Is terrorism an effective way to advance one cause?
Options
Comments
-
obviously my memory doesn't serve as well as i thought it might. it was going on 10 years ago.. jeez.. & 45 minutes is still more than enough time to intercept.. all you have to do is research & you'll have all the evidence you need.. norad controls our skies.. if they're not told to stand down, what other reason would they have to let it happen? you think they sleep like that?fiat_money wrote: »Do you have proof that NORAD was told to stand down? If so, do you have proof that this wasn't an error in communicating the threat, or a genuine mistaking of the threat as a drill? Assuming the observation that NORAD was told to stand down is true, how does this immediately lead to the conclusion that 9/11 was an inside job?
Also, as far as I know, each of the planes hijacked were crashed within 40 minutes of their hijacking. So what is the "1 & a half" hour statement in reference to?
& the Operation Northwoods ? speaks for itself.. so for condelisa to say they never even considered airliners could be used as weapons just isn't true.
fyi: your lack of research into the topic doesn't translate into me bolsterin' your previous statements.. -
rusty shackleford wrote: »oh rlly? the freedom of information act says differently.. [& i believe they flooded our streets with ? but for the record, i never saw a house bill for the appropriation of 10 million in u.s. tax dollars to invent ? .]
? say all kinds of ? at Congressional hearings. In the 90s, there were a bunch of experts that testified to Congress that Iran was 5 years away from a Nuclear Bomb, for example.
Its gonna take more than 2 page scans for me to say that the millions of doctors and microbiologists are engaged in some massive cover-up conspiracy. Those stupid AIDS conspiracies are the reason crazy South African ? think ? a baby "cures" AIDS smfh. -
i dunno what to say besides: read "? Blood" by Dr. Alan Cantwell Jr. MD. he'll break it down for you.Swiffness! wrote: »? say all kinds of ? at Congressional hearings. In the 90s, there were a bunch of experts that testified to Congress that Iran was 5 years away from a Nuclear Bomb, for example.
Its gonna take more than 2 page scans for me to say that the millions of doctors and microbiologists are engaged in some massive cover-up conspiracy. -
That's the thing, I have researched these topics:rusty shackleford wrote: »obviously my memory doesn't serve as well as i thought it might. it was going on 10 years ago.. jeez.. & 45 minutes is still more than enough time to intercept.. all you have to do is research & you'll have all the evidence you need.. norad controls our skies.. if they're not told to stand down, what other reason would they have to let it happen? you think they sleep like that?
& the Operation Northwoods ? speaks for itself.. so for condelisa to say they never even considered airliners could be used as weapons just isn't true.
fyi: your lack of research into the topic doesn't translate into me bolsterin' your previous statements..
I was genuinely asking about the "1 & a half" hour statement, as I could not determine if it was refering to 9/11 or something else. This "something else" I speak of is the golfer's jet which you mentioned earlier; which I assume is Learjet 35 of Payne Stewart. This plane took off at 9:20am, contact was lost at 9:33am, and a F-16 reached the plane for communication at 10:52am. The time between the loss of communication and the F-16 intercept was 1 hour and 19 minutes; which is quite close to 1 and a half hours. This time period was significantly longer than the longest of the time periods it took to hijack and crash a plane on 9/11.
NORAD is responsible for the area that surrounds the U.S. known as ADIZ; therefore, they prepare to address hijackings within the ADIZ. The planes were hijacked within America, but outside of the ADIZ; there was no planning done to handle such a situation. So, not only were they lacking preparation, they had much less time than it took for the government to intercept in the prior incident.
The Operation Northwoods document was made public in 1997, years before 9/11. Rice's ignorance of the document and its contents merely reflects her own lack of knowledge, not some government cover-up.
