us nuclear policy, moral or not?

[Padma]

I haven't joined in this discussion because NY Hoya and others have done an excellent job of stating (and defending) my opinion. My job is heavily influenced by our nuclear policy, and if I didn't agree with it I would be looking for a new job.

And, sniping_people, your trolls are getting tiresome.

 

[Mephisto]

Originally posted by Padma
My job is heavily influenced by our nuclear policy, and if I didn't agree with it I would be looking for a new job.

woa, are you one of those guys who simulate the test?

 

[sniping_people]

Then you'll admit your post was rather useless? It's obvious you're kinda biased because you feel your personal interests are so goddamn important that USA has divine right to control the weapons of every country on earth.


Seriously, American reporters 'determined' that the terrorists meant to direct the attack on NATO. I'd like to think the rest of NATO isn't that stupid. Christian fundamentalism is rare nowadays because most Christian countries are run by a government with direct or indirect ties to the church, rather than by the church. Plus, there isn't much moral support behind Christianity to attack other people in order to defend your religion.

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by Mephisto


woa, are you one of those guy who simulate the test?

Nope. Not that heavily influenced!

Let's just say I am involved in the planning analysis of the use of our nuclear forces.

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by G-Man
How many people were killed recently by Christian foundmentalist as a result of them being foundmentalist?

You might want to look into reports of abortion-clinic bombings and the murders of doctors in the US in recent years. Not as high a death toll as September 11th, but it's still terrorism and their innocent victims are still dead.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by sniping_people
Actually no, not the civilized world, just the USA. CNN will tell you that the sept 11 attacks were directed at NATO.

I don't think I've heard CNN or any other American news organization say that the 9/11 attacks were directed at NATO. I have heard them say that NATO invoked article 5 which says:

The Parties agree that an armed attack against one or more of them in Europe or North America shall be considered an attack against them all and consequently they agree that, if such an armed attack occurs, each of them, in exercise of the right of individual or collective self-defence recognised by Article 51 of the Charter of the United Nations, will assist the Party or Parties so attacked by taking forthwith, individually and in concert with the other Parties, such action as it deems necessary, including the use of armed force, to restore and maintain the security of the North Atlantic area.

Any such armed attack and all measures taken as a result thereof shall immediately be reported to the Security Council. Such measures shall be terminated when the Security Council has taken the measures necessary to restore and maintain international peace and security.

It's not quite the same as saying the attacks were against NATO, rather that the attacks would be treated as such.

Also, if you think America is the only country threatened by Islamic fundamentalists and terrorists you are insane.

 

[sniping_people]

Well, living in Canada, I can't say I feel totally safe. I just know USA is their primary target, since they're the world's only superpower.

And about the article, of course it doesn't state it outright, but the way the story is presented to you determines how you read it.

 

[Jimcat]

Originally posted by sniping_people
Seriously, American reporters 'determined' that the terrorists meant to direct the attack on NATO. I'd like to think the rest of NATO isn't that stupid.

I think you may have misinterpreted something here. The attacks on the US were regarded as an attack on NATO because of an article in the NATO charter that states that an attack on one NATO member country will be treated as an attack on all of them. That's the whole purpose behind an alliance. Of course it was originally written with an attack on Europe by the USSR in mind, but it was invoked and honored on September 11th. No one is claiming that the attacks were directed against NATO, but the members of that alliance acted in accordance with their treaty obligations.

If the September 11th attacks were against any country besides the US, it was Israel. Osama bin Laden himself has said, "Our true enemy is the Jews, and as long as America continues to support them, America is our enemy."

 

[sniping_people]

Yeah I'm fully aware of that. American media is trying to pass it that the attack was directed @ NATO itself, not just a NATO country. At least, they didn't have the nerve to mention that NATO was obligated to help out because of a treaty.

 

[Dralix]

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by sniping_people
Yeah I'm fully aware of that. American media is trying to pass it that the attack was directed @ NATO itself, not just a NATO country. At least, they didn't have the nerve to mention that NATO was obligated to help out because of a treaty.

What are you talking about? NATO invoked article 5 on Sept 12 and it was reported throughout the American media.

Source please

 

[sniping_people]

How is it possible to find a source of something they *didn't* say?

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by sniping_people
How is it possible to find a source of something they *didn't* say?

I'd like a source that supports your contention that the American media represented the attacks as attacks against NATO without mentioning article 5.

 

[Padma]

Originally posted by sniping_people
How is it possible to find a source of something they *didn't* say?

In other words, you're just trolling.

You're going on my ignore list now.

 

[sniping_people]

When I hear something on the news, I don't come online and bookmark all related CNN articles. I'm just relaying the situation as how the news displayed it to me. I'm sure they know that any person would be more secure if they found out that all of NATO was directly affected by the incident, as to garner more immediate attention from the involved parties.

 

[sniping_people]

Originally posted by Padma
In other words, you're just trolling.

You're going on my ignore list now.

You just don't like me and my socialist extremes, so you write off anything I say as a troll. You're one to talk, you're just commenting on the discussion rather than adding to it.

 

[IceBlaZe]

Usually intellectuals support Socialism sniping_people.

But you are just a silly troll.

Nothing intellectual about you're comments.

 

[sniping_people]

What's with the overuse of the word 'troll' on these forums? I've never heard it before in my life.

I said a lot of crap earlier, but NY Hoya needs to pick and choose his battles that he can back with CNN articles.

 

[NY Hoya]

Originally posted by sniping_people
When I hear something on the news, I don't come online and bookmark all related CNN articles. I'm just relaying the situation as how the news displayed it to me. I'm sure they know that any person would be more secure if they found out that all of NATO was directly affected by the incident, as to garner more immediate attention from the involved parties.

You lose whatever shred of credibility you have when you can't back up outrageous claims with sources other than your own mind. Just because you think something happened does not make it true.

BTW, Padma won't read the other message you wrote. He has you on ignore.

 

[sniping_people]

I know he does, I was just hoping he might be one of those 'let's see how he replies to my ignore thingy' people, like most others who ignored me.