An interesting read

[The Yankee]

This all had to come from somewhere. No group of people got together and said "Hey, let's be islamofascists!" and started bombing things. The victims of those attacks should be remembered and avenged, IMO. Yet it does no good to simply throw away the histories behind such attacks. It'd be like dismissing the follies of Chamberlain, the effects of the Versailles Treaty, etc., etc., etc. to see why Hitler rose to power and started attacking the rest of Europe.

 

[Ecofarm]

What countries?

You do realise that the most hidiously repressive and anti-democratic regimes in the Middle east, are your buddies?

You do realize that they are not "my" or anyone's buddies, right? They are tools being used against each other. Let's not give them more credit than they deserve.

This all had to come from somewhere. No group of people got together and said "Hey, let's be islamofascists!" and started bombing things. The victims of those attacks should be remembered and avenged, IMO. Yet it does no good to simply throw away the histories behind such attacks. It'd be like dismissing the follies of Chamberlain, the effects of the Versailles Treaty, etc., etc., etc. to see why Hitler rose to power and started attacking the rest of Europe.

I agree, but I am not about to blame anyone else for their actions. 9/11 was not a case of "justifiable homocide". Nor are the suicide bombs in Israel, nor the trains in Spain. They made their bed, and they will die in it.

What we've got here is failure to communicate. Some men you just can't reach. So you get what we had here last week, which is the way he wants it. Well, he gets it. I don't like it anymore than you [do]

-Cool Hand Luke

 

[C~G]

If anyone deserves justice, it is the women and children and innocent men killed intentionally by terrorists.

And US military is intentionally by proxy killing innocent women and children.

Even if they don't target them necessarily purposedfully or intentionally every single time bomb is dropped or missile is fired, as whole operation of war is always about knowing that the intent is to kill and the results can be disastrous to civilian population. So there's intent to kill also civilian people.

Sorry to state the obvious.

What comes to the article I agree with warpus.
Did make me lol though.

 

[Godwynn]

What is with all of this 'ZOMG THE MUSLIMS ARE TAKING OVER' nonsense?

This reminds of an e-mail my woman received. She got one regarding Barack Obama and how he is really a radical Muslim because his middle name is 'Hussein'. He is secretly working with Al Qaeda to take over the United States and turn it into a Radical Muslim country and destroy the West.

I for one do not care if 20% of France is Muslim and that number will only grow. Oh my gosh Britain is next! Snore. The majority of Americans in 2025 will be Hispanic! Run for the hills... The religion and ethnicity of the people are not the problem, it is the people, nothing more and nothing less. For some reason these close minded rednecks around here think once Muslims have a 51% majority that they will take over the government, establish an Islamic dictatorship, and start romping through random Christian countries as they please. Maybe it is just fear, a feeling I lost a long time ago.

 

[Fugitive Sisyphus]

I stopped reading once I read that the Iraq war is a bigger threat than WWII was.

We are hated for our freedoms but perhaps this not the only or primary reason.

 

[Ecofarm]

And US military is intentionally by proxy killing innocent women and children.

Even if they don't target them necessarily purposedfully or intentionally every single time bomb is dropped or missile is fired, as whole operation of war is always about knowing that the intent is to kill and the results can be disastrous to civilian population. So there's intent to kill also civilian people.

Sorry to state the obvious.

You did not state the obvious, you invented new definitions for the word "intentionally". The US does not intentionally kill civilians. The US does not target civilians. Terrorists do. By mixing "intentionally" with a dash of "proxy", you do not change the word "intention". You see, the word "intentionally" includes the word "intention" and it is not the intention of the US to kill civilians. The US does accept the reality of collateral damage, but that is not the intention. If that was the US's intention, the US could kill them all very easily.

Sorry to state the obvious.

 

[The Lombard]

I think, Ecofarm, that you are a sophist. Not least in conflating 'US as State' with the people who live in it, and hair-splitting over 'intentions'. I hardly think that US military targeting policy is made any less worse simply because it's not as bad as that of militant Islamic terrorists.

But bang on, little soldier! After all, arbitrary self-recognized affiliation is a tough line to break from! And I especially liked the 'cry me a river' line. I think that tells me all I need to know about the quality of your views.

 

[Japanrocks12]

and so here we are again, paragons of virtue.

 

[Phlegmak]

I didn't think anyone really believed the THEY HATE US BECAUSE OF OUR FREEDOMS! BS until now.

Sean Hannity or Michael Savage repeat that fairly often.

 

[Ecofarm]

I think, Ecofarm, that you are a sophist. Not least in conflating 'US as State' with the people who live in it, and hair-splitting over 'intentions'. I hardly think that US military targeting policy is made any less worse simply because it's not as bad as that of militant Islamic terrorists.
But bang on, little soldier! After all, arbitrary self-recognized affiliation is a tough line to break from! And I especially liked the 'cry me a river' line. I think that tells me all I need to know about the quality of your views.

"Not as bad as"? Try: completely different than.

Anyone who believes that the difference between suicide bombers and the US military is "splitting hairs" is a terrorist sympathizer. Using words according to their ACTUAL definition is not splitting hairs.

When someone says: "The US intentionally kills civilians", you do not see a problem with that statement?

You think that if someone says "Hey, wait a minute! The US does not intentionally kill civilians", then that person is merely "splitting hairs"?

Seriously?

If I am, in fact, a "sophist" and have intentionally deceived or confused anyone (I had to look it up), I humbly apologize; however, I do not see any attempt to decieve or confuse in my retort to someone claiming that the US intentionally kills civilians.

 

[Stewbert 08]

Of course the US intentionally kills civilians.

Unless you think that every single Iraqi civilian death from an American bullet or bomb was an accident that the Army was utterly incapable of foreseeing?

The US army carries out military actions that result in easily-predicted numbers of civilian deaths (such as, I dunno, bombing city neighborhoods), and still chooses to carry out those acts, therefore it is responsible for those civilian deaths.

Is that redeemed by Feeling Very Sorry About It after the fact? Ask the corpses.

What your statement actually means is "the USA does not deliberately seek out specific civilians and murder them." A standard for "killing civilians" so narrowly stupid it doesn't even apply to the 9-11 hijackers. Did they care exactly who was in the towers that morning?

 

[Ecofarm]

What your statement actually means is "the USA does not deliberately seek out specific civilians and murder them." A standard for "killing civilians" so narrowly stupid it doesn't even apply to the 9-11 hijackers. Did they care exactly who was in the towers that morning?

Wrong. What my statement actually means is: "the USA does not deliberately seek out ANY civilians and murder them".

It has nothing to do with specificity. Don't put words in my mouth.

The 9/11 hijackers definately INTENDED to kill innocent civilians. There was no military target hiding in the Twin Towers. If you want to argue that the plane that hit the pentagon attacked a military target and the civilians on the plane were collateral damage - you may have some grey area there. But suicide bombs at cafes definately do not qualify as military operations.

Did I say that the US does not kill civilians? No. I said they do not do it intentionally. Do you also need a definition of "intention"? Basically, it means: what you mean to do. The US does not want to kill civilians. It does not do so intentionally. Just because the US accepts the reality of collateral damage, does not mean the civilians are killed intentionally. The purpose of US missions are not: kill civilians. The intention is to kill military targets, not civilians. Terrorists WANT to kill civilians. It is their INTENTION. Innocent civilians are their TARGET.

Do you understand what intentionally means? Do you see the difference between intentionally killing civilians and collateral damage? Perhaps for you, there is no difference between collateral damage and the intentional targeting of civilians...

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Without our support Great Britain will go too. Recently I read that there are more mosques in England than hurches.

And where did Dr. Chong read this? He should give a source when implying numerical data.

And what is a "hurch?"

To bring our country to a virtual political standstill over this prisoner issue makes us look like Nero playing his fiddle as Rome burned -- totally oblivious to what is going on in the real world.

Nero did not play a fiddle. He played a lyre, and he wasn't even in Rome when the fire broke out.

And finally, name any Muslim countries throughout the world that ... have been productive in one single way that contributes to the good of the world.

Oh, I dunno... does Dr. Chong still use Roman numerals? Or has he condescended to use Arabic numerals? How much of his medical knowledge was saved for the world's doctors because an Arab doctor preserved and taught it? I myself am grateful to Arab astronomers and mathematicians every time I go outside and do some stargazing or read astronomy articles. I suppose Dr. Chong would rather believe in crystal spheres.

It is interesting, yes, thought-provoking, no.

I disagree; the article provoked me to think about what I would say in this post.

They want to rule the world, but the US does.

When did that happen? The Western Canadian newspapers and the CBC obviously neglected to report that the U.S. now rules the world.

 

[Ecofarm]

Way to quote me out of context (I still appreciate the bump though). I meant in a super-power sense and I think that was obvious. Ok, I kinda did mean that the US rules. We do. Seriously though, I do not believe that the US dictates Canadian law. You can relax, noone is going to make Canadians stop ending sentances with "ay".

 

[El Koeno]

I agree with the article.

Islamofacists are OBVIOUSLY anti-democracy.

Well yes, Islamofascists are a problem. The article goes on that we need a serious war-effort and it's okay to chuck our civil liberties in the bin, if it makes it easier for our leaders to win this war.

With this, I strongly disagree. There's no need to see this a "war". Yes, we might run a risk getting killed by bombing maniacs. But that's nothing new. We've had all sort of nutjobs running around, from ultra-religious to extrem right/left. Nothing has fundamentally changed. Let's not act like we're suddenly at war, and that the very existence of western nations are under threat now. If they are under threat, it's from the attacks on civil liberties, made not by islamofascists, but by our own leaders.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

Seriously though, I do not believe that the US dictates Canadian law.

The U.S. has been trying for a very long time to dictate Canadian law, whether through NAFTA, the current disagreements about passports/ID cards for Canadians entering the U.S. (an insanely ridiculous thing to enforce in border towns that are literally in both countries, with the 49th parallel running through the middle of the street), and so many other bilateral/international issues that I couldn't begin to list them. One I particularly remember, though, is that the U.S. is quite ticked that Canada trades with Cuba and our citizens travel there freely. I recall an attempt to force Canadian subsidiaries of American companies to forbid their companies and personnel and anybody connected with them from trading/traveling with/to Cuba. Last time I looked, Canada can trade with whomever it wants to, unless it's Canada's decision to participate in an embargo. And I don't see that the U.S. can forbid the sister of some minor employee of Subsidiary "X" from traveling to Cuba.

You can relax, noone is going to make Canadians stop ending sentances with "ay".

Way to show ignorance of our culture and promote an inaccurate stereotype! Not all Canadians say "ay" -- in fact, many of us have never used "ay" to end a sentence, unless we're talking about the first letter of the alphabet. It's a habit I personally find aggravating beyond belief, like fingernails on a chalkboard.

 

[sourboy]

...and for the record it's "eh"

 

[Stewbert 08]

Wrong. What my statement actually means is: "the USA does not deliberately seek out ANY civilians and murder them".

It has nothing to do with specificity. Don't put words in my mouth.

The 9/11 hijackers definately INTENDED to kill innocent civilians. There was no military target hiding in the Twin Towers. If you want to argue that the plane that hit the pentagon attacked a military target and the civilians on the plane were collateral damage - you may have some grey area there. But suicide bombs at cafes definately do not qualify as military operations.

Did I say that the US does not kill civilians? No. I said they do not do it intentionally. Do you also need a definition of "intention"? Basically, it means: what you mean to do. The US does not want to kill civilians. It does not do so intentionally. Just because the US accepts the reality of collateral damage, does not mean the civilians are killed intentionally. The purpose of US missions are not: kill civilians. The intention is to kill military targets, not civilians. Terrorists WANT to kill civilians. It is their INTENTION. Innocent civilians are their TARGET.

Do you understand what intentionally means? Do you see the difference between intentionally killing civilians and collateral damage? Perhaps for you, there is no difference between collateral damage and the intentional targeting of civilians...

"The USA accepts the reality of collateral damage" = "The USA knowingly bombs civilians."

I don't give a f*ck how they FEEL about it I just care what they DO. And what they do is, they bomb places that have civilians, they know they will kill civilians, and they drop the bomb anyway. Sounds like they INTEND to kill civilians to me.

What's the difference between a killer shooting someone at a school (aka "murder") and someone opening fire on a cafeteria where they know the killer is, knowing that some "civilians" will "unfortunately" be blown to red mist? (aka "collateral damage")

 

[CaptainF]

I agree with the article.

Islamofacists are OBVIOUSLY anti-democracy. To install their form of government (Shia Law) is one of their STATED purposes. That they hate freedom is a given. And no, I do not mean ALL Muslims, just the one's in charge of countries. There is not one democracy of all of the islamic countries; yet, you assume they are just hunky-dory with freedom? Don't be naive.

It also goes without saying that they evny our position and success. As power-hungry hate-mongers, yes, simply put - they are jealous. They want to rule the world, but the US does. And it pisses them off.

"Grievances" hah! If they have any grievances, they should be regarding their tyranical mass-murdering governments. Grievances! Victims! BS, no way.

Cry me a river, Iran, because your people are going to need it (to drink from) after the US addresses our own grievances.

Eat meat vegan, get them crazy thoughts out yo brain.

 

[Ecofarm]

"The USA accepts the reality of collateral damage" = "The USA knowingly bombs civilians."

I don't give a f*ck how they FEEL about it I just care what they DO. And what they do is, they bomb places that have civilians, they know they will kill civilians, and they drop the bomb anyway. Sounds like they INTEND to kill civilians to me.

What's the difference between a killer shooting someone at a school (aka "murder") and someone opening fire on a cafeteria where they know the killer is, knowing that some "civilians" will "unfortunately" be blown to red mist? (aka "collateral damage")

Knowingly killing civilians is not the same as targeting civilians (aka, intentionally killing them). You can have all the personal (aka, incorrect) definitions you want. The difference, in the scenario you described, is intention.