FYI: Your lack of research into the topic doesn't translate into 9/11 being an inside job. -
so if something involves ? NUCLEAR WEAPONS, it's terrorism? because i note you, like a lot of people on the internet, seem outraged by those bombings while sparing no commentary for conventional bombings. and it makes the argument's shaky nature clearfiat_money wrote: »America's atomic bombing of Hiroshima and Nagasaki, was probably one of the largest single acts of terrorism in the Earth's history, but you won't hear it called that by the U.S.
...see the previous commentsone_manshow wrote: »The US alone did an act of terrorism with the atomic bombing back in the days.
this is quite the oversimplification, if only because not all terrorists think the same things and belong to the same organizationsCarlos Bruise-Her wrote: »And I told him they're fighting the same type of system that oppressed the founders of this country.
for the sake of argument, the Taliban has killed innocent people on occasions other than 9/11for the sake of argument lets say taliban was behind 9/11 how many died that day?? over 3,000 innocent??
let's not shorten the story that way, because it makes you give him WAY too much creditdpresidential wrote: »To make a long story short, Osama repelled the Soviets from taking Afghanistan.
this is the part where your argument collapsedrusty shackleford wrote: »& the history channel completely backs this up... -
Where did I state it was terrorism because nuclear weapons were involved?so if something involves ? NUCLEAR WEAPONS, it's terrorism? because i note you, like a lot of people on the internet, seem outraged by those bombings while sparing no commentary for conventional bombings. and it makes the argument's shaky nature clear
It's not the method that makes it terrorism, but the goal of the attack. The United States bombed Japan's cities to use fear of future bombing as a means of coercing Japan to end the brutal fight against America. For that reason alone, it is terrorism.
Nothing as insignificant as the killing of others can "outrage" me. -
it's implied because it's the only bombing you mention. to continue:fiat_money wrote: »Where did I state it was terrorism because nuclear weapons were involved?
the US conventionally bombed other cities in Japan (not to mention Germany) for the same reason. however, for some reason, you did the default internet outrage thing, which is to rage about the ? NUCLEAR BOMBINGS and not comment on the bombings that did the exact same thing you're complaining about while not being nuclear. this in turn implies your outrage is for effect (such as being a cool internet rebel hatin' on the US or being a cool internet rebel hatin' on nuclear weapons) rather than sincerefiat_money wrote: »It's not the method that makes it terrorism, but the goal of the attack. The United States bombed Japan's cities to use fear of future bombing as a means of coercing Japan to end the brutal fight against America. For that reason alone, it is terrorism. -
1st things 1st.. A lil' common sense: Have you ever heard of a pilot learning to fly in a Cesna [by all witness accounts mind you] & then being able to magically fly a 757?? Not only fly it but fly it ? shot fighter pilot style? Yeah.. Me neither.. The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls. They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.fiat_money wrote: »That's the thing, I have researched these topics:
I was genuinely asking about the "1 & a half" hour statement, as I could not determine if it was refering to 9/11 or something else. This "something else" I speak of is the golfer's jet which you mentioned earlier; which I assume is Learjet 35 of Payne Stewart. This plane took off at 9:20am, contact was lost at 9:33am, and a F-16 reached the plane for communication at 10:52am. The time between the loss of communication and the F-16 intercept was 1 hour and 19 minutes; which is quite close to 1 and a half hours. This time period was significantly longer than the longest of the time periods it took to hijack and crash a plane on 9/11.
NORAD is responsible for the area that surrounds the U.S. known as ADIZ; therefore, they prepare to address hijackings within the ADIZ. The planes were hijacked within America, but outside of the ADIZ; there was no planning done to handle such a situation. So, not only were they lacking preparation, they had much less time than it took for the government to intercept in the prior incident.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.
There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
Moving on..
The United States Air Force (USAF) is the most technologically advanced, and the most dominate military force ever known to man. There were seven Air Stations that were armed and on full alert to protect the continental United States on Tuesday September 11, 2001. The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, Florida. The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, CA; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas.
There were at least 28 other USAF bases [7 bases on full alert] that were in range of the 4 airliners on 911.
& umm.... NORAD is a binational United States and Canadian organization charged with warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes providing surveillance and control of Canadian and United States airspace. The job of NORAD is to know every inch of the skies over North America.
Around 8:45 a.m. [As a NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder is reported as saying] the FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines Flight 175 has been hijacked. NORAD has officially admitted that the FAA told them about the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 175 at 8:43. So, now NORAD knows about two hijackings and American Airlines Flight 11 has been barreling down on New York City since turning south at 8:26, and is just 3 minutes away from impacting the WTC. What does NORAD do with this new information? Do they immediately scramble the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts? Again, no they dont, they sit on this most vital information of now two hijacked airliners. Stand Down.
The Stand Down Memo:
Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.
This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field.
While none of this relieves the Bush Administration from ultimate responsibility from 911, the "Stand Down" was implemented through a routine administrative memo. The question here is, why tie the hands of the people actually able to do something about it right away?
& remember the coincidence in london i spoke about?
Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building
Wed Aug 21, 7:45 PM ET
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence, one U.S. intelligence agency was planning an exercise last Sept. 11 in which an errant aircraft would crash into one of its buildings. But the cause wasn't terrorism — it was to be a simulated accident.
Officials at the Chantilly, Virginia-based National Reconnaissance Office had scheduled an exercise that morning in which a small corporate jet would crash into one of the four towers at the agency's headquarters building after experiencing a mechanical failure.
The agency is about 4 miles (6 kilometers) from the runways of Washington Dulles International Airport.
Agency chiefs came up with the scenario to test employees' ability to respond to a disaster, said spokesman Art Haubold. No actual plane was to be involved — to simulate the damage from the crash, some stairwells and exits were to be closed off, forcing employees to find other ways to evacuate the building.
"It was just an incredible coincidence that this happened to involve an aircraft crashing into our facility," Haubold said. "As soon as the real world ( news - Y! TV) events began, we canceled the exercise."
Terrorism was to play no role in the exercise, which had been planned for several months, he said.
Adding to the coincidence, American Airlines Flight 77 — the Boeing 767 that was hijacked and crashed into the Pentagon ( news - web sites) — took off from Dulles at 8:10 a.m. on Sept. 11, 50 minutes before the exercise was to begin. It struck the Pentagon around 9:40 a.m., killing 64 aboard the plane and 125 on the ground.
The National Reconnaissance Office operates many of the nation's spy satellites. It draws its personnel from the military and the CIA ( news - web sites).
After the Sept. 11 attacks, most of the 3,000 people who work at agency headquarters were sent home, save for some essential personnel, Haubold said.
An announcement for an upcoming homeland security conference in Chicago first noted the exercise.
In a promotion for speaker John Fulton, a CIA officer assigned as chief of NRO's strategic gaming division, the announcement says, "On the morning of September 11th 2001, Mr. Fulton and his team ... were running a pre-planned simulation to explore the emergency response issues that would be created if a plane were to strike a building. Little did they know that the scenario would come true in a dramatic way that day." -
& do they just appropriate 10 million dollars onna whim any given day?Swiffness! wrote: »? say all kinds of ? at Congressional hearings..
In this PUBLIC record it states clearly that, "within a period of 5 to 10 years, it will be possible to produce a synthetic biological agent, an agent that does not naturally exist, and for which no natural immunity could have been aquired.." it goes on to say, "it is a highly controversial issue & there are many who believe that such research should not be undertaken lest it lead to another method of massive killing of large populations.." they knew what they were doing & justified it by going on to say that if we didn't invent it first, we'd be at a scientific disadvantage when another country did... <-how ? ' ? do you have to be to come to that conclusion? sounds like an excuse for genocide to me..
so what they did after it was created was put it in "a new experimental hepititus vaccine".. advertised it as such & requested promiscuous white homosexual males for the vaccines trial runs. then they sent these "vaccines" to L.A., San Francisco, New York &.. Africa to use ? & blacks as guinea pigs. Dr. Alan Cantwell is a dermatologist as well as a internationally known scientific researcher in the field of cancer and AIDS microbiology.. He's the author of more than 30 published papers on cancer & immunological diseases, which have appeared in leading national & international medical journals.. & He's 100% completely debunked the African Green Monkey theory & the "origin" of ? /AIDS as having been from Africa. The truth is some scary ? but I'd rather be aware of it instead of hiding my head in the sand in hopes of it just going away. that's just me though. -
I believe that terrorism is effective, but not for advancing their cause. Sure, on the surface, Islamic extremists are saying they are doing this for ? (Allah) but they are really doing this for their own self gratification. They could care less about it (or don't understand it). If Islam is going to help someone get what they want, they will wave the banner until the superficial goal is reached. If the war was to end and Islam wins, would peace actually reign? I like to think that the violence will never stop. There will even be battles between each other.
-
The red part is conjecture, or hearsay since it appears the only sources are the sites it's been commonly copied and pasted from for years. Unless you have proof of its claims.rusty shackleford wrote: »1st things 1st.. A lil' common sense: Have you ever heard of a pilot learning to fly in a Cesna [by all witness accounts mind you] & then being able to magically fly a 757?? Not only fly it but fly it ? shot fighter pilot style? Yeah.. Me neither.. The Boeing 757 and 767 are equipped with fully autonomous flight capability, they are the only two Boeing commuter aircraft capable of fully autonomous flight. They can be programmed to take off, fly to a destination and land, completely without a pilot at the controls. They are intelligent planes, and have software limits pre set so that pilot error cannot cause passenger injury. Though they are physically capable of high g maneuvers, the software in their flight control systems prevents high g maneuvers from being performed via the cockpit controls. They are limited to approximately 1.5 g's, I repeat, one and one half g's. This is so that a pilot mistake cannot end up breaking grandma's neck.
No matter what the pilot wants, he cannot override this feature.
The plane that hit the Pentagon approached or reached its actual physical limits, military personnel have calculated that the Pentagon plane pulled between five and seven g's in its final turn.
The same is true for the second aircraft to impact the WTC.
There is only one way this can happen.
As well as fully autonomous flight capability, the 767 and 757 are the ONLY COMMUTER PLANES MADE BY BOEING THAT CAN BE FLOWN VIA REMOTE CONTROL. It is a feature that is standard to all of them, all 757's and 767's can do it. The purpose for this is if there is a problem with the pilots, Norad can fly the planes to safe destinations via remote. Only in this flight mode can those craft exceed their software limits and perform to their actual physical limits because a pre existing emergency situation is assumed if this mode of flight is used.
Moving on..
The United States Air Force (USAF) is the most technologically advanced, and the most dominate military force ever known to man. There were seven Air Stations that were armed and on full alert to protect the continental United States on Tuesday September 11, 2001. The Air National Guard exclusively performs the air sovereignty mission in the continental United States, and those units fall under the control of the 1st Air Force based at Tyndall Air Force Base (AFB) in Panama City, Florida. The Air National Guard maintains seven alert sites with 14 fully armed fighters and pilots on call around the clock. Besides Tyndall AFB, alert birds also sit armed and ready at; Homestead Air Reserve Base (ARB), Homestead, Florida; Langley AFB, Hampton, Virginia; Otis Air National Guard (ANG), Falmouth, Massachusetts; Oregon ANG, Portland, Oregon; March ARB, Riverside, CA; and Ellington ANG, Houston, Texas.
There were at least 28 other USAF bases [7 bases on full alert] that were in range of the 4 airliners on 911.
& umm.... NORAD is a binational United States and Canadian organization charged with warning of attack against North America whether by aircraft, missiles, or space vehicles, utilizing mutual support arrangements with other commands. Aerospace control includes providing surveillance and control of Canadian and United States airspace. The job of NORAD is to know every inch of the skies over North America.
Around 8:45 a.m. [As a NORAD spokesman, Major Mike Snyder is reported as saying] the FAA notifies NORAD that United Airlines Flight 175 has been hijacked. NORAD has officially admitted that the FAA told them about the hijacking of United Airlines Flight 175 at 8:43. So, now NORAD knows about two hijackings and American Airlines Flight 11 has been barreling down on New York City since turning south at 8:26, and is just 3 minutes away from impacting the WTC. What does NORAD do with this new information? Do they immediately scramble the 102nd Fighter Wing of the Otis Air National Guard Base in Falmouth, Massachusetts? Again, no they dont, they sit on this most vital information of now two hijacked airliners. Stand Down.
The Stand Down Memo:
Jim Hoffman has discovered a document which superseded earlier DOD procedures for dealing with hijacked aircraft, and it requires that Secretary of Defense Rumsfeld is personally responsible for issuing intercept orders. Commanders in the field are stripped of all authority to act. This amazing order came from S.A. Fry (Vice Admiral, US Navy and Director, Joint Staff) so it appears to me that responsibility for the US armed forces "Failure to Respond" rests directly with Fry for issuing this instruction, as well as with Donald Rumsfeld for failing to execute his responsibility to issue orders in a timely fashion.
Chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Instruction CJCSI 3610.01A (dated 1 June 2001) was issued for the purpose of providing "guidance to the Deputy Director for Operations (DDO), National Military Command Center (NMCC), and operational commanders in the event of an aircraft piracy (hijacking) or request for destruction of derelict airborne objects." This new instruction superseded CJCSI 3610.01 of 31 July 1997.
This CJCSI states that "In the event of a hijacking, the NMCC will be notified by the most expeditious means by the FAA. The NMCC will, with the exception of immediate responses as authorized by reference d, forward requests for DOD assistance to the Secretary of Defense for approval."
Reference D refers to Department of Defense Directive 3025.15 (Feb. 18, 1997) which allows for commanders in the field to provide assistance to save lives in an emergency situation -- BUT any requests involving "potentially lethal support" (including "combat and tactical vehicles, vessels or aircraft; or ammunition") must still be approved by the Secretary of Defense. So again, the ability to respond to a hijacking in any meaningful fashion, is stripped from the commanders in the field.
While none of this relieves the Bush Administration from ultimate responsibility from 911, the "Stand Down" was implemented through a routine administrative memo. The question here is, why tie the hands of the people actually able to do something about it right away?
& remember the coincidence in london i spoke about?
Agency planned exercise on Sept. 11 built around a plane crashing into a building
Wed Aug 21, 7:45 PM ET
By JOHN J. LUMPKIN, Associated Press Writer
WASHINGTON - In what the government describes as a bizarre coincidence,...
The blue part is merely an observation. Or do you have evidence that it directly means 9/11 was an inside job?
NORAD now monitors the area outside of the ADIZ inside of America. Prior to 9/11, they did not. Source? The following is from NORAD's own website "Approximately 7,000 aircraft per day or 2.5 million aircraft a year enter Canada and the United States. Since the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, the AWC's mission of Aerospace Warning and Aerospace Control has expanded to include the interior airspace of North America. Today, the AWC monitors approximately 5,000 aircraft flying inside Canada and the United States in addition to monitoring aircraft entering North America.". Link.
Do you have in proof for this section?
The last part is just as you say, a "coincidence". Assuming you don't have some non-conjecture evidence that it directly proves the 9/11 was an inside job claim. -
Hell yeah it's effective. Look at the U.S. We spy on people's bank accounts, telephone conversations, etc. ? full body scans and ? , gotta walk into an airport praying you dont get pulled in some room and get cavity searched, torturing people, black site prisons, ? is ridiculous. The point of terrorism is to cause fear and fear + Big government = less freedom. Terrorists won.
-
It depends on what you define as terrorism. Islam and Christianity were spread at first through blood and steel for the most part, and these two religions are now the largest in the world. So terrorism was effective in this respect. The USA became a global power AFTER the Native Americans were slaughtered and butchered in their OWN LAND! Amazing.....I hate to say it but terrorism can be very effective. Just ask the Congolese about the Belgiums....their reign of terror there was short lived, but quite effective. White people are the biggest terrorists of all time, and we all see how effective their terrorism has been! As far as Islamic terrorism, it will not work against the USA. Our weapons are much more capable of terrorizing people compared to Al Qaeda's weapons. F-16s>>>>>random suicide bomber.
-
i am not sure "conquering stuff" is the same thing as "terrorism"kingblaze84 wrote: »It depends on what you define as terrorism. Islam and Christianity were spread at first through blood and steel for the most part, and these two religions are now the largest in the world. So terrorism was effective in this respect. The USA became a global power AFTER the Native Americans were slaughtered and butchered in their OWN LAND! Amazing.....I hate to say it but terrorism can be very effective. Just ask the Congolese about the Belgiums....their reign of terror there was short lived, but quite effective. -
Worked fine for America. Funny how when yo blow up innocent people with a 500 LBS bomb from an F-16 it's a "tactical strike" and the civilian deaths are an accident.
But when you blow innocent people with a 25 LBS bomb with nails taped around it and yourself with it it's a "terrorist strike" and the civilian deaths were a cowardly act. War itself is terrorism. It's not not terrorism just because your PR team is better than the next.
Terrorism works just fine. What you all are talking about is guerrilla warfare. And that works too but should really just be used for self defense. Bin laden even said he was going to draw our military into an attack that would ? our economy and strain our military. I'd say he got his wish. he should have a mission accomplished banner in his cave in his next video LOL -
Thank you everyone for contributing
-
well, in fairness, there IS a difference between a bomb not aimed at civilians that accidentally kills them and a bomb that INTENTIONALLY targets civilians. it might not make you feel better to get killed by the former instead of the latter, but there IS a difference.DarcSkies777 wrote: »Funny how when yo blow up innocent people with a 500 LBS bomb from an F-16 it's a "tactical strike" and the civilian deaths are an accident. ... But when you blow innocent people with a 25 LBS bomb with nails taped around it and yourself with it it's a "terrorist strike" and the civilian deaths were a cowardly act. -
given the pattern of history it definitely is effective. the only thing that seems to seal the deal is who has the most firepower to win. once you win, you can damn near rewrite as you see fit.
-
well, in fairness, there IS a difference between a bomb not aimed at civilians that accidentally kills them and a bomb that INTENTIONALLY targets civilians. it might not make you feel better to get killed by the former instead of the latter, but there IS a difference.
How is there a difference when the numbers of actual civilians are always hidden to the public or sometimes not even released? Unless you lived in these countries before you probably don't know what its like to wake up in the morning where ya moms, father and siblings are all dead because a missile hit your house and you made it out alive. Its exactly the same thing the U.S is doing but when the same is done to them they wanna label it "terrorism"?
Turn off the TV and put down those books cause you seem to not see the bigger picture here. -
well, let me start with the quote again: "between a bomb not aimed at civilians that accidentally kills them and a bomb that INTENTIONALLY targets civilians." if you don't see the difference between the two of those things, you're probably being willfully ignorant of it because you want to rage against a) the US or whoever or b) bombs and violence in general as sort of an idealistic goal. the fact is the average terrorist bombing is NOT the exact same thing the US does; trying to insist on that weakens the argument.one_manshow wrote: »How is there a difference when the numbers of actual civilians are always hidden to the public or sometimes not even released?
side note:
people that say this kind of thing on the internet have never "lived in these countries." also, we're going to run with the "you cannot be right about an argument unless you have experienced the events being debated first-hand" theory again?one_manshow wrote: »Unless you lived in these countries before you probably don't know what its like to wake up in the morning where ya moms, father and siblings are all dead because a missile hit your house and you made it out alive
another solid notion that is, of course, not based on knowing what i actually watch or read. but whateverone_manshow wrote: »Turn off the TV and put down those books cause you seem to not see the bigger picture here. -
I dont think the US has intentionally targeted innocents directly but surely have targeted them indirectly. Not caring if you ? 50 civilians to get one guy that MIGHT be hiding in a particular apartment building is just as bad (in my view).well, in fairness, there IS a difference between a bomb not aimed at civilians that accidentally kills them and a bomb that INTENTIONALLY targets civilians
Obama just stopped that practice of just Predator Droning the ? out of places before you know what the civilian casualties will be.
"hey we were aiming at the guy next door" doesnt mean much to Muhammad Al Shaheed or whatever who simply sees his dead Mother as an Act of American terrorism against Muslims.
...just not a huge one.but there IS a difference. -
i agree it's bad, although i'm still going to split hairs in that it's not a choice between "intentionally killing civilians" and "killing civilians intentionally, but for a greater good." sometimes it IS accidental.DarcSkies777 wrote: »I dont think the US has intentionally targeted innocents directly but surely have targeted them indirectly. Not caring if you ? 50 civilians to get one guy that MIGHT be hiding in a particular apartment building is just as bad (in my view).
actually, this is not accurate: under McChrystal, drone strikes have actually INCREASED. what he's big on cutting back on are the more conventional airstrikes, which help cause the civilian casualties.DarcSkies777 wrote: »Obama just stopped that practice of just Predator Droning the ? out of places before you know what the civilian casualties will be.
true. and it's a very good reason to take care in using drone strikes or bombings or what have you. but from the perspective where you know the civilian deaths to be accidental, it's unfair to say that's the EXACT same thing as intentionally killing civilians.DarcSkies777 wrote: »"hey we were aiming at the guy next door" doesnt mean much to Muhammad Al Shaheed or whatever who simply sees his dead Mother as an Act of American terrorism against Muslims. -
Fair enough. And I should have said he drew back on the CIA drone strikes because they didnt get them cleared with him before they attacked. I erred when I implied that it was drone strikes period. My bad.
Otherwise, fair enough on your other points. But if Iran launched a drone strike to ? the guy next door to me and my 10 year old daughter (that I dont have BTW lol) got killed. I wouldnt give a ? how sorry they were about it and "we didnt mean to" wouldnt make me scream "Death to Iran!" any less loudly. -
Janklow your reasoning makes no sense at all.
-
i agree it's bad, although i'm still going to split hairs in that it's not a choice between "intentionally killing civilians" and "killing civilians intentionally, but for a greater good." sometimes it IS accidental.
actually, this is not accurate: under McChrystal, drone strikes have actually INCREASED. what he's big on cutting back on are the more conventional airstrikes, which help cause the civilian casualties.
true. and it's a very good reason to take care in using drone strikes or bombings or what have you. but from the perspective where you know the civilian deaths to be accidental, it's unfair to say that's the EXACT same thing as intentionally killing civilians.
Intentions always differ, I mean we have a group of people that recieve heavy training using the greatest weapons on the planet, trained to ? . the military has always fought against innocent people that was the case during rome and now as well. saying they are not intentionally killing innocents is like saying war is peacefull....hell what is the difference between a brainwashed soldier and a brain washed extremist? one drops ? ? /cluster bombs in 'residantial areas' causing 'colletaral' damage, the other blows himself up in 'residential areas' causing 'innocent victims'. they both might feel they are doing it for the greater cause....both might feel those innocents aren't innocent. Never lose your insight jank, you probably know some us soldiers and feel their intentions are good/are great fellas, you forgot that those they are fighting could be cool dudes with 'noble' intentions as well. perception is key
