Taking out the trash in Yemen!!!

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: You are right it is unlike me ot blindly accept things, and I am not here. You see I know exactly what kind of work goes into making a shoot/no shoot decision. I have faith that when it come time to pick targets and make the kill, that the best efforts of the people I worked with has gone into determining if this is the right thing to do. In this case, I believe that they did their homework, they detailed the mission, and when it was time to put the strike package in the air, they waited till they had a clear shot that would get the intended targets and not do unnecessary collateral damage. I guess what I am saying, is that when the chips are down, the people we have making these dicisions are good people and they are doing the right thing. If evidence comes to light later that they were not acting properly, I am also very pro-death penalty for people who abuse the public trust. Thanks for not taking this stuff personally too [img]smile.gif[/img] I know I have been very ernest in my postings on this thread, but I am not trying to condemn anyones point of view, just to illuminate some other factors.

Yep, all understood, I know where you are coming from. And I also know that in all likelihood these people were terrorists as I don't expect the US military to kill people without checking up on it.

What my problem is is that you can't be certain. It says something to me when we have to rely simply on the statement "They wouldn't do something like that without justification!" for example. Or words to that effect... OK, so its unlikely, but thats not my point. We can't just put our belief and faith in the military. Faith is not proof.

And Sir M - I did mention earlier, even if the people in the car were harbouring criminals does that now confer the death penalty? Are we absolutely, 100%, totally, sure that these people could not have in any way been caught and taken to court? It worries me that we will never really know for certain.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: What I mean by it being a Nested game is that we seem to be thinking that the worst thing that could happen to them would be death. This is very far from the truth, thats the point. Attacking them is only going to make them stronger I'm afraid, for exactly the reasons you just stated. The organisations can keep a hold over society because what they say corresponds losely to the facts. The West does prop-up dictators, including in Israel, and it does promote cultural imperialism (as well as the good ol' fashioned kind too). So we can't get ourselves out of this hole by digging I'm afraid, we are going to have to find a way to break the strangle-hold these people have before we just kill them. There isn't a finite amount of people to kill, so we can't kill them and pick up the pieces later. We have to make sure there will never be any more of them first. Sorry, I just really think violence is the wrong move on all sides.

Err I think the people of Isreal would disagree that they have a dictator. The Israelis vote for their leaders and there are always mroe than one candidate and last I heard no one was ever forced to vote for someone they didnt want to there.

As for force, you can't show me a single instance where appeasement has not made things worse in the long run. It didn't work for Nevile Chamberlain, it hasn't worked for Israel and it will not work with islamic extremists since the only way to appease them is to have all western infidels die.

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: And Sir M - I did mention earlier, even if the people in the car were harbouring criminals does that now confer the death penalty? Are we absolutely, 100%, totally, sure that these people could not have in any way been caught and taken to court? It worries me that we will never really know for certain.

Well here we see a fundamental difference between us [img]smile.gif[/img] In my book, if you call someone out into a war (Jihad or whatever word you wish to use) then you automaticly make it a life and death game. Yep they decided to become involved in a situation that every person in the world probably now knows about and just like combat photo-journalists, you automaticly become a possible target for extinction when you put your self in that position. You make your choice, you choose your actions, you live with the consequences. War is not about saving as many offender as possible to take to trial. War is about death, destruction and finality. this is not a "police action" this is not "cops and robbers", it is war. War is a concept that just seems to escape people who don't have to deal with it some times.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: Err I think the people of Isreal would disagree that they have a dictator. The Israelis vote for their leaders and there are always mroe than one candidate and last I heard no one was ever forced to vote for someone they didnt want to there. As for force, you can't show me a single instance where appeasement has not made things worse in the long run. It didn't work for Nevile Chamberlain, it hasn't worked for Israel and it will not work with islamic extremists since the only way to appease them is to have all western infidels die.

Israel has a dictatorial regime in place, not necessarily a dictatorial individual. I know its a bit of a dodgy concept, but considering its the modern South Africa as far as racial discrimination goes the government is not as democratic as either the Israelis or the West in general would like to think.

I'm not talking about appeasement here, I don't want to give into to all of the most radical of fundamentalists. I do think that if the US and UK stops acting so aggressive that it will pull the rug out from under them. I don't think this is appeasement, merely justice for all - not just the white Westerners.

And we must also remember that it can't really be considered appeasement as this is far from a normal war. There is no single body of people to negotiate with, as such there is no one to really "appease". All I'm saying is that if we keep hitting these people we will provide a constant source of power for them. We don't need to give in entirely, just start actually thinking about what these people are saying. Demands like "Israel out of the Occupied territories" are not that radical, and helping on something like that would geeatly decrease support for Al-Quead, Saddam Hussein, and all of the other fundamentalist dictators.

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by MagiK: Well here we see a fundamental difference between us [img]smile.gif[/img] In my book, if you call someone out into a war (Jihad or whatever word you wish to use) then you automaticly make it a life and death game. Yep they decided to become involved in a situation that every person in the world probably now knows about and just like combat photo-journalists, you automaticly become a possible target for extinction when you put your self in that position. You make your choice, you choose your actions, you live with the consequences. War is not about saving as many offender as possible to take to trial. War is about death, destruction and finality. this is not a "police action" this is not "cops and robbers", it is war. War is a concept that just seems to escape people who don't have to deal with it some times.

You can't just put up a barrier of "WAR!" in front of yoru argument to stop people attacking it... I really don't see how the fact that this was during a war means that those people should have died, that we really did have proof, or that this will help. Those are my three main objections, and none of them are changed in any way by the presence of a state of war.

So how would you define this concept of "war" then MagiK? Does some kind of mystical power now bestow people to morally do things they were previously unable to do? Does the nature of poverty change, does the nature of grief change, does the nature of proof change? You cannot declare war and then use it as a justification for any action - the fact that this may or may not have been declared a war by the US does not dampen my objections in any way. Neither does it answer them, IMO. Sorry... [img]smile.gif[/img]

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Legolas: quote: Originally posted by Ziroc: Everyone has an opinion Legolas. Respect that. As for Human rights? They lost them when they killed 1000's of innocent Men, Women and CHILDREN.

Ziroc, I find it hard to believe every single man in that car, or everyone labled "suspected terrorist" for that matter, killed 1000's of innocents. Even if they had, I'm the kind who likes to see evidence before the missile is launched.
I'm not saying you are wrong to be relieved there are one or more terrorists less to threaten your lives, or those of people you love, because you are not.

I could go on about my own opinion in this, but as you said, everyone has their own and we should respect that. So I do.

All I meant to say with my last post, was that I am surprised by some of the reactions. I may be playing too many computer games, but I thought I spotted a certain bloodlust there which I never expected. I hope you understand what I'm trying to say, as I don't know how to finish without sounding potentially offensive, and I've no desire to be.

I am, however, glad to see that some people just hadn't had their morning coffees yet.
(edited for spellig)[/QUOTE]You are still young, guy. When I was your age, I too made judgements on things way to quickly. The people that targeted these terrorists (CIA) knew damn well who was in that car, and that they needed to be 86'ed.

And don't worry, I won't take offense to anything you say. I am open minded enough--and open minded enough to know when its time to take care of busisness.

[Timber Loftis]

The NY Times reported there were 2 top Al Queda members in the car, one of them in BL's inner circle. If we can't find terrorists where they hide, how can we ever stop them?

What would you have the military do Barry? Only fire on terrorists in the act of commiting terrorism? Trotting off to far-flung places to arrest folks is not always an option and endangers American lives. This is war, they were members of Al-Queda.

In war, there are sides, you see. Like in football, if you wear the opposing jersey, you are on the other team. No one stops to ask if you're going to score a goal before they tackle you. War has been declared. They wore the other uniform. Nuff said.

Besides, there is something extremely appealing about taking to violence to them for a change. Sept. 11. Bali bombings. Failed bus bombings. Etc. Etc. It sucks to just sit back a take a beating forever.

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: What I mean by it being a Nested game is that we seem to be thinking that the worst thing that could happen to them would be death. This is very far from the truth, thats the point. Attacking them is only going to make them stronger I'm afraid, for exactly the reasons you just stated. The organisations can keep a hold over society because what they say corresponds losely to the facts. The West does prop-up dictators, including in Israel, and it does promote cultural imperialism (as well as the good ol' fashioned kind too). So we can't get ourselves out of this hole by digging I'm afraid, we are going to have to find a way to break the strangle-hold these people have before we just kill them. There isn't a finite amount of people to kill, so we can't kill them and pick up the pieces later. We have to make sure there will never be any more of them first. Sorry, I just really think violence is the wrong move on all sides.

Just wondering Barry, what would you propose we do then? Give me some ideas..

[Barry the Sprout]

Originally posted by Timber Loftis: The NY Times reported there were 2 top Al Queda members in the car, one of them in BL's inner circle. If we can't find terrorists where they hide, how can we ever stop them? What would you have the military do Barry? Only fire on terrorists in the act of commiting terrorism? Trotting off to far-flung places to arrest folks is not always an option and endangers American lives. This is war, they were members of Al-Queda. In war, there are sides, you see. Like in football, if you wear the opposing jersey, you are on the other team. No one stops to ask if you're going to score a goal before they tackle you. War has been declared. They wore the other uniform. Nuff said. Besides, there is something extremely appealing about taking to violence to them for a change. Sept. 11. Bali bombings. Failed bus bombings. Etc. Etc. It sucks to just sit back a take a beating forever.

The last paragraph is just the kind of problem I'm talking about. Everyone on one side gets annoyed by the attacks from the other side, so they decide to attack back! No prizes for guessing what the other side then do in retaliation. I hope we enjoy this piece of "taking the violence to them" for a while as it will almost certainly cost lives. And not just inconsequential Arab lives either, important White American ones possibly.

What I would have the West do is stop supporting Israel in its blitz on the Palestinians. Stop supporting dictators of any kind in order to gain a foothold against another dictator. Stop imposing sanctions on nations. Stop killing people in a way that looks, whatever the reality, extremely bad. And then I think the West should start adhering to UN policy, and actually listening occasionally to the Arab opposition. Just my opinion though.

And Ziroc, because we don't support a military strike against a target without proof we are the naive ones? Seems a bit awry to me... Surely the world-weary response to this event would be that we really don't know for certain what information the decision to strike was made on. Not that we should trust people, as to not trust would be naive.

EDITED, for clarification of my post. It got a bit weird and reading it back I wasn't entirely sure people would be able to make out what the hell I actually meant... Seems to have answered your question too Ziroc, or at least I hope so.

[ 11-05-2002, 12:23 PM: Message edited by: Barry the Sprout ]

[Ziroc]

Originally posted by Barry the Sprout: quote: Originally posted by MagiK: Well here we see a fundamental difference between us [img]smile.gif[/img] In my book, if you call someone out into a war (Jihad or whatever word you wish to use) then you automaticly make it a life and death game. Yep they decided to become involved in a situation that every person in the world probably now knows about and just like combat photo-journalists, you automaticly become a possible target for extinction when you put your self in that position. You make your choice, you choose your actions, you live with the consequences. War is not about saving as many offender as possible to take to trial. War is about death, destruction and finality. this is not a "police action" this is not "cops and robbers", it is war. War is a concept that just seems to escape people who don't have to deal with it some times.

You can't just put up a barrier of "WAR!" in front of yoru argument to stop people attacking it... I really don't see how the fact that this was during a war means that those people should have died, that we really did have proof, or that this will help. Those are my three main objections, and none of them are changed in any way by the presence of a state of war.

So how would you define this concept of "war" then MagiK? Does some kind of mystical power now bestow people to morally do things they were previously unable to do? Does the nature of poverty change, does the nature of grief change, does the nature of proof change? You cannot declare war and then use it as a justification for any action - the fact that this may or may not have been declared a war by the US does not dampen my objections in any way. Neither does it answer them, IMO. Sorry... [img]smile.gif[/img] [/QUOTE]In wartime, it is kill or BE killed. It sucks, but this is reality. If you were face to face with one of these guys, and you both had a gun--knowing that this guy WILL kill you, would you defend yourself? I would hope so! [img]smile.gif[/img]

It's like that, but on a global scale. See, we have been going directly to these people, and taking them out. not an entire city block or something. I agree, killing is horrid, and I wish no one killed anyone, but the facts are, if we don't get them, they WILL get us. No about of security cameras, guards and scanners will keep us safe forever.