the American way, or hey if they can be barbaric we can out-barbaric them


War being an extension of politics, I do think we are going to see some additional political extensions soon. And we can do it the good old fashioned conventional way.


Take a gander at "A History of Warfare" by John Keegan and tell me if you still think that war is an extension of politics.

CW
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 10:03:30 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By 20iner:
Whenever there is a controversy against the U.S. in the Iraq war, people respond by basically saying they deserve / it's okay because of 9-11 and how many were murdered by terrorists. Or when a suggestion is made to using nuclear weapons on Iraq and killing everyone, many support and advocated it because of 9-11. I really don't understand the logic here and would love to have it explained to me by one of these people.




I can help.

Back in 1941 we were attacked without warning by fanatics from Japan. We found ourselves at war and conducted ourselves accordingly. Soon we began to conduct operations against those who attacked us wherever we found them (Guadalcanal, Phillipines, Okinawa). We understood that in the course of fighting the war, which we didn't start, many innocent men, women and children would die from our attacks on the enemy. The only alternative was to let the enemy continue as before which always resulted in US deaths.

Then we got the bomb. We understood that our enemy was fanatical and determined. We calculated how many would die by concluded the war along conventional methods and went ahead with the decision to use the bomb.

Then in 2001 we were attacked without warning by Islamic fanatics. We found ourselves at war and conducted ourselves accordingly. But rather than being at war with just one country we discovered we were at war with a network of terrorists representative of nearly every Middle Eastern country who operated either officially or unofficially with their host nations. Soon we began to conduct operations against those who attacked us wherever we found them (Afghanistan, Iraq). We understood that in the course of fighting the war, which we didn't start, many innocent men, women and children would die from our attacks on the enemy. The only alternative was to let the enemy continue as before which always resulted in US deaths.

And we have the bomb. Of course current restrictions from treaties prevent it's use unless we are faced with the same weapons. We understand that our enemy is fanatical and determined and that is why many advocate it's use. We understand that we are (or will be) at war with nearly the entire region. And the acts in Fallujah and the executions of civilians prove that we are not dealing with a conventional war or people who will be impressed by conventional methods.

Since they have proved themselves to be savage pieces of shit who are conducting a religious war against non Muslims many here are inclined to just nuke the fuckers and be done with it.


Last time I looked we did not have treaties in place with Syria, Iran and Iraq regarding the use of nuclear weaponry. The restrictions are self imposed.

CW
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 10:10:20 PM EST
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 10:23:40 PM EST

Originally Posted By 20iner:
Whenever there is a controversy against the U.S. in the Iraq war, people respond by basically saying they deserve / it's okay because of 9-11 and how many were murdered by terrorists. Or when a suggestion is made to using nuclear weapons on Iraq and killing everyone, many support and advocated it because of 9-11. I really don't understand the logic here and would love to have it explained to me by one of these people.




I like to help people, but cannot personally assist in what you ask as I too am unable to twist my mind around in a way to think in such a manner. I do think however, that PaDanby has a very simple and appropriate explanation:



You're looking for logic and thinking on a site that prides itself on emotional ranting and name calling in 75% or so of the threads?



Peace be with you.
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 11:14:24 PM EST

Originally Posted By SteyrAUG:

Originally Posted By Cold_Warrior:

Last time I looked we did not have treaties in place with Syria, Iran and Iraq regarding the use of nuclear weaponry. The restrictions are self imposed.

CW



But don't the NBC treaties forbid us from using them ANYWHERE in the world if we are not faced with the same weapons?

That was my understanding. In other words Russia wasn't allowed to nuke Chechnya for the same reason.


Some tidbits...
www.fas.org/spp/starwars/docops/jp3-11/3-11apa.htm#annexa

www.state.gov/www/global/arms/treaties/npt1.html

www.nuclearfiles.org/redocuments/1995/950406-p5.html

Only the last declaration says anything about first use, and even then it has enough loopholes to make it essentially useless. We definitely do not have anything in place from a treaty/agreement perspective that says we won't open up some canned sunshine in thier back yards.

CW
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 11:22:23 PM EST
Klausewitz - On War - read it.

With extremely few exceptions wars in the last few centuries were started to alleviate population pressures and/or economic reasons. Might be camouflaged as Nationalism somehow but economics is there.

WWII -Germany - re-establish economic power
Italy - expand "Empire" to feed economy
Japan - Establish Empire (grand scheme) and also secure economic stability (short term goals)

WWI - Germany trying to establish Empire against economic stranglehold over British Empire

Russo-Japanese War - Expand Japanese sphere of influence, eliminate dependence on foreign supplies, and establish markets. Break out of feudal system and be competitive or better in Asia
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 11:27:46 PM EST

Originally Posted By PaDanby:
Klausewitz - On War - read it.

With extremely few exceptions wars in the last few centuries were started to alleviate population pressures and/or economic reasons. Might be camouflaged as Nationalism somehow but economics is there.

WWII -Germany - re-establish economic power
Italy - expand "Empire" to feed economy
Japan - Establish Empire (grand scheme) and also secure economic stability (short term goals)

WWI - Germany trying to establish Empire against economic stranglehold over British Empire

Russo-Japanese War - Expand Japanese sphere of influence, eliminate dependence on foreign supplies, and establish markets. Break out of feudal system and be competitive or better in Asia


Yeah, read ol' Carl's tome, it begs something in the english translation. Do read Keegans book, it makes a lot of sense to me.

CW
Link Posted: 5/11/2004 11:40:13 PM EST

Originally Posted By 20iner:
Whenever there is a controversy against the U.S. in the Iraq war, people respond by basically saying they deserve / it's okay because of 9-11 and how many were murdered by terrorists. Or when a suggestion is made to using nuclear weapons on Iraq and killing everyone, many support and advocated it because of 9-11. I really don't understand the logic here and would love to have it explained to me by one of these people.





You're kidding right?
Link Posted: 5/12/2004 1:30:56 AM EST
The attack on 9/11 brought home to America that the Islamic extremest intend to bring their Jihad to the US and kill innocents in this country. After decades of attacks, it was like straws being piled on the proverbial camels back and this one broke it.

Now it is easy for almost anyone to imagine their loved ones in danger by these enemies of our country for many have lost loved ones and still are.

Many now realize that rational thought does not work on the irrational and though Christianity tells us to love ones enemy, it is not in human nature to do so. Even so, I don't hate our enemy but am filled with resolve that they must be erradicated from the face of the Earth.

If you accept that this is indeed a war, then it is natural to define people into only two catagories those with us and those against us for to stand idle and allow this to continue is the same as supporting the position. The person who encouages the Jihad whether it is simply applauding their action or simply allowing their action is just as quilty.

When we bombed cities in any other war, we didn't differentiate armed militants from not armed for if they are there and not fighting against our enemy they are supporting that enemy thus the enemy.

This is not a world government although the media would like us to think it so. Many if not most of us see ourselves as Americans and as such would rather see the welfare of our own to take precedence over that of other countries. There is nothing new here for the first war this country ever fought Tripoli was over American sailors being taken and endentured at sea. Just like then, if we set idle and allow Americans to be persecuted for their nationality we encourage that action ourselves.

This is why many of us feel enough is not being done.

Tj

Top Top