View Single Post
Old 10-03-2007, 12:59 AM   #42
Achilles
Dapper Chimp
 
Achilles's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 8,204
Helpful! Veteran Modder Forum Veteran 
Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
It was a comparison, if that was what you are referring to. I was not saying killing civilians was a good thing.
Thanks for clarifying.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
And yet, you have said nothing about the atrocities committed by these terrorists.
Because that isn't the topic of the thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
First of all.... did I ever say that? No.
Did I say that you did? No.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Secondly.... collateral damage is usually accidental - if a target needs to be taken out, then it should. We don't purposely go and say, oh, lets drop some bombs on them and just hope we don't kill any civilians. Whereas the other is quite intentional.
None of this addresses my arguement.

snipped response to deleted comment

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
WTH? Since when was Osama our ally?
Since we provided he and al qaeda with weapons, training, and intelligence in the 1980 while the mujahadeen was fighting Soviets in Afghanistan.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
As for Iraq, I don't know.... Maybe you might want to uh, go do some research on that. We went into Iraq because there was evidence that Saddam was arming with nuclear weapons or other types of military power - and he hadn't responded to our warnings to stop for about 12 years. He also aided many of the terrorists that planned 9/11...
Really? The WMD's that we still haven't found and Hans Blix told us he couldn't find? How does one respond to warnings to stop doing something that one wasn't doing in the first place?

Some evidence on the 9/11 stuff would be nice, please.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
We went into Afghanistan.....

?
Right, hence why I'm having difficulty following your argument. Al qaeda training camps in Afghanistan, but we're we're also fighting in Iraq.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Consider yourself educated.
The Weekly Standard? The same Weekly Standard founded by Bill Kristol? The same Bill Kristol that founded the Project for a New American Century? The same PNAC that identified Iraq, Iran, and N. Korea as the axis of evil one year before the attacks of September 11th and suggested that "a new Pearl Harbor" would help speed up their agenda?

I'm afraid you'll have to do a little bit better than that source. But hey...thanks for the education.

snipped

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
So.... rewrite as: make a guess about the unknown from some known information, based on a relatively small amount of documented deaths.
Well spun. Good job.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I won't say that these people could be largely biased against the war, even though its a possibility. Come on..... "we don't have very many known deaths, but just on our estimate, we say 100,000" .... lol, it's almost funny in a sad way.
Which people? The international team that did the research or the journalistic entity which published the finding? But perhaps your beef is with the practice of extrapolating data based on a statistically significant sample of a population. snipped

snipped response to deleted quote

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
What?
Which part was unclear?

snipped

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Actual footage may not lie. snipped
snipped
But hey, maybe you could actually go watch the movie first before you decide that it's all garbage. Who knows.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
I'm sorry to hear that you don't want us in Iraq.
Not sure what this statement has to do with Kyle Smith's review of the film.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, of course, because we should always have to earn our right to be a superpower. We didn't just get there by ourselves.
Remove the sarcasm and I think you'd have the gist of it. Part of being the leader is setting an example and that isn't something you do just one time.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
BTW, did you ever realize that if you are referring to things the U.N. has passed by "international treaties" - we started the U.N.?
We started pet rocks too. Your point?

snipped

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
No, they would come home and then get put in a box because "Abdul" would be masterminding more airplane attacks on prominent American cities.
And we could be spending $2 billion per day here making sure that didn't happen. You feel safer knowing that al qaeda and the madhi army are killing people over there that are supposed to protect us over here? I don't.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Tell me how that is our problem. If these insurgents are too cowardly to put on a uniform, then they are putting their own people at risk, because those soldiers, as you said, are trying to survive. They're not going to wait for them to get shot at first.
Its our problem because there is a moral price to be paid. And while you and I might be paying pennies on the dollar, those men and women over there are taking the brunt of it.

And, btw, it's not cowardice, it's smarts and necessity.

snipped

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
???
snipped Middle easterns have hated americans for years before we went in there. That's why they attacked on 9/11 and killed thousands of civilians.
Indeed because they are upset with americans trifling in their holy land. Since we haven't stopped, I suspect that we can look forward to more of the same in decades to come.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, and what do you think we are doing? Making the world more dangerous by killing these terrorists?
Yep. First, they don't care if they die. In fact, they're hoping that they do because that means a first class ticket to paradise. Second, their sons and brothers probably miss their dads and older brothers and will never forget how the americans killed the breadwinner and left his family in strife. So a decade from now when an impressionable young man with a lot of anger get offered a chance to kill americans and earn a trip to paradise all in one shot, I'm guessing he'll go for it. So yes indeed, we are in fact running a very serious risk of making the world more dangerous by killing these terrorists. Of course this doesn't really account for all the terrorists that we inadvertently create via the same process compliments of collateral damage.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Huh? Since when was the Civil War a guerilla war?
Guerrilla tactics were used. Not all of the fighting took place on battle fields.

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobQel-Droma
Oh, and, just a thought Achilles....
Guerillas don't drive up to soldiers in their cars with bombs and blow themselves up, or go to other countries and suicide bomb airports.
Of course they do.

Guerrilla: of, relating to, or suggestive of guerrillas especially in being aggressive, radical, or unconventional

Take care. Thanks for your response.

Last edited by Jae Onasi; 10-04-2007 at 02:05 PM. Reason: snipped inflammatory/baiting quotes and comments
Achilles is offline   you may: